If we are living by these "informal requirements" then why don't we put them in the Constitution? Is there something wrong with them? I feel that they make for unfair elections. For example: If there was a smart poor man running against a dumb rich man, the rich man would win because he has more advertisement and money to put out.
Before women got to vote I highly doubt that men represented them. For example: Men did not vote out the child labor laws for decades; for women it would have been there first priority. I feel that still today we need to represent ourselves because why trust them now when they didn't help us then? There are not many middle class men, and the only way there would be is if they married higher class, or they had a financial backer. This is a concern because money can't buy brain power and if you're rich it doesn't mean that you are smart. So the middle class men that will never make it but are smart and can help us out will never be in office due to financial problems.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
the reason that most informal requirments are not in the constitution is because they invole race or sex such as some district wont vote a black man in to congress becai=use he is black same goes for women. As for the example of the dumb rich man versus the smart poor am n i agree with you.
ReplyDelete