Radical groups know full well that unfettered democracy actually leads to the totalitarian Utopia they envision, where they're large, in charge and breathing down your neck, baby.
Every election cycle I receive the State Ballot Information Booklet and Recommendations on Retention of Judges from the State of Colorado, and every election cycle I wonder: Why am I voting on all this stuff? Isn’t this what my so-called representatives ought to be doing?
In years past, and I mean long past, the American system of government was closer to republicanism than democracy. In other words, citizens voted only for representatives. Those representatives then went to their respective state houses and amended their constitutions (or not) and passed laws.
They still pass laws these days, though you need to be a speed reader/brain surgeon/rocket scientist/slimy lawyer to have the slightest idea what the “laws” really mean. Then, citizens are presented with equally inexplicable initiatives, amendments and whatnot on their ballots. These are, of course, in addition to the Retention of Judges section.
Here in Colorado, we have nine amendments and 24 judges upon which to decide. So, I did as much research on each as humanly possible and made myself a cheat sheet. The judges are a lot more difficult because I don’t have time to peruse all of their decisions over the years.
This time I made the judge judgment as simple as possible: If they were appointed by a Democrat, thumbs down; by a Republican, thumbs up. In this case, only five judges are recommended for retention by Club Soda. Sure, it seems a rather shallow approach, but I figure a Democrat is much more likely to nominate someone who sees the Constitution, and any law or state constitution, more as a set of suggestions than actual law. Plus, they’re likely to treat people unequally under the law, as little regard as they may actually hold for it, based on whatever grievance group whoever appears before them may belong to or some extenuating circumstance that led to their incarceration (I was a fat kid, Your Honor).
If you don’t like my approach to the whole judge retention thing, you gotta admit that it’s probably better than the effort most people probably put into their voting responsibility, which brings me (finally) to my point…
I don’t like the Motor Voter law. I don’t think people should be encouraged to vote. Get-out-the-vote campaigns are pointless and injurious to the system. Basically, it should not be easy to vote. You should have to do a bit more than simply renew your license every five years or so, or fill out a form at a Paramore concert to be eligible to vote.
I’m not recommending a poll tax or that only property owners should vote, but you should at least show some interest in what’s going on around you and make an effort. By doing so you create more ownership in the system and eliminate those who, though they vote sporadically, vote because they’ve been told the candidate is cool. The extreme version of creating ownership is the aforementioned property ownership requirement. The reasoning being that property owners have a real stake in the outcome, whereas those who don’t are more likely to vote for the candidate who simply promises the proverbial chicken in every pot, or that the oceans will recede and the planet shall magically heal.
Again, I’m not advocating that extreme, but registering to vote should not be passive; it should be active. There’s a reason that radicals advocate for more “democracy” (Students for a Democratic Society, etc.); the more “democratic” the society, the more ignorant the electorate. Then, next thing you know you’re staring down a ballot with ten choices, but they all say Stalin.
Doctor Zero over at Hot Air has written a post entitled “Representation Without Taxation.” He discusses the problems of having an electorate where half the people don’t pay income taxes. I look at this situation as a little less sinister. The reason people vote for the entitlement state isn’t because they’re voting in their best interest. I’m sure some may vote that way, but research suggests otherwise. I touched on this subject briefly a few years ago reviewing Bryan Caplan’s book The Myth of the Rational Voter.
The reason democracies do not work isn’t because people vote for their self interests (he [Bryan Caplan] debunks that idea), but because people are too uninformed to make the correct decision. A citizen may vote for a candidate because he/she is in favor of price controls. The voter thinks price controls are for the best of the country; however, it’s bad for everyone.
The real problem here is voter ignorance and I don’t think it can be solved. The Founding Fathers created our Republic in such a way that the voters didn’t have direct control. The original constitution only allowed direct election of the House of Representatives. The Senate and the President were supposed to be chosen by elected leaders or electors who were better educated about the issues.
It's okay that the typical voter is too ignorant to understand why the minimum wage law hurts low income earners. Our elected officials however, shouldn't indulge the ignorance.
Slowly but surely direct democracy has eaten away at our elected leadership. Political parties now keep finding new things to scare their ignorant constituents into supporting. Senators used to yield to the will of their state legislators, now they’re elected in a mob rule fashion every six years. Voters should be electing the most educated and qualified candidates available. Instead we get movie stars, car dealers, social workers, professional athletes, and career students who run for office. Obviously, some of these people actually understand economics, but the majority doesn’t get it.
I am of the opinion that our Republic has moved “progressively” too far to a direct democracy. However, the cat is already out of the bag.
I’ve been reading Bryan Caplan’s book the Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies for about three months. The book was recommended by Harvard economist Greg Mankiw. It’s a fascinating book about the failures of democracy. There’s a ton of information about how uninformed citizens are continuously wrong about simple economic ideas like free trade, immigration, and countless other topics. Caplan does a good job of steering away from politics and emphasizing on economics. Liberals and Conservatives looking for red meat will be disappointed.
Caplan’s main argument is that pure democracies do not work; however, a pure market approach is impractical. The reason democracies do not work isn’t because people vote for their self interests (he debunks that idea), but because people are too uninformed to make the correct decision. A citizen may vote for a candidate because he/she is in favor of price controls. The voter thinks price controls are for the best of the country; however, it’s bad for everyone. Caplan’s answer for the democracy dilemma is not a popular one, especially in a country full of Democratic Fundamentalists (see: George Bush). He argues that encouraging higher voter turnout isn’t necessary (and is in fact detrimental), and that prospective voters should have to meet an educational requirement to be allowed vote.
I think this is a great idea; however, there’s no way it would win popular approval. The truth is that educated people are better voters that uneducated voters and pure democracies always fail. The Republic as it was initially drawn up by the Founding Fathers is much different today than what they intended. They never intended direct election of Senators and the President, but over the course of American history the constitution has moved closer to a pure democracy.
Overall this is a great book for people with a passion for political science and economics. I’m obviously part of that demographic. For non-economists there’s a lot of heavy reading and jargon, but Caplan manages to keep it moving with a lot of real world examples. The Myth of the Rational Voter is a great insight into the failures of democracy.
Recent Comments