No, despite the title this is not about the idiocy of the Super-Committee. I want to discuss a topic that I have devoted a lot of thought to, that is contentious, and that might make some of you think I wear a tinfoil hat. I have from time to time, but only for dramatic effect/Halloween costumes. I was reminded of my need to share this when I watched a video that was posted on Facebook. (Thanks C.P.)
The right to vote in this country, like any of our rights, is an all-or-nothing proposition. We all possess an equal say in who represents us in government. Some, through negligence, apathy, disenfranchisement, or laziness choose to have less of a say by failing to exercise the right to vote. They choose to be among those who do not participate. Remember that distinction. This is something they chose to do.
Now for the tinfoil hat... The reason everyone has a right to vote is that; say we exclude one class of people. Not based on race, creed, color, or religion; but on something we can all agree is their own fault. For this example we will use convicted Felons as being excluded from having the right to vote. Now I needed time to process the argument here because, frankly, it was against what I was saying so the first few times I heard: "the constitution blah-dee blah, blah, blah. And the founding fathers blah-dee blah, blah, blah, blah." For the record, that is counter-productive. You can't effectively argue against something if you aren't paying attention to it.
The reason you can't pull voting rights from even a group like convicted felons is that one thing would occur. (hats on) Politicians could make all kinds of things felonies, and jail all who disagree with them. The other side of that is to allow felons to vote, and having politician still make all kinds of things felonies, but promise the felons things that would make them vote for you. Pander to the "prison class" you have created. The person who promised, and delivered the greatest prize would win elections.
There are those who argue we have been doing that for years with the "underclass" that politicians have created. We have people who would have a lower income by working than they do by collecting public aid. Many would point at the left for this, but I disagree. Many times, in recent history, the Right has been in control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress, yet the issue persists. That means both sides must want this. (I told you, you would need a hat)
Thus we have a system where those on public aid will vote for the person promising the biggest increase in payments. Or as Benjamin Franklin put it, "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." There is an obvious solution, don't give people on public aid the right to vote; but as stated, the right to vote is all-or-nothing. Perhaps, but again, there is a leap of reason that would allow such a thing to occur, even in our republic.
Remember the people who chose not to vote. By accepting public aid, or being convicted of a felony, you would simply be considered someone who chooses not to vote. No one made the felon commit a crime. The people in need of aid can go to charities for help. At very least this would keep politicians from buying votes at the taxpayers expense. Speaking of charities, they would have more money because tax-payers would have more money. Freed from the burden of those who would abuse the system, those who vote for the biggest promises, they would have more disposable income. When that goes up, so do charitable contributions. So does wasting money on stupid crap you don't need, but I digress...
I realize that many of you will cease reading my posts at this point. But I encourage you, please, if you find I am mistaken, write a rebuttal. Provided it is clean, not insulting, and above all, well reasoned, (I know its subjective, but really, have you seen what some people write?) I promise I will post it with all credit given to the author. I would love it if someone presented a better solution, because when the only solution I see is removing someone's rights, I would love to be wrong.
I will however, not publish; hate speech, someone parroting something they heard on Fox news, or someone who didn't realize that Jon Stewart was being sarcastic.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Keep it clean and well thought out.