If you have to be deemed competent in order to stand trial, should that same criteria be used to vote? Am I taking this too far? Maybe, but I don’t care. I will admit that when the democratic nomination race was tight, and it looked like Obama was losing, I was upset, and yes I was bad mouthing Clinton like nobody’s business. However, I did not start out backing Obama, in fact Clinton had my full support for a while, a long while. Then I looked at what everyone had to say, what everyone had to offer, McCain included (I am not with any political party, in fact I HATE politics and a little piece of me is dying as I type this political commentary), and I made my educated decision. So when it looked like Clinton was going to take the nomination I was disappointed. I contemplated not voting, and then I got over it. I made up my mind that no matter who got the nomination, I was going to vote for the person I felt would do the best job. Pride swallowed and everything. That is a glimpse into a rational (most of the time) mind.
But at what point is someone being irrational? What is the first red flag, the first indication? Does it go something like this:
Now this is just a mildly irrational reaction. We all know there are more people with way more irrational thoughts. So should these people, who have taken the presidential race sooo personal that they would regress and throw a tantrum to beat all tantrums and act out of spite, just to get their point across, should these unbalanced voters keep their right to vote? Are they competent enough to vote? Can they make the voting ballot in the shape of a paddle and reality check everyone as they step into the polls? Can we double tax everyone who can vote when they DON’T vote?