Voting: A Right or a Privilege?

                                                            Voting: A Right or a Privilege?

                                                                    by Marco M. Pardi

“When people put their ballots in the boxes, they are, by that act, inoculated against the feeling that the government is not theirs. They then accept, in some measure, that its errors are their errors, its aberrations their aberrations, that any revolt will be against themselves. It’s a remarkably shrewd  and rather conservative arrangement when one thinks of it.” John Kenneth Galbraith. The Age of Uncertainty, 1977

———————————————————————–

All comments welcome.  To those readers who have been hesitant to comment or ask questions, please be assured you may do so freely. In recent days several new people have signed on as followers, enabling them to comment freely, and it is hoped they will. All previous posts are open for comment by clicking on “uncategorized”. Reader participation keeps this site vibrant. MMP

———————————————————————-

Before the reader groans, this is not another Trump rant. This is on a subject that has interested me since primary school days of learning about Greek “democracy”. Of course, only much later did I learn of the “primitive democracy” of Mesopotamia, India, and even the austere Sparta, long pre-dating Greek democracy.

It is important to say at the outset that I am well aware of what is clearly the Russian attempt to subvert confidence in the democratic process as demonstrated in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election.  That attempt, obviously very well done, poses a grave threat to democratic societies everywhere.  And, in fairness, the U.S. has long engaged in similar tactics to discredit foreign politicians it does not want in power and to influence voters to select those it does want in power.  The traditional means included slanted articles in print media, suborning of journalists, financial support of cooperating editors, outright but covert ownership of print media and subversion of journalists. The same tactics applied to radio and television outlets.  The primary change in operation today is the realization of traditional media decline and the excellently crafted change of direction into on-line sources and engagement of radio and television talk shows.  

The basic issue today, as it has been since the American Founding Fathers, is voting. Who should be allowed to vote, and what criteria must they satisfy to obtain this right?  But on the other side of the coin is the question of how much are the voters entitled to know about the candidate being put before them.  

The history of quasi-democratic and democratic policies is obviously too long and complex for my post so I will confine myself to the last few decades of what has been called The American Experiment.

I’m not a fan of late night television, preferring to read instead.  But I have seen episodes of shows such as Jay Leno during which interviewers went onto the streets and asked current events and political, historical, and geographic knowledge questions of passersby.  At first it seemed staged; people simply could not be that ignorant. But by watching carefully, and matching the outcomes with the increasing numbers of polls taken at various times, I’ve come to accept them as valid events. Many people really are that ignorant. Further information could be found in analyses of voters and voting outcomes done over the past 30 – 40 years.  The data largely match the informal, done for entertainment value of the Leno type examples. 

I look back to the Reagan – Carter campaigns and feel I see the groundswell of our modern Style over Substance, Form over Function campaigns.  Reagan, a former actor and tv pitchman, assumed the mantle of Father Knows Best, layering over his vacuous and often simplistic agenda with the warm and reassuring comfort we associated with our (idealized) fathers and grandfathers.  No matter his rhetoric didn’t make sense, we felt better when he employed it.  G. W. Bush was appointed President largely on the semi-literate swagger and “guy you would like to have a beer with” image that outshone Al Gore’s polished and experienced image.

Throughout my government career personnel holding security clearances above a certain level and having access to certain programs had to submit annual exhaustive financial statements on themselves and their spouses (if they were still married by this point).  In some career fields they were also subject to periodic examination, up to and including polygraph.  The examinations were usually routine questions, but I remember one in which the examiner went quite beyond pilfered office supplies and into questions on the structure and functioning of government including term lengths for the Senator, House of Representatives, etc.  As I dove into my usual effort to score well on tests my Inner Voice spoke up saying, “Too many right answers can be as suspicious as too many wrong answers. Be average.”  As I now look back on those Leno interviews I feel I was, despite my best efforts, well above “average”.

Throughout the years there have been attempts at imposing some sort of screening test for voters. Of course, most were transparent attempts to exclude minorities and were eventually overturned.  But after the recent election there has been talk of developing a competency test for the Presidency.  And in the past few days a number of psychiatrists have declared Trump mentally ill.

Screening voters is simply impossible, even if a fair test could be devised.  But what about a Progressive Competency Test for candidates, from local office to the Presidency, getting progressively more complex through the higher offices?  And what about a complete and thorough publicaly disclosed financial disclosure, including complete tax statements and bank records, filed annually?  Would you not want to know if that choreographed candidate actually understands the job, or if that candidate stands to privately gain financially from the job?

Some would say these would deter the best qualified candidates. How so? Why? Some say the Primaries and the debates flesh out the candidates sufficiently enough.  In the context of a full-on 24/7 blitz of falsified “news”, radio and television talk shows, endless attack ads, and well planted rumors and innuendoes did the primary debates really shine truthfully through for you? Were they in-depth enough or did you have to bring information with you in order to understand and evaluate the points made by each candidate?  If so, where did you get this information?  I have long thought debates do not often change minds; they simply provide a venue for each side to cheer its team, not listening to the other side much less considering what the other side may have said.

I propose the development of two tests for candidates for any office which, by the rules of the Constitution, is in the line of succession should the Office of the Presidency be vacated through death, disability, or removal.  One test should be a Governmental Competency Test, by an independent body of political scientists who voluntarily surrender their right to vote on the candidates for whom the test is devised.  And, I propose the inclusion of an independent psychiatric assessment into the physical exam.  Were you satisfied when the current President’s friend and physician simply told us he was the healthiest candidate ever to run for the office? 

These tests should be administered immediately upon declaration of candidacy. The results of the physical, including psychiatric assessment, could remain private. This way an unqualified candidate could be advised, on pain of disclosure,  to withdraw at the start of the primaries.  This would draw no great general attention as candidates do it all the time.  

I propose a similar independent body of economists and accountants to oversee and adjudicate the complete and thorough financial disclosures of the candidates, again voluntarily surrendering their right to vote on the candidates they examine. These financial disclosures would also make public record of the finances going to and supporting the specific candidates and their run for office.        

Still, some will say these requirements are onerous and will impede good people running for office.  To them I say, Grow up.  A major portion of my life has been spent in contest with people who would not register a blip on their EKG as they trigger a bomb.  Any single person who reacts the wrong way puts his own life at risk. Any President who reacts the wrong way puts the planet at risk.  We must quit hoping for the best and start making the best happen.