RD’s thread about the swag got me thinking. Particularly the Heinlein quote.
We know what the problem is; the more mentally stimulating issue is to hypothesize a solution. Clearly Heinlein is correct. Thus, he may as well be saying that voting must be contingent upon something, some prerequisite.
There are numerous prerequisites to obtaining a vote that could be implemented. Some better, some worse. I would love to see Revoista’s thoughts on the matter.
What follows is my attempt to spitball, and in no way indicates my opinion on any given option:
“Productivity Test”: If a person made sufficient income from payroll or cap gains to be taxed for such in the last year, they may be allowed to vote.
“Welfare Test”: If you receive certain entitlements, you are not allowed to vote for some period of time thereafter.
“Literacy Test”: Some level of being informed is necessary for people in a free republic. As such, civics, reading, math… such things could be the basis of tests to ensure a given individual will be an informed voter.
“Gender Test”: Men can vote. Women may not.
“Citizenship Test”: This exists now, but what if requirements for citizenship were raised? What if birth did not necessarily convey automatic citizenship, but instead some form of test or service were required to obtain citizenship?
As I said before, I want to currently withhold my opinions on specific options, but it seems self-evident that pure democracy leads to what we’re headed towards. Bread and Circuses, serfdom, utter decay. This is, clearly, the mob rule that the Founders so feared, but were unable to prevent (thanks to the progs of the early 20th century). So how to tweak the system in order to prevent the takers from outnumbering–and outvoting–the makers?Share