Voting – Cast Your Ballot
The left has once again taken up the mantra of increasing the
voter rolls in this country. Well, I for one would submit that I think that is a
horrendously bad idea. We have far too many unqualified voters involved in the
political process already. I am sorry, but I do not think every person of age
should be casting votes on the candidates or issues facing America in today's
political arena. Age, in and of itself, does not automatically equal either
knowledge or wisdom, which are what any political system requires in order to
be effective. If you are unwilling or unable to meticulously research the
issues, policies, and positions at stake and make decisions based on logic and
reason, you have no business voting, it is as simple as that.
If you are a single-issue voter, whether that issue is
abortion or gay rights or whatever, regardless of how strong you feel about the
issue, here again, you have no business casting votes. The issues facing society
today are far too numerous, complicated, and important to be decided by
simpletons and idiots (as is the vast majority of the electorate) acting on
emotions or out of irrational prejudices. We should be making it more
difficult, not easier to gain voting privileges.
But I do believe that the restrictions on voter
qualifications should also be based on rational & logical policies. For example,
a voter:
•
MUST be a legal citizen – legal citizens are the
only people that have a vested interest in the success of the country and its
people.
•
MUST be able to read, write, & speak English
– it is a proven fact that a common language is crucial to the sense of unity
& continuity of society. Not to mention the fact that it is also proof
of education. & a shared experience.
•
MUST own property and/or a business – these are
the people that are invested financially in the future and success of the
country.
•
CAN NOT receive a regular assistance payment
from any government entity (such as Supplemental Security or any other type of Disability
Income, Welfare, Food Stamps, AFDC, or any other Income Assistance) – conflict
of interest, these individuals present a self-serving interest element into the
institution of government and the conduct of its business, without contributing
in any constructive aspect. In other words, they are a drain on the system by
receiving benefits without providing any support or contributing to the system.
I know it sounds cold and unfeeling but it is the truth and in all fairness
this is the burden these individuals have to shoulder as their contribution to
access to the benefits they receive, everybody should expect to sacrifice
something for the good of society.
•
CAN NOT be Government Pensioners, or any other
government agency Payee, Federal, Regional, State, County, Parish, City Payee
or Pensioners – conflict of interest, again these individuals also present a
self-serving interest element into the institution of government and the
conduct of its business, even though these individuals do contribute to the
system.
◦
EXEMPTIONS – Social Security Recipients and
Active Duty, Disabled, or Retired Military & Honorably Discharged Veterans.
These individuals earned the right to vote with their service to society.
•
MUST possess a certain level of life experience (and
I believe 18 or even 21 are still too young to be voting. What do these youths
have to contribute to the discussion? Nothing yet! They don't have any real
world experience, or even a vested interest in the issues, now that's not to
say they don't have opinions, I'm sure they do, however, as I stated above,
they have little or no real-world experiences to base their opinions on,
therefore their opinions are for the most part invalid.)
I know many people will find this point-of-view offensive or
even discriminatory but I challenge anybody to prove it unsubstantial. Which
nobody can because it’s impossible to argue against this position simply based
on the fact that experience can't be taught, it has to be earned, and it has to
be earned through time. And for the same reason, we restrict driving to those 16
years old and older, because knowledge and physical ability are not enough to
handle operating a motor vehicle safely (a 12-year-old possess the traits and
physical capabilities to drive a motor vehicle, but not the mental abilities),
any more than age and having an opinion are enough to effectively participate
in the political process. A certain amount of maturity is also required. And
maturity comes from experience, and experience only comes as a function of
time.
Therefore, again for the same reason that our brilliant
founding fathers set a minimum age of 35 years old for the Presidency, I
believe the minimum voting age should be raised to 30 years old and here is why.
•
By the time a person has reached 30 years of age
◦
they have accumulated a reasonable amount of
experience,
◦
they have gained sufficient knowledge &
wisdom from their experience,
◦
and they have become significantly vested in the
economy and society
So that these individuals should be infinitely better suited
to making better decisions and deriving
intrinsically more elegant solutions to the problems faced by modern
civilization that is based on reason & logic and is less likely to
approach challenges from an irrationally emotional position as younger
individuals are.
•
Also, by the time a person reaches 30 years of
age
◦
they are, or have at least been, married,
◦
they usually have children (if they are going to
have any at all),
◦
they own at least one vehicle (usually more than
one in today's world),
◦
and they are buying or have bought a home.
They are heavily vested in the economy as well as society,
and by virtue of that, have at least partially earned the right to speak an
opinion and exercise the privilege to vote.
But all voters should also be able to demonstrate a thorough
and deep understanding of the issues facing our world as-well-as present a
justifiable position on those issues based on logic and reason.
Let us take a look at the abortion issue for example. This
is, by virtue of its very nature, an issue of the youth of the world. And
because, as I have previously demonstrated, of a lack of experience and wisdom
in the younger populations, young people view abortion as a choice issue, not
one of moral or ethical standards. They are incapable of seeing any issue from
a rational standpoint because they have no experience with which to conduct a
reasonable evaluation of any topic(s). They are usually so self-absorbed that
they are only able to think of themselves and how things affect their own
lives, they are, again, incapable of considering others or the effects their
actions, even their thoughts, may have on other people and especially on
society in general. They are just as incapable of even looking at something
from an alternative perspective. These are skills critical to the political
process, just as they are to a million other human endeavors, but as I pointed
out earlier this skill can only be gained through experience. There are no
shortcuts for this.
If a person were to evaluate this issue in its entirety,
which can only be accomplished by an individual possessing extensive knowledge
and impeccable wisdom. They would determine easily that this is a multifaceted
issue that elicits very strong emotional responses from both sides of the
argument and for that reason alone must be evaluated not from a standard of
emotion but from one of reason and logic. It cannot be solved by any other
means, period!
Ask these questions to any person who subscribes to the premise that abortion is an issue solely about the choice of a woman to manage
her own body; and note the response:
•
What about the wishes of the father, he had just
as much to do with the conception of that child as she did, right? Doesn't he
have a say in the decision? What if he wants the child, shouldn't he have the
right to accept responsibility for that child if he so desires?
•
And didn't she exercise her “right of choice” at
the moment when she agreed to accept the responsibility for the possible
consequences of engaging in unprotected sex in the first place? Because she
did or she should have. She should have realized such a possibility existed and
taken steps to facilitate the outcome she desired, and if she did not then her
actions were irresponsible, and irresponsible behavior is a clear example of
immaturity. Immaturity is proof she does not possess the intellectual capacity
to rigorously evaluate such a complex issue that a voter may face and render a
valid solution.
•
What about the cost? Who should pay the cost if
the mother cannot afford the procedure? Should taxpayers be forced to support
people who engage in irresponsible behavior, even if it violates the taxpayers'
personal or religious values?
•
How about the risk of complications to the
mother? And who should be responsible for paying the mother's medical bills or
funeral expenses (in the most tragic and extreme cases)
These are only a few of the queries presented by this exceedingly
difficult issue. As we can see this is not a simple issue and there are many
diverse, divisive, and divergent aspects to consider regarding this problem.
And yet, as a society, after many decades of contemplation and debate, we are
still struggling to come up with a viable solution that satisfies all concerned
parties. This is just one of many issues facing society today that our elected
leaders are wrestling to solve. Not an undertaking for the weak or faint of
heart, the lazy or unconcerned, the emotionally driven or intellectually
challenged.
Obviously, the most reasonable solution is to not engage in
such irresponsible behavior to start with and then you don't have to worry
about the consequences, wanted or unwanted, but this concept seems to be
completely foreign to young people and as such is irrefutable proof that they
should not be involved in the political process either.
I fail to understand how any person who is not vested in the
economy or society, in general, can think or argue that they have the right to
participate at all in the political process. The right to vote, as it is in
today's lexicon, is something that should be earned, like respect. It is a heavy
responsibility that only the most capable of society should exercise and
exercise with the greatest of attention and reverence, not to be taken lightly.
Instead, there seem to be many that believe that voting is something that you are entitled to do
just on the basis that you are 18 years old and can use a pencil, not having
any proven ability to evaluate or solve even the simplest of problems. Most of
these individuals cannot even balance their own checkbooks or create and hold
to a budget. And these are the people who are participating in the process of
selecting the leaders of our world, how insane is that?
As you can see, I cite examples to justify my positions and
beliefs as I discuss in the text itself, just as I also propose very reasonably
and viable solutions to the issue discussed based on those justifications. That
is what most modern political commentary lacks in this day in age. Most
commentators, like most voters today, are particularly good at expressing their
beliefs and values but have great difficulty justifying those beliefs and
values. The reason they can't easily justify their positions, be it political,
religious, or social, is because they're positions are based on emotional
foundations supported by fear, and prejudices, and not on logic and reason like
they should be, and as any responsible, intellectually adept, and socially
conscious individual who casts a ballot should strive to continuously live up
to.
