Wednesday, February 27, 2002
|
Wednesday, February 27, 2002 |
|
Real campaign reform: Limit vote to those who understand our government Dave Hamrick's ideas on campaign finance reform are a step in the right direction. However I think we need a solution that is more radical yet is also more in keeping with the ideals of limited democracy in which the founding fathers believed. Our country was founded as a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. In a pure democracy, every citizen has a say in literally every issue. For example, if the majority feel that Bill Gates has too much money, they can simple pass a Bill Gates Tax and take it away. In a constitutional republic, the range of issues in which the majority may hold sway over a minority is justly and wisely limited. Because the founding fathers saw the danger of abuse in a pure democracy, limits were placed on what government could do, but also on who could participate in the political process. Suffrage was originally limited to white, male landowners. Of course, in the 21st century, limiting the vote by race, gender, or property would not be acceptable or fair. I propose that suffrage in this country should be limited to non-felons who have demonstrated a working knowledge of our constitutionally based government and especially its limitations. Just as you take a written test to get a driver's license, you should have to pass a 20-question multiple-choice test on the basic nonpartisan principles of our constitution. For example: What are the three branches of the federal government? Which of the following is not a check and balance between the federal branches of government? To whom are all the rights and powers not specifically granted to government in the constitution granted? Only people, regardless of their race, gender, property, etc., who understand the limitations of our form of government should have the opportunity and right to vote. The type of people with the commitment to study the constitution and take a periodic test to prove it are the same type of people who would be thoughtful, deliberate voters. The problem with campaign money, soft or hard, is that it can buy the vote of those of us who are to lazy or ignorant to study the issues, but choose to vote anyway because it is their civic duty. Campaign money buys the votes of people who vote for the name on the last sign they say on the way to the polls. Why do you think that politicians rent giant billboards and then only put their face, name, and desired office on the sign. Because too many people vote on name recognition alone. If we limit the vote to anyone who is willing to put in the time and effort to periodically prove that they are an informed voter, then campaign money would no longer matter. The signs and sound bites would go away. Politicians would campaign on the op-ed pages, in debates, and in other public forums just like in the good ol' days. Additionally limiting suffrage in this way in absolutely not discriminatory. I am not an elitist, but I truly believe that in order to stop the creeping socialism and totalitarianism that is gradually taking hold in our country, we must limit participation in the political process to those who care enough to understand our form of government. Otherwise politicians will continue to manipulate the vote of the uninformed and lazy among us, and they will continue trading favors in exchange for the money they need to effect the manipulation. It is that simple. Bill Gilmer wmgilmer@mindspring.com
|
||