Voting & The Tipping Point: Transfer Payments Outstrip Wages

Back in November of 2008 I wrote this post concerning the notion of voter eligibility. It's actually one of my most popular ones, judging by Sitemeter's referral data. It's a topic that often raises images of Jim Crow laws, police with fire hoses, and unfair, overly-complicated literacy tests in the Deep South before 1970.

However, a report out this week that transfer payment income has now outstripped wage income in the US caused me to think that it's time to write another post on the topic of voter eligibility. Earlier, I suggested that if you don't pay taxes at local, state or federal level, you shouldn't be eligible to vote in those elections.


Perhaps it's simpler....if you make more from transfer payments than wages plus capital gains, you shouldn't be eligible to vote for anything.


Simply put, if you take more than you make, you don't deserve to vote. You can talk all you want, but since you are living off of others, you aren't allowed to tell them how to govern. And, most importantly, you aren't allowed to tip the scales further by voting for your own interest in living off of the kindness of your fellow citizens.

I honestly think it's time we consider such eligibility criteria. It's clearly not meant to subjectively infringe on any age, race or other particular group, except those who derive the bulk of their income from others, by way of transfer payments.

The nation's original voting criteria involved land ownership. At the time of the Revolution, landowners were seen as having identifiable "skin in the game," while merely working for a living wasn't seen as having a stake in a community. Land was immobile.

Now, it's not mobility that is the issue. It's living off of government largess. So an eligibility test that is more purely directed at earnings sources would make much more sense. Only those who produce more value than they receive from the government should be eligible to vote. Based on the prior year's tax returns, the federal government would be able to provide each state and local jurisdiction with a list of that entities' legitimate voters.

This could both reduce fraud, as well as eliminate the effect of those who only consume tax dollars. Moreover, those wishing to vote would have an added incentive to earn sufficient income on their own to outweigh any government transfer payments.

Voter Eligibility- An Old Idea Whose Time Has Come

America's constitution originally limited voters to those who held property. As such, we have been taught, our Founding Fathers were needlessly restrictive and undemocratic.

Now, over two hundred years later, newly-minted drivers register to vote at shopping malls, or via ACORN, without even compelling proof of residence.

Thus, this post's subject should have given you chills. On election day, I wrote this post, which included the passage,

"In prior election years for the past decade, I recall the Wall Street Journal publishing, close to each quadrennial election date in November, an editorial written by one particular high school teacher. His point was always the same, regardless of in which year he wrote his piece: there are some Americans whom you really don't want in that polling booth.

By describing the incredibly bad sense of both American history and current world events among his charges, the editorialist reminded us of the danger of too many ill-informed and bad-thinking people voting for our governing officials.

It almost certainly puts me in a minority, but I'd actually prefer a lighter voter turnout. Both this year, and in most election years. Give me a thoughtful, if smaller core of voters determining the direction of my country, rather than a shotgun blast of newly-registered, uninformed and illogical voters swamping those who actually pay attention to the national agenda month in, month out, every year."

Back in late summer, when ACORN's involvement in multi-state voter registration fraud, and their ties to the newly-elected President's campaign were big news, my business partner and I discussed the idea of more restrictive voting laws.

I now believe it would be better for our country if two important changes were made regarding voter eligibility.

First, a set of questions be taken directly from exams by which people become naturalized US citizens, and used as a qualifier for voting. Each voter would be required to answer all 10 questions correctly, or s/he could not vote that day. Period.

If a citizen and registered voter can't pass part of the exam to become a US citizen, why, in God's name, do we want them voting in our elections?

Second, I would recommend that only people who can prove that they paid taxes to the federal government, state and/or local jurisdictions may vote in those elections.

This makes a lot of sense, and was the only restriction the Constitution ever placed on voters. Simply put, it insures that only Americans with 'skin in the game,' those who actually pay for the government, have a say in its operation.

All others, especially those who only take from, but do not pay for government services, are excluded.

It's not hard to understand why this would be a healthy thing. What's to prevent every welfare recipient for voting for whomever will give them more benefits? Nothing.

Gradually, the fewer working voters will be held hostage to those who vote without contributing economically to our society.

I know my recommendations won't make it into law. Probably ever. But they should.

I'm convinced we'd be a better, healthier Republic for these restrictions on voter eligibility.