Democracy, sometimes crudely defined as One person, one vote, is all the rage these days among Dems who decry distorted representation in legislatures due to Gerrymandered districts, most (but not all) of which now favor Republicans. Their souls are all atwitter in some states about movements to change Electoral College voting to be proportional rather than all-or-none usually along congressional district lines or some variation.
They whine persistently about the unfairness of the Dakotas, Iowa, Delaware, and Rhode Island each having as much say in the Senate as Cali-fucking-fornia, New York, and Illinois. Woe is us. All of this is un-democratic, and therefore wrong.
But whats so great about democracy? Democracy gives equal weight to the votes of the Genius and the Fool, the Astute and the Oblivious. It gives equal weight to those who pay millions in taxes and those who pay nothing. It gives equal weight to those who seek (by their votes) only to feed at the government trough and those who want nothing more than passable roads and protection of their property rights broadly defined.
It would be entirely rational to limit voting to people who can demonstrate a basic level of intelligence and literacy (so that they can at least understand the issues and the candidate). It would be reasonable to require that voters have paid some minimal level of taxes in the recent past, to ensure that they have vested interest in the proceedings. It would be appropriate to exclude voters who rely on government support for their daily sustenance, as their votes amount to nothing more than demands for charity, paid for by everyone else at the point of a gun.
And none of this is mean-spirited. What sane organization grants voting rights to those who have not paid their dues, never come to the meetings, or who are not full-members in good standing? Once you pay your dues you can vote again.
And yet, if you look at these basic principles of rational democracy, you see that one political party has intentionally and actively sought the votes of those who SHOULD NOT EVEN BE VOTING, and indeed, their electoral success is entirely tied to their success in garnering the votes of these dubious participants. They actively seek the votes of stupid, unproductive, and government-dependent voters (especially government employees), at the expense of the Productive. Indeed, if the rational restrictions above were ever implemented, the Democrat party would have won its last election in this country. I submit that there is not a single jurisdiction in the country where Democrats could win a majority vote if voters were required to pass a simple literacy test, show proof of payment of a couple thousand dollars in taxes (any kind of taxes) in the previous year, and demonstrate that they are not dependent on substantial government assistance (including a paycheck). Hell, they couldnt even win in Washington, D.C. with these rules. There would only be about a hundred voters, and most of them would be Republicans or libertarians.
This is not to say that ALL democrat voters fall into these categories. There are millions of intelligent, astute, productive democrats, who fervently believe in the Partys vision of government and vision for the future. But they are a small minority of the total population, centered mainly in urban areas with laughably-disfunctional local governments. It is the votes of the stupid, the unproductive, and the government-dependent that give the Party its majorities when Democrats win elections.
Democracy. You can have it.
They whine persistently about the unfairness of the Dakotas, Iowa, Delaware, and Rhode Island each having as much say in the Senate as Cali-fucking-fornia, New York, and Illinois. Woe is us. All of this is un-democratic, and therefore wrong.
But whats so great about democracy? Democracy gives equal weight to the votes of the Genius and the Fool, the Astute and the Oblivious. It gives equal weight to those who pay millions in taxes and those who pay nothing. It gives equal weight to those who seek (by their votes) only to feed at the government trough and those who want nothing more than passable roads and protection of their property rights broadly defined.
It would be entirely rational to limit voting to people who can demonstrate a basic level of intelligence and literacy (so that they can at least understand the issues and the candidate). It would be reasonable to require that voters have paid some minimal level of taxes in the recent past, to ensure that they have vested interest in the proceedings. It would be appropriate to exclude voters who rely on government support for their daily sustenance, as their votes amount to nothing more than demands for charity, paid for by everyone else at the point of a gun.
And none of this is mean-spirited. What sane organization grants voting rights to those who have not paid their dues, never come to the meetings, or who are not full-members in good standing? Once you pay your dues you can vote again.
And yet, if you look at these basic principles of rational democracy, you see that one political party has intentionally and actively sought the votes of those who SHOULD NOT EVEN BE VOTING, and indeed, their electoral success is entirely tied to their success in garnering the votes of these dubious participants. They actively seek the votes of stupid, unproductive, and government-dependent voters (especially government employees), at the expense of the Productive. Indeed, if the rational restrictions above were ever implemented, the Democrat party would have won its last election in this country. I submit that there is not a single jurisdiction in the country where Democrats could win a majority vote if voters were required to pass a simple literacy test, show proof of payment of a couple thousand dollars in taxes (any kind of taxes) in the previous year, and demonstrate that they are not dependent on substantial government assistance (including a paycheck). Hell, they couldnt even win in Washington, D.C. with these rules. There would only be about a hundred voters, and most of them would be Republicans or libertarians.
This is not to say that ALL democrat voters fall into these categories. There are millions of intelligent, astute, productive democrats, who fervently believe in the Partys vision of government and vision for the future. But they are a small minority of the total population, centered mainly in urban areas with laughably-disfunctional local governments. It is the votes of the stupid, the unproductive, and the government-dependent that give the Party its majorities when Democrats win elections.
Democracy. You can have it.
