It took me 20 years to vote via absentee ballot when I served my country in uniform. I have voted absentee while living in Asia, Europe, Africa and the Middle East, and I did so because it was my civic duty.

Now that I’m retired, I’m glad I can finally vote in person and have my adorable social media picture with my ‘I voted’ sticker. But naysayers on the left want to change the way we vote, arguing that it’s too cumbersome and doesn’t make sense anymore.

My favorite article came from The New York Times, which boldly stated, “Elections are bad for democracy.” Let’s take a look at what this seemingly provocative passage says about the most beloved American activity we’re lucky enough to do.

still a terrible argument

The New York Times published an article by Adam Grant titled ‘Elections Are Bad for Democracy.’ For some reason, The Gray Lady Changed Titled ‘The Worst People Run for Office’. It is time for a better way.

The purpose of the change is probably to reduce the absurdity of the piece for the general public. However, the material still smacks of arrogant ignorance.

Mr. Grant’s essay argues that it is time to move away from what makes us America and harken back to the days of ancient Greece by using a lottery system to choose our leaders.

Mr Grant argues:

“As we prepare for America turning 250, it may be time to reconsider and renew our approach to electing officials.”

Why continue with a process that has been going on for 200 years when you can change it for no reason other than not liking the results of previous elections?

Mr Grant rightly says that:

“The lifeblood of a democracy is the active participation of the people.”

Mr. Grant argues that active participation should be in a “random” lottery, which he claims would be more fair, free of any form of controversy, as in the example he chose – the NBA Draft. Clearly, Mr. Grant is not an avid sports fan, given the Patrick Ewing draft scandal of 1985, in which fans still claim that envelopes were frozen or twisted to tilt the scales.

Connected: Newt Gingrich perfectly summed up the ‘absurdity’ of Trump’s allegations, saying it would get him nominated ‘by a landslide’.

leave it to lady luck

It amazes me how quickly leftists are willing to give up their rights for a false sense of security.

Mr Grant reflects this inclination:

“As fortunate as America was to have Lincoln at the helm, it is more important to limit our exposure to bad character than to roll the dice on the hopes of finding the best.”

In fact, generally speaking, people who seek power have less than desirable character traits. But to argue that “rolling the dice” will yield better leaders than those who actively seek power is not only flawed, it is foolish.

We may not get a power-hungry narcissist in the White House, but instead, we get someone who doesn’t seem to realize that wars have killed people since “the world wars or any other war”, As the young woman who works at my father’s nursing facility told me last week.

Or maybe the next commander-in-chief is one of those anxious people in this country who doesn’t believe we landed on the moon in 1969.

I wish we were so lucky. Mr Grant argues that the lottery will:

“…a fair shot for those who are not tall enough or man enough to win.”

Connected: Flashback: 67% of Democrats believed Russia changed the vote count in the 2016 election

Like in the circus you have to be a certain height to ride the White House. And what exactly does it mean to be “man enough”?

Can one man be more man than another? Can a woman be more man than another man?

Let’s make sure Mr. Grant is kept out of the lottery in the future.

it is very difficult

The New York Times is not the only traitor to argue against voting. The Atlantic’s Jerusalem Damas wrote an article titled ‘Americans Vote Too Much,’ where she Claim There are just too many elections for us poor citizens to participate in.

As an aside here, remember that the Left has been whining about Trump “endangering our democracy” for years.

Ms. Demsas claims that those of us who bemoan that Americans are not participating enough in our sacred civic duty are wrong – Americans are asked to do so Too much for your country.

“In America, voters don’t do very little; The system demands too much.”

It is too much to ask what your country can do for you; Ask what you can do for your country.

She further writes:

“We’ve turned a civilian role into a full-time, unpaid job.”

I hate to break it to my young fellow writer, but being a citizen has always been and is supposed Having a full time job In fact, being a citizen means more than just voting.

Being a citizen means obeying the law, helping your neighbor, making a meaningful contribution to society, building the next generation of good citizens, understanding how your government works, and much, much more. The compensation of being a good citizen is to safeguard our rights which are given to us by our Creator.

I absolutely cannot blame Ms. Demsas for not knowing this simple concept. As we all now know, this year’s Thanksgiving national report cardHistory and civics are not emphasized at all in schools these days.

Connected: Virginia teen dropped out of high school after authorities demanded American flags be removed from his truck

missing the point

Mr. Grant and Ms. Demasas, like most left-wing bloviaters, do not lack an understanding of what makes America great; They hope you’re too stupid to know better. Ms. Damas wrote that while Americans don’t vote at the local level until national elections, their:

“…disinterest is the predictable, even rational response.”

There is nothing rational about not participating in your government, and making such an argument is a naïve attempt to appease the laziness that pervades our society. recently Gallup poll Only 40% of Americans aged 35 to 54 are reported to be extremely proud to be American, while only 18% of those aged 18 to 34 say the same.

one 2021 axios pole found that among 18 to 34 year olds, capitalism is viewed positively by only 49% and only 42% of Gen Z. The problem isn’t that Americans have too many polls to vote on or that there are too many poor candidates to choose from. ,

The problem is that we no longer collectively elevate the role of the citizenry and enjoy how wonderful this blue marble, imperfect part of our land, is.

Mr Grant claims:

“Nothing is more democratic than providing every citizen with an equal opportunity to lead.”

Because of our rights in our wonderful country, each of us has an equal opportunity to lead. Is it more democratic to show up as a citizen and state that you choose any candidate to represent you and if they do not perform satisfactorily, you will choose someone else in the next round? Or run for office yourself?

do not be lazy. Don’t be a fool. Come and vote, and never let anyone fool you into believing that voting is bad or too difficult.

Now is the time to support and share with sources you trust.
Political Insider is ranked #3 Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *