Category: Democracy

By on

Billionaire Elon Musk wants to limit the vote to people with children because children give parents a special interest in the future, so hence are better voters. He provides absolutely no proof that this is true other than parents have children and, because they do, they care more about the future than single people.

I am confused. When has voting ever been about the future? It is almost always about the now. Like how are we going to spend tax revenues now, how are we going to protect people from crime now, how are we going to educate people now, do we want to send troops to Afghanistan now — I could go on but you get my point. Politics is about how we live now and, though the future looms big in the background, what people in the present are actually worried about is what is going on now. Telling people that yes things are miserable now but it will payoff in thirty years for your children isn’t exactly a rousing campaign slogan for parents either.

The good news here is Musk ‘s proposal is dead upon arrival. Voting rights for women and minorities are enshrined in the U.S Constitution so that involves a constitutional amendment to change. I suppose he could introduce a Constitutional Amendment taking away the vote from single people but we all know it is a long an arduous process through 50 state legislature. Furthermore single people still can vote and, presumably would vote against the idea along with their friends that maybe parents.

Musk isn’t being serious. He is stirring the pot and it is interesting which pot he has chosen to put his spoon. Conservatives and Libertarians are going after limiting the vote. It’s not just making it difficult anymore, it is making it impossible to get your hands on a ballot in the first place. The implications are shocking, at least, shocking to me. He is saying that there are people who are more worthy of full citizenship than others and, if you want to know who he is thinking might be cut from the voting rolls, Musk has thrown is some ideas for your consideration.

But it aligns with Republican notions that if only the right people voted, that Republicans would win. And what do you know, married couples tend to vote Republican. Single men also vote Republican but less so than married people. Single women are the trouble for the Republicans and they vote overwhelming Democratic, so much so that it erases any advantage the Republicans get from the other three groups. Instead of working on changing the minds of single women, the Republicans have opted to change who can vote.

These ideas about limiting the vote are not isolated ideas either. It’s a topic that I keep seeing – particularly in Libertarian and Far Right circles. Columnist Michael Walsh proposed limiting the vote to men. He artfully never says women are incapable of rational thought but he quotes others to defend this notion. He describes how the ancient Romans felt that “women were never considered worthy of the vote. They were too emotional, too devious in their machinations, and certainly too weak to fight.” Really. Of course it is the Romans saying it, not Walsh. Really. Is it that surprising the Ancient Romans felt this way about women. Ancient Rome, you know, about two thousand years ago. Romans were also partial to slavery and viewed women as nothing more than vessels for the production of children. How much Roman wisdom does Walsh want us to incorporate into the modern American system? These attacks on the vote are also coming from all directions. The other day Seaford, Delaware tried to give the vote to non-resident business owners. This almost made it through the Delaware legislature.

This constant attack on the present franchise is worrisome. Take away the vote from women. Take away the vote from single people. Keep taking away voting rights until you get the electorate willing to vote your way. But it won’t be a functioning democracy. And what arrogance. The underlying assumption of these men is that they are more worthy than you and know what is best for you. That is if you’re single or a woman or both. Get it. I am waving my middle finger.

By on

My mouth dropped open when I read this Salon article where a town in Delaware is trying to give business owners who have business in town but the business owner lives elsewhere the right to vote. Proponents of the law admit that they are trying to give businesses more power in the decision making process of the town which sent my already slack jaw all the way to the floor.

What? I mean what? Really, what? I can’t even wrap my head around this pile of bull shit. Businesses should have more power than regular people. Why?

It is a shameless power grab, and nakedly transparent at that. Business owners could vote in their own home town and, if they own a business in the town of Seaford, there as well. People are actually saying this shit like this is a reasonable argument. Why would non-resident business owners need more power? More importantly, why do they deserve more power than every other citizen? And why is nobody making a bigger deal about this? For years, Conservatives have been trying to restrict the vote, now perhaps they have found a backdoor way around it — give the rich more votes and you would have the same effect.

I suggest that if the business owners can’t win the votes of individuals without ginning up their own numbers then perhaps there is something wrong with their position. Giving business owners an additional vote so they can win elections is just a smoke and mirrors trick to give the illusion of democratic decision making. It is, to say the least, the opposite of democratic and an incredibly dangerous idea to even consider if democratic institutions are to survive.

By on

Recently, two Facebook friends, from opposite ends of the political divide posted the same Bill Maher video showing how dumb Americans are. It is standard gotcha video. Someone asks bystanders trivia questions and, when they fail to answer correctly, mock them. It’s all good fun right except that Bill Maher believes it shows how dumb Americans are. That two people with widely different opinions posted the same video is even more troubling because Maher’s conclusion is maybe Americans aren’t smart enough for democracy.

There is a lot wrong with Maher’s thinking. Failing to answer trivia questions proves absolutely nothing. Most people, when taking geography and history classes, memorized the information for the test and then, quite reasonably, promptly forgot it. How important is it really to know the biggest city in the world? Or where Queen Elizabeth is from? If you exclude television game shows like Jeopardy or quiz night at your local bar, knowing trivia is a pretty useless talent and, more importantly, says nothing about a person’s intelligence. Why would anyone clutter their mind with such useless information? If people need it, they could look it up. But they don’t. I am 65 years old and I have never needed to know the biggest city in the world outside of my childhood education.

Then reaching a startling conclusion like Americans are too dumb for democracy based on the inability of few people to answer questions correctly is unfair. How many people were asked that got it right? This doesn’t seem to be of any interest to our video makers. There might have been dozens of people who got the right answers but we don’t see that. That isn’t funny, you can’t mock people who get the answers correct. If you are making a case for the stupidity of the American people then knowing how many people were correct is relevant to the discussion.

Even if every person did make mistakes, quizzing 50 people ( I am being generous here because I am pretty sure it is a much lower than that) on the streets is not a representative sampling of Americans. It is 50 people picked on the same street in the same town with broadly the same interests. Picked, it is fair to say, by someone with a vested interested in portraying them as stupid. To extrapolate from this small sample of people that your fellow countrymen are too dim for self government seems more than a bit unfair.

Educated people are not always good rulers. The great minds of early 20th century stumbled into World War I. These educated men sent millions of people to their deaths and continued the fighting long after the senselessness of the war became obvious. The Viet Nam war was started by the best and the brightest of their time. I am sure these great minds all knew the biggest city in the world and still managed to make horrible mistakes which largely affected people who may have not known what the biggest city in the world was.

Maher’s complaints are surprisingly anti-democratic. Even more worrisome is that people the left and from the right are posting his doubts about viability of democracy with such dumb people as voters. What, then, are our options? Dictatorship? Oligarchy? Monarchy? None of those options sound better to me. Does Maher think he will have any say in these other styles of government? And really who is Maher to pass judgement on his fellow citizens? Someone who knows the biggest city in the world? Well, whoop de do. Personally, I would much rather take my chances with the average American voter, even if it includes a percentage of dumb people, rather than a condescending smug asshole like Bill Maher.