A Right or an Obligation?

I saw a post on Facebook the other day - and thought it was worth sharing:  It said, "If the right to vote compels every American to vote - by that logic, the right to keep and bear arms would compel every citizen to own a gun."

Yikes! Of course, that is ridiculous! But it begs the question - is voting a right or a duty? 

The reason this analogy is preposterous is because no one would want every one to own a gun.  A person who is mentally unsound, or has a violent history, probably shouldn't own a gun.  We also should not want someone to own a gun without a good understanding of gun laws or the mechanics of a gun. Owning a gun is a right, but there are qualifiers that must be met in order to exercise that right. If you do not properly identify yourself, you cannot legally purchase a gun. Even when you're thinking about making a purchase, a thorough background check is done to ensure you are a mentally healthy, law abiding citizen. And then, if you misuse that gun, not only does your right get taken away, but you go to jail! 

Wow! They really take this right seriously! In fact, it almost feels like a privilege - but it's not! It's a right. One could argue that the responsibility of exercising our gun rights demands more stringent precautions.  However, I would argue that the risk exercising the right to vote has equally critical implications. 

We should not expect, ask, nor ever wish all Americans to exercise their right to vote. Citizens who are uneducated about our political process, ill-informed about the candidates, or completely ignorant of the issues, could arguable be unqualified to participate.  Like the right to own a gun, the right to vote is both a right and a privilege. However.... it is not an obligation.

In recent years, politicians have mastered the ground game of "getting out the vote.” This seemingly patriotic plea is not as much about fair representation in Washington, as it is about depending on the uninformed voter population. They pull people out of their homes, off the streets, and cry disenfranchisement if anyone is questioned. Candidates don't have to worry about campaign promises, because many of these folks will not understand the issues well enough, or care about them long enough, to hold them accountable. This election day hustle works with lofty promises and tantalizing incentives to make the oblivious voter their Election Day BFF. 

How can I say this?  I can say this with near certainty, because many of the issues we are facing are hard for me to understand as a college graduate! These are complex issues of economics and international relations; medicine and morality.  The experts cannot agree, the facts change daily, and the media is biased. Who can we trust to tell us the facts? If we rely solely on headlines and campaign videos for our information – we are missing a lot of perspectives! 

Someone who hasn’t even cared enough to register to vote, cannot be much invested. I remember when I turned 18; that was one of the first things I did!  Joining this democratic process is a rite of passage! Finally! Someone wanted to know what I thought; I had some control my future! And, the only way I could exercise that right was to register to vote! Becoming educated about the world, making informed decisions, and joining the process, is simply a part of becoming a good citizen.

Yes, voting can be considered a duty - but it is a duty unto ourselves.  We owe it to ourselves to be informed and active in the matters of our country.  We also have a duty to our families to protect the future of our children.  And finally, we have a duty to our fellow Americans, to understand what we are voting for. 

Become an informed voter.  Do your duty to read and listen carefully; know who and what is on your ballot. Check out candidate websites, and then read opposing views for a broader perspective. Seek out non-political, subject matter experts in the topics you care about and consider their counsel. Don't be afraid to wrestle out those controversial topics with friends, maybe you will learn something.   Then, when Election Day comes, and you enter the voting booth you will not only know where the candidates stand, but what you think - and why.

Voting is more than a census or a survey of every American's favorite color or animal.  Instead, it is an opportunity to stick a pin on a map of the future, pointing to where you want to go and who you will follow to get there. 

In the end of all this political chaos remains a democracy; it is governed by the people, for the people.  You are responsible for who leads this country. If you are unwilling or uninterested to responsibly participate in such a lofty duty, by all means, stay home. That is also your right.

1 Peter 2:13-16

Why I will vote "No" on Tuesday

There will be a Constitutional Amendment question on the Minnesota ballot. It will state:

Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to remove state lawmakers' power to set their own salaries, and instead establish an independent, citizens-only council to prescribe salaries of lawmakers?

On the surface, this sounds like a fantastic idea, but here is why I will be voting “No.”

Transparency. Let's be realistic - an “independent” council is never really independent – especially in the state of Minnesota (MET Council, anyone?).  Members of the council would be hand-picked by the governor and the Minnesota Supreme Court chief justice. Even though it is to be made up by members of both parties in equal numbers, it is wrought with opportunity for special interests, political agendas and corruption.  I understand the legislature may want to hand this responsibility over to avoid the appearance of “conflict of interest,” but honestly, I feel as though they are passing the buck.

Accountability.  Under a clause in the state’s constitution, legislators are required to set pay for a wide range of public officials — including themselves. Part of their job is to approve the budget for the entire state and determine our taxes.  If they can make these other financial decisions, I think they should be able to discern an appropriate salary for themselves.  Whether they prove themselves capable or not, they should be held accountable for it.

This amendment has enjoyed some bipartisan support, which is why we haven't heard much about it in the news.  The argument has been made that legislators are in a no-win situation when it comes to this subject.  If they vote for a pay increase, the electorate cries foul (conflict of interest).  In fact, many have lost their seat for voting in favor of a pay increase in the past.  On the other hand, if they do not vote for a pay raise, we risk losing good legislators, due to reasons of insufficient income for their family. That is unfortunate.

But, for me – that is sort of the point.  Personally, I want our legislators to consider very carefully whether it is appropriate and prudent to increase their salary. I want people to serve their state not in financial hardship, but also not a career path.  I don’t want them to be too comfortable that they never leave.  I appreciate that they need to go back to their districts and present their case for a raise and justify their votes up or down. That is what responsibility and accountability look like.  I don’t want them sloughing it off on some independent committee, where they can shrug their shoulders and plead ignorance.

As a matter of a fair living wage... serving in the MN state legislature is meant to be a part-time job. An article at Minnpost.org does a fairly good job outlining the amendment on the ballot, and the salary structure of the MN state legislators. 

In 2016, the MN Legislature was in session from March 8 through May 23. That is 104 days (minus holidays and including weekends).  So, if the average legislator receives a salary of $32,000, plus an $85 per diem while in session… the compensation would be right around $40,000. Legislators who live further away receive more per diem due to their commute/lodging expenses while in session. Those in leadership also receive an extra $12,000 bonus.

No, this really is not enough to support a family, if that is an annual income. And, I will concede that our state leaders probably work pretty hard for that pay. But, they do not work as our legislators all year. So hopefully, like their constituents, they supplement that income the other 261 days of the year with another job or with spousal income. The bottom line is, it was never meant to be a career. Is that to say our legislators shouldn’t receive a comparable income to their peers in different states? No. Are they? I will let you be the judge (ballotpedia.org). We all have different perspectives on earnings and can make that determination independently at the ballot box when our state representatives run for re-election.

This year we must confront the issue of process versus pay. Do we choose to keep our legislative body responsible and accountable for determining their pay, or turn it over to a independent council?  Since  we have a system of government where we place our trust in individuals charged with protecting our interests and promoting our well-being as a state, I believe it should remain in their domain. After all, an independent council does not have that relationship with Minnesota voters; they have no accountability or obligation to the citizens of this state.  Instead, they are serving at the pleasure of whomever appoints them.

Yeah, I don't like the odds...

I am voting "No."