You know all those get-out-the-vote drives? And, for that matter, all those so-called reforms that end up making not only voting, but vote fraud, easier, such as Motor-Voter, Early Voting, Mail-In Ballots, E-Mail Ballots, and whatever other schemes the self-identified progressives come up with? Quite simply, I'm against all of them.
In my opinion, our country was far better run back in the days when: you had to be 21 to vote; you had to make the effort to travel to a central location to register; unless you had a valid reason to obtain an absentee ballot in advance, you had just one opportunity to vote in each election – at your assigned polling station on Election Day.
I've been around long enough that the upcoming presidential election will be my 12th. I turned 21 in 1963, so my first vote for a presidential candidate was proudly cast for Barry Goldwater in 1964. Because I was serving aboard a Navy vessel in the Pacific fleet at the time, I cast that vote by absentee ballot.
Likewise, in 1968, when I was attending veterinary school at Cornell University, I had to hold my nose and vote for Richard Nixon by absentee ballot.
In 1972, after I had graduated, worked in a couple of veterinary practices in upstate New York, moved to Tennessee, and set up my own practice, I finally got to vote for a presidential candidate, both in the primary and in the general election, using a real voting machine. In the primary, I cast my ballot for the late conservative Congressman John Ashbrook, who made a gallant, but futile, attempt to wrest the nomination from Richard Nixon. Of course, in the general election, I once again had to hold my nose and cast my vote for the Nixon-Agnew ticket as the lesser of two evils.
We all know what happened shortly thereafter.
During that period, from 1964 onward, look at what has happened to the quality of our presidents. We have had only one outstanding president, Ronald Reagan. All the rest, including the present occupant of the White House and, unfortunately, all three of the viable candidates in the running to succeed him, have been mediocrities – or
worse.
Who could ever have predicted that a corrupt, narcissistic, sociopathic small-state governor with a documented history of serial sexual abuse and a plausible rape accusation against him could ever have won election to the White House – and then won re-election to a second term? If that weren't bad enough, who would ever have dreamed that his megalomaniacal wife would now be in the running against a lackluster Republican candidate, and would almost certainly have succeeded in her quest – and still may – if not for a charismatic, but radically leftist and woefully naive candidate with some highly questionable friends and associates?
How did we ever get into this situation?
I think the reason is that entirely too many people, and in particular, too many of the wrong kind of people, are voting. As a result, the parties, who, after all, want their candidates to win, are selecting those who are the most likely to be able to appeal to such voters. Even worse, the Democrats and their mainstream media allies have figured out that the more ignorant, apathetic voters they can get to the polls, the better their chances for electoral success. Those who occupy their time by watching American Idol, keeping up with the latest antics of the pop tarts, betting on the Final Four, and blasting the latest obscene hip-hop at full volume from their car stereos have no business voting. Neither do those who don't bother to inform themselves about the issues of the day, but get all of their news from Jon Stewart and the Daily Show.
Ignorant, unmotivated voters are easily led by demagogues. All of these alleged electoral reforms have done nothing to draw more educated, well-informed voters to the polls; they were already voting. Instead, what they have accomplished is to swell the ranks of the voters with hordes of the ignorant – citizens in name only who, if asked, do not even have any idea who their two Senators are, but can tell you all about Brittany Spears' latest encounter with the paparazzi.
Do you really want your country's future to be determined by the votes of such people? Don't you wish there were some way to weed them out?
Well, the other day, one of
Neal Boortz's listeners, a gentleman named Jerry, called in with an idea: have two different booths at the polls, and require prospective voters to choose one or the other. In one booth, they would have the opportunity to vote. In the other, they would be given free lottery tickets.
Think about it. Truly, a stroke of genius.
) and essayist, asks in disbelief, 
