Imagine that the World Cup starts next year, and the U.S. soccer "authorities" decide that they want to have the team created by a "democratic" vote, and they want it to be composed exclusively by members of the Major League Soccer association.
Proposal #1: Have the players in the league, along with the coaches each have one vote, and the U.S. team would be comprised of the players who get the most votes.
Proposal #2: Have the team elected by the fans. Every person who has a season ticket for any team gets two votes, and everyone who buys a ticket gets a ballot. The team is comprised of the players who get the most votes, per position.
Proposal #3: Freely distribute ballots to everyone who attends an MSL soccer game, with ballots limited to one person per ballot.
Proposal #4: Distribute ballots at games, and distribute them to amateur soccer organizations in the cities where there are MLS franchises; again, one ballot per human.
Proposal #X: Open a website and take ballots from anyone who logs in and wants to cast a vote; try to restrict it to people in the U.S.; again, one vote per human.
Are you picking up the pattern here? The proposal start with ballots from the people who have the most comprehensive knowledge of the players and the game itself, and they devolve to the arena where even people who are totally ignorant of the game and the players will be casting votes, all of which will be given the same weight as the votes of the most knowledgeable voters.
As you glance through these proposals, ask yourself, which proposal will yield the "best" results? Well, if you hope for the U.S. to have the best World Cup team, then clearly the first proposal is the one you like.
Now let's look at this example as it might shine a light on "threats to American democracy." The Democrats were able, in the November 2022 election, to divert voters' attention from the real issues of governance to the non-issue of "threats to democracy." But what is "democracy" in the American context.
On the one hand, you have a contingent that says that, the more people who vote, the more "democratic" the election is. With this philosophy, it might be appropriate to have government operatives get in touch with each and every adult American who is not mentally incompetent, give them a ballot, encourage them to vote, collect the accumulated ballots, and find out who the winners are. Under that view, this would be the "most democratic" election possible, and the results would be the best manifestation of "democracy."
But this has never been the general approach. "We" have always asked that potential voters do a few things affirmatively to make themselves eligible to vote, and also to cast a vote. You have always had to register to vote, a process that requires that you - as a minimum - prove who you are, prove where you live, and fill out one or more simple forms. Then, you always had to go to the polls on Election Day, or if you could not do that, to file an Absentee Ballot, which required a little more action on your part than simply filling out a form and sending it in.
Until very recently, these minimal requirements posed no problem whatsoever for the American people, or for the courts. Although you have a "right" to vote, it is not unreasonable to ask you to do a few things in order to exercise that right.
But the Leftists in our midst seek to remove - and have removed - even these small requirements, allowing such things as same day registration, motor-voter procedures, and now, mail-in ballots and ballot drop boxes. They have seen that the "easier" it is to vote, the easier it is to mine the population for brain-dead, uninvolved, uninformed voters, who will simply vote for the person who makes the most exorbitant promises or threats, no matter how absurd they are.
Referring back to the soccer examples above, they want our elections to be as close as possible to "Proposal #X" where the winners are determined by people who have no knowledge and no real stake in the outcome, knowing that THOSE people are most susceptible to unethical, phony Democrat campaign tactics.
Ask yourself, which sort of election yields the BEST results? The one where the voters have to take an interest and make an effort to vote, or the one where they...don't? There is only one correct answer.
Proposal #1: Have the players in the league, along with the coaches each have one vote, and the U.S. team would be comprised of the players who get the most votes.
Proposal #2: Have the team elected by the fans. Every person who has a season ticket for any team gets two votes, and everyone who buys a ticket gets a ballot. The team is comprised of the players who get the most votes, per position.
Proposal #3: Freely distribute ballots to everyone who attends an MSL soccer game, with ballots limited to one person per ballot.
Proposal #4: Distribute ballots at games, and distribute them to amateur soccer organizations in the cities where there are MLS franchises; again, one ballot per human.
Proposal #X: Open a website and take ballots from anyone who logs in and wants to cast a vote; try to restrict it to people in the U.S.; again, one vote per human.
Are you picking up the pattern here? The proposal start with ballots from the people who have the most comprehensive knowledge of the players and the game itself, and they devolve to the arena where even people who are totally ignorant of the game and the players will be casting votes, all of which will be given the same weight as the votes of the most knowledgeable voters.
As you glance through these proposals, ask yourself, which proposal will yield the "best" results? Well, if you hope for the U.S. to have the best World Cup team, then clearly the first proposal is the one you like.
Now let's look at this example as it might shine a light on "threats to American democracy." The Democrats were able, in the November 2022 election, to divert voters' attention from the real issues of governance to the non-issue of "threats to democracy." But what is "democracy" in the American context.
On the one hand, you have a contingent that says that, the more people who vote, the more "democratic" the election is. With this philosophy, it might be appropriate to have government operatives get in touch with each and every adult American who is not mentally incompetent, give them a ballot, encourage them to vote, collect the accumulated ballots, and find out who the winners are. Under that view, this would be the "most democratic" election possible, and the results would be the best manifestation of "democracy."
But this has never been the general approach. "We" have always asked that potential voters do a few things affirmatively to make themselves eligible to vote, and also to cast a vote. You have always had to register to vote, a process that requires that you - as a minimum - prove who you are, prove where you live, and fill out one or more simple forms. Then, you always had to go to the polls on Election Day, or if you could not do that, to file an Absentee Ballot, which required a little more action on your part than simply filling out a form and sending it in.
Until very recently, these minimal requirements posed no problem whatsoever for the American people, or for the courts. Although you have a "right" to vote, it is not unreasonable to ask you to do a few things in order to exercise that right.
But the Leftists in our midst seek to remove - and have removed - even these small requirements, allowing such things as same day registration, motor-voter procedures, and now, mail-in ballots and ballot drop boxes. They have seen that the "easier" it is to vote, the easier it is to mine the population for brain-dead, uninvolved, uninformed voters, who will simply vote for the person who makes the most exorbitant promises or threats, no matter how absurd they are.
Referring back to the soccer examples above, they want our elections to be as close as possible to "Proposal #X" where the winners are determined by people who have no knowledge and no real stake in the outcome, knowing that THOSE people are most susceptible to unethical, phony Democrat campaign tactics.
Ask yourself, which sort of election yields the BEST results? The one where the voters have to take an interest and make an effort to vote, or the one where they...don't? There is only one correct answer.
