The Founders Wouldn't Let Most of Us Vote. Maybe They Were Right.

The US Constitution is the most significant governmental document in a millennium. It established the modern western Republic and a representative government designed to answer to the people rather than rule over them. The Bill of Rights outlined clear restrictions on federal and state powers to legislate away the inherent freedoms of the citizenry. Until the war for independence and the creation of the United States, the idea that common men answer to authority and authority answers to no one was the accepted norm.

Our constitutional republic was created based on conditions that no longer exist. The American population was 95% Christian. Patriarchy was widespread and embraced as the solid foundation for society. Meritocracy was absolute. Cultural identity was rooted in western civilization without deviation. Marxism did not exist. Atheism was rare. Degeneracy was shunned. Shame was an effective social tool. Psychopathy was easy to identify and remove from within the smaller population. Women were expected to raise families and care for the home. Men were expected to feed and protect those families.

Voting was for land owners and people with an actual stake in the success or failure of government policies. Women did not vote until 1920. Many commentators have offered compelling arguments that the country quickly went downhill from there.

In 2026, many Americans still treat representative democracy as sacrosanct and untouchable. They don't really know why. They think it's about freedom. They are basing their devout reverence on a system that used to work because it heavily restricted who was allowed to participate.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion," John Adams said. "Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Like many conservatives, I started out as predominantly libertarian. Millions of us launched our political lives in the era of the Ron Paul Revolution. Whenever I hear libertarians wax romantic about the Constitution and why we must strictly adhere to it today regardless of the circumstances, I remind them that if the system looked like it did when the Founders were in charge, most people would not be voting.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing. The central question is, would that actually be a better way of governing than what we have now? Should we return to the idea of restrictions on civic participation for people who have a habit of causing harm? In our liberal drive to create total democratic inclusivity, did we end up destroying the social structures and expectations that made our country and elections work in the first place?

In 2026 we are fighting for our lives just to get voter ID laws in place to prevent foreigners from influencing election outcomes. Around 80% of the country supports this policy. The Senate refuses to pass it. 20% on the radical left are viciously opposed because they want illegal migrants to sneak into the vote. This proves that Democrats and Neo-Con politicians have no regard for democracy. They cry about majority rule all the time. When there's a clear case of an overwhelming majority in favor of secure elections, they do the opposite.

The top 0.2% and the bottom 20% work in tandem to make life miserable for everyone else.

Is representative democracy even possible when a large portion of the population is actively fighting to burn our republic to the ground? How can our elections and our government maintain integrity when people who want to destroy everything are allowed to vote or take political office?

Maybe that 20% of militant leftists and Neo-Cons should not be allowed to vote. Maybe they should be denied participation in government. Maybe they should be kicked out of the country. It's what the Founding Fathers would have done.

During and after the Revolutionary War, many states required oaths of allegiance to the new American cause. Refusal by Loyalists who supported Britain led to disenfranchisement, property confiscation, and banishment. These rules were explicitly ideological. They punished pro-British or neutral political views. Pennsylvania, New York, and other states used such tests. The Founders saw this as necessary for security.

The idea that every American citizen should be allowed to have a hand in national matters despite their dubious background or belief system is a foolish fantasy. The Founders were correct to make distinctions.

Is the system so broken by corruption and delusion that it cannot be mended? Do we sit back and allow the country to deteriorate in the name of liberal hedonism? That's not an act of freedom. It's the attitude of anarchy. Anarchy is freedom without accountability. It means national suicide.

This week, the Trump Administration released classified information which they argue is proof of election manipulation in 2020. The legacy media has refused to air Trump's speech addressing the issue. Many outlets fact checked Trump's arguments online as false without having time to read the reports and classified documents he offered.

I'm willing to look at the evidence. The political left and the media are not. This tells us all we need to know about them.

Everyone remembers the hockey stick graph and the impossible voting numbers for Joe Biden in the early morning hours of November 4th. Even the skeptics found it hard to come up with a believable rationale. To this day, Democrats are unable to explain how Biden got 81 million votes, the highest raw vote count for any presidential candidate in US history, in the middle of a pandemic.

In 2024, Kamala Harris fell short of Biden's totals by over 6 million votes. It shouldn't be possible. The recent rigging revelations, if accurate, help us to understand why the Democrats and some Neo-Cons absolutely refuse to pass voter ID laws and limits on mail-in ballots despite the vast majority of Americans in favor.

Ballot rigging and illegal migrant voting are only two threats among many. Over 23% of all US adults report having at least one mental illness. One in 4 US voters may not have the mental stability required to make reasonable decisions. Nearly 20% of US adults are on some form of prescription medication for mental health issues. The number of women on medication is double the number of men.

Around 10% of the population has an IQ under 80, which is 20 points below the average. An IQ of 80 or less is associated with poor impulse control, extreme aggression, and an inability to maintain normal day-to-day responsibilities. Should such people be allowed to vote?

Around 4% of the population has psychopathic or sociopathic traits. They can vote, run for office, and get jobs within the bureaucratic system. Some sociopaths are highly functional and are not a threat when operating in positions of authority. All candidates should be tested openly for these issues before they're allowed to enter government office.

How do we bring transparency to a government built around a bureaucracy with no term limits and few checks and balances? To Trump's credit, he has been attempting to dismantle this deep state edifice. He has had a few successes, including the shutdown of USAID. It would take multiple presidencies to accomplish any long-lasting changes to this entrenched secondary government.

The efforts of DOGE showed that the bureaucracy has always been the true base of power. It is protected by an array of corrupt politicians, judges, journalists, and NGOs. It doesn't matter who ends up in office. The people managing the bureaucracy keep their jobs for life. When a confrontational administration leaves, they change everything back.

Should we ignore constitutional protocols and remove the vast majority of these people from their jobs? The courts are doing everything in their power to prevent these people from being fired. What if we ignored the courts and kicked them out anyway?

None of the answers to these problems can be found within the Constitution and the current legal environment. We can't even get Congress and the Senate to pass commonsense voter ID laws. We would have to go outside the Constitution to save the Constitution.

The Constitution is designed to limit the actions of the federal government, not the people. This leaves us with the age-old conundrum of rebellion and reformation. Maybe this is the only way that things will ever really change.

We cannot continue on the path we have been following for so many decades. We cannot rely on the system to police itself. We cannot allow certain subsections of the population to continue to have influence over our society.

Something has to change, dramatically and for the long term. We could do it through partisan government while breaking constitutional laws. We could do it through popular revolution and hope the country survives the aftermath of total domestic war. Sitting back and doing nothing is not an option.