On Voter Qualification
With the upcoming election we are facing the important questions about our future as a nation. But beyond those questions lies a deeper one, should voting be a privilege or a right? As much as we proclaim the wonders of democracy, what is democracy really? Is it the freedom to vote? Or is it something more than that? To me, the fundamental characteristic of democracy is not the ability to vote as a majority, but the freedom to oppose popular opinion. Democracy really doesn't protect people from each other, it only protects them from tyranny, and even that is a fine line. After all, one of the most tyrannical regimes in the history of mankind was elected democratically by the people of Germany in the early 1930s. So is the right to vote the key to freedom? No! Because as Kent Brockman says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Brockman) "Democracy doesn't work!"
Would I eliminate the right to vote? Hell no! Democracy simply needs retooling to be effective. The people elect candidates for very dumb reasons, from their name or race to their leisure activities. Many people vote Republican simply because the party is (generally) supportive of hunting, gay-bashing and religious zealotry as well as war and proctectionist laws. People vote Democrat because of their support for liberal causes (abortion, gay rights, healthcare) and general preference towards diplomacy and peace. People generally vote for a third party when they disagree with the majority opinion (well, the two majority opinions) or when they are a college political-science professor (they overwhelmingly vote libertarian). Maybe it's just me, but it seems as though the people who should be making our decisions are not the uneducated laborer, but the person who dedicates their life to studying and teaching the intricacies of government.
So my proposal to strengthen democracy would be to limit it. Why should everyone be allowed to vote on issues they know nothing about? Many very good laws have died with the voters simply because they were just not aware of anything but the propaganda forced upon them. After all, why would 2/3 of Nevada be against legalized marijuana when they have legal prostitution, gambling and the 2 of the most alcoholic cities in the world? Voters simply do not know the candidates or the facts behind measures enough to make a rational decision, yet we allow them to run the nation. But it isn't just about what people vote for, but for whom. Why would a rural area in Alabama vote Republican when they are basically voting to cut their own social services, increase their chances to be sent off to war and helping to spread the gap between them and the wealthy? If we only allowed those who showed some servicable knowledge of government and the issues facing us, we'd be much better off as a nation. It's not like Americans really cherish their right to vote, only about half of registered voters actually vote.
In order to create a nation that really does reflect what the people need out of society, people should not only be required to display knowledge of our government and constitution, but of the issues at hand as well. How can somebody who has never met a gay man vote against gay marriage? Ditto for criminalizing a drug that one has not studied or experienced. Even those who are illiterate are allowed to vote...which leads to a question: how can someone vote when they cannot even read? The way our democracy is set up, our votes mean very little, even in a large state like California because the average voter is unimformed and only votes in self-interest. Poor people vote against tax raises for more social services thinking that it'll hurt them financially, when in reality it is designed to help the poor and will have little impact on their finances. The more poor and middle class people vote to cut taxes, the more they are hurt. Their tax burden is minimal compared to the upper classes, and yet poor people will vote to cut taxes on the rich, further contributing to their poverty. Basically, most voters vote against their own best interests despite their own selfishness simply because they just don't fully understand how our government works.
Would my idea of a "National Voter's Qualification Exam" ever fly? Definitely not. First of all, it would be considered unconstitutional, as people would be denied the right to vote for their lack of education. But would it help strengthen our democracy? Certainly! People might actually vote for the better candidate if they were informed about them all. Not only that, but it might help pull us away from the highly polarizing bipartisanship that this nation has become embroiled in. The more educated and intellectual the voting public, the more likely they will be able to come to a consensus. Just look at it this way, you're a college graduate with a degree in Political Science, would you really want your decisions to be made by people who flunked civics in high school and have spent the past 10 years drinking beer and watching football? Well, that's how it is in this country, and that's why we're facing all kinds of new challenges to our freedom...the public simply doesn't know any better. After all, most people think that the USA PATRIOT ACT is an act in patriotism...it's an ACRONYM!!! (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001) If the PATRIOT ACT can be passed with such consensus (357-66), imagine how many more acts will be passed to erode our civil rights. It's only a matter of time, so why not fight back and make our democracy actually fair and functional?
Would I eliminate the right to vote? Hell no! Democracy simply needs retooling to be effective. The people elect candidates for very dumb reasons, from their name or race to their leisure activities. Many people vote Republican simply because the party is (generally) supportive of hunting, gay-bashing and religious zealotry as well as war and proctectionist laws. People vote Democrat because of their support for liberal causes (abortion, gay rights, healthcare) and general preference towards diplomacy and peace. People generally vote for a third party when they disagree with the majority opinion (well, the two majority opinions) or when they are a college political-science professor (they overwhelmingly vote libertarian). Maybe it's just me, but it seems as though the people who should be making our decisions are not the uneducated laborer, but the person who dedicates their life to studying and teaching the intricacies of government.
So my proposal to strengthen democracy would be to limit it. Why should everyone be allowed to vote on issues they know nothing about? Many very good laws have died with the voters simply because they were just not aware of anything but the propaganda forced upon them. After all, why would 2/3 of Nevada be against legalized marijuana when they have legal prostitution, gambling and the 2 of the most alcoholic cities in the world? Voters simply do not know the candidates or the facts behind measures enough to make a rational decision, yet we allow them to run the nation. But it isn't just about what people vote for, but for whom. Why would a rural area in Alabama vote Republican when they are basically voting to cut their own social services, increase their chances to be sent off to war and helping to spread the gap between them and the wealthy? If we only allowed those who showed some servicable knowledge of government and the issues facing us, we'd be much better off as a nation. It's not like Americans really cherish their right to vote, only about half of registered voters actually vote.
In order to create a nation that really does reflect what the people need out of society, people should not only be required to display knowledge of our government and constitution, but of the issues at hand as well. How can somebody who has never met a gay man vote against gay marriage? Ditto for criminalizing a drug that one has not studied or experienced. Even those who are illiterate are allowed to vote...which leads to a question: how can someone vote when they cannot even read? The way our democracy is set up, our votes mean very little, even in a large state like California because the average voter is unimformed and only votes in self-interest. Poor people vote against tax raises for more social services thinking that it'll hurt them financially, when in reality it is designed to help the poor and will have little impact on their finances. The more poor and middle class people vote to cut taxes, the more they are hurt. Their tax burden is minimal compared to the upper classes, and yet poor people will vote to cut taxes on the rich, further contributing to their poverty. Basically, most voters vote against their own best interests despite their own selfishness simply because they just don't fully understand how our government works.
Would my idea of a "National Voter's Qualification Exam" ever fly? Definitely not. First of all, it would be considered unconstitutional, as people would be denied the right to vote for their lack of education. But would it help strengthen our democracy? Certainly! People might actually vote for the better candidate if they were informed about them all. Not only that, but it might help pull us away from the highly polarizing bipartisanship that this nation has become embroiled in. The more educated and intellectual the voting public, the more likely they will be able to come to a consensus. Just look at it this way, you're a college graduate with a degree in Political Science, would you really want your decisions to be made by people who flunked civics in high school and have spent the past 10 years drinking beer and watching football? Well, that's how it is in this country, and that's why we're facing all kinds of new challenges to our freedom...the public simply doesn't know any better. After all, most people think that the USA PATRIOT ACT is an act in patriotism...it's an ACRONYM!!! (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001) If the PATRIOT ACT can be passed with such consensus (357-66), imagine how many more acts will be passed to erode our civil rights. It's only a matter of time, so why not fight back and make our democracy actually fair and functional?
posted by Dan Pasternack at 4:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home