“You owe your fellow citizens your counsel,” Andrew Coyne wrote last month, in arguing that voting should be mandatory, like jury duty or paying taxes.
On the other hand:
David Moscrop, another PhD candidate in political science in another rebuttal oped. “While you may lead a voter to the booth, you can’t make him think.” ... “any increase in turnout that fails to generate better votes — votes that more accurately represent a good choice for the voter — is probably counter-productive.”
... I prefer a corollary to his view, i.e., any decrease in votes that generates better votes is probably productive. Some people shouldn’t be able to cast their vote, even if they do bother to show up after being shamed or coerced.
... Let’s not continue to cheapen the vote by giving it away wholesale under the conceit that the judgment of the thoughtless is as valuable in selecting those who will guide our country as is that of the thoughtful.
Progressives want low information voters. Gets them elected.
ReplyDeleteAny system of vetting can be turned against the "best" in order to give advantage to friends of the vetter. Weeding out undeserving voters is as simple as applying conflict of interest to each applicant for registration. It's a two-fer: no effort to register, no vote; and financial dependence on public funds through employment or handouts, also no vote.
ReplyDelete