A Thought Exercise

I would like to engage you in a thought exercise.

At age 18, you become a legal adult with all the rights and responsibilities that come with it. Except for one. You don't have the right to vote immediately. Instead, in order to vote, you have to prove yourself worth of such a responsibility. To do so, you are required to do the following:

1. File Federal and State income taxes for five continuous years. You cannot be eligible to vote until you have five years of taxes on file at the time you wish to register to do so.
2. Paid any Federal and State taxes owed and have no taxes outstanding at the end of those five years.
3. Have been convicted of no crime greater than basically a traffic ticket or non-violent, non-drug or non-gun misdemeanor from age 18 onwards. Anything else disqualifies you for life.

Only after those five continuous years of filing and paying taxes and been a good, upstanding person with no history of violence, drug or gun violations (to name but a few) can you claim your right to vote as a citizen. But you have to claim the right for yourself before you can exercise it. Think of it as a "shall-issue" voter card.

What do you think? Crazy? Insane? No one would stand for it? Riots in the streets at such a violation of your rights?

Interestingly, what I've just described to you is the process any US permanent resident has to go through (minus the "voter card" application) in order to get US citizenship and earn their right to vote. There is a lot more to it than just this but these are the major items on the checklist.

I bring this up in the light of the election and comments in many quarters about how something needs to be done about how elections are run and who should, and more importantly, who shouldn't be allowed to vote in them. Of course, the moment you begin seriously suggesting limiting the voting franchise or imposing requirements on it, people go absolutely nuts.

The notion of an earned franchise is not unique. I first read about the concept in "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlein. I've found over the years that a number of you are in support of such an idea in theory but don't know how it would be implemented in practice. Everyone gets twisted up over the fact that someone, somewhere will be stripped of their right to vote by someone else.

Hence my thought exercise above. Why not simply impose the procedure you already apply to those seeking citizenship in this country to those already here? After all, you force potential citizens to demonstrate fine, upstanding behavior before you give it to them. So why not demand it of the native-born as well?

Admittedly, merely suggesting the necessary amendment to the Constitution to limit the franchise in this way would make for interesting news and television for some time to come. But maybe it might start to get people thinking about civic duty and the responsible exercise thereof.

For example, from an article on CNN today regarding the sad state of Illinois politics:

Two years ago, most Illinois citizens suspected what they now know about Rod Blagojevich. But on Election Day, fewer than 37 percent of the eligible voters in Illinois went to the polls and a majority of them elected him to another four-year term. In order to fix Illinois politics, we need to start by taking a long look at ourselves in the mirror.

37 percent of people eligible to vote did so in Illinois to elect their corrupt governor.

37 percent. Barely over one-third. Which means two-thirds of the voting public didn't bother or even care about their voting rights and let them languish.

So, do people who care so little about their rights deserve to keep them without showing they value them?

It wasn't always the way it is now. If you study the history of the United States, you will find the notion of popular franchise wasn't even supported by the Founders. It was only meant to be exercised by property owners. Subsequent modifications to the Constitution extended the voting franchise to everyone. Call it progress, I guess. But not all progress is good in my opinion.

Maybe we need to regress a little. Make the right to vote universal, to be sure, but make sure you understand it well enough to exercise it in a responsible manner and actually treat it like the cherished right it is supposed to be. Too many citizens simply don't care about it and certainly wouldn't miss it in anywhere from 30-50% of the population if past voting turnouts are any indication. They wouldn't even realize they were missing anything of value at all and would simply go about their lives unaffected.

Right up until they want to change the system. Then they'll realize how valuable that power can be and earn it. And by my definition, it would not be difficult to do so. Most law-abiding citizens would qualify. For those between 18 and 23, you have five years, minimum, to prove yourself worthy.

I bring this topic up because in the wake of such discussions about voting and possible limits on it, you also often hear the media report on new citizens voting for the first time. It has been pointed out by Kevin and many others that naturalized citizens tend to be fiercely proud of their citizenship, go to great pains to exercise their duties and responsibilities under it and tend to be very protective of their rights as compared to many native-born citizens.

Maybe it's because we hold those new citizens to a higher standard. To force them to be what one would desire from the citizenry as a whole but a majority fail at. Perhaps it is time that the average citizen be made to actually earn a right they too often crow about and then turn their backs on or denigrate as some kind of entitlement they can simply waste and toss aside.

I think we need to change that. A right fought for is cherished, appreciated and defended than one simply handed to you without condition.

Thoughts on my little exercise?