To Promote?

As usualy my life is a triumph of politics 24 hours a day and this week has been no difference. However one thing sticks out in my mind that I want to expand on. I had a discussion with my parents regarding Sue Jeffers. The discussion had many points but there is one that I wanted to touch on briefly. They made the statement that Sue needed to make herself aware to non-politically aware people. Now my parents do not share much of my core conservative and intellectual prowess so this didn't strike me as too odd, however the fact that they wanted to be told that there was an alternative did strike me. Now, I am of the camp that voting is not a privilage that should be shared with the populace. People who come in an vote because one candidate "looks better" or because they are male/female/AFCIO/white/black/whatever is just plain retarded. I have never voted solely on party lines and neither should anyone else. I remember the first election I ever went to was a school board election. I went in with no clue who anyone was and I voted but felt very stupid afterwards. I had never heard of anyone and voted fairly randomly. It was then that I realized I need to study who is on the ballot beforehand. The next election had a couple dozen judges of which I knew each one and who I wanted to vote for. There was no confusion as to who was good or who was bad. I knew because I had to study. Now there is the side point here that Minnesota prevents judges from running a true political election campaign or get endorsements so this is different but the same remains that I knew who every person was on that ballot and where they stood.

So the question is, should a political candidate be forced to shove themselves in front of voters? This particular laziness is not the candidates problem and by ignoring choices when they are available and actually doing some homework you negate your vote and encourage incumbancy. Aside from this it ensures that only the super rich, those who can get large contributions, throw huge fund raisers, and get endorsements are the only ones who will get into office. The problem with this is the stupid people, the ones who don't want to have to do anything other than show up, get incredible power to act like idiots. They are allowed to vote for someone of which they know nothing about. They could be voting for someone who has pledged to exterminate all the jews and yet they have not done the due diligence to figure out the stance of the person they are voting for.

Now the standard response is that we need spending limits and money removed from politics. Hogwash. First, the ability to spend money to buy ad's and campaign materials is fundamental to obtaining political office. If you limit the ability of a campaign to spend money how they see fit, you eliminate a lot of things like yard signs, bumper stickers, and many other little freebies that people get in order to promote a candidate. Second and more importantly, the ability to buy ad time or buy public functions to speak is a fundamental right...Congress shall make no law...

Now for the solution. A small, easy test before you can vote. Every candidate on the ballot is listed, you must correctly identify their party and what office they are running for. To appease the liberals and the lazy (usually one in the same) everyone will still be allowed to vote, however only those who score 90% or better on the test get their votes circular filed.