Restricting the Vote
You may be afraid to say it, but you know it’s true: giving women the right to vote was the worst thing to happen to American politics. Now, elections are about charisma and ethos instead of political positions. Of course not all women are such girls about it, and I’m sure that there are many men who are similarly incapable of voting based on the issues. So really, my point is: certain people don’t deserve to vote.
Add to that list:
- Anyone receiving a welfare check
- Illegal aliens
- Stupid people
You don’t have a right to vote. Voting is a privilege that is restricted by factors like age and past felon status. In theory, we could add another restricting factor.
What about limiting the vote to people who have served in the military? If you’ve ever seen the movie Starship Troopers, you are familiar with this concept. Basically, in order to rise to the rank of “citizen,” and get the right to vote, you need to serve in the military. Several countries force military service, such as Israel and Switzerland, but only for men only for men in Switzerland, and for both men and women in Israel. I don’t think forced military service is really necessary, but why not give a perk to those who are willing to risk their life to defend their country? I can’t think of a better test of voting competency. You don’t sign up for the military unless you really love your country and have its wellbeing in mind.
We could always go back to only allowing land owners.
Just a quick note: in Israel both men and women go into military service.
IO,
Right you are! Women have to serve a minimum of two years while men have to serve a minimum of three.
You don’t sign up for the military unless you really love your country and have its wellbeing in mind.
Most of my military friends signed up because a) they didn’t have anything better going on b) they knew the judge would go easy on them or c) to satisfy their parents.
Repealing the 19th amendment is a fantastic idea – like shrinking government and getting back to the Constitution – but neither will never happen.
Women – as a rule – are of a socialist mentality, and quite incapable of separating their natural tendency for security and safety, when thinking about individual freedom.
I find two major faults with your post here. The first is, and you pointed it out a bit, is that men are just as likely to vote on non-political issues as women are. Men are just as interested in charisma and ethos. Case in point, many believe (and I am one of them), that George Jr. won because of the gay amendment, and that the gay ban in 11 states was, in part, a marketing ploy to get people to the voting booths. This issue has no political significance whatsoever. Our government has no right to intervene, but yet it was a major issue, voted, I would think, equally amongst men and women.
The second problem I have, and another reader pointed this out, is that military service in no way denotes a greater love for this country than non-military service. I have many friends in the service, and I can think of only one who joined for purely patriotic reasons. The rest are there because of a simple case of “couldn’t find anything better to do,” or the college benefits.
So if the political elections are determined by irrelevent social issues, and military service does not signify a greater respect and practice of politics, then I think your idea of limiting the vote to those who care is purely idyllic. While I respect it, it is no way feasible to attain.
Shuck,
Yeah, it is very much wishful thinking on my part.
There is another factor that has effectively ruined politics: television. People who listened to the Nixon/Kennedy debate on the radio were convinced that Nixon won. Those who watched on TV were convinced that Kennedy won, because Nixon was wearing a bad suit color and was sweating like a pig, and Kennedy looked young, handsome, calm, and not-sweaty by comparison.
It’s frightening how many people are swayed by political television ads, even without knowing it. In most cases, the tactics used to sway them have nothing to do with positions, but about negative and positive spin.
The whole mess about hanging chads and “oops, I voted for Pat Buchanan” in 2000 goes to show how utterly stupid many voters are. And the sad fact is that these stupid voters are the ones specifically targeted by campaigns. It’s pointless to try to sway people like you or me because we’re intelligent and seek out information on our own. Elections are won by convincing stupid people to vote one way or another with spin that confuses them. The gay marriage issue is a great example of that. The Republicans promoted Bush as being for a constitutional amendment to ban it, when anyone who could count votes knew that such a measure was doomed to fail, regardless of who was president. And the Democrats did a good job of painting Kerry as sympathetic to the gay marriage cause, when he was actually nearly as opposed to the concept as Bush was.
While I can wish for an idyllic solution, there isn’t one that can be realized. And all that leaves for intelligent people to do is play chess with the proletariat pawns, which should turn the stomach of anyone with a conscience.
How about going back to the time when only property owners voted?
[...]
It’s just history, and changing demographics
While he probably being sarcastic, I would like to point out that national elections as we k [...]