Voting for the President Must be an Earned Privilege. Allowing “Unqualified” Voters to Influence our Elections Pose a Great Threat to American Democracy. January 10, 2020.
Donald Trump is ill-suited to run an ant farm, let alone this great nation. Despite having less political experience than Kermit the frog, and a moral compass that would route him through Phoenix while traveling from Boston to New York, he, nonetheless, received enough support to win the 2016 presidential election. Upon his victory, America’s voting electorate left me bewildered and disturbed with their unfortunate choice. Trump’s presidency has been far worse than even I could have ever imagined, and I would like to propose a solution, albeit a radical one, that echoes the concerns that our founding fathers attempted to address with the establishment of the Electoral College: presidential voting cannot be an inalienable right, but a privilege that must be earned.
There exists an irrefutably robust correlation between a state’s education level and said state’s voting preference in the 2016 presidential election. Those states with high education levels were not victims of Trump’s propaganda, while those states with low education levels were vulnerable to such propaganda. This fact substantiates my assertions that the catastrophic outcome of the 2016 presidential election was the result of unknowledgeable voters supporting Trump and that there exists a simple solution to prevent similar future calamities: the establishment of a “qualified” voting electorate. For a voter to be considered “qualified” and allowed to take part in presidential elections, said voter must demonstrate a knowledge of the candidates and their platforms. Please understand that I am not placing intelligence requirements upon those permitted to cast their votes for our president; I am merely disqualifying those would-be voters who view the laughably fictional narratives that are perpetuated and propagated by Fox as gospel, with little concerns regarding the facts, from the electoral process.
In a February 1, 2018 article by Karsten Strauss of Forbes.com entitled, “The Most — And Least — Educated States In The U.S. In 2018,” Strauss cited a study from WalletHub that ranked each state, 1 through 50, on educational attainment and quality of education based on 15 metrics.
The ten most educated states, according to this study, all voted against Trump, verifying my hypothesis that an educated electorate is far less likely to be victimized by propaganda than less-educated voters. The most highly educated states are listed from 1 through 10: Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, Vermont, Colorado, Virginia, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Washington, and New Jersey.
The six least educated states, according to this study, all supported Donald Trump, further proof that an inferiorly educated voting electorate is much more likely to be victimized by fake news and propaganda. The six least educated states in order from the least enlightened state in the nation to the sixth least educated state in the country are as follows: Mississippi, West Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, and Kentucky.
While restricting voting rights to knowledgeable citizens is a proposal that I have never heard expressed, the idea of allowing only qualified voters to select the president is not unprecedented. Our Founding Fathers deeply considered whether the “average” voter possessed sufficient knowledge to appropriately identify the candidate for whom to cast one’s presidential vote. Because of such concerns, the Constitution established the Electoral College, a system in which only the nation’s most educated individuals participated in the selection of our next president.
Furthering my argument requires a glance at the present state of our nation under a president elected by an “unqualified” electorate. We are on the brink of a trade war with China and potential military engagements with Syria, Iran, and North Korea. President Trump is engaging in an unmitigated, pretentious Twitter war against our treasured intelligence agencies, the CIA, and FBI, in an egregious attempt to trivialize his criminal activities.
Trump’s steadfast refusal to criticize Russian President Vladamir Putin provides enough evidence of some “corrupt bargain,” raising grave national security concerns. Furthermore, our president is a perpetual liar, a misogynist, and has enacted policies and engaged in activities that have helped him financially, a violation of the “Emoluments” clause of the Constitution.
In addition, the president has been impeached, and were he not protected by “Moscow” Mitch McConnell and his Republican worshipers in congress, removal would be a certainty. However, furthering this hyper-partisan era in Washington are five of the most spineless men one could ever encounter: the previously mentioned McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Devin Nunes, Mark Meadows, and Jim Jordan.
Furthermore, were Trump not a sitting president, he would either be in prison at this moment or facing an imminent and lengthy sentence. As impeachment and removal are the initial requirements before indicting a sitting president, in this hyper-partisan environment, removal is entirely unrealistic.
Trump better pray he emerges triumphant in 2020, or he will be spending the remainder of his life with a roommate. First, his involvement with Michael Cohen’s criminal activities would have earned him the identical 3-year prison sentence handed down to Cohen. Second, The Mueller Report lists ten commissions of Obstruction of Justice. However, none were pursued by our agencies as Trump is protected as a sitting president. On the bright side, a loss in 2020 and he would be tried for his litany of illicit transgressions. Third, his obstruction during the impeachment hearings would undoubtedly add to what appears to be a massive prison sentence. Lastly, the SDNY is looking into all kinds of fraudulent activities, such as tax fraud and bank fraud, among others.
The corruption, revolving door cabinet of convicts, Russian meddling, indicted former staffers, and revelations of new improprieties at a frequency and depravity previously unseen should concern everyone.
While acknowledging the controversial nature of my proposal, I hope that my dissenters concede the far greater threat to not enacting all necessary procedures to ensure that no unqualified, corrupt, and racist individual ever ascends to our nation’s highest office.
My solution is bipartisan, nondiscriminatory, and necessary to ensure the protection of American Democracy. Given the enormous power of our president and the equally massive potential for abuse, is it too much to ask that those who take part in the selection of the president have a working knowledge of the two major candidates and their stances on principal issues? If my proposal seems undemocratic, ask yourself one question: Are you comfortable with the current state of our nation?