The Earned Voting Act of 2028

My youngest, Patch, who’s in middle school, excitedly told me about learning amendments to the Constitution. She rattled off a few she had memorized. Among them was the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote a hundred years ago.

Now, at the risk of sounding controversial, this is how I responded: “I don’t believe everyone should have the right to vote.”

This shocked her.

“No, it’s not that I’m against the 19th Amendment,” I clarified. “But not everyone should be able to vote, to have a say in who gets to be elected to office.”

Currently, if you are under the age of 18, you cannot vote. Nor if you are a convicted felon. I am okay with both exclusions. However, after giving it some thought, I would like to add others. In fact, if I may be allowed the luxury of entertaining this pipe dream (while it’s still allowed without mandatory attendance at a re-education camp), I can envision a whole new voting process.

Let’s start with youth. We lowered the minimum voting age from 21 to 18 with the 26th Amendment in 1971. This was done because of the draft, which applied to men as young as 18. If you could die for your country, the line of reasoning went, you should be able to vote for those who would lead you. I had thought this was an effect of the Vietnam War, but, no, actually support for lowering the minimum age to 18 began during World War II when FDR lowered the draft age.

Allow me to now propose the Earned Voting Act. EVA, for short.

EVA would begin with resetting the minimum age for voting back to 21.

When you turn 21, you get a vote of 1.

But what about the draft, you ask?

Well, there hasn’t been a draft in 47 years. But EVA has a solution for that.

If you served in the military, you get another vote. If you are still active, you get 2. Over 21 and in the armed forces? Your weighted vote is now 3, but if you are out of the service it drops to 2.

What other additional “votes” does EVA propose?

After spending some time in deep thought while showering, Hopper arrived at the following:

Married – 1 additional vote. (Note: marriage = 1 man + 1 woman.) (Also note: divorced = you lose that extra additional vote.)

Have children – 1 additional vote for one child, 2 for two, and 3 additional votes if you have three or more.

Age – in your 30s, 1 additional vote. 40s, 2. 50s, 3. It ends at 3.

Own a small business (not sure of the definition, but let’s start at, say, ten employees and $500,000 in gross receipts) – 1 additional vote.

Own a large business (100 employees and $10 million gross receipts) – 2 additional votes.

Are a registered doctor or nurse – 1 additional vote.

Are a college professor? – minus a vote. (Just kidding! Teaching adds no extra weight.)

Are a member of the clergy? – 1 additional vote.

College degree – hmmm. Surely education should be valued, encouraged, and reward, but I am not confident in today’s higher education system. Don’t know on this one.

The goal is to maintain a sense of steadiness, certainty, heritage, throughout the culture. Those politicking for office would be encouraged to play to the middle, the “center” as opposed to the fringes. The economy would function better – a benefit for all – with this certitude. Those with the most at stake, those with families and who are productive member or society, or provide a means for those members, would have the more important voices to be heard. Doctors would have a greater input for health issues. Clergy for issues of morality.

Hopper’s vote, for example, would be weighted at 7. That’s seven times the impact of the twentysomething hippie grad student who pays no taxes, produces nothing of value (yet, anyway) and has no family which he couldn’t support without a job.

But some over-achieving Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force who moonlights as a brain surgeon while putting his four children through West Point and MIT would be weighted at 11.

Again, to ensure continuity of culture, to keep the country aligned to its founding mission statement (i.e., “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” not “fundamental change”), I think the idea has merits. I admit it needs work; I did spend all of ten or fifteen minutes on it today.

But shouldn’t those with the greatest stake, who have given the most in terms of time, treasure, and progeny (remember, offspring = future taxpayers), have the greatest say?