[Employment rate is now below 60%......the lowest since 1947]

One will not make many friends with this idea. In order to avoid bankruptcy, to negate the installation of illiterates like the Communist Obama and the giggling Marxist Hillary Clinton, a dynamic team of 'dumb and dumber' [to name but two out of thousands] into power; to repair cultural degradation; and reinvigorate what actually creates prosperous civilisations at all levels of the political-economy; one must begin with changing the mobocracy of the current one adult-one vote system for anyone over the age of 18. Mob-rule enforced by a plurality of 'voters' who have everything to gain, but little to lose as governments ceaselessly expand [or so they wrongly believe], is the opposite of freedom, representative democracy, or enlightened rule.

Universal suffrage is not democracy. One person, one-vote, by itself can be very un- democratic. In ancient Athens at the time of Solon every land-owning male over 18 could vote. Most of these votes were organized by guild, district, interest-group or income level. Informal parties dominated Athenian votes and passions. These issues were not trivial, though some modifications during the 6^th century to extend the franchise to every male over 18 were enacted to help with social peace. Even so, such a limited direct democracy is only possible in a society of 50.000 people, in which 10.000 will vote. It is impractical in larger societies. In ancient Rome for example a very complex systems of lists and voting blocks by income category were created to fill the public congress and elect senators. The illusion was that each group, district and household had a direct vote and interest in the complexity of the Roman bi-cameral system. The reality was that the lists were rigged to benefit the ruling gentry and land-owning aristocracy and the outcomes of elections hinged on bribing voters and patronage.

Ancient Rome has a lot in common with the harlotry of today's political-economy it appears.

Our system is not a democracy. Modern political systems be they republican or parliamentary, are representative systems, in which an electorate chooses in either a first-past-the-post, or within a proportional-representative-list, a cadre of politicians to fill one camera of a tri-partite system [a parliament, a type of appointed or sometimes an elected senate and a presidential or prime ministerial office]. Both systems have weaknesses, but the most glaring, obvious and systemic weakness which is never discussed, is the panglossian-utopian ideal, that everyone over 18 has a 'right to vote'. They don't.

There are many reasons why a 'right to vote' does not exist – especially for 'anyone' over 18. Some obvious problems include:

-Question: Why are 'rights' given, instead of being earned ? In order to earn rights you have to prove knowledge, to work, and to show a personal investment to the system, demonstrating that you are a part of the communal 'we', which is what the state – and you - is funding.

-Question: What 'rights' has someone who is say 18-25, studying, who has very little to maybe no work experience actually earned ? If you joined the military at age 18, you can lay a claim to have a right to vote. But for the average 18-25 year old, unmarred by much of personal worldly experience, whose education was subsidized, a 'right' to vote simply does not exist. An 18 year old in ancient Athens, was a lot different than an 18 year old today.

-Question: What 'rights' do people who are supported by the welfare state and who do not pay into the system truly have upon 'others' ? Isn't the transfer of welfare already a form of charity leading to dependency, which negates further 'rights' on behalf of those accepting such welfare on the taxpayers at large ?

-Question: Are voting 'rights' to be given to anyone who is born and reaches a certain age, but who might not have any idea how the political system works, or what position he or she is voting for and why ? Is ignorance of the constitution, the political-economy, and functioning of legislatures such a trivial matter ? Doesn't multi-culturalism and the array of public-school claptrap against the Western historical experience make young people indifferent to the political-economy and the makeup of political institutions ? Should the apathetic really be casting votes ?

The problem with our current version of mob-rule is that the mob will elect those who will enact policies that will benefit the mob. Pandering to groups and the mob was standard practice for the Gracchi in 130 BC Rome, or for Caesar in his civil war with the Senate. Not much has really changed in 2200 years it seems. Then, as now, it takes a lot of money, to buy elections. If you are an aspiring politician how would you buy an election ? Would you appeal to culture, morality, abstract values of free-will individualism, the reality and complexity of how civilisation was developed, or the aracana of how market dynamics along with trade, increase jobs and wealth ? Or would you dumb it down and promise money-for-nothing, chicks/studs-for-free, and the apocryphal Henry IV's dictum 'a chicken in every pot' [or perhaps an iPad for all the poor?] ? Consider the voting patterns in the last US election which is typical of the modern bankrupted welfare state.

52 % of US voters – including the dead and illegals – voted for the Communist Czar Obama in 2008, or 69 million out of 129 million. The US has an electoral college system in which the House is divided up and weighted by state size and population. Put that reality aside. Just look at the votes by group. If you consider the following facts and who actually votes, you could run Stalin and get him elected as president. Just count the numbers of dependents, radicals, socialists and union workers below:

-Public sector Union workers

[20% of voting pop, 64% to O'Clowna]: 16.5 million votes

-Blacks

[13 % of voting pop. 95 % to O'Clowna]: 15.9 million votes

-On welfare

[10% of voting pop, 90 % to O'Clowna]: 11.6 million votes

-On disability of some sort

[5% of voting pop, 90 % to O'Clowna]: 5.8 million votes

-Gays

[2 % of voting pop, 90 % to O'Clowna]: 2.3 million votes

-Jews

[2 % of voting pop, 78% to O'Clowna, who knows why]: 2.0 million votes

-Affiliated with Socialist, Communist, or Eco-Fascist groups ex of other groups

[5 % of voting pop, 100 % to O'Clowna]: 6.1 million votes

Total in the bag for O'Clowna: 60.2 million votes

[sources; UConn study, Gallup, BBC, Daily Mail, Wikipedia]

O'Clowna won 69 million votes, but had a base of 60 million. He only need to obtain another 9 million to reach his total, or another 7% of voters ! In other words, the head start that the modern socialist party has over its rivals is staggering. No wonder socialist-opposition parties are so watered down in policy and rhetoric with socialist mantra.

It should be noted that 65% of secular voters or those 'light' with religion voted for Obama including over 55 % of Catholics and almost 50% of Protestants. But even that fact is overshadowed by the groups listed above. The Christian religious divide while real, is in the end unimportant. The party of Obama has a secure base – a potential voting floor – of 60 million votes, based on 2008 results. This means that in a high turn-out election like 2008, you just need to secure another 5 million votes or a mere 4 % more of total votes, to win. If you manage the un-Democratic party what does this mean in reality ? You pander to your base support which is:

-Unions [public and teachers]

-Socialists

-Eco extremists

-Blacks

-Jews

-Gays

-Welfare dependents

What policies will you therefore support ?

-Unions and everything they want – GM bailouts, tenure, high salaries and pensions, monopoly control, and socialized health care.

-Solar and wind subsidies, globaloney-warming, and the cult of mother earth.

-The promulgation of the gay and homosexual lifestyle and elevating that lifestyle as an aspiration.

-Negation or at least a limitation of the traditional family especially working families not dependent on the government [most single family homes are dependents].

-The promotion of 'racism' against anyone who dares to criticize the expansion of government.

-The extension of disability [a doubling from 2009-2012], welfare, food stamps, or other government programs.

-Class warfare. Taxing the rich who pay most of the taxes, and the redistribution of spoils to socialists, lower classes and those who want government handouts in some form.

-Indifferent and covert foreign policy including the Marxist ideal that the West or America, is not special, not superior, and should not be forceful in either self-defense or in overseas conflicts and issues. None of the voting blocs above desires American exceptionalism, and none supports the idea that America is at war with a 'radical' Islam. Indeed these groups blame America for all of the world's ills.

This is exactly the program pursued by the Obama administration. How can such a failure, and such a despondently ignorant, inept and clueless administration possibly win another election ? Simple just do the math. The vested interests of those who share in the spoils of domestic plunder is hard to ignore or resist. When a floor of 45 % of all voters have a real, personal and egotistical addiction to government and its redistribution of largesse, it is not hard to imagine Muhammad himself, Castro, or even Pol Pot, not winning an election, properly spun by the media and political party managers, replete with the required rhetoric, gibberish and litany of bankrupted promises.