Needed: Voter literacy test

Dude #1:  "Who are you guys voting for?"

Dude #2:  "We are all voting for (name of candidate)!"

Dude #1:  "Well then, I will vote for him/her also!" 

      There are lots of ways to select political leaders.  But one of the worst is to open up the polls to anybody who can somehow stagger their way to a voting booth.  I hate to have to say it, but here goes:  a sizable portion of people who vote have no business doing so.

      Governing is a complicated business.  People go to college for years to get a degree in Political Science.  What exactly is the purpose of government?  What defines good governance or good leadership, versus poor governance or leadership?  There are lots of answers to these questions, and very intelligent people can and do disagree. 

      But the key word in the above statement is "intelligent", and the cold hard facts are that, given any population, many just don't possess that all-important trait.  I touched on this topic in my article "The economy, the economy, the economy", where I noted that the typical man-in-the-street tends to give all the credit (or blame) for the current economic state to the sitting President, whoever he may be.  This is despite the fact that the President, in no way, shape, or form, single-handedly runs the economy.  Rather, the economy is influenced by millions of factors far beyond his control.

     There are many very important issues facing our nation.  What should the government do, or NOT do, about:  poverty, immigration, terrorism, crime, unemployment, inflation, pollution, global warming, traffic congestion, foreign wars, free trade, drug abuse, prison overcrowding, health care, LGBTQ rights, and on and on and on.  A responsible voter should, at the minimum, give some thought to these and other issues.

      For example, which of the following statements is preferable:  a) The government must address wealth inequality, and ensure that everyone has access to basic life-sustaining goods and services.  b) The free market is the most efficient system for maximizing prosperity for all.

      Here's another:  a) Government must protect us from ourselves by banning actions that are harmful to oneself, or are sins in God's eyes.  b) People must be allowed to run their own lives.

      Another:  a) The USA is the world's premier superpower and leader, and thus we must use our military to foster global stability and protect our national interests.   b) Bring the troops home, end all foreign entanglements, and only use the military to defend Americans on American soil.

      And finally:  a) The government must spend more money on (name of your favorite government program, department, or function).  b) The government spends too much money; cut spending anywhere and everywhere.

     These and other issues can have multiple answers, and disagreement is normal.  But a citizen who ventures into the voting booth must have at least given them all some thought.  Sadly, far too many have NOT, or cannot give a coherent answer, or is clueless how the politician they are voting for stands on these issues. 

     For many, probably the biggest factor in selecting a candidate is his/her POPULARITY.  The proverbial conversation at the beginning of this article exemplifies this phenomena.  The real truth is that popularity does NOT equal good leadership.  Politics is, sad to say, really more about marketing than it is governance and statesmanship.  I addressed this in my article: "So he won the big contest? Whatever".  Candidates that are popular are that way because they have lots of money, or great name recognition, or have great marketing.  (Trump won the 2016 Presidential election largely because his TV show "The Apprentice" was a big hit among viewers.)  But just because a candidate has little money, no name recognition, or less than state-of-the-art marketing does not mean that he/she would not make a good statesman. 

      It's a disgrace that we have this two-party oligopoly here in the USA, when there are many other political parties out there with ideas that ought to at least get a public airing.  Most voters will probably never even HEAR about the minor-party candidates running for office up and down the ballot.  We rarely hear anything about minor candidates because they aren't popular - but the reason they aren't popular is because the news media never mentions them.  Am I the only one who sees the Catch-22 here?!? 

      The bottom line is that voters and consumers of political news need to become more astute, more politically literate, and demand more even-handed reporting.  And yes, there should be some kind of voter literacy test before any nitwit with a pulse is allowed to cast a vote.  I'm not talking about anything complex here; just a few simple questions about issues, parties, and candidates.  Obviously, people who cannot even READ will probably not even make it through the door.  But that's Ok; reading is THE best way to boost one's knowledge about the world and what's going on.  Watching TV is probably the worst.  (Side note:  President Trump never reads anything, yet spends about two hours a typical day watching TV.)

      Meanwhile, what DO the news media, the "deep state" politicos, the pundits, and the talking heads say about voter illiteracy?  Well, they all say that we have "patriotic duty" to get out and vote!   Which is a bunch of horse hookie.  There is absolutely no relationship between MORE votes and BETTER election outcome.  It would be far better if the uninformed, the lazy, and the apathetic just stay home.

      Now back to those sample issues mentioned a few paragraphs above; you know, the questions about the free-market economy, nanny-state government, global military imperialism and such.  If you want to learn the best solutions to these and other issues - well, you've come to the right blog!