3 Steps To Prevent The Ignorant Masses From Voting

In a recent opinion U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos called the Texas Voter ID law “[an] unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.” The statement echoes progressives’ attempts compare voter ID laws to poll taxes meant to disenfranchise minorities and the poor. The law in Texas was later upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The history of voting rights in the U.S. is contentious. Constitutional amendments clearly define that a person cannot be denied the vote based on certain criteria, but is there a right to vote? The answer appears to be “no,” since many states prohibit felons from voting, and certainly the court’s ruling in Texas confirms that voting is a privilege.

Winston Churchill once quipped, “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” It’s clear that progressives and activist judges are aggressively pushing for a purely democratic electoral process that allows anyone and everyone to cast a ballot. Progressivism is inevitable, so to remedy the situation the answer is not to enact laws to prohibit voting but rather to make voting simply too difficult for the uninformed.

Step #1 Eliminate Political Parties

I was once of the mind that we should have many political parties. There’s always been a lot of talk about the problems created by the two-party stranglehold in the U.S. It’s easy to see how some might think that getting more parties involved is a solution. By giving more parties a voice we increase the market of ideas; more choices means more discussion. The argument for more parties fails to address a major problem of human nature, though—reliance on labels.

Browse any political forum, any comments section, and you’ll undoubtedly find someone complaining about the “Repulicons” or the “Democraps.” The conversation shifts from any substantive discussion and becomes a childish exchange of tired portmanteaus. The recent pop in membership of the Libertarian party quickly earned them the moniker “Libertards.” This is childish.

The ignorant and uninformed don’t have time to learn about a candidate’s stance on issues or whether or not they even agree with the candidate. What they need are labels that can quickly and easily tell them which box to tick in the voting booth. By eliminating parties, you remove the party affiliate letter next to each candidate’s name on the ballot. You eliminate associative labeling. If there were no political parties voters would be forced to educate themselves about candidates or risk being completely confused at the polls.

The initial downside is that many politicians have already built a brand and the voting public might remember that a candidate was a “Republicon.” In the long run, though, as career politicians pass on, candidates would have to stand purely on their platform and not on the association of their political party. The voter would have to educate himself about where a candidate stands on the issues. This situation benefits all. It encourages greater transparency from the candidate, and it requires that the voter be informed.

Step #2 Enforce Strict Rules for Campaign Advertising

You’ve no doubt heard a lot of fuss about campaign contributions. There’s been genuine concern from all sides of the political spectrum about wealthy donors and lobbyists influencing elections with large infusions of cash. In April of 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down long standing campaign donation limits. Justice John Roberts wrote of the decision:

There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders. We have made clear that Congress may not regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics, or to restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others.

With all the bickering over campaign funding, sleazy ads, and misinformation, I think it’s important to raise the question of whether money is the problem.

First let’s determine where all those campaign donations are going. The Washington Post reported that in the 2012 election Mitt Romney spent 492 million dollars on television advertising with 91 percent of those ads being negative. Barack Obama spent 404 million dollars on television advertising with 85 percent of those ads being negative. That’s roughly 791 million dollars being spent towards caustic advertising on the idiot box. These aren’t ads explaining a candidate’s platform but rather vindictively attacking the opponent. These ads are addressing the lowest common denominator.

Political advertising should be limited to print. If you aren’t ready to read about the issues, you aren’t ready to vote. If advertising were limited to print much less money would need to be raised, thus we avoid the concerns raised by lavish campaign donations.

Limiting advertising to print helps keep advertising clean since you’re eliminating the ability to make your opponent look like shit with slick editing. Deliberately misquoting an opponent comes with serious legal penalties under libel statutes. Best of all you’re reaching out to those invested enough in the electoral process to actually take the time to read.

Of course none of this keeps activists and evangelists from advising their followers on voting, but it does limit the audience. Limiting ads to print requires more effort to reach a conclusion, it does a good job of eliminating appeals to emotion.

Step #3 Make it Easier for People to Vote

At first blush this may sound counter intuitive, but consider that voting has become a “game day” event. There’s a mystique to voting. Activists groups, churches and social clubs have made it a priority to get as many people as they can to the polls. Many of these people would have no interest in voting otherwise. I don’t have to tell you that these groups are influencing voting decisions. If we take the burden out of casting the actual vote we eliminate the need for these advocacy groups and we lessen their influence on election results.

Making it easier to vote by using online or telephone balloting might also address a lot of the concerns with voter ID fraud. Every registered voter is issued a voter ID card every year. That card might have unique pin assigned to the voter that they must use when submitting their ballot through the system. Once a ballot is cast using the pin, the pin can’t be reused. You would be issued a new pin every year. That should make both sides of the voter id argument happy, it’s easier to vote and you’re effectively being identified by the pin.

Conclusion

The idea is not to silence voters, but rather to have the most informed and invested individuals voting. We value quality over quantity. Political campaigns and voting have been reduced to emotional pandering and patronizing of the least informed. While none of the ideas mentioned above will correct the course, they can help slow the descent.

We have to resist mob rule, and the major parties have made it clear that their interests lie solely in reelection and not the good of the nation. The best we can do is ensure that the most thoughtful also have the loudest voice.

Read More: The Republican Party Needs To Go Away

173 thoughts on “3 Steps To Prevent The Ignorant Masses From Voting”

  1. 1. Make voters pass a citizenship test before being allowed to vote. Much like having someone pass their driver’s permit test at the DMV. This will reduce the horribly ignorant masses that know nothing.
    2. Require voters to pay federal income taxes in order to vote in national elections. If you don’t contribute to the system you shouldn’t be able to dictate policy.

    1. Funny how we are never taught that voting was restricted in school. I guess it made the “no women and no blacks” angle easier to sell.

      1. The Republicans apparently thought that if they got the vote extended to Blacks and women that they would be grateful and vote Republican forever.
        Worked with Black men for 100 years but the Democrats kept as many Blacks away from the polls as they could.
        But it didn’t work with women, Black and White. They began voting Democrat, or Progressive-Republican (practically the same thing) almost from the start.

    2. There is a reason the Founding Fathers didn’t give the Federal government the power to levy income taxes.
      Drink more whiskey.

        1. The federal government has no implied powers that it doesn’t just seize. Perhaps I should have said, “authority.” The feds have the power to do anything that chains, guns and bombs can obtain.
          The US Constitution is a constitution of enumerated (listed) powers, uh, authority. State constitutions grant all power to the state government that is not specifically withheld by the state constitution, the federal constitution and federal laws enacted in conformity to the US Constitution.

    3. I like the idea of limiting voting to taxpayers, but the citizenship test requirement is dangerous. Who is going to write this test? How can we make sure it’s not some political hack trying to revise history?
      I can imagine a lot of well-informed people being disqualified from voting because they gave factually correct, but politically incorrect answers on a citizenship test.

      1. Use the same test they have been using on immigrants. You can find the questions online. Instead of having it answered in verbal exchange have them write in the correct answer.

        1. That immigrant may be non-biased now, but you can bet it would be highly politicized once it’s used to test for voting eligibility.
          Besides, even if the test was non-political, it can only test for factual knowledge, not logic or critical thinking skills, which are far more important for voting. A voting test would give illogical people a false confidence in their ability to choose the right leaders and policies.

        2. The questions are already standardized on the immigration test so all that would have to be done is not allowing it to be changed from it’s current status. It’s not practical to implement a control measure for critical thinking skills in voting. Having a basic level of knowledge on how the government works and the country’s history is critical and attainable.

        3. Very original rebuttal. You are probably the type that takes pictures flicking off the cameraman too huh?

        4. They already have the false confidence; the test would at least prevent people who know nothing, from voting… and I can tell you, that would be a lot of people.
          As I recall, the citizenship test consists of basic questions about how many branches of government there are, how many senators there are, what is on the Bill of Rights, etc. Just freeze that test and use it permanently. Theoretically, none of those things should be changing.

        5. Do like the pre-LBJ Democrat literacy test for Blacks: give ’em a Chinese newspaper to read. If they’re Chinese, give ’em a Korean or Malayalam one.

        6. Easier than an effective argumentum ad hominem bomb. To do one of them you have to think, though just a little.

      2. Wait until the IRS is ready to claim you didn’t pay your taxes, I don’t know if you recall the IRS was caught engaging in politically motivated persecutions. Wait until you piss off the wrong person and your get prosecuted for tax evasion in a decade long case with scant evidence and you lose your voting rights. Then you’ll be crying like a baby.

        1. Wow. I didn’t think of that. Yet another example of how a well-intentioned idea can backfire.

        2. Evidence? We don’ need no steenkin evidence. Prove you’re not guilty. Prove you didn’t evade your fair share.

        3. Why? Don’t you know that the Federal Income Tax is the Will of the People? The elected representatives voted it into law.
          Personally, I’d rather be required to thwack my thumb with a hammer a few times.

    4. Just limit voting to people who actually pay net taxes (TaxesPaid – TaxFundedBenefits > 0). Government employees automatically lose voting privilege, as do those on welfare.

      1. Government employees are the one group of people who actually know whether or not the government of the day is competent or not.

        1. But the conflict of interest ensures they will support more funding. Even I would have the presence of mind to point out that a person who steals is bad, but if he’s giving me 50% of it, and I don’t need a job because of it… I’ll be less inclined to complain.

        2. I was, at one point in my career, a government employee. I would have accepted loss of voting rights because of my status.
          Yes, government employees know if the money is being spent well. But, that said, the overriding self interest is to always vote for more funding for everything, even if you see the money going into the shitter. Because, voting for cuts in no way ensures that the money doesn’t go down the drain; they could choose to keep flushing the cash and cut the program that said “productive” government worker is involved in (and actually, this is more likely, government always cuts the things that other people feel when they are “mad” about losing funding. They never cut the “do nothing” programs that most people couldn’t give a shit about. For example, how many people would be up in arms if the government cut funding to the DEA by 90%? How many people would be up in arms if they cut funding to medicare by 5%? So, of course, they cut Medicare funding, not the DEA.

        3. Bollocks!
          Pretty much everyone knows that the current government is not competent. The problem is, most believe a different government could be more competent. And so they keep doing the same thing over and over, forever expecting a different result……

        4. It’s not about what they know, it’s about their vested interest. I am quite sure that all the government employees know that the current administration is incompetent. I think there are many government employees who *prefer* that arrangement.

        5. Yeah, the really big illegal drug businessmen depend on the DEA to stomp their little-guy competition and keep the price up. Most of the illegal drug crap would be almost giveaway cheap if not for drug prohibition. Economies of many countries would collapse if the price of illegal drugs dropped to almost nothing.
          Try cutting Social Security and see what happens. The price of hanging rope would go out the roof.

      2. I understand the concern with having government employees voting themselves benefits but I think excluding government officials from voting would have more negative consequences than positives. The quality of government workers would decline.

        1. Where’s the downside in incentivizing the smartest workers to no longer take coerced payments (tax-funded jobs), but instead find actual productive work for which other people are willing to voluntarily pay? Our freedom grows with each person doing work paid by voluntary consent, not coerced as by taxes.

        2. It would produce government workers nearly uniformly apathetic to outcomes and exclusively seeking a paycheck. You might think that is beneficial to society as a whole as the most capable will avoid public sector but it will have a negative impact on the private sector. Take this example, I worked for an energy company and we routinely had to communicate with government entities to meet objectives. It took very little time to identify which gov employees we wanted to interact with and which ones we didn’t. The difference in effort levels and cooperation was dramatic between offices and individuals and a bad one could be seriously detrimental to production. And this was for all companies interacting with that gov employee- not just my own. Now remove even more of the honest, interested, and capable government employees and you will have even more problems in the private sector. Some government workers have a multiplier effect on private industries and ignoring that by discouraging capable workers into those positions will be a detriment to private industry.

        3. The quality of government workers is already abysmal.
          The only exception for which I would argue, is that those defending this country with their lives, potentially, should retain the right to vote. So, military, secret service, etc., get to vote, but DMV behemoths and regulatory nags are S.O.L.

        4. Well, the answer to that problem lies in severely limiting the impact of government upon your company; and the way to do that, in part, is to ensure that the massive, expanding pool of government employees, don’t get to keep voting to retain their massive impact upon your life.

        5. Compliance is a major part of every energy company. The regulations are from echelons far higher than the actual compliance officers investigating them. I’ve also worked with a good number of willing and capable government employees that made my job easier. I’m a registered Libertarian so I dislike unnecessary government intervention but I admittedly understand that the government serves some functions. And for those functions, I want civil servants that actually want to have a positive effect- not ones whose sole purpose is to go through the motions.

        6. As a veteran, I can assure you the average service member is nothing more than an average American; ignorant and lazy. If you don’t want government employees to vote, then neither should service members. Otherwise, there is a major inconsistency.

        7. Unfortunately energy companies want to cut costs by dumping their shit out into the air I have to breathe and the water I have to use. These are the hidden costs that business wants to dump on people who can’t defend themselves. Even if you can sue them, even if you can win, your health has already gone down the shitter and no amount of money can buy you a new life.
          I can remember the enormous columns of filth that spewed out of every smokestack (in addition to the invisible nasties) when I was a kid. Now the exhaust is scrubbed at least to where it doesn’t eat the paint and chrome off cars, trucks, houses, for miles downwind. did the enegry companies do this voluntarily?? No. Of course not. They were forced to add scrubbers to their existing plants and design them into the new power plants. This goes for every industry.
          To look toward the city, on most days it was a yellow haze. If I went to the city with my mother shopping, I coughed, wheezed and sometimes vomited. The old city buses had GM 2 stroke diesels that blew half their fuel out their exhausts. The only relief I got was when we went to lunch in a restaurant on the top floor of a department store. The HVAC drew its air from the roof of the building where the slop in the air was not as strong.
          I played golf on a course that had a little brook running across it. Occasionally a ball would fall into the stream. The pro warned us not to reach in as the “water” would take your skin off. And not to dip the ball out with your club, for it would take the finish off. From where the brook ran into a creek downstream, the creek was devoid of life. You could see the bottom clearly. Upstream in the creek the water was alive: lots of bottom growth. No fish, though, for if there had been any fish put in they would have been killed the moment they swam or drifted past the brook’s confluence. You could see some kind of factory upstream on the brook.
          I worked in a city that got its municipal water from a clear spring. The water in the creek from the spring was clear and safe to drink. Of course the city further purified the water for the mains. 100 yards downstream the water would change from red to blue to orange to green, according to whatever dye had just been used in a textile plant nearby.

        8. Perhaps; but they did put their life on the line for country, and I think that counts for something.

        9. No we didn’t. No war since WWII has been about US self preservation. And I’m a combat veteran from OIF and OEF. We did propagate the rights of other people’s but that did nothing for the average American.

        10. No one has more skin in the game than service members, look at those being sent to the 3rd world to fight Obola.

        11. While every war since Korea has been to help muslim jihadists at the expense of jews & Christians they signed up to defend the US.

        12. Well one, I am against restricting government workers from voting. Secondly, while no one has more vested interest in foreign policy than US service members, no one has more vested interest in domestic policy than government workers. So like I said, it is rather inconsistent to allow one group to vote and the other not to vote.

      3. Would you also prevent the military from voting ? They are government employees after all.

        1. I’m not the OP, but, in answer to your question, no, I would have the military vote just like any other productive citizen. It’s just the non-military taxpayer funded positions that I would exclude from voting.
          The reason is obvious. Being in the military is very different than being a secretary at city hall. Military folks are putting their lives on the line (potentially) for our freedom, if anyone deserves a vote, they certainly do.

        2. Definitely prevent the military from voting. They are called infantry because they have the intelligence level of infants. The US military hasnt advanced the cause of American freedom or independence since 1776. Their role is to fight wars for the benefit of international bankers and to run up the national debt to international bankers. Military members are the ultimate useless welfare queens and the biggest obstacle to a functioning, free society. Cut them off!

        3. Yes, historically the expansion of the franchise has been tied to military service. Even before women had the universal vote in many Western countries, women who served in the military had the franchise.

        4. I can agree, if the generals and admirals moved their forces away from the Arabian peninsula and launched a full assault on DC, executing (almost) every public official for betraying the Constitution, I would be a much more ardent supporter of our armed forces. Their job is to protect the land from enemies foreign and domestic; all of our worst enemies at present are domestic.

        5. The divide between taxpayer/voter and tax-recipient must be absolute. Those who are funded by taxpayers must not be allowed to decide the fate of tax money.

        6. Even “Congressman No,” Ron Paul, has admitted violating his oath to support the US Constitution. He couldn’t vote for anything and be true to his oath, for even when a bill was in the main constitutional, some unconstitutional change would be made or one or more unconstitutional riders would be attached. He couldn’t have even voted for bills he sponsored.
          Then, a law can be constitutional but not be expedient.

      4. I agree that those receiving benefits should be denied the vote, as should government employees. But in reality, we should be eliminating the income tax and eliminating all welfare benefits.

        1. The gluttonous govt we have today arose directly from the income tax. Without that form of theft, those govt employees would have no job, so they cannot be expected to support eliminating the funding for their job.

        2. The Social Security beneficiaries just may save some rope for you, too.
          SS is welfare. How much you get is connected to the wages you received that were subject to FICA, but Unkie Sugar spent all the FICA/SECA tax paid the instant it hit the IRS accounts. What people now get comes out of the wage slaves of today. It’s just another immoral, unconstitutional and illegal wealth transfer program – the biggest one.
          Go to the SSA website where one page tells exactly why SS is unconstitutional and how FDR gangsters suborned the Supreme Court, which had already knocked it down.
          Any taxes on wages, salaries or other compensation for labor is slavery, plain and simple. No slaveowner took all of his slave’s labor (time). To keep slaves healthy enough to keep working, they had to have time to take care of themselves, eat, sleep, etc. So Congress isn’t going to tax your wages at 100% or you would die and produce no more revenue.

      5. The smartest, most financially accomplished people pay little to no federal taxes. Only dumb schmucks and little nobodies who are by and large ignorant bozos, but are still above the “47%” can’t avoid paying federal income taxes.
        At least it would keep the “47%” from voting in federal elections.

    5. I’ve always thought that voters should be asked a set of very basic questions about the government before voting. Really simple questions with clear answers that are independent of any political ideology. A good one would be “How many senators are there?” (The answer is: 100). Another one would be, “Does the president have the authority to start a war?” If you fail any question, you have to wait until the next election to vote.
      This system would probably eliminate 95% of the voters, sadly.

      1. Just the fact that people would be slightly inconvenienced by taking the test, there would be an immediate reduction in voter participation.

      2. Those are not even clear questions. Its not quiet clear if the president has the authority to start a war, in fact there was a big fight over this dealing with the war in libya. Obama more or less was launching a war in Libya with bombs falling from the skies. Claimed it was not a true war but a series of kinetic actions. The President can also more or less engage in war for 100 days before actually needing congressional approval, so it also depends on HOW LONG the war is. Then throw in all the other government agencies who can engage in clearly hostile and war like acts like the NSA and CIA who can kill high level political operatives, it is not so clear if the president has the “Authority” to start a war. Technically only congress can declare war, but we have seen a clear devolution of that power to the president. Especially with the war on terror quote on quote, the president can more or less bomb anywhere and claim he is stopping terror.
        On the question of how many senators again, that is not so clear, you mean state senators, or federal senators. And that may not reflect the number of sitting senators because at any given time seats can be vacant.

        1. The answer to “can the president start a war” is “No.” What you’re saying is just a long-winded way of saying “No.”

        2. Naah. The president can do anything his generals will go along with (obey; carry out). He has control over the guys with the guns, bombs, poison gas etc. he could pull a Lincoln and have all his opposition or suspected opposition arrested and held in prison indefinitely.
          Why do you think the Obama administration has been purging suspected unreliable (to Obama) military officers? it is nice of him not to have them shot, a la Stalin.

        3. Problem is war is not so clearly defined. We often have other agencies outside the army engaging in clear hostile military manouevers ranging from bombings to assassinations without congressional approval. Its quiet obvious the president can start a war without congress. Although on paper as a technicality this shouldn’t be true. But if the US cia drops bombs on Russia for 99 days, the inevitable outcome would be a war. And the president doesnt truly need permission to retailate in a scenario like that. He can simply act without no formal declaration.

        4. And bob raises an excellent point, while the president should behave within the law, ones like lincoln make it quiet clear that often they just do whatever they want to do congress be damned.

    6. “2. Require voters to pay federal income taxes in order to vote in national elections. If you don’t contribute to the system you shouldn’t be able to dictate policy. This will reduce the amount of welfare programs.”
      I could not agree more with this statement. Given that right around 1/2 the country pays 0 (or has a negative, more taxes returned than given to the system) federal income tax, how on earth do we think that we can get any kind of fiscal sanity with these people voting? Why not vote for “more stuff” they aren’t paying for it anyway!
      The same rule, BTW, should apply to other voting; if you’re not financially invested in the race, you should not be permitted to vote. Don’t own a house, no voting on races where those elected set property tax rates (for example).
      And before everyone screams foul, this rule would have prevented me from voting in quite a few of the elections in the 2000’s (certainly until around 2005). You know what? I shouldn’t have been allowed to vote then, and should be allowed to vote now; and I stand by that statement. If you’re not contributing to the system, you should not get to set the direction of said system.

      1. What about bankers for example who are only able to pay taxes because the govt bailed them out. They still technically pay income taxes, even though they get more from the government than they create.

      2. Would you apply this to renters? They pay all the property taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc. It’s included in the rent they pay. In many states the tax rates are higher on rental houses. The tenants pay all that too.
        Only if your granny is letting you have the house for cheap do you not pay all the taxes and expenses.

    7. offer zero wages and zero security for politicians and their families….. you wanna be a public servant… do it at your own risk on your own dime…

      1. Most US Congressmen don’t need the money of the position but rather use the position to leverage their already significant asset holdings.

    8. This is simply not the case.
      1. If the test is too easy you simply do nothing. If the test is too hard you block out those who are less rich but not necessarily less informed. There are plenty of poor people doing manual labour jobs who can’t spell right but are 10 times more informed than the smart guy on wall street who is a shill but could guess his way through the test
      2. This would never pass because most rich aren’t paying us taxes anyhow. Also people go in and out of paying taxes in their lives and often are jobless for no fault of their own. America’s problem isn’t welfare to the poor, it is welfare to the rich who on average receive 9-12 times the amount as the poor. When was the last time the poor got any bailout in the trillions like TARP or wall street bank bailouts and insurance or federal builders and ATT and the airlines do.
      The Founding Fathers lived in a time when they were just about the richest people around, there wasn’t even such a thing as christmas never mind hugely rich private citizen’s like the waltons who owned stores all across america in every district. The problem is not average people, its rich people co-opting the process for their benefit.

      1. 1. 1/3 of Americans can’t pass the citizenship test.* So I think that would be sufficiently challenging without being overly difficult. Also, people are expected to have a base level of knowledge before operating a motor vehicle where their ignorance can have consequential outcomes on others. That is the same approach I have on reforming election standards. Having a basic level of knowledge is crucial in being able to make election decisions.
        2. I agree with you that we need a taxation reform. If you don’t have a vested interest in the system, you don’t get a say in the system. The rich, while likely not paying as much in taxes as they should, are paying income taxes. Which is more than I can say for most people.

        1. Wyly brothers, just because you rich, doesn’t mean you are paying taxes. In fact often becoming very rich makes you feel very entitled, and people start to ask why am i paying taxes.

        2. I’ll agree they find loopholes to get away with paying fewer taxes than they should be the rich pay taxes. The poor pay none. The ones that get screwed are the working class-upper middle class.

        3. They’re not “loopholes.” They are fundamental principles of law. Who do you think this country, like all others, is organized and operated for the benefit of?
          “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

        4. Originally for the citizens of the US. But the directions we have been heading it is more for the benefit of the wealthy.

      2. The “rich” pay most of the federal income taxes. The super-rich pay most of those taxes. The ultra-rich pay most of those taxes.
        But the problem is that most of the rich are tax collectors. They do not generate the revenue themselves. The taxes they pay come from the consumers they supply. John D. Rockefeller thought it decent for him to pay 10% of his income, however his accountants figured that, in taxes. So he had them organize his business so that he “owed ” 10% in taxes.

        1. Baloney, the rich aren’t paying taxes. They are using accounting tricks to send all profits offshore and then bringing the money back in through intermediaries like lawyers who pretend to be investing for a foreign company controlled by the original tax cheat. Hence they get to eat their cake and not get fat too.
          The more rich you are the lower your taxx rate is.
          O poor rockerfeller paying 10% tax when Joe Louis was apying 90% tax.

  2. 1) You should be required to buy your voter ID which is good for 4 years for $10. If you can’t dig up $2.50 per year, then you don’t deserve to vote.
    2) When you buy your voter ID you will be required to prove your citizenship if it is the first time you are buying said ID. You are required to prove your residence.
    3) Your voter ID will have your photo on it. And it will be good for 1 and only 1 precinct.
    4) You will not be issued a new voter ID if you move. You may only obtain a new voter ID within 3 months of the expiration of your current voter ID. If you wish to change your precinct, this is when you do it. You must prove new residence at that time.

    1. What about truck drivers and other workers who cannot be home on election day because they are gone for days at a time? This is what happened to me this year. An absentee ballot is the only way I can vote without it costing me hundreds of dollars worth of work.

      1. Better luck next time. Notice how I said you had to be deployed to a combat zone. As in, if you are currently not risking your life to defend the country, you either make it, in person to your precinct or you don’t vote.
        I also don’t care if you are 83 years old, and suffered a stroke 2 months ago.
        My system isn’t perfect, but it weeds out a large percentage of the undesirable voters.

  3. You can’t prevent ignorant voters from voting but you can reduce their numbers. Here is how you do it: Defund the entire federal government and let the states govern themselves. In doing this, you eliminate one of the two things that the average voter has to consider when casting a ballot, the vast and enormous complex that is the federal government. Instead to having attention divided between state and federal government, they only have to consider one thing.

  4. How exactly are political parties to be eliminated? This would be a great way to increase our freedom IMO, but given the entrenchment of the high level career politicians, it seems the light at the end of that tunnel is out of sight.
    Any thoughts on how to do that?

    1. I don’t know how you could eliminate political parties. I don’t see how that would be anything other than infringing on right to assemble.

      1. I guess I’m suggesting that we diversify our political support for candidates that are more directly aligned with our political views as a nation instead of voting existing party politics.

      1. Can we start the red pill party? Any future politicians here, I’ll glady work on your campaign

  5. First point was very good.
    On top of that only males who pay taxes or own land should vote.
    Also, the union must be disbanded. All 50 states should have control over their territory, with independent militaries amalgamating together under the most capable generals in times of existential conflict.

  6. This author is either ignorant or malicious. Not only are every one of his suggestions unconstitutional, but they would have exactly the opposite result he purportedly intends. The Idiocracy would rule us even more completely than it does now. If you want to stop the low interest/low information voters from casting ballots, here is what you do:
    1.) Photo ID with proof of citizenship- You don’t get a ballot until your ID is checked against your registration and you sign for it. If, after the polls close, there are more ballots than signatures, ballots are taken at random and discarded until the numbers match (this prevents stuffing the ballot box)
    2.) No Same Day Registration: If you are not proactive enough to register in advance, you don’t get to vote. The states that have same day registration are rife with fraud. In my state, people are allowed to “vouch” that unregistered others are who they say they are. No proof required. You snooze you lose.
    3.) No absentee ballots or early voting- If you can’t bother to get your ass to the polls on election day, tough luck. Absentee ballots are probably the greatest source of fraud in our system, as they are employed regularly be people who live mostly in other states, and unnumbered people of “no fixed address”. Don’t even get me started on the nursing homes.
    In exchange for enacting these common sense measures, I would be willing to consider moving election day to Saturday, so more people could “theoretically” participate. My guess is that in practice even fewer people would vote on weekends as it would interfere with their leisure time. Fine with me.

    1. No absentee ballots means that people who cannot get the day off from their employers don’t vote. Remember the old days, when a slaveowner voted on behalf of his slaves – getting six tenths of a vote for each of them?

      1. That’s why Election Day should be a mandatory federal holiday. No work, no excuse not to show up at the polling place.

        1. Here in Oz, voting happens on a weekend and it is compulsory. The fine for not voting is not all that severe, but that’s not the point. The point is that everyone – *everyone* – votes. It’s a basic duty of citizenship.

        2. I’ve always thought compulsory voting had a vaguely Stalinist ring to it. Non-participation in the system can be a valid political act, in and of itself.

      2. It was three fifths, not six tenths, and my understanding is the figure was used for apportionment of Congressional seats, not voting

        1. Not sure how “apportionment of congressional seats” differs from “voting for congress”.
          Also not sure how “three fifths” differs from “six tenths”.

        2. “Apportionment of congressional seats” = how it is determined how many congressmen each state gets.
          Has nothing to do with how a state determines who gets to sit on the seats apportioned to its state.

    2. 4. Require voters to dip their fingers in ink upon voting.
      5. No electronic voting. It is much easier to hack electronic voting than it is to stuff a ballot box.
      6. If there’s to be no absentee ballots, at least make it possible for deployed military to vote.

      1. I’d make an exception for deployed military and other government works stationed overseas, although military ballots are often not counted now, as they often arrive after the absentee deadlines have passed, by intention or not.

    3. You know the system is broken when we have the technology to do so much more but we still have problems at the voting booth.
      I don’t think many (in charge) want it to be fixed. They want the focus to be on the chaos of voting rather than the real issues.
      We can setup a space station, send people to the moon, send rovers to Mars, the age of the internet has transformed everything….but that damn voting thing still has us confused?
      Bullshit. It’s bullshit to keep many busy enough……to not pay attention.

    4. You mean you wouldn’t let people who list their address as “under the east end of the Burnside bridge” to vote? You discriminate against the homeless.
      All I had to do to vote was to show one of those checks the credit card companies send you in the hopes that you will use them and pay the horrific interest rate and the $35 fee. It had my mailing address on it.
      People who can’t find anything but temp work have to give up a day’s wages to vote. Then they may not be able to pay their probation officer.
      No nursing home resident voting? Discrimination against the elderly and infirm. Probably push your granny over the cliff in her wheelchair.
      If you keep on like this you’ll be wanting to stop the cemetery vote.
      The Democrats’ most faithful, dependable voters are dead. They voted straight Democrat all their voting lives, early and often, and they remain good “yaller dawg” Democrats as they rest in peace.
      What I don’t understand is why Republicans who voted straight Republican all their lives switch to voting Democrat after they die. Oh. I figgered it out. Their brains are dead.

  7. #1 How exactly do you plan to eliminate political parties? Would you make it illegal for a candidate to indicate which politicians he/she agrees with or simply fine people for saying words like “Republican” or “Democrat”? I guess we should all just forget our right to assemble!
    #2 While we’re at it, let’s forget free speech as well and limit political advertising to print so that the only way to impact elections via video or audio is to integrate it directly into the plot of your program…cause there’s not enough political pandering in modern media as it is. Again, how do you plan to do this? If a radio or television program has sponsors, would you make it illegal for the creators to discuss elections? Also, I can’t wait for the 791 million dollars of mailings you’re hoping to dump on us!
    #3 Making voting easier is a good idea, but how exactly would that stop the “ignorant masses” from voting? Why would the voting advocacy groups disappear if we all had voter ID cards? This article is fucking stupid!

  8. Only taxpayers vote. End the secret ballot. If a person you voted for votes for anything that increases government spending your taxes go up immediately to cover the costs. If they borrow money that debt is immediately transfered to the people who elected them. This debt cannot be dicharged by bankruptcy, no person holding this debt can ever recieve any government money as long as they still have debt.

    1. I love the idea of only taxpayers voting, but I know that’s not going to happen. My goal here was to present ideas that even progressives would agree to, or at least paint them into a corner so that their true motivations are revealed.

    2. Yes, voting without liability is the problem. Only those who empower debt-creating politicians should hold any liability over that debt. Another option is to allow people to vote on where their specific tax money goes. If you think the military is too big, or welfare is too extravagant, you cut them out entirely. Of course, my goal is to end taxation entirely, and privatize all services currently govt-provided.

      1. “Yes, voting without liability is the problem. ”
        Particularly when, Federally, 50%+ of the population has no “liability”. As that number continues to grow, we very likely enter an age where anything “more” can be funded because, obviously, most people aren’t paying for it. Also know as “the tyranny of the masses”.

      2. Here’s the best idea for a federal tax regime:
        1. Repeal the 16th amendment and outlaw all forms federal income and payroll taxes. Also amend the Constitution so that states must consent to any expansion of the federal debt ceiling.
        2. Replace these taxes with a national, retail non-vat sales tax. 10% is a good number. Perhaps even consider exemptions on “essential goods” to minimize impact on the poor (but at least they’ll pay something).
        3. Allow for states to opt out of particular federal programs AND in doing so, reduce the amount of #2 charged in their state. For example, say a state doesn’t want to participate in some federal welfare program, instead of 10%, they would charge 9.8% or something like that.
        The best part is citizens have direct control over how much they pay in taxes. If we wish to protest taxation, we can do it by reducing what we buy, or by purchasing used goods instead of new ones.

        1. Some good points here. Number 3 is good in theory but we’ve seen greedy states (blue and red) enjoy too much of that tax money coming in from the fed. They include it in their state budget and they get hooked on it.
          The federal program for public schools (NCLB, plus others) is a great example of a waste of time and tax money. But, states are so used to getting that money that they can’t do without it. It’s another form of welfare, it doesn’t benefit teachers or students, it’s lazy in a sense.
          I went to school and we didn’t deal with this nonsense. Pay teachers a decent salary, teachers pay taxes on their salaries and that, in turn, will add to the state coffers (versus taking fed money).
          It used to be so simple but politicians wanted to make it a residual thing. In turn, we all lose out while many of them gain from it.

    3. My only object to taxpayers voting is that there are many small business owners who might not make enough to pay taxes on their own, but whose activities create many jobs that enable their employees to pay taxes. These individuals should not be excluded from the voting process.
      I’d even argue that that business owners’ voting privileges far outweigh those of their employees.

      1. I was trying to keep it short. Clearly the tax system would have to be overhauled as well. I am looking for a system where producers vote and consumers dont. So voting would be based on a net of what you pay less what you receive from government. I think most small businessmen would end up paying something.
        IMHO the best idea would be to have one tax at a flat rate for everyone. Then see if that person gets to vote or not based on how they earned their income.
        It is just an idea I kick around.

        1. Good point. I’ve traveled and lived outside of this country for years. The conversation always turns to politics and taxes…..and why we don’t have a flat tax.

      2. Good ideas presented here. It’s always the people in the middle who feel the squeeze: working class Americans and small to medium business owners.
        The bottom and the very top (including corporations) get away with contributing zero into the system but receive all of the benefits that it has to offer.
        Politicians (all of them) are to blame for selling Americans on why it’s a good idea for these people (and corporations) to not contribute to the system (i.e. corporations bring jobs so they pay no taxes.
        It’s bullshit. If you take from the system, then you should have to give (something) to the system. Time or money. If you’re not working, then you have time to contribute to the system (i.e. form of community service or other).

        1. “Then he went into the house. But before [Peter] had a chance to speak, Jesus asked him, ‘What do you think, Peter? Do kings tax their own people or the people they have conquered?’ ‘They tax the people they have conquered,” Peter replied. ‘Well, then,’ Jesus said, ‘the citizens are free!’”
          Noblemen, the “own people” of the rulers, pay no taxes. They are required to collect taxes from their subjects, hand that over to the rulers (less, of course, a nominal commission for themselves), and to supply some of their subjects to the rulers’ army.
          In “democracies” (oligarchies) of today the noblemen do make the appearance of paying taxes, but like the revenue to be sent on to the crown, they extract that from their subjects/serfs/peons.
          “We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.”
          Leona told the truth but she was not wise about who she said it to. It came back to haunt her. (1989)
          “There is definitely a double standard for men and women: When a man loses his temper, he is aggressive; I’m a pushy bitch. A man is confident and authoritative; I’m conceited and power-mad. Men don’t want women getting to the top. Period.” (1990)
          “If a woman is successful, she’d better duck, because they’ll be out to get her.” (1990)

    4. And what if the person you voted for decides to cut taxes and pay for it by slashing welfare spending? Do you end up having to pay indemnities to compensate those who lost benefits because of how you voted?

      1. No you would get a tax refund. You seem to be under the bizarre idea that other people have a right to the products of your labor. There is a term for the economic system where one group of people is forced to labour for another group by the threat of violence. It is called slavery.

        1. Oooh, slavery, getting hyperbolical now, are we? Funnily enough, when you generalize the concept of slavery in such a way, pretty much any economic paradigm can be (and has been) called slavery, including wage-labour for a corporation in a capitalist economy.
          Your suggested system of government is nothing but an attempt to force the political process to lead to a predetermined outcome, by erecting an onerous incentive barrier in front of anyone who’d try to move it the other way. What you’re suggesting is about as democratic as the early Soviet Union: You can vote for which candidate you want, but they’re all commies.
          I must say I much prefer Pinochet over you. He was honest and open about using dictatorial force to advance his cause, rather than hid behind a sham of representative government.

        2. No, capitalism is when two (or more) people freely come to an agreement to exchange one good or service for another. There is no violence involved. You don’t really understand what capitalism is or you are intentionally misrepresenting what it is to pump up your pro-slavery agenda.
          I am suggesting that people who produce nothing should not be able to elect politicians who will use violence to force others to labor for them. Anyone would be free to give whatever they wanted but they could not be forced to give and of course everyone is free to support themselves. It is a little silly to compare that to a nation that was founded on the idea that the state has a right to steal the products of everyone’s labor and redistribute it however they want.
          I am not recommending any use of force, I am saying that people who produce should be able to say how they products of their labor are used. You are the one who wants governments to use force to take the products of those labors away and redistribute them. People would be free to elect socialists under my system but the people who did so would have to pay for the programs they want. They would not be free to elect politicians who would create programs that other people would be force to pay for.
          You don’t seem to be able to tell the difference between a government that represents people and one that uses Ponzi schemes to buy votes. I think you have the color wrong you should be calling yourself white knight.

        3. ‘Tis funny, I don’t remember freely agreeing to Bill Gates’s property rights, and I’m pretty sure they would be enforced by state violence if I didn’t comply with them.
          The talking point about wage slavery is that the imposition of the capitalistic system of property rights puts the worker in a position where he has been violently deprived of any means of survival other than selling his labor, for which the owner of the means of production has no obligation to pay him according to the actual value of the fruits of his labor, but can get away with paying way less, depending on the labor market. This is what’s called extraction of surplus value of labor in Marxist thought.
          It’s funny how similar the average Internet libertarian and Internet communist really are. Both regard the socio-economic paradigm prevailing in contemporary first world countries in simple terms of producers and parasites. They just disagree on which groups are the two.
          Me “not understanding what capitalism is” is simply my ability to see through the absolutes you’re dealing in, and recognize how they are based on assumptions that are far from self-evident or matters of established consensus.
          You seem to operate under the assumption that producer and taxpayer are synonymous. How about the rich idler who lives on capital gains income solely? He is producing nothing, his lifestyle is supported by the labor of others, yet he might well pay way more in taxes than the people whose labor support his lifestyle.

        4. I’m not surprised you don’t believe in property rights, but if you don’t have them their is very little reason for people to be productive. That is why your beloved USSR went broke.
          There is an easy way to find out who the producers and who the parasites are, stop redistributing wealth and it will quickly become evident.
          Capitalism is an absolute, you have it or you don’t. VonMises wrote about this at great length. Capitalism has raised standards of living in 100% of the places it has been tried. The more capitalism you have the better off people are. Socialism has lowered standards of living in 100% of the places it has been tried. Sure it can hang on longer in places where their is a lot of wealth to consume but eventually it will destroy the economy. If you want to see the destruction caused by socialism in real time, have a look at the US economic decline.
          The rich idler is clearly the beneficiary of an ancestors hard work. If he truly is an idler as you suggest then he will not be rich for long. In Korea there is an expression that roughly translates into “no fortune can survive three generations” The true rich idler is more imaginary than real, it is the product of the imaginations of those who don’t understand that investing requires work too.

        5. I am not wrong about economic history, the stuff you wrote about capitalism is drivel. Before capitalism life was a zero sum game. If was OK if you were part of a guild, fine if you were a wealthy noble but there was very little for the ordinary person. That is why they flocked to the cities for a chance to work in a factory. It isn’t slavery when a person opts for the best choice available to them. Look around the world, the nations with the most economic freedom are the places where life is getting better. The places with less economic freedom are the places where life is getting worse.
          Capitalism itself is not about violence, the state is violence. We can have capitalism and property rights without violence. We cannot have a welfare state without violence. I’m not seeing your point here as you acknowledge that the source of violence is the state. Without some form of property rights and a place to settle disputes without violence there is no civilization. .
          As for measurements of productivity we can see the improvements in GDP before and after the welfare state. There were enormous growth prior to the welfare state, now the welfare state has just about strangled all growth and the governments of western welfare states have to lie about inflation to try to pretend their is growth. Before the welfare state there was some redistribution of wealth but it was voluntary. People donated money to churches and charities. Doctors provided their services to the poor, for free or at a much reduced cost. That was a far better system than stealing half of what everyone earned.

        6. Moving the goalposts, I see. As wrong as you are about economic history, I’m not going to get into that. I’m not going to let you determine the frame of the discussion just to escape from an unsupportable position and pretend you never lost that argument.
          Whether I believe in or support private property rights, or how important they are for achieving prosperity, has no implication on whether property rights are de facto backed up by state violence, while you maintained that capitalism involves no violence at all.
          As for who the parasites and who the producers are, you speak about “redistributing wealth” as if there would be some underlying, undisturbed original distribution independent of government or socio-economic order, and that it somehow measures objective productivity. Both of which are untrue.

        7. If you don’t think there is property rights without state violence, try to help yourself to Bill Gates’s property. Chances are either the police or his security guards will stop you. If it’s the former, it’s state violence in direct form. If it’s the latter, it’s still state violence because the coercive power of the state is what allows his security guards to stop you with violence but will punish you for trying to fight them.
          Go on, test your theory that capitalism and property rights aren’t backed up by violence. What are you waiting for? If you are right, you’d get filthy rich from Bill’s stuff.
          So slavery isn’t slavery when complying with it is your best option, eh? I guess that means violent confiscation of your productive output by the state isn’t slavery either, then, it might just be that letting the state do it is your best option, since you’d probably get disproportionately pummeled if you tried to resist.

        8. I believe you are misrepresenting my position, I think that property rights could be enforced without violence, states use violence because it is the easiest way to enforce their edicts. Frankly extortion is about the only way you could get people to give up half of what they earn given the manner in which governments spend money.
          People chose to work in factories over their other options. No one threatened them with violence if they didn’t go to the mill on Saturday. If we apply your argument then there was never any slavery in America because the slaves chose to work over being beaten and murdered. Actually using your standard there was never any slavery anywhere at anytime in history.
          You seem to have some issues where the wealthy are concerned, I could understand if you were angry at the so-called banksters who get their money through fraud and theft but I’m not sure what you gripe is with microsoft. You can’t refuse to pay your taxes or opt out of having your money destroyed by the central banks but there are options to using microsoft products.

      2. Benefits are a gift of largesse; nobody is “owed” a benefit. They are not owed compensation if they lose benefits; they should consider themselves lucky that they ever got benefits in the first place.

        1. I’m not advocating either way, I’m just probing Moose and Bear to see if he’s consistent or means it to only work one way. So far, he has quite adequately revealed his true intentions.

  9. Why do people have a right to vote?
    ORIGINALLY, the Founders took the Roman Republic as an example of civic participation. You didn’t get to participate by virtue of being born.

    1. Why do people have a right to vote? Erm, because the Founders were of the opinion that the only source of legitimacy for government is the consent of the governed.
      Note the absence of any reference to whether the governed pay taxes or have a clue about anything.

  10. I would suggest one step: If anyone wishes to become a voter they should be required to pass a non-partisan examination to prove their ability for making an informed decision. Such an exam should include questions about national and world politics, history, and civic institutions. The notion that being 18 years of age makes a person automatically qualified to vote simply has no rationale or validity. And its because of universal suffrage that politicians always pander to the lowest elements of society.

    1. If someone needs to be on their parents’ health insurance until they are 26 they are not responsible enough to vote.

    2. It’s a good idea. But, I think they (politicians, corporations, big money) want as many “dumb voters” as possible. Like sheep, they are easy sway one way or the other.
      They don’t have to understand (lacking critical thinking) they just have to follow. We have the ability and the technology to make the changes so why don’t we?
      Because it’s easier to keep the people “dumbed down” and move them in the direction that is needed, at the time.

      1. Admittedly, its unlikely that universal suffrage will ever be revoked. I was simply offering a feasible means of excluding unqualified people from voting—not one which is likely to be implemented.

    3. How could we be sure that the examination would truly remain non-partisan? The one who gets to decide who counts as informed enough would rule the political process. It could easily lead to, for example, Red Pillers ending up being considered unfit to vote due to believing in such “outdated, refuted, disproven nonsense”.

      1. Perhaps by limiting it to questions which require factual knowledge such as “Who is the prime minister of the UK?” or “Which amendment gave women the right to vote?”

        1. Then you’d need a different set of questions for each candidate, otherwise spoilers. And to randomize the questions somehow so that individuals can’t be blocked by singling them out for particularly hard or tricksy questions.
          Which would require lots of questions to be generated, and there’s only so much you can ask about before it turns from general awareness into trivia.

  11. Limiting political campaigns (whether it be donation limits or direct restrictions on ads) is a horrible idea. It will have the exact opposite effect. Only candidates with name recognition would have a chance of winning (that means career politicians and celebrities).
    To understand why, ask yourself what would happen if we limited soda advertisements. Who would benefit? It would be Coca Cola and Pepsi because their brands are already established and well-recognized. Start-up soda companies would suffer the most as their main priority is to get people aware of their product.
    Also ask yourself why is it that most laws restricting campaign ads and donations usually get passed with majority bipartisan support. That’s because incumbents know that it helps them stay entrenched.

  12. Some of the most ignorant voters are taxpaying and educated. These things are not proof of voting ability. Lately our nation has become one that consists of a large group of unabashed dullards and know-nothings from every walk of life.
    ignorant in their ignorance.
    Let things progress just as they are. Eventually pain and suffering will snap the masses out of the stupid complacency that has befallen us. Right now citizens should be taking to the streets and yelling their heads off. Instead people complain about ” ma gun rights “, ” ma freedom ” and ” da social programs ” without ever realizing that these red herring issues blind all who take the bait to the massively bad and debt ridden governance that is strangling our future existance. Pols and leaders get a free pass while we stare and point at each other.
    We’re losing completely, the ability to recognize bad leadership and plutocratic/oligarchic mechanisims at work before our very eyes.

  13. Democracies/republics are always going to drift into decline because the tendency is to pander to voters rather than run the government. There is no effective way to stop the “ignorant masses” from voting in a modern democracy unless you completely reorient the government away from being democratic.

  14. I’d love to see the 24th amendment repealed and voting be made into a privilege like it had been during the early days of the country. The only people who have any business voting are:
    1. Current military in good standing or honorably discharged military, or
    2. Anyone who isn’t on some form of means tested taxpayer financed assistance.
    No one else has any business setting foot in a polling place.

  15. #1 is dangerous. With no parties, what we are likely to end up with is one powerful person that essentially runs her own monopoly “political party.” As bad as the 2 party duopoly is, a single party would be far, far worse. Better to open up the system by taking away the methods the two parties use to keep others out. Multiple parties would be messy, but certainly preferable to only one party or to only two parties.
    #2 is feel good, but restricts freedom. With a multi-party system, the amount of campaign spending on no-content ads simply intended to rile people up or play on their emotions, would be reduced substantially. This would result because with 4 or 5 or even more parties, no party would have so much money behind them. Thus, each advertising dollar they spend would have to be spent wisely.
    #3 will not work. “Get out the vote” operations are still very effective in jurisdictions that have mostly or entirely mail-in ballots.
    Good try. But further thought is needed.

  16. Oh, and I should not forget to mention that 60-80% of dumb, uninformed voting is done by women. They simply should not be allowed to vote. Ultimately, this would be better for them.

    1. The problem with female voters is they make their voting decisions based on emotion rather than logic. You will often see politicians making emotional based arguments that make no sense in the big picture.
      “We need national health care because some people don’t have any, so those who have their own health insurance, must surrender their private insurance so that everyone can have national health insurance.”
      ” We need food stamps and section 8 housing because these people will die of starvation and live on the street if we don’t.”
      How is it our parents and grandparents survived without so many handouts? Were Americans really dying of starvation before the great society? We are slowly slipping into socialism and being led by politicians that appeal to the weakest minds.

      1. I truly admire those who made it through the Great Depression. Americans actually need something like this, again, to “right the ship”.
        Too many handouts, too fat, too lazy and too much entitlement. It’s a disease and that may be the cure. I don’t like it and it sounds bad…but it will create “balance” again in this country.

      2. A few highly intelligent women have declared that they would happily give up their privilege of voting to eliminate the rest of the woman vote.
        Women are designed to be subject to men. Individually to their father or other male head of household, then to their own husbands.
        Men who abuse their wives need the whipping post on Friday night, then back to their choice of their jobs or to the whipping post again Monday morning.
        Women are overexpected (!) when they go out of their homes to work in the business world. Few have understanding of where money comes from: Uncle Sugar? Women persistently vote for “more free cheese.”
        The Republicans made a big mistake by getting the women the franchise. They thought the women would be so-o-o-o grateful for the vote that they would vote Republican forever. Oops! Single and young women vote heavily Democratic or Progressive-RINO. Only when women are of mature years and married do they begin to vote more for liberty than for “security.” This doesn’t make up for the damage they did in earlier life; but it does help some.
        Too many men are effeminized and vote like women.
        My prejudices are formed by over six decades on this earth. I was raised by women, taught mostly by women, and have lived with (related) women for most of my life.

    2. Right….because of emotion versus logic (or critical thinking). Women are easily swayed by how oppressed they still are at this point and how they don’t have anything or any rights (very laughable).
      And it always seems to be the average, white woman complaining the loudest. Yeah, they are very oppressed…sure.

  17. Modern democracy is the rule of the masses, also known as the rule of the dumbest.
    Bring back enlightened despotism !

  18. Step #1: realize democracy is essentially mob rule. Morally corrupt and uneconomical.
    Step #2: Secede from the democratic state you live under.
    Step #3: Establish a contractual society where A and B cannot band together to rip off C, or B and C band together to rip off A, or A and C band together to rip off B.

    1. You speak about “ripping off” as if what exactly constitutes it were a matter of objective fact. It isn’t.

      1. By rip off I mean a majority can band together to expropriate or regulate someone’s or some group of people’s property against their consent. This can be objectively determined.

        1. For you to be justified in making that statement you’d have to have a property right in your own body. For you to be alive to make that statement there must be ways for you to obtain property (food, water, shelter, clothing etc.) justly, whether through homesteading or exchange. If you don’t have objective natural rights in these things then other people may use your body and belongings and be justified in doing so. This thinking is the basis of moral relativism. There is no right or wrong just socially acceptable and socially unacceptable behavior.

        2. Except for the fact that property rights are a social construct to begin with, not an objective natural fact.

  19. Always thought the Heinlein approach was the best route:
    “…every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage.”
    You want the vote, or even go to school, you must register for the draft and/or contribute federal service for 2-4 years (Heinlein wrote of doing logistics/support (forest service, road work, and, in the case of severe physical limitations, office work,) in lieu of not serving the military.)
    Think what it would solve if the laws/amendments were written correctly:
    -Women would have to register for the draft or serve 2-4 years in hard labor. Sorry, dearies, psychological conditions are not physical disqualifiers. Get your boots on and grab a shovel to get that tar on the road.
    -Women of age failing to register or do service carries the penalties that men face if they don’t in the US and not get the vote.
    -Most would have to learn to dress for safety. Those body piercings, gaudy jewelry, and self-mutilations objects can get caught in the woodchipper…watch out!
    -More people would have to learn that government is not there to give you free money. It is there to unify people and promote humanity as a whole.
    -If women bow out of real commitment to their country, like most of the feminists do, they won’t have the overbearing voice they now have in politics.

  20. Like it or not, voting is a right in the US, and no longer a privilege.
    The 14th Amendment forced states to subordinate themselves to the constitution and its amendments. The 15th gave the vote to all male citizens. The 19th gave the vote to women. And finally, the 26th gave it to teenagers.
    The days of states getting to create voter tests and requirements ended with the civil war. The only restrictions that survived the SCOTUS were ones forbiding criminals and the insane from voting, and proofs of citizenship that are not onerous.
    If you want something different, you have to amend the constitution again.

  21. The first two proposals would mean government restricting freedom of assembly and speech. I don’t think the tradeoff would be worth it. Government has already proven it doesn’t know “what’s best” for the individual – reeks of progressivism. But I like that you’re thinking outside the box.

  22. Voting is useless in modern America.
    “If voting actually changed anything they wouldn’t let us do it.”
    —Mark Twain

  23. Step 2 would only cripple Republican candidates, as the media provides free advertising for Democrats in all their “news” programs.

  24. Step 2 require even more laws, and are hence inevitably dead wrong.
    In practice, if people cannot buy the government outright, they enact school zoning laws that enable only themselves to send their children to the same schools as government officials. Knowing that government officials don’t have the brains/backbone to explain to their children why they enact laws that unfair to said children’s closest friends in school…
    Fewer laws and restrictions are better than more. Recursively. At least until you get down to a legal code aroun the size of the Ten Commandments, plus perhaps some blurb about restricting convicted felons from possessing nukes while on death row….
    If there were no petty feelgood laws limiting outright buying of officials, voters would have much less difficulty knowing why certain legislation gets passed. And would be much more likely to treat politicians with the respect they truly deserve.

  25. The two-party system will remain in place as long as the electoral system is winner-takes-all. Even if political parties were banned outright, they would still exist in some unofficial but just as well-organized form.
    Which is why pretty much no country outside the Anglosphere uses winner-takes-all, but rather a system of proportional representation.

  26. As our society degrades into a democracy, the idea has been that the vote should continually be expanded; in reality, access to the vote should be very restricted. I think we should make it as hard as possible to vote, with the one exception you mentioned in your article, a point which I thought was brilliant, of making the actual process on voting day easier. I think early ballots should be eliminated. People should have to confirm their intention to vote two months in advance (so there can be no “provisional ballots” for people showing up with various names of possibly dead or illegal people on voting day), and we should then confirm the eligibility of all those who have confirmed their intent to vote. Only those who can pass a citizenship test should be considered eligible. In a perfect world, only property-owning heads of household (wives only in case of husband’s death) would be considered eligible, as well. Civilization is about preserving wealth and culture for posterity; those who have no wealth, and no investment in posterity, should not be steering the ship of state. The citizenship test, required for eligibility, should include a section that indicate an understanding of these principles; the last thing we need is for the men to vote to give women the franchise again.
    As to 1), you won’t eliminate political parties, nor do I think you should try. A political party is a way for people who generally agree on various principles, to get together and pick the ONE candidate they agree to vote upon, rather than reduce the effectiveness of the vote by splitting it amongst multiple suitable candidates, all of whom lose to the other party (as happened in California a couple years back). That is the whole point of the primary system, and it seems very reasonable to me… though if there were a system with multiple parties and proportionate representation of the vote (like the European system, but retaining our open primaries), that could work. The truly effective thing, is to list only candidates’ names, and not their party affiliation, on the ballot. That way, ignorant people can’t simply go in and vote for everyone with an “R” or “D” by their names.
    I liked your idea about limiting campaign ads to print media. I think we could also maintain a simple webpage at each electoral level (federal, state, county, city, etc.) with the candidates running, where every candidate who qualifies to be on the ballot would be given the same amount of space, free, to describe their platform. Nobody can or should prevent groups, clubs, organizations, churches, etc., from discussing their views freely *in-house,* but all other campaign advertising could simply be made illegal.
    As to 3, I like the idea, but people – especially “progressives” – will still have “voting parties” and other tactics designed to shame their folks into voting together for visible confirmation. Twenty years ago, you could have said that the vote had to be cast with the pin from the land-line associated with the voter’s address, but now that many people only have cell phones, that would be harder.

  27. Ha. Not the moronic “one (wo)man-one vote” rule. make it “one dollar-one vote.”
    For every dollar you pay in federal taxes of each kind, you get one vote in federal elections. If you are a $500 billionaire but pay no taxes to Unkie Sugar, no vote in federal elections (you can still give money to candidates, committees, etc). If you are John Q. Schmuck and are a 31,000-a-year-aire and pay $8,000 in federal taxes, you get a total of 8,000 votes in each of the federal elections (senator, representative, president).
    Same for state elections: pay $3,000 in sales taxes, car registration taxes, driver license taxes, ad valorem taxes, etc. you get 3,000 votes in each of the state elections (senator, assemblyman, governor, judges, att’y general, whatever state officials are elected.
    Pay $1,000 in property taxes, local option sales taxes, whatever, you get 1,000 votes in the local elections.
    Money is really what votes, so why not line-up votes with money?
    RE: the billionaire: If the J.Q. Schmucks vote to tax him in a way he cannot avoid/evade, (synonyms to IRS) now all of a sudden he has votes! If the “J.Q. Schmucks” don’t back off, they will vote enough unavoidable/unevadable taxes on our billionaire for him to take over the elections. Since this would affect all the billionaires, they would likely all vote for the same candidates.
    This concept would need some fine tuning but you get the idea. With computerized everything it should be simple to keep up with how much taxes of each kind each schmuck has paid.

  28. Eliminating political parties wouldn’t accomplish anything good. Such things were outlawed in Italy and all that happened was secret organization after secret organization cropped up and the peninsula had basically unending warfare for about 150 years. However, banning identifying candidates parties on the ballot itself would be just fine.
    To ban television and radio advertisements would clearly be an egregious violation of the first amendment and it wouldn’t survive a challenge in the first circuit court it arrived in, the appeals court wouldn’t take the matter up.
    As for the last, that is just opening a can of worms. Make it so that you have to get up and go to the poll on election day.

  29. Elections for the City Council in Chicago have been by non-partisan ballot since the beginning of the 20th Century. This never prevented party organizations from controlling the elections. Chicago may be an extreme case, but if there’s enough at stake some kind of “machine” (based on business interests, unions, organized crime, “the courthouse gang,”etc.) will always emerge to try to control the outcome. If that doesn’t work officials can always be bought or blackmailed after they take office.

Comments are closed.