I have come to the conclusion that it should absolutely be harder to vote in a major election. In fact, it should be wicked hard [spoken using a Boston accent].
Why? Because I want elected leaders who have policies that appeal to the movers… to the get-up-and-goers… to the put-the-potato-chips-down, turn-off-Oprah, and-let’s-go-vote-right-now-ers. I want votes cast by those with the most initiative… the most “genuine” concern about the outcome. I want the most civicly minded people to have all the say in who holds office. Because on the whole these people have some level of work ethic. The person who poops out on voting because it was raining (or because it was too much work to MapQuest the polling place… or because they didn’t feel like making the short phone call to find out their district) is NOT the person I want choosing a leader, because they’ll be more likely choose a laziness-enabler… some pervert in an ugly tie who’ll dole out handouts in exchange for slave votes. Yech!
It disturbs me when I see all these paid advertisements to try and “coax” people into voting. Whatever. Listen, either they care or they don’t. This ain’t American Idol and this ain’t supposed to be fun. It’s a duty… hence the phrase civic duty. You don’t do it because it’s entertaining or because some blowhard music artist tells you it’s kewl (and btw… that music artist… they ain’t votin’). You do it because it’s the right thing to do. Whining about being disenfranchised by the “boring parade of middle-aged bald men in ugly ties” only serves to reaffirm your immatury and lack of fitness to vote… and thus I am tickled that you don’t.
It also disturbs me that there are movements out there who want to make it easier to vote… by allowing registration in multiple locations and even suggesting that registering to vote be part of the required process for getting a driver’s license. That stinks because it’s poisoning the voting pool with those who don’t care… or who are borderline-too-lazy-to-vote… or who are only voting because a crackwhore with an acoustic guitar and a platinum-selling album spewed enough expletives about the incumbant. Making voting easier is worse than merely randomizing the results of the election… it’s active socialistic sabotage.
Of course, to be frank and balanced… I say it should NOT be harder for the elderly, infirmed, disabled, or military to vote. If anything this should be made easier (except for those tricky seniors in Florida who try to punch eight voting cards at once). But as a rule I want those who are physically able to vote to do so completely of their own accord… and walking over hot coals… uphill both ways… while being pelted with tennis balls.
Oh, last but not least… there should be a quiz! Easy quiz. Five questions (IN ENGLISH). Questions like… How many US States are there?… What is the national bird?… Where does the President live? And you’d only have to get three out of five questions correct for your vote to count. Seriously… if you can’t get three of five right then you truly do not possess the requisite knowledge required at a minimum to add any possible value to the outcome of the election… or to the direction of the country.
And if possible… maybe we could move election day to April 15?
Web designer and developer. Loud discerner. Software engineer and 
Actually, how about making Americans take the same exam required of immigrants who want citizenship, in order to allow them to vote? (No, I don’t care if this “disenfranchises” anyone. They got a problem? Pick up a Civics book.) Frankly, I believe that should be a prerequisite.
All Americans have a right to vote, but apathy, lazyness and willing ignorance should be automatic disqualifiers. Luckily, usually they are. (Of course, then you have the problem of civil inequalities, such as economic isolation of certain areas — usually populated by minorities — but we’ll keep it simple here.)
Now, provided this scenario came about and only those who are qualified to vote do vote, what would you suggest we do about the electoral college? Do we still have a representative democracy or do we move to a direct democracy? (Yes, I know, we have a republican democracy, not a democracy per se. Keeping it simple here.)
That’s a good idea. From what I’ve heard that exam is not easy. I might even have to brush up a little before a vote if that were the case. I love that idea. People would actually have to prepare. That’s even better than praying for torrential downpours.
I’m sure there are areas with some degree of isolation… but I’ve been in cities and it’s hard to be isolated from your polling places when there’s never more than a few miles to travel. Perhaps there are still problems… but I’m not so sure that it’s mostly a minority problem, because in rural areas that are less populous polling places can be long distances… and there are just as many poor white folks in the vast countrysides of America as there are poor minorities in the cities.
There are pros and cons for the college… and I know this. I like the idea of having the college so that landowners are better represented. Some people want to do away with the college so that candidates will visit more than just the swing states… but if we did candidates would visit only the big cities… so in that sense it seems to be six of one and a half dozen of the other. Perhaps for the same reason that we have a Senate with equal state respresentation we should also keep the college.
Actually my issue with the college is the “all-or-nothing” rules which tend to govern it. A representative split, where if 50% of the population voted for one candidate and 50% for another then the electoral college votes would be split along those lines, would be preferable to the all-or-nothing system we have now, where if you win a state by just one vote you get ALL of that state’s electoral votes. Talk about disenfranchising a good chunk of the population, regardless of race! (Some states have this system set up, but most don’t.)
Take the 2000 election, since it’s probably the most obvious electoral college failures: in Florida, the votes for Bush/Gore were split at about a 50/50 line, yet Bush won Florida’s popular vote by something like 500 votes, which is a rather tiny margin given the millions of voters we have here. Had the electoral college been representative instead of all-or-nothing, the electoral college votes would have been split, instead of all cast to the Bush camp. Now, I can’t with certainty say that this would have changed the election’s outcome (thoug it probably would have) since this would have to be applied to all states, and the electoral college votes would have probably been just about even throughout most of the country anway (a few of points for Bush in California, for example, could have offset whatever happened in Florida), but it would have likely been a better representation of what the population wanted. (Yes, I am convinced that Gore would have won in that case, but seeing the development of the man in the past few years, I think the best thing that could have happened to him did, in that he lost the election but got a chance to turn from an android to a man, almost ala Assimov’s “Bicentennial Man”. Should he decide to run, he would make a far better President now than he would have made then.)
What’s up Steve? Interesting Rant.
Two things:
1. I occassionally like to watch Oprah. But, I am still civic minded.
2. There used to be voting tests that were designed to weed out “undesirables” like African Americans.
I’m with ya Steve - I think that only people that think like me should be aloud to vote too
gnorb :: I see. I guess I’d be in favor of however the state wants to divvy up their electoral votes. I know states like Maine and New Hampshire do their own thing… and that historically there have been some “no faith” votes. That might serve the duel purpose of preventing certain swing states from getting all the attention and still allowing proper land representation.
Tara ::
As long as Oprah doesn’t keep you from the ballet box you’re ok. And any tests I’d suggest would only keep out people on the basis of exhorbitant ignorance and/or apathy.
mark :: Amen!
Tara- What’s up with the “undesirables” comment being African American? I resent that and I’m not even African American.
I will say this…I do find it interesting when presidents are declared “winners” before all votes are counted (especially absentee ballots) .
John Ellis, Bush’s first cousin, was the director of Fox’s decision team on election night. He was responsible for interpreting election data and helping Fox News Channel declare states for either Bush or Al Gore. And after Fox made it’s announcement, it just so happens that other major news channels followed the lead? But of course, Fox is “fair and balanced”. Not to mention it just so conveniently happened that Florida’s Governor was Jeb Bush.
I will still exercise my right to vote the way I see fit in hopes that my vote really does count, but when it comes down to it certain elections have really made me wonder if my vote counts at all.
mari :: Tara was saying that in the past some whites considered most blacks to be “undesirable” and thus tried to negate their voice in government with a test. She used the term undesirable in quotes which indicates either a dirivation of someone else’s words (which applies here) or of the author using the word with sarcasm as if she’s questioning the validity or the applicability (also applies here). Mari, your resentment is faster than your comprehension, which is always a troubling thing in the online world.
I don’t like the way the media covers the elections, period. But Fox isn’t any worse than any other news outlets when it comes to declaring states… when anyof them declares a state the rest usually follow (but not always). The Florida thing in 2000 was screwy but if anything it screwed Republicans more than Democrats (by deterring voting in the pan handle… a typically conservative area).
I’m not sure what your comment has to so with making it harder to vote, though. Could you explain it to me?
Steve, thanks for knowing me well enough (and having a good enough grip of the English language) to defend me. You rock. And y’all really were great last night at Perfect Blend.
I am “guilty as charged” with not be the most responsible voter that I could be. However, I am almost always finding myself wondering what issues really are important to the candidates. Voting along party lines is not enough for me. When I listen to the media I am eager to hear information about candidate beliefs but most often I just hear about campaign financing tallies. If on the occasion I hear statements from the candidates I am often left wondering if they truly have those beliefs, or are they saying what they think the voting public wants to hear? How can I feel good about my vote when I have doubts about who I am actually voting for?
07 16 06
Well Steve, as elitist as your idea sounds, I totally agree with you. I am sick of tired of tomfoolery:) ahhahahaha You are funny!
KML :: That’s true about the media. Very little is spent delineating where a candidate actually falls on the issues… probably because the candidate would rather sound like they share everyone’s position, rather than choosing one (and therefore rejecting the other).
And don’t forget, the media benefits from a two-party system, too.
Mahndisa ::
Always nice to see you.
Exactly! But that’s my point - instead of making it harder to vote, perhaps the key is to make candidacy requirements different. Like, requiring candidates to actually take a position on an issue now and again. Maybe if candidates did, then more people would care and would vote. -It’s just food for thought…
I do however agree with you that the American-Idol concept of voting is pathetic. Actually, it’s just really sad!