Biggins

Dear Rep. Biggins:

How nice of you to care deeply about increasing the participation of our citizens in the democratic process. I'm sure in some places, restricting candidates does indeed result in more people participating. However, I'm not sure I can follow the reasoning you're relying upon for your rationale.

To increase participation in any undertaking, the key is to remove obstacles that would prohibit involvement. When the southern states stopped requiring "tests" of the African-American populace to vote, the participation in voting increased. When the country stopped restricting females from voting, again, more participation! And, not just more people participating as voters, but more people running for office. More people = more choices = better choices.

Kinda like in college: what gets you excited, a choice between 5 classes in your major, or 15 classes in your major? Kinda a no-brainer, huh?

Perhaps the best way to increase participation - both of people running for office, and people voting in elections - would be to remove any obstacles. No obstacles to running = more people running. More choices = more people voting (yes, that does follow - Stephen Lipscomb researches this effect in the August 2007 Economics of Educational Review and finds that increased choices lead to increased participation and increased learning).

So I'm certain that to increase citizen participation, as you say you want to do, you'll do all you can to remove any barriers to those wanting to run for office or vote - barriers such as Senate Bill 662.

Unless you're just putting one over on us. You wouldn't do that, would you?

Sincerely,
Glos