If Voting is a right, then it's a right that should be earned, not given

The right to vote should be given only to those who deserve it

In liberal democracies such as the United States, the “right” to vote is considered sacred and somewhat divine. This does not mean that the “right” to vote is inherently sacred. In fact, it is not. Politicians over the years successfully made ordinary citizens believe that voting is a sacred right and a civic duty, whereas this has never been the case. As a matter of fact, I personally believe that voting is not a right but a privilege, and if we consider it a right, then it is a right that should not be granted to everyone just for the sake of doing so. If voting is a right, then it is a right that should be earned as a result of something.

Many people tend to believe that the “right” to vote is a negative right—a right that cannot be taken away, transferred, or abolished. Such a right is commonly known as an “inalienable right.” The reason the right to vote is not a negative right is that it is a right granted by the state to express a view over a specific matter or policy. If the right to vote was indeed a negative right, then we would be able to vote on every single policy because it is a right that the government cannot prevent us from exercising, but unfortunately, we do not. For example, ordinary citizens cannot vote on how much they want to be taxed. The marginal tax rate is a policy unilaterally determined by politicians and bureaucrats alone. And yet, every election cycle, politicians are telling us that our vote matters and that democracy is at stake. As we vote, we are “saving democracy.” In fact, when we vote, we do not “save democracy,” we simply empower the political class to expand the size and power of the state, ergo their own power and influence as well.

Back in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century (1776-1829), when the United States was an aristocratic republic under the Founding Fathers, the right to vote was only reserved for a selected few. The people who had the right to vote under the aristocratic republic were essentially part of the American gentry—they were wealthy landowners since agriculture was the dominant economic sector at the time. Members of the gentry had the right to vote because, in addition to being wealthy, they were also educated. They understood the political, economic, and social implications of the policies they were voting for, and they had a stake in the economy since they owned assets. Asset ownership reflects responsibility as it is assumed that asset owners possess the financial education necessary to maintain or increase the value of their holdings.

By the 1830s, the United States became a democratic republic when President Andrew Jackson expanded the right to vote to all White males who were 21 years old or older, regardless of their social background and level of education. This meant that anyone could vote regardless of whether or not they understood the implications of the policies they were voting for. Then the implementation of the Fifteenth Amendment granted Blacks the right to vote, and the implementation of the Nineteenth Amendment granted women the right to vote. What’s interesting to observe within the democratic republic is that the size of government increased considerably as the right to vote was expanded across the electoral base.

The issue today is that most people vote without understanding what is truly at stake and the implications of the policies they are voting for, which creates a free-rider society and an expansive welfare state. The right to vote should be restricted, not necessarily to a selected few as was the case during the aristocratic republic, but under a meritocratic basis, and this meritocratic basis should be backed by an aptitude test. In other words, any person who seeks to vote, regardless of his/her social background should take an aptitude test that will measure the person’s political, economic, and historical knowledge regarding the policies at stake. I believe it is a fair approach which demonstrates how the right to vote is earned, and not given.

People tend to forget that legal immigrants who apply for U.S. naturalization to become citizens, are compelled to take a citizenship test; a test that measures the historical knowledge and linguistic aptitude of the applicants. No one complains about it. For legal immigrants to become U.S. citizens, they must EARN their citizenship through a meritocratic process. Then why do people complain about imposing an aptitude test on ordinary citizens to determine their right to vote? Thus, if voting is a right, then it is a right that must be earned, not granted.