A conservative website and conservative blog with a unique take on politics, prosperity and the American experience.

"Producer or Parasite?" examines the fallout from socialism, social engineering and the culture of entitlement in America.

ConList - Best Conservative Blogs on the Internet
Conservative Blog

Loading...

Loading...

Log in

User:

Password:

Remember me

Register | Lost password?

Register

User:

E-mail:


A password will be mailed to you.
Log in | Lost password?

Retrieve password

User:

E-mail:


A confirmation mail will be sent to your e-mail address.
Log in | Register

Voting rights must be earned

November 3, 2008

About 200 years ago, the founding fathers limited voting to men with property. And, for about the first 10 or so years, it was a fairly small group. At the same time, however, new landowners by the tens of thousands were being created as the new country essentially gave away land it had wrested from indigenous natives to newly landed settlers. Rightly or wrongly, that confiscated land provided voting rights to a huge number of men who could not have purchased that land in Europe even if they possessed the means to do so. In short order, even a subsistence farmer working a few acres of land cleared by hand could step up to the polling booth. Being a man of property didn’t necessarily mean the man was wealthy. It did mean he was a man of commitment and responsibility, because to work the land was a backbreaking, all-consuming task. Over the years, our government gave land away or sold it cheaply under the condition that it be worked for a minimum of 5 years before title passed to the new owner. Not a year, not a few months, but 5 years. That’s a serious commitment. From 1803 to 1891, a signficant number of men and their families tried and failed, returning to the cities in the East.

The underlying reason for a property ownership prerequisite was simple: the founding fathers were concerned that extending voting rights to everyone would quickly tip the balance in favor of those benefiting from the collection of taxes. In other words, those who fed at the public trough would outnumber and out-vote those who worked to fill that trough. It’s a sad reality that there are more poor people than there are affluent people. The facts and circumstances have been debated for centuries, but that doesn’t change anything.

Over the years, all pre-requisites for voting have been removed. Now, the only pre-requisite is to show up at the polling booth or return an absentee ballot. Some states don’t even require a photo ID or proof of citizenship. Others allow same-day registration and voting. This is absurd. It encourage ballot stuffing and other forms of voting fraud, something that Democrats have turned into an art form. If someone responsible is ever voted into the White House, one of the first measures to push through Congress would be a uniform voting standard. That means proof of citizenship and photo ID must be shown to poll workers. But another, even more critical requirement should be introduced. Anyone allowed to cast a vote in the US cannot be a dependent of the state. Otherwise, the dependents will keep voting themselves more benefits, to the detriment of all who work and pay taxes. Americans are stupendously generous. No dependents of the state will suffer or go hungry. Instead, they’ll find yet another tremendous incentive to become productive citizens and carry their own weight. Who are these dependents? You’d be surprised. It’s not the usual stereotypes, but a slice of the spectrum that includes the richest and poorest among us. Dependency isn’t necessarily an economic state. It’s a state of mind.

Log in on the right to leave a comment