Voter Responsibilities

[Libertyland]

Few would disagree that the opportunity to vote for those who would represent our interests is a valuable requirement for securing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in this country or any other on this planet. However, I’m reminded of the old saying, “For every complicated problem, there’s usually a simple solution – that’s wrong.” There are around 145,000,000 registered voters in this country who have accepted the responsibility of electing 500,000 local, state, and federal office holders. Dividing the total number of registered voters by the total number of elected office holders would mean that 290 voters would be responsible for each office holder. That certainly is a simple solution. Also, few would disagree that it’s a simple solution that’s wrong.
Why is it wrong? I live in unincorporated area of one of the lowest density populated counties (Levy) in Florida. I am responsible for 42 elected officials, from the county tax collector to the president of the United States, and I don’t have 290 other voters to help me pick the right one for the job. If I could read an unbiased report about each of the people I need to pick, it would move me from my common present category of “voter”, to the very uncommon category of “informed voter”.
Of course, I used the term “unbiased report”, as though something like that actually exists. The closest thing I might hope for is that each official had at least two people reporting (i.e. progressive vs. conservative, Dem. vs. Rep., Right vs. Left, Christian vs. Muslim, up vs. down, hot vs. cold, etc. etc., you get the idea.) Considering the 42 people I am responsible for, to keep up to date on their beliefs, values, actions and voting record, I would have to read the reports of at least 84 Blogers. Multiply that by the other 500,000 offices that are out there, and that’s what makes the solution complicated, not simple.
Thankfully, we are at the dawn of the Information Technology and the possibility exists that Google or a company with similar resources will begin establishing a database that will give every voter access to information of each and every elected official in the country. Imagine if I could go to a webpage, type in my address and it would not only return a list of the precinct, city, county, state, and federal office holders that I am responsible for, but a link to the Blogers who are keeping track of the particular person presently holding that office, past office holders, but also candidates vying for the job if it’s election time.
Think of how good I, an informed voter, would feel casting my ballot. That is until I glanced over and saw a person I know who lives under a bridge casting his ballot. He has no property, no money except that which he was given panhandling, and no education. In short, he has not invested in his family, his community, or his country, yet his vote counts exactly the same as mine. Why should I care? Because his vote is going to affect the property I have worked for, the family I provide for, the community that provides services for me, and the country the protects me from forces in this world that would take what I have earned without batting an eye.
I think we can solve the informed voter problem, but I have no idea how we are going to solve the voter iniquity problem. I’d be interested in any ideas that anyone may have on the subject.

[Oakminster]

Why should I value your ballot over the one from the guy living in a van down by the river? Maybe you misread or misunderstood whatever drivel you allowed some partisan blogger to substitute for your own thought process. Maybe you're voting for a guy I despise.

Do your own homework, cast your own ballot. TANSTAAFL applies. Always.

[Marley23]

It might be more convenient if that information was centralized, but is any of it not out there?

[Libertyland]

Why should I value your ballot over the one from the guy living in a van down by the river? Maybe you misread or misunderstood whatever drivel you allowed some partisan blogger to substitute for your own thought process. Maybe you're voting for a guy I despise.

Do your own homework, cast your own ballot. TANSTAAFL applies. Always.

Sorry, but I don't know what TANSTAAFL means.

[Marley23]

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

[Libertyland]

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
Thanks for the translation. I try to do my own homework and I do cast my own ballot. But in so doing I value input from as many sources as I can get, as you suggested. Thanks for the help.

[Lanzy]

The only responsibilities you have as a voter are the ones self imposed.

[msmith537]

For every complicated problem, there’s usually a simple solution – that’s wrong.”


And yet you are here to provide one?



Think of how good I, an informed voter, would feel casting my ballot. That is until I glanced over and saw a person I know who lives under a bridge casting his ballot. He has no property, no money except that which he was given panhandling, and no education. In short, he has not invested in his family, his community, or his country, yet his vote counts exactly the same as mine.


First of all, can you even vote if you don't have a permenant local mailing address?

Second, just because you managed to scrape together a down payment on a house and knock up some girl doesn't make you any more or less qualified to make decisions on politics, economics, laws, crime, national defense, where the highway should go through your town and so on.

Third, voting isn't really about letting the people make decisions anyway. It's about creating a non-violent mechanism where the people can choose who will lead them and then rescind that mandate if they don't like the job they are doing.

Fourth, for every uninformed idiot there is another uninformed idiot who votes the opposite way, cancelling him out. Statistically, the cumulative result of those errors should produce a decent enough result.

Finally, the reason everyone's vote counts equally is because everyone is subject to the same laws.

[Frank]

I think we can solve the informed voter problem, ...
The information required to be an informed voter is already out there; the voter simply has to do a little research to find it.

When I first moved here to Creve Coeur, I found a website that listed all the voting districts of my new address. That helped, but I still had to do the legwork to find out who was representing those districts, and when the elections were for those districts. (Up to three elections a year in Missouri. Last year there were binding referendums on the ballot in what was otherwise a party primary election!)

The informed voter problem will not be solved by your proposal, some people simply won't do even that much work.

... but I have no idea how we are going to solve the voter iniquity problem.
I don't know how the voter inequity problem is going to be solved either. It's definitely difficult for people without a permanent mailing address to vote, or people without a government issued picture ID to vote, or people in jail or prison to vote, or people who have moved interstate within 30 days of an election to vote.

I have a proposition, though: abolish voter registration, let everyone vote who claims they are eligible, and if they can be shown to have voted illegally, prosecute them in a court of law.

[Oakminster]

I have a proposition, though: abolish voter registration, let everyone vote who claims they are eligible, and if they can be shown to have voted illegally, prosecute them in a court of law.

Oak: Your Honor, the Defense requests you take judicial notice of Public Law (number here) that "abolished voter registration", and moves to dismiss all charges. I further move to slap Mr. Prosecutor with a rolled up newspaper, because he's been a bad puppy.

Judge: Both motions granted. Further, Mr. Prosecutor, if you file charges in this Court under "abolished" laws again, I'm going to cite you for being a dumbass, and toss you in the county jail.

<bangs gavel>

[Frank]

Oak: Your Honor, the Defense requests you take judicial notice of Public Law (number here) that "abolished voter registration", and moves to dismiss all charges. I further move to slap Mr. Prosecutor with a rolled up newspaper, because he's been a bad puppy.

Judge: Both motions granted. Further, Mr. Prosecutor, if you file charges in this Court under "abolished" laws again, I'm going to cite you for being a dumbass, and toss you in the county jail.

<bangs gavel>
The abolishment of voter registration does not remove laws that forbid voting by non-citizens, voting multiple times, voting by the dead, voter intimidation, etc., etc., etc. All those will remain crimes punishable by due process of law.

What did my wording express so that you interpreted that such would not still be crimes?

[Oakminster]

The abolishment of voter registration does not remove laws that forbid voting by non-citizens, voting multiple times, voting by the dead, voter intimidation, etc., etc., etc. All those will remain crimes punishable by due process of law.

What did my wording express so that you interpreted that such would not still be crimes?

Most of those crimes involve some degree of interplay with voter registration laws.

It is analogous to repealing the motor vehicle code, then attempting to prosecute a DUI. One of the elements of that crime is likely to be some variant of "defendant was operating a motor vehicle within the meaning of Section (number here) of the Motor Vehicle Code on the public roadways of <jurisdiction here>" The prosecution can't prove that element, because you abolished the code section containing the definition.

[Frank]

Most of those crimes involve some degree of interplay with voter registration laws.
All of those crimes involve the act of voting. In all of those crimes, it is the act of voting that makes them a crime.

It is analogous to repealing the motor vehicle code, then attempting to prosecute a DUI. One of the elements of that crime is likely to be some variant of "defendant was operating a motor vehicle within the meaning of Section (number here) of the Motor Vehicle Code on the public roadways of <jurisdiction here>" The prosecution can't prove that element, because you abolished the code section containing the definition.
Nonsense. The only one of those that might be a crime under voter registration laws is that of a non-citizen registering to vote, and if such a non-citizen voted, that would still be a crime under existing voter laws. The correct analogy would be if I had suggested removing all laws governing voting. You'll note that I did not.

[Oakminster]

:rolleyes:

OK, Frank. Whatever you say. Far be it from me to cast aspersions on legal conclusions drawn by laymen on the internet.

:rolleyes:

[Oakminster]

:rolleyes:

OK, Frank. Whatever you say. Far be it from me to cast aspersions on legal conclusions drawn by laymen on the internet.

:rolleyes:

Ya know, that reads way more dickish than I intended. Sorry, Frank.

[Ispolkom]

There are places (North Dakota comes to mind) where there is no voter registration, and elections seem to be run in a free and fair manner. But why actually introduce facts into this discussion?

[Libertyland]

To those who have responded to my original thoughts about voting, i.e., (1) informed voter vs. uninformed voter, & (2) voter inequity - thank you for your comments. Your responses make my day a little brighter knowing that there are at least a few people out there who can think. And more importantly at least a few people out there who give a dam about how their country might be run.
I agree with several of your comments suggesting that it is primarily each and every voter’s job to spend the time and effort to evaluate the actions of incumbents as well as the anticipated actions of candidates. It’s true that, like getting a drivers license, no one is required to register to vote if they don’t want to, any more than they are required to drive a car if they don’t wont to; however, whenever someone accepts the responsibility of driving or voting, there is an implied presumption that all those that avail themselves of these privileges do so by agreeing to meet certain reasonable conditions. We all agree that demonstrating a certain amount of proficiency while driving a car is a good Idea. It’s clear that not doing so has disastrous consequences (In Florida alone, 8 people are killed every day resulting from car accidents.) It seems like demonstrating a certain amount of proficiency when exercising the privilege of voting might not be a bad idea either. Not doing so may also result in disastrous consequences. I’m sure that demonstrating some type of voter proficiency is a lot easier said than done. (Want to know how to play a flute? Blow in the hole and wiggle the levers. How hard can that be?) - Once again demonstrating that difficult problems do not always have simple solutions.

[Telemark]

It seems like demonstrating a certain amount of proficiency when exercising the privilege of voting might not be a bad idea either. Not doing so may also result in disastrous consequences.
You haven't provided evidence for these assertions. And our history shows a great danger when we try to impose anything like that.

[Libertyland]

Unproven assertions: Telemark, as an engineer, certainly you will agree that just one days news coverage is replete with examples of what happens when someone who is not skilled in a particular area attempts to perform in that area. Some things are so obvious that they are stipulated without further explanation, e.g. prima facie evidence.
History: When Henry David Thoreau was extolling the virtues of emancipation he said, "What is done well once, is done forever." History not only shows us the good things that have been accomplished, but unfortunately the bad as well. So I agree with you that there is great danger if demonstration of competency is administered by those who might have other motives than improving our government by improving and expanding an informed electorate.
So the argument should not be whether it's a good idea to measure and insure competency, but exactly how is that accomplished without trampling over justice.

[Telemark]

Some things are so obvious that they are stipulated without further explanation, e.g. prima facie evidence.

And yet you've still not managed to produce any evidence that educated voters would produce any better results for society than making sure that everyone feels they have a hand in the election process. You can easily make the case that if you remove people's connection to the free and fair election process that society as a whole will be much worse.

I reject your premise. Make your case before you worry about quoting Thoreau.

[shiftless]

The whole point of universal sufferage is not to produce the best possible government but to give us the abilty to avoid the worst types of government. We can't all agree on the very best solution to each and every problem, there probably isn't a best solution, but I think the majority of us can at least spot a truly shitty leader .... eventually .... in most cases ... well, usually anyway.

[Libertyland]

When you say that you reject my premise, do you mean you reject the premise that (A) skilled people are more likely to produce a better outcome than unskilled people, or do you reject (B) my attempt to extend that line of thinking to voters electing office holders? If it is (B) that you reject, and you are asking me to prove that to you, I’ll admit that at this time I can not do that. I can’t do that any more than Jefferson, et alia, could prove to the nay sayers that the democratic republic they were proposing would work.
Lest you think that I am comparing myself to Jefferson by proposing a method to solve voter inequities, then you have missed my point. If you read the first input to this thread, I suggested two things: (1) that it would be helpful if a national data base were to be developed to assist voters, if they were so inclined, to become informed voters, and (2) that voter inequities exist between informed and uninformed voters. I thought I stated very clearly that “I have no idea how we are going to solve the voter inequity problem.”
I am aware however, that voter inequities have been a recognized problem starting with the “no religious test” clause in Article VI of the constitution. We’re all aware that the only way a government can establish justice is by eliminating injustice. For over two hundred years “right to vote” injustices have been struck down through amendments to the constitution as well as court rulings. Amendments 14, 17, 19, 23, 24, and 26 all have been ratified as attempts to prevent disenfranchisement due to race, sex, age, etc.
So why bother with all this nit picking? Why not just let everyone vote? The concept of universal suffrage has been around for a long time. The idea that the 6.8 billion people on this planet should be allowed to vote for the president of the good old U.S.A is obviously ridiculous. Yet when someone brings up the subject of developing a system to verify that voters should meet certain minimum requirements, we hear all sorts of teeth gnashing and hands wringing. We must be cautious when someone starts a statement with the phrase “history teaches us”. We should be aware that history teaches us the results of both good and bad behavior. It may not always be to our benefit to mindlessly follow an inductive finger as it points to a path we should take.
I think Warren Buffet was spot on when he cautioned investors to be wary of a broker’s advice if he had no skin in the game.

[BrainGlutton]

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

Life is a free lunch. Think of all the things you enjoy that you never did anything to earn.

[athelas]

I'd say that rational ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance) is a bigger problem than letting ie non-college-educated people vote. (Voters know they can't influence elections, and therefore forget about rational analysis and pick policies the way they pick brand-name shoes, ie to signal alliance with high-status groups like professors or businessmen.)

[terryobrien80]

Voter Responsibilities

These are my five non-negotiables:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4HMaf7GEwU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4HMaf7GEwU)

[Bridget Burke]

These are my five non-negotiables:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4HMaf7GEwU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4HMaf7GEwU)

Please summarize in print. Blind youtube links do not impress--except, perhaps, in Cafe Society.

[terryobrien80]

These are my five non-negotiables:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4HMaf7GEwU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4HMaf7GEwU)

Please summarize in print. Blind youtube links do not impress--except, perhaps, in Cafe Society.

THE FIVE NON-NEGOTIABLE ISSUES

These five issues are called non-negotiable because they concern actions that are always morally wrong and must never be promoted by the law. It is a serious sin to endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any of the five non-negotiables.

1. Abortion

The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is "never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it" (EV 73). Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide.

The child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child's, who should not suffer death for others' sins.

2. Euthanasia

Often disguised by the name "mercy killing," euthanasia also is a form of homicide. No one has a right to take his own life (suicide), and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person.

In euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but true compassion cannot include doing something intrinsically evil to another person (cf. EV 73).

3. Fetal Stem Cell Research

Human embryos are human beings. "Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo" (CRF 4b).

Recent scientific advances show that any medical cure that might arise from experimentation on fetal stem cells can be developed by using adult stem cells instead. Adult stem cells can be obtained without doing harm to the adults from whom they come. Thus there no longer is a medical argument in favor of using fetal stem cells.

4. Human Cloning

"Attempts . . . for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through 'twin fission,' cloning, or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union" (RHL I:6).

Human cloning also ends up being a form of homicide because the "rejected" or "unsuccessful" clones are destroyed, yet each clone is a human being.

5. Homosexual "Marriage"

True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other form of "marriage" undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.

"When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral" (UHP 10).

[Telemark]

These are my five non-negotiables:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4HMaf7GEwU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4HMaf7GEwU)

Sorry, but those are unrelated to this thread as far as I can tell. This thread is about how to deal with a level of informed voter, not about specific issues.

[terryobrien80]

Sorry, but those are unrelated to this thread as far as I can tell. This thread is about how to deal with a level of informed voter, not about specific issues.

My bad

[constanze]

There are places (North Dakota comes to mind) where there is no voter registration, and elections seem to be run in a free and fair manner. But why actually introduce facts into this discussion?

Yes, this extra step of voter registration, and often registering for one party, too, in the US to keep people out is really weird from this side of the pond. It's one of the advantages of having people register at their city office with their address** - about 4 weeks before an election I get the automatic notice that the election for mayor will be on Sun. 1st*, at school X, from 8am to 6 pm. On the back is the form to vote by mail if I can't otherwise make it.

On election day, each voting district is issued with the "voter registration list" - all people who live in the district and are eligible to vote are listed by adress and name. We mark them off, so no double voting or similar.

* Because we are a secular country, and not a "pandering to the religious fundies" one, we vote on Sunday, so most people will be off from work and thus have a chance, instead of bowing to a minority's interpretation of Leviticus restrictions on travel on Sundays.

** Strangely, that the country has a law that you need to register your residence is "infringing on my freedoms!" for the Yanks. But irregularities occurring at each US election, where thousands of people are struck from the rolls because of minor issues is not a problem for freedom. Or that the city has accurate data for tax and other purposes at their hand by looking at the population register.

[constanze]

It seems like demonstrating a certain amount of proficiency when exercising the privilege of voting might not be a bad idea either. Not doing so may also result in disastrous consequences. I’m sure that demonstrating some type of voter proficiency is a lot easier said than done.

You have completly failed to mention that besides getting more voters educated*, the other part that's necessary to have the country well administered is having good politicans to choose from. If all your diligent research uncovers is that Candidate A is a lying scumbag out for his own power, and Candidate B is an dangerous ideologue, that's not much of a help.

* Actually, I want well-informed, intelligent, and active citizens, that have learned critical thinking skills and history, so they stop being taken in by the yellow press and Fox news. Because the bigger problem is that voting every couple of years is not the maximum, but the bare minimum for the true democratic citzen. You need to follow the news during the whole time, not just before election, to keep the politicans honest.

Oh wait, the US doesn't have real media anymore, just corporate companies following the buck. In theory, your press is free, because the govt. doesn't censor it ... but in practise, you lack the 4th estate that research and controls the govt., because it means higher quotas if they show Paris Hilton and Lohan. And proper research requires hiring skilled journalists, instead of throwing money after quota-drawing "pundits" who froth at the mouth without any real knowledge to back up.)

Anyway, you need to get involved, either in a party or a citizens group or similar. You need to talk to people and educate them, and stop politicans pandering to the dumbest denominator.

[constanze]

I am responsible for 42 elected officials, from the county tax collector to the president of the United States, and I don’t have 290 other voters to help me pick the right one for the job.

Part of your problem is also the ridicolus belief of the Yank that electing tax collectors and dog catchers makes them more accountable to the people. No, it only means (like in big offices) that people who talk well will rise over people who do good work. And it means that people with money will have influence, because they can buy the media for the vote, or threaten their workers to vote the guy they like.

If you want good reports about candidates, I would look at what organisations that work for issues that are important for you say about the track record of the candidates. So if the local charity and the Natur org and Human Rights ACLU say that Candidate X has done the following laws, and voted this way on the following issues, and Candidate Y has done the opposite, or said he wants to repeal those measures, you know who's better for you.

[Oakminster]

If you want good reports about candidates, I would look at what organisations that work for issues that are important for you say about the track record of the candidates. So if the local charity and the Natur org and Human Rights ACLU say that Candidate X has done the following laws, and voted this way on the following issues, and Candidate Y has done the opposite, or said he wants to repeal those measures, you know who's better for you.

Many non-profits have restrictions on political activity, meaning that they do not--and in fact are prohibited from--endorsing political candidates or otherwise participating in partisan political affairs.

[constanze]

Many non-profits have restrictions on political activity, meaning that they do not--and in fact are prohibited from--endorsing political candidates or otherwise participating in partisan political affairs.

I'm not talking about endorsing candidates in the sense of saying "vote for Candidate X", instead, I talked of a record of past votes and activities of the candidates (plural), and of their official statements on what their future policy would be regarding certain issues. I'm sure as long as you list "Candidate A voted for the bill to raise unemployment from 5 to 6 Dollars/ day" and "Candidate B voted against the bill..." and ask each Candidate "What are you going to do about nuclear reactors" and candidate A says "Shut off" and candidate B says "prolong running time", that's not endorsment, since they're giving both candidates the same space.

Unless your laws are written absurdly.

[Oakminster]

My employer would certainly never do anything remotely like that. One, it would be a misuse of our funding, and two, even what you suggest would possibly be considered practicing partisan politics. There are newspapers for that kind of thing.

[Libertyland]

I apologize for not being able to visit this site for a while, but I am pleased to read the thoughtful comments that have been posted in my absence. I’m afraid I unknowingly opened a can of worms when I posted my original statement asking for suggestions that would qualify voters in some way thereby improving the chance that elected officials would be more wisely selected. After reading all of the comments I can now see that it’s a lot easier said than done.
Initially, when I read comments like, “Do your own homework.” or “Get involved in some political party or organization.” or “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” I felt I was unjustly being attacked, but I now realize that those comments were justified. I was hoping someone would do my thinking for me and through their hard work my life would be better, but I confess that my laziness has caught up with me.
I’m seventy five years old and probably have only twenty or thirty more years to get my act together, so keep on writing and I’ll keep on reading. Those of us who live in a country where we are free to vote and free to express our opinions without fear of being persecuted are indeed fortunate and I’m optimistically thinking that as time moves along we will all tweak our respective systems and life will improve. As I stated at the end of my last book, “All are guests at a never ending banquet, always here, always now, without judgment, condition, or exception. It can be no other way.”

[Oakminster]

I'm a known curmudgeon, so discount accordingly.

[gonzomax]

LIBERTYLAND is absolutely correct. Except she should not be allowed to vote either. It should only be done by people who passed Poly Sci in college or people involved in politics. Others just don't have the understanding to pass an intelligent vote. Just having property and kids is not enough.
We should go back to voting tests. Then we will have an informed electorate.
Property is important. So those with more property should have more votes.

[Oakminster]

LIBERTYLAND is absolutely correct. Except she should not be allowed to vote either. It should only be done by people who passed Poly Sci in college or people involved in politics. Others just don't have the understanding to pass an intelligent vote. Just having property and kids is not enough.
We should go back to voting tests. Then we will have an informed electorate.
Property is important. So those with more property should have more votes.

Uh, Gonzo?

Jim Crow called. Says he thinks literacy tests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test) suck.

[gonzomax]

Uh, Gonzo?

Jim Crow called. Says he thinks literacy tests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test) suck.
The world has changed. the extremely wealthy who just love the little people to death, have not had enough political control. It is time we find a way to totally eliminate the vote of the uneducated and poor. The poor do not have enough of a financial stake to vote. The stupid should not be allowed to impact elections. they just do not understand the complexities of politics and economics.
Our presidents are culled from the proper ivy league schools. We accept that. So [perhaps they should also be the only ones who should be allowed to vote. Then all will be well.
Some Repubs understand this. That is why they killed ACORN. Every single institution that helps the poor is suspect. They encourage participation in the process by those who just don't have the credentials to make the proper votes.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

LIBERTYLAND is absolutely correct. Except she should not be allowed to vote either.Yes.
Restrict it to people who know how to use paragraphs.

[constanze]

Those of us who live in a country where we are free to vote and free to express our opinions without fear of being persecuted are indeed fortunate and I’m optimistically thinking that as time moves along we will all tweak our respective systems and life will improve.

First step then is to realize that being a democratic citizen requires far more than just checking a box in an election every four years. Informing yourself with proper media, or, for US elections, sifting through what passes as press in your country, is also still the minimum step.

But what's really required is not about how to restrict the rights of other people who are making dumb decisions, it's to get yourself involved into the political process. You join a political party and influence it to become reasonable instead of polemic. Or you join a citizens group like ACLU to watch the government. When it's not about current US elections, and to get a broader perspective besides the limited US view, read media that are part of the fourth estate, like BBC news or Le Monde etc.

As part of that, you would try to change education, so that people who become future voters learn critical thinking and see through blatant advertising, and despise polemic. You find a way to teach people to evaluate what solutions could work and which don't, and how to seperate ideology from fact-based scenarios. Slowly, if you do this on a wide enough scale, the intelligent voters will scorn the polemic-spouting politicans and elect those few interested in implementing good solutions.

[Libertyland]

Gonzomax…Your attempted satire falls a bit short of the mark, as does your ability to identify gender. She is a he.
Constanze….Thanks for your suggestions: first, about becoming politically involved, I believe I’ll give it a try; second, about changing our educational system, I admire your optimism. However, when the government is in charge of the school house and unions are in charge of the teachers, it appears that changes would be slow and difficult. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. After all, when has achieving anything worth while ever been easy?

[gonzomax]

No, the satire was right on. It merely is about degree. Once you accept the concept of taking the vote away, you have to find the dividing line.
The rich have started the process. They have empowered secretary of states in several states to broom people they think are likely Dem voters off the rolls. Florida gleefully purged the rolls. Ohio did the same.