We have a problem in the US with an irresponsible electorate. The way to fix it is to have people earn the right to vote by having an interest in the success of the USA.
When the Roman Republic was rising, only landowners could serve in the Legion. Those who fought were fighting for their homes and families. They were vested in the enterprise. As Rome grew, they did away with this requirement, became an Empire, became corrupt, and collapsed from within... with the help of some Barbarians.
The right to vote in the US used to come with a property (land) requirement. Those who voted did so knowing it would affect them directly. Early Americans were vested in the enterprise and made responsible decisions. The two political parties weren't too far from each other in day-to-day economic and foreign policy although they differed in things like the gold standard and a national bank.
Today, we have an irresponsible electorate and are in danger of collapsing from within. People vote without thought to the consequences. We are easily swayed by the non-stop media saturation of our lives. I propose that the right to vote should have requirements.
One requirement could be property ownership. That requirement would solve the problem, but would obviously be a non-starter because it would favor the "rich" and it would be demonized from the start.
Another possible requirement could be earning the right to vote through public service for at least 2 years (or four years). Such service could be on the local, state, or national level. Service at any level gets you the right to vote at all levels. The service could be as a forest ranger, Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, military, fireman, police, public school teacher, etc. Other possibilities for qualified service could be a small range of private professions like doctor, nurse, dentist, etc.
This service requirement would not only get people interested in bettering the country, but it would create an electorate with a background bigger than their city block and a vested interest in the enterprise... the USA.
Please post your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
VOTING IS A RIGHT OF BEING AN AMERICIAN CITIZEN. MANY PEOPLE HAVE DIED TO INSURE THIS RIGHT AND IS NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN EARN FOR YOUR SELF. I THING THAT SERVICE OF AT LEAST 2 YEARS SHOULD BE REQUIRED OF ALL CITIZENS MUCH AS THE DRAFT FOR THE MILITARY WAS FOR YEARS BUT THAT IS NOT A VOTING REQUIREMENT.
ReplyDeleteI plan to respond to the orginal post at some point, but have decided to refrain temporarily. This is because your post is well written and I believe it deserves a well written response.
ReplyDeleteThis response is actually to "overlord." Two years of service isn't the worst idea, but bear in mind that the Republic of Korea does a 26 month mandatory conscription of all males and the same thing you would expect here happens there: rich kids serve after up to two years of college in American units, while the poor go directly after secondary school and serve in ROK units. The difference in experience between the ROK Army and the US Army is dramatic to say the least.
I can't speak for all veterans, but I can speak for a great amny that I know as well as myself: people that don't want to be in the military should not. It is not for everyone. I've seen people that I would have bet money were tougher than me fold under the pressure and give up. If I am ever called back to military service I want to know that the men and women around me chose to be there.
I agree that a volunteer military has definite benefits and appeal. That's why I mentioned the service could be in other areas like the Peace Corps, Forest Ranger, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe volunteer military, of which I'm a part, also has many drawbacks. The most notable of these is that a politician can send the volunteer military around the world without the buy-in of the people. It's a lot harder to do that with a citizen military.