The Basics
Submitted by Dave on Thu, 2008-07-03 08:33.
Stupidity
In this editorial, Joseph Farah suggests a radical notion: pass a test in order to qualify to vote. Of course, this idea has already been discussed at tuscanycircle in this thread. In the editorial, Farah provides a link to an online quiz comprised of some of the "more difficult" questions from the U.S. citizenship test. (I'd hate to see the easy ones.) He suggests that anyone who can't get 80% of these questions right shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Given that the questions cover just the basics of the history and structure of the American government, I'm inclined to agree with him. This quiz sets the bar rather low, in my opinion, and yet it's likely that the majority of voters today couldn't score 80%. I say, fine. Let 'em sit out a few elections until they get off their butts and learn something about the country they are trying to run.
Trackback URL for this post:
http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1142
No vote for anyone
Submitted by Wayne on Thu, 2008-07-03 09:23.
I have become convinced that democracy (republican or otherwise) cannot work for very long (less than a decade?) regardless of how strict the voting requirements. In light of this, I suggest the requirements be thus:
- nobody votes
Nobody rules
Submitted by Wayne on Thu, 2008-07-03 09:26.
A corollary to my conclusion that nobody should be allowed to vote is that nobody should be allowed to rule. I believe the number of individuals currently living in the U.S. who would qualify (by Godly terms) as competent to vote or rule is fewer than a hundred. There is no viable means--other than Divine appointment--of correctly identifying and empowering these few individuals.
Somebody rules
Submitted by Dave on Thu, 2008-07-03 10:07.
I'm not arguing with Wayne, exactly. I'd just like to raise a few points about idea that "nobody rules."
The first thing that came to mind was the book of Judges, which is filled with stories of the Israelites -- who had no king, and usually had no recognizable leader of any sort -- forgetting God's commandments and being conquered by this or that pagan group. They would then cry out to the Lord, who would hear them and raise up a leader -- a "judge" -- who would throw off the oppressor and return the Israelites to self-rule. The "judge" would remain in a position of leadership, and the Israelites would obey God's commandments for the life of the judge. When the judge died, the Israelites would forget God's commandments, and the cycle would begin again.
The lesson: We're sheep. Sheep need a shepherd.
Next, I thought of The Abolition of Man, an excellent book by C.S. Lewis. In it, he argues that man will be ruled by one of two things. Either he will submit to the universal moral code, or he will be ruled by his passions. That is the source of the title of the book; a man who is ruled by his base, animal instincts is not a man at all. A society of such creatures is one in which man has been "abolished." Clearly, our society bears a great resemblance to this description.
The lesson: We're sheep. At the risk of stretching the metaphor a bit, rulerless sheep have no chance to become human.
Finally, I note that the Scriptures make it clear that God raises up worldly rulers and governments. This does not necessarily imply His sanction of these institutions, but it may imply their necessity, given our spiritual condition. A society of individuals that know the Lord has little need for government; a society of Godless individuals has a dire need for one. Of course, a Godly government would be ideal, but even a Godless one brings order to society. I submit that ordered tyranny has advantages over perpetual chaos. Given that choice (and it is looking more and more as though those are, indeed, our only choices), I am not sure which I would prefer.
The lesson: A rulerless, Godless society may be worse than a tyrannical one.
I close with a quote, which I attribute to Robert Heinlein (though I cannot confirm its origin): "Democracy is based on the idea that a bunch of zeros can add up to something." That may be true, but I don't see any viable alternatives until the King returns.
Correction: no mortal should rule
Submitted by Wayne on Thu, 2008-07-03 10:15.
I would never suppose that a society without a ruler is a feasible one. I merely assert Divine appointment is the only viable alternative for a lasting, ordered society--and even this assumes a God-fearing society. (Ideally, of course, the only ruler is the Lord Himself; short of this, it is as Dave recalls, a judge-based one where the judges are appointed by God.) I believe even a tyrannical society, though, will not remain an ordered one for long but must necessarily break down into a chaotic one.
Other criteria for voting
I've heard a few other criteria that should be used to determine eligibility to vote (in presidential elections anyway) and want to pass them on for discussion.
1) Only landowners should be able to vote, as in the old days. Determine the definition of "landowner": one that owns land outright with or without a bldg(s) on it; one that "owns" land via a mortgage; commercial owners of land & real estate.
2) Only men should vote. (Yes I've seen the threads here but reiterate.)
3) Only those who pay income taxes should vote. Determine exceptions to this rule, i.e. retirees who paid taxes all their lives but don't anymore.
4) Age requirement above 18 yrs. old, say, 21 or 25.
And last night, I heard that the age limit imposed on presidents is 35 yrs. old because back in the day when this limit was created, people only lived to be in their late 30s or 40s as a average. Today's average longevity is around 75. Taking that into account, and using our forefathers' standard, that should make our current age limit for presidents to be around 68. So you couldn't even run for president without quite a few more years under your belt, which makes quite a lot of sense to me.