Rethinking the Right to Vote
I have begun to wonder lately if the Founders had gone wrong somewhere in their designing of the Constitution. As a conservative, I find the document to be superior to any predecessor or successor.But did the Founders make any mistakes that have indirectly lead us to our current plight? I believe so.
Chiefly and controversially is the Constitution's assertion that all citizens have the right to vote. I think this has proved destructive to the Republic, especially since the dawn of the entitlement state in the 1930s. What does it mean in practice? Well De Tocqueville presciently warned when he said:
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic"
The right to vote, as currently practiced means that the lowliest moocher, who contributes nothing to the state in terms of civil service, defense, or even revenue, has the exact same say in the affairs of government as does the soldier fighting overseas and the producer who forks over 50% of his income. Worse yet, the moocher effectively has the power to vote himself more benefits for nothing in return, and to demand of the producer even more of his income. By what mental acrobatics must we engage in to conclude that this is a reasonable way to organize a society?
The idea of property ownership as a prerequisite for voting was toyed with in the Convention of 1787. Ben Franklin opposed it, while Governeur Morris of Pennsylvania supported it. Might the growth of the entitlement state and the rise of Progressivism been killed before birth had the winds blown in Morris' favor? Possibly.
A more relevant and current spin on property requirements would be the stipulation that you must pay a certain portion of your earnings each year to the state equal to that of all citizens in order to vote. (In other words, a flat tax) In that case, the alternate first amendment might say:
All citizens shall be afforded the right to vote if they pay at least 10% of their earnings/profits to the State for the previous two consecutive years.
Would this be a more equitable way of determining enfranchisement? Would the citizenry be more hesitant about massive entitlements if they were forced to pay for them? What say the Rico-terriat?
- Comment (26)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Aug '11
Re: Rethinking the Right to Vote
Sorry, but I am satisfied with the constitution as-is regarding the right to vote. Makes me happy to know that the guy who has no property or little cash has the same voting power (one man, one vote) in the voting booth as the guy who is a billionaire. We can stand here all day and debate how both sides manipulate the vote but at the end of the day (and if counted fairly/accurately), we all have the same ability to enact change.
Edited on March 25, 2012 at 11:34pmMar '11
Re: Rethinking the Right to Vote
I have great sympathy for the sentiment behind your post, but I think we need to work within our current electoral system and not around it.
A democracy is still a tyranny to those who disagree with the minority. Any plan to preclude citizens from voting for financial reasons is an attempt to choose an "enlightened" group which is fit to tyrannize the "unenlightened." If I had to choose who should wield power over me, I would prefer an unenlightened majority over a select group of wise men.
No democracy can protect a country from its own foolish citizens. If the majority of the electorate has decided to drive our country into the wall, our duty is to inform them of their mistake, not try to strip them of their voice.
Jul '10
Re: Rethinking the Right to Vote
The problem is that not everyone has "skin in the game" as it were. Take property taxes for instance. Should I as a renter have the same influence over the property tax rate as the guy that owns two houses, even though I pay no property taxes? We certainly both have the right to "enact change," but I don't see this as positive in the case of property taxes.
Jul '10
Re: Rethinking the Right to Vote
Just to be clear, I'm not in favor of an amendment to change anything, but just as a "what if" scenario, and perhaps if a new country is established somewhere in the future, it might consider this.
Mar '11
Re: Rethinking the Right to Vote
Not on every issue, but if our country goes into terminal decline, even the welfare state moocher will suffer the consequences (perhaps even more so than most).
Absolutely. In order for a country to survive, taxes have to be a net loss for most taxpayers. If you gave only those who pay a tax a vote on said tax, the system would crumble very quickly.
Jul '10
Re: Rethinking the Right to Vote
Mendel:
Any plan to preclude citizens from voting for financial reasons is an attempt to choose an "enlightened" group which is fit to tyrannize the "unenlightened." If I had to choose who should wield power over me, I would prefer an unenlightened majority over a select group of wise men.
It's not about intelligence or a technocracy, any more than depriving felons or the youth is an effort to create an "enlightened" small cabal. In the former case, it means that certain social behavior or mature enough age is required to have a say in government.
With taxes, it would be the state saying that if you want to influence the affairs of government, you have to have a little skin the game, something to lose.
Mar '12
Re: Rethinking the Right to Vote
But as a renter, I DO pay property tax--my landlord considers it as part of his equation when he decides how much rent to charge. If property taxes went up, my rent would too.
Feb '12
Re: Rethinking the Right to Vote
The right to vote should be tied to paying income taxes--federal and/or state as relevant to the election. Non-tax-paying spouses should be included. I'm tired of those who pay nothing and expect everything having the power to vote themselves more goodies at the expense of the hard-working. Another option would be an alternative minimum income tax so that no one pays zero to the fed or state. Everyone would pay a minimum of eg, $250/yr in fed income tax, maybe $100/yr to the state, no matter how low their income is. Include welfare in taxable income. Instead of "share the wealth" how about "share the pinch"?
Apr '11
Re: Rethinking the Right to Vote
The 19th Amendment is just wrong.
February 7, 1971 was a sad day for western civilization.
Apr '11
Re: Rethinking the Right to Vote
The Founding Fathers are not to blame. Their original design was for each of the three elected branches to be selected via completely different principles: A Democratic election of members of the House; an Aristocratic Senate selected by the state legislatures; a Monarchical Executive chosen by a College of Electors with little to no popular input.
The unraveling of their vision came during the 'Progressive Era' with the passage of the 17th Amendment mandating popular election of Senators. Since then it has become, like the House of Representatives, another haven for populist demagogues.
If we succumb to the populist drumbeat for electing the President by popular vote, then the destruction of the republic will be complete.
Edited on March 26, 2012 at 1:15amRe: Rethinking the Right to Vote
I'm very reluctant to tinker with the Constitution on this issue. But since it appears that the fate of the nation will be determined by the least informed, least decisive, dimmest bulbs around, we have a duty to remind them to turn out on the first Wednesday in November and vote.
Apr '11
Re: Rethinking the Right to Vote
The Founding Fathers weren't against property requirements to vote, they just didn't specify them in the Constitution. Most states still had them, and they remain a serious issue for whites until the Civil War and for blacks a little after.
Glenn the Iconoclast: The 19th Amendment is just wrong.
February 7, 1971 was a sad day for western civilization. · 47 minutes ago
Are you against Women voting, or merely against the Federal government insisting on it? In the elections following the 19th Amendment, women seem to have voted sensibly.
I assumed that Feb 7th, 1971, would have been a Twenty-Sixth Amendment milestone, but I don't see it. Is this about Swiss women getting the right to vote in Swiss federal elections? Could you expand on its significance?
Dec '10
Re: Rethinking the Right to Vote
The Founders did not specify a right to vote in federal elections, as best I can recall. They left that to the states.
Amendments changed that, not the Founders.
Meanwhile, the participation rates on election days are usually quite low and rarely above 50% of the eligible population. Even amongst registered voters, participation rates are typically low. That changes when "big" issues get put on the ballots and those big issues are put on ballots by people that we can do something about, locally.
Tired of moochers voting themselves more benefits? Get rid of your local, state, and federal representatives that place moocher-bait on ballots. Amend your precinct.
Dec '10
Re: Rethinking the Right to Vote
Not sure anything the founders could have done to prevent the mess we're in now. Let's face it, lawmakers and judges pretty much ignore what our founders put on paper.
I don''t believe that a political class that can justify the personal mandate or a judiciary that can find a constitutional right to abortion would be thwarted by a little thing like the founders telling us that the moochers shouldn't vote. FDR would have found a way around it, and if he didn't, LBJ would have for sure.
Jul '11
Re: Rethinking the Right to Vote
I hear this argument from one or two on the Left pretty frequently, in that "Well, the majority of the state voted for Sanders, so that's what Vermonters want".
That might be true, if a) everyone voted, and b) a Senator like Sanders didn't spend every waking hour reminding specific demographics about what he's feeding them from the federal trough. The larger problem is that half the country pays no income taxes - of course these people will want more benefits from the gov't, because it costs them nothing. Of the half that do pay income taxes, the top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes collected - so it's (again) a stunningly small part of the electorate that bears the inordinate tax burden. And this is just federal income tax.
In other words: When somebody's not paying the bill, it's interesting to see who runs up the tab. The same people who do not want their goodies limited will not be voting for a Republican who asks people to rationally understand that we're driving off a cliff that's in plain sight. They won't accept goodie reductions. Period.
Jul '11
Re: Rethinking the Right to Vote
To loosely paraphrase Heinlein," The military coup saved us from the devastation wrought by the social scientists. Following this only active and former military personnel are allowed to vote". The masses brought us the O in a fairly predictable election. If our society is foolish enough to elect its own destruction again then our constitutional republic has perhaps 10-20 years before a well deserved fiscal collapse. We shall see what rises from the ashes of progressive liberal suicide but I doubt voting will remain quite the same. We shall see.
Jul '10
Re: Rethinking the Right to Vote
I agree Chris, so the easier solution would seem to be in trying to get everybody on the tax rolls at some flat rate. If you make 10 bucks, a dollar of it goes to Uncle Sam, this would be a small step towards mitigating the arrogance of the goodie mentality.
Mar '12
Re: Rethinking the Right to Vote
The problem is not the Constitution as originally written and implemented. The problems arose because of "tinkering" with the original document via amendments. The 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments are the source of our current problems. Repeal those three Amendments and we would get our country back.
Nov '11
Re: Rethinking the Right to Vote
Hold on: There is no right to vote in the Constitution. Voting is a privilege granted by various political entities, mostly states, but it is not a right. What the Constitution does specify is various ways in which those entities may not discriminate in the granting of the privilege, such as by race.
Dec '10
Re: Rethinking the Right to Vote
Byron,
I would never have taken your suggestion seriously but for the last five years. To watch a major political party in this country whore after votes by allowing, even encouraging, illegal immigration is beneath contempt. To watch them exploit every fear and division between people: class, race, religion, national origin, gender, age. To watch them never miss an opportunity to do harm to the collective psyche and profit thereof.
After this Byron, I am open to the suggestion that the franchise need's to be limited. I guess it's time for us all to finally grow up.
Regards,
Jim