Get Smart

US Candidate & Voter Qualifications

in The 21st Century 

BACKGROUND

Thomas Jefferson promoted the idea that all members of society should be able to vote. All members, except of course, women and slaves. Duh. Nonetheless, he claimed opening the voter rolls to a broad spectrum of the population would reduce the risk of electing officials who would only serve the interests of the rich, elite, and powerful. But, according to Hamilton, exactly the opposite would occur, because...

Alexander Hamilton promoted voting rights for only property owners ("freehold of 40 shillings per year"–unclear if this meant property value, or earnings on property, or tax paid on property), which by any definition excludes the large majority of citizens who are simply wage earners or indigent. The theory being that "poor" people would have incentive to sell or trade their vote for money or other goods, and thus a very rich person could sway the election by paying the indigent to vote in his favor. So in a way, Hamilton's system does prevent fraud by assuring that rich land owners only have their one single vote. And of course, since all rich land owners always vote sincerely and objectively "with the good of the country over good-of-self" (my snarky quotes) then an honest and fair government would surely be the result.

As it happens, both theories assume that "the other guys" are disingenuous and act only out of self-interest, and fair elections were possible only if "we" get to vote, because of course "we" are fair, reasonable, and act only in the interest of the good of all citizens. Plainly, we have impasse.

[However, in contrast, refer to Adam Smith's concept of The Invisible Hand, as the best intrinsic guide for our economy, capitalism.]

CURRENT

As it happens, Thomas Jefferson won, and the current requirements for US voter registration are:

1. U.S. Citizenship
2. State residency requirement (varies by state)
3. Age 18 on Election Day

This is a very low threshold, intentionally, and would please Thomas Jefferson. Fast forward to 2006 and the movie, Idiocracy, which is an eerie predictor of 2016, 2020 (almost), and 2024, for sure. The idiots have outnumbered the contemplatives and the result is (to be determined) possibly a loss of this heretofore successful 250-yr experiment in governance called democracy.

[Aside: Of the many forms of government that humans have tried throughout history, (democracy, communism, socialism, monarchy, autocracy, theocracy, ad nauseum) we find none are perfect, but some are less perfect than others.  For a thought experiment, the one actually perfect form is a unique form of autocracy. This is where the autocrat is actually an "Uber-man", which means he/she is ABOVE (hu-)man, and has no self-interest, only the best intentions for the greater good. This is NOT fascism: it's no self-interest, and for the greater good. Yes, this is a difficult calculation (refer to Jeremy Bentham's attempt to "calculate" the greater good, and to Daniel Quinn's description of the knowledge of good and evil, in Ishmael) but if it could exist, the Uberman would by definition be the most fair to the most number of people. But alas, Uberman is a unicorn. And Donald Trump is actually the diametric opposite of Uberman.]

THE PROBLEM

Both Jefferson and Hamilton assumed (they had not yet learned the danger this word: ASS-u-me) that the voters were, at minimum, well-informed, even if not perhaps always well-intentioned. And this is the root of our modern problem.

In any human endeavor, of any discipline, such as:

finance, politics, medicine, technology, academics, the arts, (I could write more, but there is a finite supply of ink on this planet)

...we seek out experts for guidance. We don't ask our doctors to build our houses, we don't ask financial advice from poets, and we surely wouldn't board a moon-bound spacecraft designed by the gardener. Yet the criteria for The President of The United States of America are as follows:

1. Natural-born citizen of the United States.
2. Minimum age 35.
3. Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years.

[Aside: Though 35 seems young, in 1776 the life expectancy at birth was 44 years. Exactly half of the signers of The Declaration of Independence were 44 or less, and half of those were 36 or less.]

And as stated above, the criteria for evaluating the candidates are our voting qualifications:

1. U.S. Citizenship
2. State residency requirement (basically an ID of some kind)
3. Age 18 on Election Day

Combining the above two sets of criteria, it is almost a prescription for ill-equipped leaders to emerge into office. In retrospect, it's actually quite remarkable that we've not had a Donald J. Trump prior to now. An explanation for this requires a deeper dive, but must include the thesis that a perfect storm has developed from his most unique stupidity and narcissism combined with the idiocracy's matching stupidity and simmering racism. But I should stop here and seek the advice of a professional in psychology and sociology for the true explanation.

[Aside: It should be noted here that the Idiocracy in power in Florida has eliminated Sociology from a list of core course options for graduation from the formerly-esteemed  University of Florida.]

SOLUTION

I propose adding one requirement to each of the criteria lists above:

Additional criterion for candidate:

4. Bachelor degree in (almost) anything.

Additional criterion for voter:

4. Two years of education beyond high school, even without a degree completion. (This is actually very scary. I would like to also make this a BA degree, but this would limit the eligible list to about ⅓ of the population. High school graduation or equivalent currently is about 90% and has delivered the idiocracy that we now have.) Changeing the age minimum is a non-starter: if you can die for your country, you can vote for your leaders.

Of course if this were ever suggested, it would be quashed before the speaker ever reached the period at the end of the sentence. I do live in the real world. I also understand that this system may have problems of its own. However, political discussions would theoretically be legitimate deliberations about the merits of a proposal. The result would please some and not others. But it would at least eliminate discussions like this:

Q. Some have said that Trump will be an authoritarian. Do you agree, and is this OK with you?

A. What’s an authoritarian?

Or:

Q. Which issue is most important to you in this election?

A. The economy.

Q. All the economic indicators show our economy is doing great, like inflation, the stock market, unemployment, GDP, and so forth. So you're voting for Harris?

A. No, my gas costs too much.

Q. But... that's not "the economy"...

A. Yeah, well it's my economy, and I'm voting for Trump.

This truly is a voter basing decisions on pure self-interest, which is somewhat expected, but sorely misguided. But with 2 years post-HS education, one may have at least heard the word authoritarian, or GDP. And sadly, Marjorie Taylor Greene does have a bachelor's degree from the University of Georgia. But my hope is that at least 50% of those with 2 extra years of education would see that she is dumb as shit, and would not vote her into office. Imagine, a bachelor degree, and you still think Democrats can create a hurricane. University of Georgia, you got some 'splainin to do.

In summary, Get Smart or Don't Vote.