We always look at it backwards, don’t we?
…
People are always talking about demanding more and better performance from elected officials. But when you get right down to it, shouldn’t a democracy demand more and better performance from the citizen who vote?
Admiral John Geary
The Lost Fleet: Beyond the Frontier: Leviathan by Jack Campbell
[He’s got a point.
One would think there being stringent requirements before you were allowed to vote would be the best approach. But that method was abused in times past and probably will not be a viable option for quite some time, if ever. The next best thing would seem to be educating the voters and discouraging uneducated citizens from voting. But then the side that encourages uneducated voters to vote for them wins.
I’m at a loss as to how best to solve the problem.
As a side note, I have really enjoyed Campbell’s Lost Fleet series. I love the space battles which take into account relativistic effects, momentum, and large fleets with sub formations. He does a good job on psychology of different people too.—Joe]
The LIVS have shown themselves to carefully constructed propaganda. Propaganda can work both ways.
I love Black Jack Geary. He brings up a valid point.
Do not allow voting for a conflict of interest. That is, you can vote if you pay a net positive tax amount, but not if your business depends on government bailouts or special laws. You can’t vote if you are on the dole, or a government employee, or the employee of a company that is the recipient of large government contracts that mean you are indirectly paid for by tax dollars. You also can’t vote if you are the leader (ceo, board, senior officer) in any company or organization that is tax exempt (either defacto or dejure).
That’s where the problems creep in – pols realize that if they rob Peter to pay Paul, they can be assured of Paul’s vote.
This. All of this.
Everyone needs to have skin in the game. I believe one of the problems is that with progressive taxation you have 47% of the people who don’t pay federal income taxes so it is pretty easy for those people to vote yes on everything they aren’t paying for it. Force a balanced budget and a flat tax. If everyone has to pay in and it has to be paid for now and not with debt you will find all sorts of programs that people want to cut. And what is more fair than a 10% flat tax. You earned $1,000 you owe $100. You earned $1,000,000 you owe: $100,000. Another thing that would help would be get rid of tax withholding and make everyone pay quarterly. When they realize how much money is going for that as they write that check 4 times a year government is going to get much smaller.
I would be in favor of people being able to vote if they pass the same test emigrants pass to become citizens, but the skin in the game argument is very powerful, too. It would help to ensure that the people who vote for something are voting for that something to take THEIR money, and not the money of some nebulous and unknown OTHER. That was the intent of the property requirement to vote in colonial times.
Incidentally the Constitutional Amendment against the Poll tax by its terms ONLY applies to federal elections, not state and local ones. I don’t recall if that amendment was extended to the states like 1,4,5,6,7.
Limiting and clearly defying the roll and scope of government is the first step. Property ownership as a prerequisite to vote is not a bad idea either– if one does not have skin in the game so to speak, one should not be involved in influencing laws that effect those who do.
I’ve said in the past that if government were properly limited, it shouldn’t matter who’s in office, except for the military commander in chief. It wouldn’t be ALLOWED to matter, see.
Our biggest single problem is in the notion that the coercive power of government may be (or even should be) used to mold and shape the structure and character of society. It’s an immoral and deadly idea, yet hardly anyone is truly free of it.
The role and scope of government has been clearly defined. But the people elect to government office have no incentive to abide by the provided definition. Either the people electing them must pay more attention to what public servants are doing and/or there needs be a means of providing the proper incentives outside of the election process for the servants to confine themselves to the jobs assigned.
You’re right of course. Ultimately, no matter what any constitution says, we’ll end up with the government we deserve.
I read an SF book maybe 40+ years ago about a military coup here in the US. I think it was a space-based military force, but the only thing that sticks in my mind is one of the requirements they instituted for voting was a very intense history test. Even the people involved in the fighting were required to pass the test. No one got a pass on taking it.
I thought at the time that it made sense, and the mess the US is now only reinforces my thoughts on it.
The main question I have, on putting various restrictions on who can vote, is whether they can overcome the female socialist mindset/brain wiring. The Progressives knew what they were doing when they pushed for allowing them to get the vote. It’s been downhill ever since.
I can’t believe I am reading this. Some people still believe that voting should be restricted to property owners?
Drivel, madness, bullshit. Makes for a powerful distasteful drink, doesn’t it? And I, for one, am not inclined to sip the cup. Screw you and the horse you rode in on!
Oh, and I am not unmindful of the french warnings of ‘a democracy’ which is fully realized and take advantage of by citizens who would vote themselves a largess.
Pingback: Quote of the day—Alan Korwin | The View From North Central Idaho