Don’t get me wrong. I cherish the right to v**e—so much so that I don’t want it belittled by those who think that just showing up at the polls is all it takes to assure the survival of representative government. There are some people who should v**e, and then there are others—millions of them, unfortunately—who would do representative government a big favor if they didn’t.

Embedded in the popular complaint about the decline of v****g among the American e*****rate is at least one assumption that is demonstrably false: that higher v**er turnout is needed to somehow “make democracy work.”

In the first place, “democracy” is perhaps the most oversold political concept, drummed uncritically into our heads at an early age as the moral high ground of governance. Some measure of public participation in wh**ever government we have is certainly preferable to dictatorship but not because it carries with it any assurance of good or limited government. It does not guarantee a free society. An e*****rate can democratically v**e itself into bankruptcy and s***ery. Americans, in fact, have been doing that for most of this century.

What people commonly think of as “democracy” is preferable to dictatorship because it permits changes in government policy without the need to shoot, hang, or guillotine anybody. Those changes, however, will be in wh**ever direction public opinion is blowing at the moment—good or bad, smart or stupid, helpful or destructive.

Besides, America is not a pure democracy anyway—and was never intended to be. There are some things our Founders wisely felt should not be subject to majority v**es, such as individual rights to life, liberty, and property.

In the first half-century of America’s experience as a nation, v**er turnout was often much lower than it is today—frequently less than 20 percent of adult males actually cast b****ts. Part of this is explained by the presence of property requirements for v****g in many states. Most of our Founders and early leaders believed that people ought to have a direct and personal stake in the system before they could v**e on who should run it. The fact that in those years we managed with low v**er turnout to elect the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Adams suggests that maybe we should make v****g more difficult, not easier—a privilege to be earned, not an unbridled right to be abused.

Then there are those who want to make it so easy to v**e that you wonder how anything so costless could be the least bit meaningful. Years ago, I read a blurb about a Colorado organization called “V**e by Phone.” I don’t know if the group is still around, but the idea still is—allowing Americans to cast their v**es on e******n day by telephone from home instead of at local polling stations.

Under the plan, all registered v**ers would be given 14-digit v**er identification numbers. V**ers would call a toll-free number from touch-tone phones, punch in their ID numbers, and v**e on candidates and b****t issues by punching other numbers.

Whether or not the science exists to resolve the inherent technical, security, and privacy questions, there exists no reason at all to make v****g any easier than it currently is. Low v**er turnout does not endanger our political system. Here’s what does: politicians who lie, steal, or create rapacious bureaucracies, v**ers who don’t know what they are doing, and people who think that either freedom or representative government will be preserved by pulling levers or punching b****t cards or making phone calls.

The right to v**e, frankly, is too important to be cheapened and wasted by anyone who does not understand the issues and the candidates. The uninformed would be doing their duty for representative government if they either became informed, or left the decisions at the b****t box up to those who are. How did the idea that v****g for the sake of v****g is a virtue ever get started anyhow?

Our political system—resting as it does on the foundations of individual liberty and a republican form of government—is also endangered by people who v**e for a living instead of working for one. H. L. Mencken had them in mind when be described an e******n as “an advance auction of stolen goods.” They use the political process to get something at everyone else’s expense, v****g for the candidates who promise them subsidies, handouts, and special privileges. This is actually anti-social behavior that erodes both our freedoms and our representative form of government by conferring ever more power and resources upon the politically well-connected and the governing elite. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want these people to have it so easy that all they have to do is pick up a phone to pick my pocket.

Surely, the right to v**e is precious and vital enough to be worth the effort of a trip to the polling place. Anyone who won’t do that much for good government isn’t qualified to play the game.

Moreover, politicians who bemoan ever lower v**er turnout shouldn’t be so critical of non-v**ers. If a non-v**er’s excuse is that he doesn’t know what he should to v**e intelligently, he should be thanked for avoiding decisions he’s unprepared to make and encouraged to educate himself. If a non-v**er is simply disgusted with lies and broken promises, or just doesn’t want to choose between Scarface and Machine Gun Kelly, then maybe it’s the politicians who should listen and learn; the non-v**ers are trying to tell them something.

Sure, it would be nice if more people v**ed—but only if they know what they’re doing and if they’re not doing it to grab something that doesn’t belong to them. There’s nothing about v****g by telephone or other such schemes that makes people smarter or more honest, and there’s nothing about stuffing the b****t box with more paper that assures either freedom or representative government.

- Lawrence W. Reed

Don’t get me wrong. I cherish the right to v**e—so much so that I don’t want it belittled by those who think that just showing up at the polls is all it takes to assure the survival of representative government. There are some people who should v**e, and then there are others—millions of them, unfortunately—who would do representative government a big favor if they didn’t.

Embedded in the popular complaint about the decline of v****g among the American e*****rate is at least one assumption that is demonstrably false: that higher v**er turnout is needed to somehow “make democracy work.”

In the first place, “democracy” is perhaps the most oversold political concept, drummed uncritically into our heads at an early age as the moral high ground of governance. Some measure of public participation in wh**ever government we have is certainly preferable to dictatorship but not because it carries with it any assurance of good or limited government. It does not guarantee a free society. An e*****rate can democratically v**e itself into bankruptcy and s***ery. Americans, in fact, have been doing that for most of this century.

What people commonly think of as “democracy” is preferable to dictatorship because it permits changes in government policy without the need to shoot, hang, or guillotine anybody. Those changes, however, will be in wh**ever direction public opinion is blowing at the moment—good or bad, smart or stupid, helpful or destructive.

Besides, America is not a pure democracy anyway—and was never intended to be. There are some things our Founders wisely felt should not be subject to majority v**e, such as individual rights to life, liberty, and property.

In the first half-century of America’s experience as a nation, v**er turnout was often much lower than it is today—frequently less than 20 percent of adult males actually cast b****ts. Part of this is explained by the presence of property requirements for v****g in many states. Most of our Founders and early leaders believed that people ought to have a direct and personal stake in the system before they could v**e on who should run it. The fact that in those years we managed with low v**er turnout to elect the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Adams suggests that maybe we should make v****g more difficult, not easier—a privilege to be earned, not an unbridled right to be abused.

Then there are those who want to make it so easy to v**e that you wonder how anything so costless could be the least bit meaningful. Years ago, I read a blurb about a Colorado organization called “V**e by Phone.” I don’t know if the group is still around, but the idea still is—allowing Americans to cast their v**es on e******n day by telephone from home instead of at local polling stations.

Under the plan, all registered v**ers would be given 14-digit v**er identification numbers. V**ers would call a toll-free number from touch-tone phones, punch in their ID numbers, and v**e on candidates and b****t issues by punching other numbers.

Whether or not the science exists to resolve the inherent technical, security, and privacy questions, there exists no reason at all to make v****g any easier than it currently is. Low v**er turnout does not endanger our political system. Here’s what does: politicians who lie, steal, or create rapacious bureaucracies, v**ers who don’t know what they are doing, and people who think that either freedom or representative government will be preserved by pulling levers or punching b****t cards or making phone calls.

The right to v**e, frankly, is too important to be cheapened and wasted by anyone who does not understand the issues and the candidates. The uninformed would be doing their duty for representative government if they either became informed, or left the decisions at the b****t box up to those who are. How did the idea that v****g for the sake of v****g is a virtue ever get started anyhow?

Our political system—resting as it does on the foundations of individual liberty and a republican form of government—is also endangered by people who v**e for a living instead of working for one. H. L. Mencken had them in mind when be described an e******n as “an advance auction of stolen goods.” They use the political process to get something at everyone else’s expense, v****g for the candidates who promise them subsidies, handouts, and special privileges. This is actually anti-social behavior that erodes both our freedoms and our representative form of government by conferring ever more power and resources upon the politically well-connected and the governing elite. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want these people to have it so easy that all they have to do is pick up a phone to pick my pocket.

Surely, the right to v**e is precious and vital enough to be worth the effort of a trip to the polling place. Anyone who won’t do that much for good government isn’t qualified to play the game.

Moreover, politicians who bemoan ever lower v**er turnout shouldn’t be so critical of non-v**ers. If a non-v**er’s excuse is that he doesn’t know what he should to v**e intelligently, he should be thanked for avoiding decisions he’s unprepared to make and encouraged to educate himself. If a non-v**er is simply disgusted with lies and broken promises, or just doesn’t want to choose between Scarface and Machine Gun Kelly, then maybe it’s the politicians who should listen and learn; the non-v**ers are trying to tell them something.

Sure, it would be nice if more people v**ed—but only if they know what they’re doing and if they’re not doing it to grab something that doesn’t belong to them. There’s nothing about v****g by telephone or other such schemes that makes people smarter or more honest, and there’s nothing about stuffing the b****t box with more paper that assures either freedom or representative government.

- Lawrence W. Reed

Don’t get me wrong. I cherish the right to v**e—so much so that I don’t want it belittled by those who think that just showing up at the polls is all it takes to assure the survival of representative government. There are some people who should v**e, and then there are others—millions of them, unfortunately—who would do representative government a big favor if they didn’t.

Embedded in the popular complaint about the decline of v****g among the American e*****rate is at least one assumption that is demonstrably false: that higher v**er turnout is needed to somehow “make democracy work.”

In the first place, “democracy” is perhaps the most oversold political concept, drummed uncritically into our heads at an early age as the moral high ground of governance. Some measure of public participation in wh**ever government we have is certainly preferable to dictatorship but not because it carries with it any assurance of good or limited government. It does not guarantee a free society. An e*****rate can democratically v**e itself into bankruptcy and s***ery. Americans, in fact, have been doing that for most of this century.

What people commonly think of as “democracy” is preferable to dictatorship because it permits changes in government policy without the need to shoot, hang, or guillotine anybody. Those changes, however, will be in wh**ever direction public opinion is blowing at the moment—good or bad, smart or stupid, helpful or destructive.

Besides, America is not a pure democracy anyway—and was never intended to be. There are some things our Founders wisely felt should not be subject to majority v**e, such as individual rights to life, liberty, and property.

In the first half-century of America’s experience as a nation, v**er turnout was often much lower than it is today—frequently less than 20 percent of adult males actually cast b****ts. Part of this is explained by the presence of property requirements for v****g in many states. Most of our Founders and early leaders believed that people ought to have a direct and personal stake in the system before they could v**e on who should run it. The fact that in those years we managed with low v**er turnout to elect the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Adams suggests that maybe we should make v****g more difficult, not easier—a privilege to be earned, not an unbridled right to be abused.

Then there are those who want to make it so easy to v**e that you wonder how anything so costless could be the least bit meaningful. Years ago, I read a blurb about a Colorado organization called “V**e by Phone.” I don’t know if the group is still around, but the idea still is—allowing Americans to cast their v**es on e******n day by telephone from home instead of at local polling stations.

Under the plan, all registered v**ers would be given 14-digit v**er identification numbers. V**ers would call a toll-free number from touch-tone phones, punch in their ID numbers, and v**e on candidates and b****t issues by punching other numbers.

Whether or not the science exists to resolve the inherent technical, security, and privacy questions, there exists no reason at all to make v****g any easier than it currently is. Low v**er turnout does not endanger our political system. Here’s what does: politicians who lie, steal, or create rapacious bureaucracies, v**ers who don’t know what they are doing, and people who think that either freedom or representative government will be preserved by pulling levers or punching b****t cards or making phone calls.

The right to v**e, frankly, is too important to be cheapened and wasted by anyone who does not understand the issues and the candidates. The uninformed would be doing their duty for representative government if they either became informed, or left the decisions at the b****t box up to those who are. How did the idea that v****g for the sake of v****g is a virtue ever get started anyhow?

Our political system—resting as it does on the foundations of individual liberty and a republican form of government—is also endangered by people who v**e for a living instead of working for one. H. L. Mencken had them in mind when be described an e******n as “an advance auction of stolen goods.” They use the political process to get something at everyone else’s expense, v****g for the candidates who promise them subsidies, handouts, and special privileges. This is actually anti-social behavior that erodes both our freedoms and our representative form of government by conferring ever more power and resources upon the politically well-connected and the governing elite. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want these people to have it so easy that all they have to do is pick up a phone to pick my pocket.

Surely, the right to v**e is precious and vital enough to be worth the effort of a trip to the polling place. Anyone who won’t do that much for good government isn’t qualified to play the game.

Moreover, politicians who bemoan ever lower v**er turnout shouldn’t be so critical of non-v**ers. If a non-v**er’s excuse is that he doesn’t know what he should to v**e intelligently, he should be thanked for avoiding decisions he’s unprepared to make and encouraged to educate himself. If a non-v**er is simply disgusted with lies and broken promises, or just doesn’t want to choose between Scarface and Machine Gun Kelly, then maybe it’s the politicians who should listen and learn; the non-v**ers are trying to tell them something.

Sure, it would be nice if more people v**ed—but only if they know what they’re doing and if they’re not doing it to grab something that doesn’t belong to them. There’s nothing about v****g by telephone or other such schemes that makes people smarter or more honest, and there’s nothing about stuffing the b****t box with more paper that assures either freedom or representative government.

- Lawrence W. Reed

Yes I v**ed, but really didn't make any difference. Here in the Soviet Socialist Republic of California, several of the politicians seeking e******n were both Democrats. .. and with all these newly registered v**ers, most not paying any property taxes, we just added another 1.5% on our already 10+% sales tax along with a new city tax that will cost us property owners another $29 per $100,000 assessed value on our homes to pay for the homeless. The typical 3 bedroom 1 bath home is assessed at about $500,000.

Too many v**ers not paying taxes are allowed to v**e on measures that increase our tax burden... and with Gavin Newsom now our governor, he has sworn to represent all no mater their g****r, race, sexual identity, or immigration status. Yes, a person's immigration status is now viewed as nonissue. Another way of California saying...

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Anyone interested in buying a 3 bedroom 1 bath house in a predominantly now Hispanic neighborhood?