---

---

The “right” to vote

by Greg Krehbiel on 12 January 2008

Since we’re heading into an election we’re going to hear a lot more silliness about the “right” to vote. The notion of a “right” to vote is nonsense.

There are any number of ways to set up a government. The best idea anybody’s come up with so far seems to be the American model, which is based on the separation of powers. In our form of government, nobody has too much power, and there are built in checks and balances.

That includes voting. Under our system of government there isn’t a single person who has the “right” to vote. (What you have to ask is, “vote for what?”)

I can vote for my representatives in Congress and for the president (only indirectly, through “electors”), but I can’t vote for a law, for a Supreme Court justice, or for the Secretary of State. How is what I have meaningfully called a “right to vote”?

IOW, certain people are granted very limited voting for very limited things, but nobody has the “right” to “vote.” If I had the “right” to vote, I should be able to vote for the local speed limit, or who will serve on a jury, or who will be appointed Chairman of the Finance Committee. None of those things are in my power.

And, of course, not everyone can vote. Neither minors nor foreigners nor certain criminals can vote in the general election.

It’s nonsense to refer to one specific kind of voting (i.e., voting for your elected representatives) and to call that a “right to vote.” We let selected people vote for very limited things in the hopes that we can get the right balance — where nobody has too much power.

When you think about it, the vote that citizens have in the general election isn’t a very powerful thing after all. There was a time when the mood of the nation was to empty Congress and replace everybody. Did it happen?

The majority of the country is quite upset that Congress hasn’t enforced the immigration laws. Has anything happened? Have they even built the fence they promised to build?

No. And this is a good thing!

I don’t mean the border fence in particular. I mean it’s a very good thing that the mood of the “voters” (by which we mean only certain people who vote for very limited things) doesn’t immediately translate into government action. That would be a disaster.

We limit power by spreading it around, and the precise mix changes from time to time. At one point Senators were appointed by the state governor rather than elected by the people of the state. There’s nothing inherently wrong with either plan. It’s just a matter of keeping any one group from getting too much power because they’re sure to mess things up.

2008-01-12  »  Greg Krehbiel