I disagree with a LOT of what is said in this post. However, I like the "column". Should I state my views and get "read out of meeting" (canceled)? (I am a self professed libertarian.)
For now, I will just say that a lot of what is in this post is questionable -- or, at least, requires way more explanation. The author seems to be injecting his political views.
For now, I down vote this post and won't forward it to anyone.
Here's a question: Why should a person 30 years old be allowed to vote when that person demonstrates no understanding of American history or how America works or love for America? If a 3rd grade elementary school student can pass an 1830's "voting" test administered only to black folks, should he or she be a voter? The 30 year old is easily susceptible to propaganda (money)? The 3rd grader?
Why shouldn't all voters be required to pass a test -- just like drivers, pilots, lawyers, plumbers, bar tenders, drone operators, surveyors, Ph.D.'s in history, ...?
The "South" was correct (IMHO) when it created a "test" for eligibility to vote.
However, the "South" erred in its application of the law. The "South" used the "test" to prevent the "South"'s enemies from voting. The "South" at that time was rich white folks and slave owners (<10% of the white population!). The "South" was immoral.
TRANSLATION: After the 15th Amendment,
a minority of white folks hated black folks.
Those white folks were in power and came
up with a voting eligibility "test" to specifically
weed out black folks from the franchise. It worked.
SUMMARY:
"Test": good (IMHO)
Selective application: Horrible and immoral.
How would the "test" have worked out
had it been applied to ALL citizens; age, skin color, sex, nationality,
notwithstanding?
I think "the South" had it right. Those who created and
enforced the "test" just used a law that should have applied to
everyone to apply only to those the minority, in power, hated.
IMHO, The law and the morality thereof
are good; execution was co-opted by white
democrat politicians. We all know how that turned out.
(Ever read one of those "test"s?)
The antebellum southern democrat politicians, who hated
all black folks, used the "test" to remove black folks from
the "franchise".
Antebellum White Southern Democrat Politicians == BAD FORM! (IMHO)
its odd to take issue with the below 30s voting and not the above 65s.
why should anyone beyond the age of military service be allowed to vote for policies which bring the country closer to war?
why should the old near the end of their lives as wards of the state consuming most of federal spending in the form of social security and Medicare get to vote themselves more?
Especially when what is being spent isnt coming out some accumulated fund but rather by running up the debt of the nation that only the young will live long enough to see the consequences of.
how much longer will young of the nation stand to be pilfered by their elders?
Is it any wonder the military cant recruit enough people when the foreign policy is being written by people with fond memories of the Cold War... What sane young person having grown up during the war in Afghanistan and seen its disastrous end is rushing to volunteer for the next idiotic adventure.
If I'm reading your comment right- you seem to view the task of voting as selecting the candidate with the best policies for the country as a whole. I believe the evidence suggests that people vote for the candidate who will help them the most. The rich like tax cuts, the poor like benefits, farmers want subsidies etc. This makes a knowledge of politics less important because you only need to know what you want the government to do for you and which politician has promised it to you. Restricting political power to the politically fluent means that the government will tend to serve them (urban, college educated, professional, affluent) and ignore the politically ignorant. If the politically fluent can further restrict access to information by segregating schools, making tests more difficult or defunding public education they increase their power and gain greater control over the levers of government to serve themselves while reducing the prosperity of the nation as a whole.
"A working majority of Americans—meaning a majority of their electors—will have indicated that they're not particularly bothered by Trump's trampling of the fundamental principle of democracy." Many, including myself, believe the democratic party is as much or more of an enemy of democracy as Trump. Therefore, a vote for one candidate is not as much about supporting them as it is denouncing the other. Unfortunately, the options people have been given lately are, in my opinion, terrible. I do think that the more one side flows to the extreme, the more the other side flows to the opposite extreme in response. This dynamic is what I believe is pulling down democracy, most of it due to this two party system that is designed to keep others out. This allows for too much focus on how bad the other "team" is, and less focus on the positive aspects. A no-vote is a vote in itself, but political parties and pundits seem to ignore that fact. Our democracy is far too course to extract many good conclusions out of votes and non-votes.
To the question you pose in your penultimate paragraph, how one comes down on the issue depends, I think, on whether one believes that voting is a privilege or a responsibility. In American Federalism, created and shaped by our Constitution and its Amendments, all of them, I am convinced that voting is a necessity.
...genuinely enjoy your writings because of the authority made effervescent from presumed facts. My lone question in this post regards it's accuracy relating to the commentary on who will likely riot with violence in a Trump loss or Harris loss. Prior to the "January 6" riot, Conservatives made the same comment about "Liberals" being so prone to violence with political affairs. What would you proffer if I introduced an "Agent of Chaos" angle for either argument (of who is likely to riot in violence)? I'm working on a thesis (sometimes) about Agents of Chaos being a significant factor in the Civility versus Chaos balance of Life. Do you have any historical insights I can ruminate, regarding such "agents" (individuals or otherwise) being significant in the attempts for U.S. or other societies to be civil?
I disagree with a LOT of what is said in this post. However, I like the "column". Should I state my views and get "read out of meeting" (canceled)? (I am a self professed libertarian.)
For now, I will just say that a lot of what is in this post is questionable -- or, at least, requires way more explanation. The author seems to be injecting his political views.
For now, I down vote this post and won't forward it to anyone.
Here's a question: Why should a person 30 years old be allowed to vote when that person demonstrates no understanding of American history or how America works or love for America? If a 3rd grade elementary school student can pass an 1830's "voting" test administered only to black folks, should he or she be a voter? The 30 year old is easily susceptible to propaganda (money)? The 3rd grader?
Why shouldn't all voters be required to pass a test -- just like drivers, pilots, lawyers, plumbers, bar tenders, drone operators, surveyors, Ph.D.'s in history, ...?
The "South" was correct (IMHO) when it created a "test" for eligibility to vote.
However, the "South" erred in its application of the law. The "South" used the "test" to prevent the "South"'s enemies from voting. The "South" at that time was rich white folks and slave owners (<10% of the white population!). The "South" was immoral.
TRANSLATION: After the 15th Amendment,
a minority of white folks hated black folks.
Those white folks were in power and came
up with a voting eligibility "test" to specifically
weed out black folks from the franchise. It worked.
SUMMARY:
"Test": good (IMHO)
Selective application: Horrible and immoral.
How would the "test" have worked out
had it been applied to ALL citizens; age, skin color, sex, nationality,
notwithstanding?
I think "the South" had it right. Those who created and
enforced the "test" just used a law that should have applied to
everyone to apply only to those the minority, in power, hated.
IMHO, The law and the morality thereof
are good; execution was co-opted by white
democrat politicians. We all know how that turned out.
(Ever read one of those "test"s?)
The antebellum southern democrat politicians, who hated
all black folks, used the "test" to remove black folks from
the "franchise".
Antebellum White Southern Democrat Politicians == BAD FORM! (IMHO)
BTW: Predicting the future is very very hard.
its odd to take issue with the below 30s voting and not the above 65s.
why should anyone beyond the age of military service be allowed to vote for policies which bring the country closer to war?
why should the old near the end of their lives as wards of the state consuming most of federal spending in the form of social security and Medicare get to vote themselves more?
Especially when what is being spent isnt coming out some accumulated fund but rather by running up the debt of the nation that only the young will live long enough to see the consequences of.
how much longer will young of the nation stand to be pilfered by their elders?
Is it any wonder the military cant recruit enough people when the foreign policy is being written by people with fond memories of the Cold War... What sane young person having grown up during the war in Afghanistan and seen its disastrous end is rushing to volunteer for the next idiotic adventure.
If I'm reading your comment right- you seem to view the task of voting as selecting the candidate with the best policies for the country as a whole. I believe the evidence suggests that people vote for the candidate who will help them the most. The rich like tax cuts, the poor like benefits, farmers want subsidies etc. This makes a knowledge of politics less important because you only need to know what you want the government to do for you and which politician has promised it to you. Restricting political power to the politically fluent means that the government will tend to serve them (urban, college educated, professional, affluent) and ignore the politically ignorant. If the politically fluent can further restrict access to information by segregating schools, making tests more difficult or defunding public education they increase their power and gain greater control over the levers of government to serve themselves while reducing the prosperity of the nation as a whole.
If they want everyone to vote, they need to make it mandatory to do so at a certain day and time, as Australia does (and they make it fun!).
"A working majority of Americans—meaning a majority of their electors—will have indicated that they're not particularly bothered by Trump's trampling of the fundamental principle of democracy." Many, including myself, believe the democratic party is as much or more of an enemy of democracy as Trump. Therefore, a vote for one candidate is not as much about supporting them as it is denouncing the other. Unfortunately, the options people have been given lately are, in my opinion, terrible. I do think that the more one side flows to the extreme, the more the other side flows to the opposite extreme in response. This dynamic is what I believe is pulling down democracy, most of it due to this two party system that is designed to keep others out. This allows for too much focus on how bad the other "team" is, and less focus on the positive aspects. A no-vote is a vote in itself, but political parties and pundits seem to ignore that fact. Our democracy is far too course to extract many good conclusions out of votes and non-votes.
To the question you pose in your penultimate paragraph, how one comes down on the issue depends, I think, on whether one believes that voting is a privilege or a responsibility. In American Federalism, created and shaped by our Constitution and its Amendments, all of them, I am convinced that voting is a necessity.
...genuinely enjoy your writings because of the authority made effervescent from presumed facts. My lone question in this post regards it's accuracy relating to the commentary on who will likely riot with violence in a Trump loss or Harris loss. Prior to the "January 6" riot, Conservatives made the same comment about "Liberals" being so prone to violence with political affairs. What would you proffer if I introduced an "Agent of Chaos" angle for either argument (of who is likely to riot in violence)? I'm working on a thesis (sometimes) about Agents of Chaos being a significant factor in the Civility versus Chaos balance of Life. Do you have any historical insights I can ruminate, regarding such "agents" (individuals or otherwise) being significant in the attempts for U.S. or other societies to be civil?
I will have to give that some thought.
Awesome. Thanks for reading my comment/inquiry. Cheers.