After the wake of many close elections, one has to wonder if we need more restrictions on voting, to ensure that dangerous people, who don’t fully understand the consequences of voting don’t vote. It’s quite possible that George Bush won in 2000, not because of his abilities to lead our country, but because voters were just plain stupid.

Some have proposed to give local police forces the unilateral authority to decide who gets to vote and not vote on election day. It could be a very simple and straightforward procedure — the chief of police in every town could sign a sheet of paper to make it unlawful for anyone to vote whose name appears on the list.

Why have tough evidence based standards to keep people from voting? Why bother to get a court order, showing a person is mentally unfit to vote? Or if we insist on requiring court involvement, shouldn’t courts be able to keep anyone they want to from voting?

Certainly requiring evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime committed or about too be committed is too high of a standard. That could allow a lot of people who are of questionable mind to vote in elections. Indeed, even one voter, throwing an election could lead to a totalitarian regime to take over our country. We certainly don’t need any more tragedies like George Bush getting elected.

People make similiar arguments about gun control, so why not voting? Doesn’t this sound very democratic and fair to give government lots of arbitrary control over who can vote?

… and yes, I think this an awful idea.