In the earliest days of our republic, only landowners could vote. That may seem elitist and unjust, but when one looks at the electorate today, one finds that many of them are people who have, by choice, never worked a day in their lives. Why are they allowed to vote to tax you to support their indolence?

Over time, the “right to vote” was expanded, and properly so, in recognition that productive people in many walks of life contribute to society, even if they own no property. Therefore, they should have a voice in running the country. 

Unfortunately, that term, “right to vote,” became more slogan than principle. We have inherent rights endowed to us by our Creator, rights that are unconditional -- but voting is not one of them. The Constitution permits, but does not mandate, an unrestricted right to vote.

In 1917, Congress voted to send young men to war. Many of those men, being under 21 years of age, were not themselves permitted to vote. Eventually, the voting age was reduced by law to 18, the age at which men are required to register for the military draft. That sounds fair, but in passing that law, it seems that no one noticed that 18-year-old women were not subject to the draft, nor were many young men of that age. Yet, after 1920, they could all vote to send me to war. They still can send your sons.

The point is that the present system of granting voting rights is both unjust and unwise. Imagine that the ship of state were a literal ship on the high seas, sailing through storms and navigating between treacherous hazards such as rocky outcroppings. One would expect that a competent captain and crew would be required to safely guide the ship to its destination. Imagine, then, that a majority of the passengers decided to vote out the captain and crew, and replace them with an incompetent captain and crew who were dedicated to an “equitable” distribution of the ship’s store of supplies. Catastrophe might not be immediate, but it would become inevitable.

If the electorate is to properly guide the ship of state, the qualifications to vote should be based on something more substantial than subjective “fairness.” The awesome responsibility entrusted to voters requires of them at least some modicum of expertise. Many voters today have not the slightest idea what is in the Constitution. They know nothing of history. They do not share the values of the ethic of hard work, personal responsibility, and deferred gratification. They could not pass the written test required of legal immigrants seeking citizenship. (Neither can some elected officials!)

Reason and logic require that the republic redesign its system of voting, so as to avoid the inevitable catastrophe. In other words, we must require that voters meet certain reasonable standards of competence before being allowed to vote.

The Founders were wise. Property owners were not always correct in their decisions, but when they voted, they at least had the expertise required to manage an enterprise -- or they went broke, and became no longer eligible to vote. 

Yes, many other people also have a valid stake in the policies of government, and must therefore have a voice. The details are complex, and beyond my wisdom to formulate. 

I am, nevertheless, wise enough to vote against candidates who promise to give me other people’s money. Despite that, I am outvoted by mobs of ignorant, short-sighted, entitled passengers who never bought a ticket.

Image: Picryl