Musings on Voting.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader had a very nice lunch today with some friends (a politically very diverse bunch) and the subject of how and who votes came up. It is interesting to think of how voting has changed over the years in our colonies/republic.

Here in Virginia during the colonial period, 1607-1776, in order to be eligible to vote you had to be: white, male, over 21 years old, and a property owner (either a developed lot in a town, or at least 50 acres in the country). Also during this period, if you owned land in multiple jurisdictions you could vote in each of those jurisdictions. (Thus George Washington at one point voted in no fewer than 5 Virginia counties in the lead-up to the revolution. They were: Fairfax, Westmorland, Stafford, Fauquier, and King George in the settled areas. There were more along the western frontier.) The theory behind this was the oft stated "Stake in Society" argument. You should only be allowed to vote if you have a stake in society (ie: property).

It is your Maximum Leader's understanding that Pennsylvania, and New York had similar election laws (that is similar to Virginia) during the colonial period.

In the early years of the republic the property clause was removed. This was completed pretty much by the end of the Jackson presidency. As we all know, the race requirement was removed (more or less) after the Civil War. The Sex requirement after WWI. And by the end of the 1960's the voting age had been reduced to 18.

Now, pretty much any adult can vote. (Except disfranchised felons.) And your Maximum Leader and his friends mused about if this was a good thing. At one point your Maximum Leader asked for the opinions of the table concerning voter challenges going on around the nation. Specifically that many Hispanics were being challenged on the basis of citizenship. (The Smallholder would have been proud of your Maximum Leader trying to mix it up.) The general consensus at the table was that is was sad that we've come to challenging voter qualifications. But surprisingly there was consensus concerning one of your Maximum Leader's peeves.

You see, your Maximum Leader has never ever been a fan of "Motor Voter" laws. That is to say the laws by which if you have a drivers licence in your state you become registered to vote. Your Maximum Leader feels quite strongly that citizens should take the extra time and go and register to vote seperately from some other activity. (That isn't to say that the facilities can't be joined together - he objects to one act automatically leading to another.)

The Motor Voter laws may be responsible for many challenges. You don't have to be a citizen to get a drivers licence. And knowing the inefficiencies of our motor vehicle departments, it is highly likely that many non-citizens who are entitled to drive accidentially become registered to vote.

The consensus at lunch was surprisingly aligned with your Maximum Leader's opinions on this matter. We should require proof of citizenship before allowing someone to register to vote. Everyone at the table knew an illegal alien who had a drivers licence. We all speculated if those people would also go to vote today. And pretty much to a person we agreed that it was wrong of them to be able to do so.

We also discussed the commuter and voting. This was the more interesting discussion. In our area we have many people who commute the 50 miles to DC every day for work. These people get up before dawn to get to work, and come home after dark. They are not particularly "civic minded." At least not civic minded in our community. Indeed, most of these people feel as though they live in "Northern Virginia" or "DC." That is how they view their lives. We speculated if it wouldn't be better for them to choose where they would like to vote. Many of these people have no idea what issues go on locally. And their primary concerns locally are roads being open to allow them to go to their place of business. They are concerned, to an extent, about schools. But they don't have time to participate in school board hearings, PTA meetings, or other activities.

It is really something of a quandry isn't it? Many many voters with no idea what is going on in their community. Of course, as any political science professor will tell you these people rarely turn out for state/local elections. So in a way they've removed themselves from that part of the process. And if reducing the number of ill-informed voters is a goal - these people are quite accomodating on their own.

NB: Your Maximum Leader has always hated the appellation "Political Science." What the hell is wrong with "Government" or "Civics." It really isn't a scientific activity. Sure they want to use lots of "scientific methods" in doing research. But the field is really part of the Humanities. Would a good old fashioned name be so hard to bear?

But it made us wonder if it might be better to come up with some other criteria for where you vote...

And in case any of you all were wondering. At the lunch table we had 4 people. Your Maximum Leader (Conservative - trends Republican), one person claims to be independent (but trends Republican), one who claims to be independent (and votes that way, and one long-time Democrat (but one of the old-school Southern Democrats who are socially progressive - not liberal - and economically rather conservative as well as somewhat hawkish in foreign affairs). The vote tally at the table...

George W. Bush - 3 John F. Kerry - 1. (And the Kerry vote was the Independent.)

Carry on.