The value of the vote

Caution: this is a long post; that’s why it has a “jump break” on the front page of the blog.

It’s ironic that Bernie Sanders brought this up while I’ve been re-reading Heinlein’s Starship Troopers:

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said he thinks every U.S. citizen, even the convicted Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, should be allowed to vote in American elections.  Sanders offered his stance at a CNN town hall Monday when asked whether he thought felons should be allowed to vote while they’re incarcerated, not just after their release.

He was pressed on whether it was appropriate to enfranchise sex offenders or someone convicted of a heinous crime like Tsarnaev, who with his brother carried out the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing that left three dead and injured hundreds more.

“Yes, even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away and you say, ‘Well, that guy committed a terrible crime, not going to let him vote. Well, that person did that. Not going to let that person vote,’ you’re running down a slippery slope,” Sanders said in response to a question about restoring felons’ voting rights.

It appears Sanders is saying everyone should have the privilege of voting, regardless what they’ve done in their lives.  That’s not merely wrong, it’s disastrously dangerous.  Unlike the (poorly done) movie of Starship Troopers, the book discusses in great detail the importance of the franchise.  Indeed, the book is highly controversial for presenting a futuristic society in which the only full citizens with voting privileges are military veterans.  Pardon the excerpt from one of the book’s classroom discussions:

Freedom of… uh… umm…

The latest example of why I believe we need not only strong voter ID laws, but mandatory civics testing before anyone is registered to vote:

Of the more than 1,000 people surveyed in May and June of this year, only one person was able to name all five First Amendment rights. A whopping 40 percent, however, couldn’t name any.

This report comes at a time when the American Civil Liberties Union, allegedly a bastion for personal liberties, is reconsidering whether “hate speech” should be excluded from the provisions of free speech. Such a development, of course, would give great power to the person defining “hate speech,” as Christians in Canada have found out the hard way.

Americans take their First Amendment rights for granted… even those who can’t name them.  If they paid closer attention, many would be shocked at how more restrictive other supposedly “free” countries are about the limits of speech, including our erstwhile parent country, Great Britain.  A lack of appreciation for the uniqueness of our traditions is a key element in undermining them.  This level of ignorance is what has allowed “hate speech laws” to become in fashion.

It is never “hateful” to speak the truth.  Uncomfortable at times, yes.  Inconvenient, often.  But never “hateful.”