|
"there should not be any TEST or government critera for citizens voting."
Says you. I don't think people should be allowed to vote unless they can understand the issues.
Most voters will vote for a bond instead of a tax increase--because they think a bond will cost them less. Then you explain that bonds are paid for by a LARGER TAX INCREASE to cover both the project AND THE BOND INTEREST and all of a sudden, their vote changes.
Or, you've got the what is it, 30? 50? million folks who say "I didn't understand the terms of my mortgage, I didn't understand that low rate would become 11% in three years." I'm all for giving them mortgage relief--if they'll agree that they're too stupid to run a nation, and they'll give up the right to vote until that mortgage releif is fully paid off.
All Americans were NEVER INTENDED to vote and run the nation. Somewhat crudely and unfairly (but given the times, understandably) only white land-ownering males were allowed to vote. OK, "white" we can strike out. But the idea was that LAND OWNERS have a vested interest in their community. Have permanent stakes and aren't going "back to the homeland" to retire in ten years. And have some minimal level of intelligence--since they've been successful enough to acquire and own land.
Unfair? Yes. Worse when every moron who can make an "X" thinks they can and should run the nation--into the ground and into ruin.
If you want to do it that way, then make it legal to sell your vote--as it used to be. This wouldn't be the first year that two lousy non-choices were running for office, and I'd gladly sell my vote to the highest bidder, because I don't think either one of them is going to save the world.
B-grade movie actors, peanut farmers, soccer moms...Well, at least we can't complain that they don't resemble the folks that vote for them.
The right to vote should be EARNED, not scattered before everyone.
|