State of Tuesday: A FAIRER WORLD = 150 MILLION FEWER VOTERS
Can anyone under the sun actually say this would make the country worse?
Greetings, Dear Reader,
Can I just say the quiet part out loud? The libs are right, at least in my case, way fewer people should vote. Let me rephrase that: Way fewer people should be allowed to vote.
Let’s get into it.
A FAIRER WORLD = 150 MILLION FEWER VOTERS
Not to start with a digression, but Republicans are plainly incapable of using power to restore the Republic. Democrats on the other hand wield it with reckless abandon.
By the numbers, the single most relevant factor deciding whether you are accepted to Columbia University is your race. That is still the case, despite Trump’s executive order, despite Trump owning the DOJ, and despite Republicans owning subpoena power in the House. Do you think the policy at Columbia, formerly a good university, happened by accident? It was a conscious policy choice instituted with near unanimous zeal and ruthless, systematic application.
Never mind the legality, we can do it, so just do it, goes the thinking.
I’ve beaten this drum to death, the most loyal of my Dear Readers certainly know by this point. But this particular point illustrates a larger issue when it comes to the direction of the country.
The lunatics are in charge of the asylum. Worse, the guys with access to the taser guns necessary to restore order aren’t the least bit afraid to use them, the problem is they can’t. Republicans are paralyzed by their own principles.
As we’ve heard so often when it comes to globalist libs citing “international law,” to these Republicans, I say: Are the principles in the room with you right now? Can you point them out for the jury?
The party that rode so-called “80/20 issues” like keeping male perverts out of women’s spaces have the fattest 80/20 known to man in front of them, the means to achieve it, and simply lack the ferocity of spirit to overcome entirely imaginary inculcation they received from the words and thoughts of long dead men.
The Save Act is wildly popular in practice. Proving one’s citizenship to register, then carrying ID to a polling place has 80% support among the general population. It has 65 percent support among self ID’d Democrat voters. It carries significant majorities of all racial categories.
It is the most pluralistically supported policy proposal in America right now.
Yet Republicans who can do it, won’t.
A lot of the problem, I believe, is the Overton window. The parameters of debate around universal suffrage are completely inverted.
Left to their own devices – and we know this because they’ve said it – Democrats will almost certainly attempt to institute a vote-by-text or -internet measure.
It’ll be American Idol all the way down to hell. Dial #969945 to 555-DEM-RULE for your choice in the general election! Remember, you can vote ten times per cell phone!
Republicans who attend elite dinner parties don’t want to be the ones who “disenfranchised” people. If violating their principles with regard to government exerting power is bad, worse is the ire of the liberal bourgeoisie. They hate being hated even as they will invariably be hated.
Allow me to start the shift. Allow me to add my voice to the window’s movement.
We should do more than just require ID to vote. The Save Act is the least we should do. It’s rookie numbers. We should do far more. Way fewer people should be allowed to vote.
The framers of the Constitution and America’s founding documents knew this well. For whatever reason, among the rules we venerate with almost knee-jerk reflexes, the one our founders repeatedly emphasized with regard to voting has magically evaporated.
Madison, Adams, Hamilton, all supported some version of John Locke’s second treatise of government. Namely that participants in the political system be independent and, importantly, have some tangible stake in the system.
Without a “stake in the society,” voters might wield power to drain the productivity, wealth and freedom out of the wider state.
Seem familiar? It’s almost certainly the case that universal suffrage has set into motion a race to see who can give out the most free stuff to their friends. On both sides of the aisle for that matter.
Infinity welfare with no work requirement? No problem. Free housing. Free health care. “Free” luxury hotels for illegal immigrants.
There is, of course, a simple and utterly ruthless fix for all this.
The next time the pendulum swings – and it will swing – Republicans ram through a new voting measure.
Americans must meet two of three criteria to vote:
Be a net contributor to tax revenue
Own property
Be married with children
That, Dear Reader, is what they call skin in the game.
Early leaders in states did something similar, for the most part, initially in America’s history. In modern times, midwits with credentials from hollowed out universities like Columbia retroactively looked at such restrictions and called them “racist,” since most freed blacks didn’t qualify.
Well, allow me to begin shifting another Overton Window: I call it aspirational. More gruffly: I also don’t care. I don’t care how many blacks qualify. I don’t care if liberals call it racist.
The percentage of qualifying whites, blacks, hispanics, women or people with an IQ lower than 85. Doesn’t matter to me. Explicitly: My goal is not racial empowerment.
Make skin in the game a requirement and the game will change entirely.
Grok estimates somewhere between 30-40% of people will qualify to vote. Common sense says at least a quarter of those people won’t even bother to do the work to prove it.
That brings the actual electorate down to about ~75 million people. The most successful, civically engaged, independent people. The ones with the most to lose, but also importantly, the ones with posterity acutely in mind when it comes to policymaking. In other words, they want success for future generations, white, black, stupid, the blind, and, yes, even women.
Would it favor the GOP? Sure, for a time. But smart Democrats would eventually wisen up. They were, in fact, the party of literal slavery at one time.
More importantly: Can anyone under the sun argue that politicians pandering to this crowd would produce more constructive policy?
Do we want pilots who can actually fly or do chromosomes matter more?
If we want pilots who can actually fly and policies that actually work for a prosperous nation, we need to nuke the voting rights of well more than half of America.
Otherwise, our descent continues.
GEOFF’S FORBIDDEN TAKES
Nobody asked for gay Klingons.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to State of the Day to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.