There, I've said it. Go ahead, call me names. I'm a bad bad man.

But there's a reason for my view on this.  I don't believe that those who don't contribute to the treasury should be allowed to dictate what is done with that treasury to those who do.

Calor writes in "Why the left hates Bush" that Gore should have been President. If only a few voters in Florida had managed to figure out the ballot.

I have two stock answers to that:

(1) So what? Why should the votes of people who take serious time to consider who to vote for, pay a great deal in taxes, create jobs, contribute in many other ways be countered by some person who can't even be bothered to read the instructions on a ballot? And how many Democratic votes were picked up in the last election due to homeless people being bussed to the polling places? Or bribed with cigarettes.  In California they're going to allow anyone with a driver's license vote even if they're not a citizen. Terrific.  I don't really care that much what the "intent" of Floridians were. I only care about the legal result.  It's like in baseball. I don't care if the Yankees are the "better" team on paper. It's who wins the game that matters.

(2) They called Florida before the pan handle of the state had finished voting. Given how close it was, one has to wonder how many Bush votes were lost because of the early call (the pan handle of Florida is overwhelmingly Republican). Strangely, this didn't receive a lot of coverage. Of course he media isn't biased, right?

It is certainly easier and more tempting to argue for universal suffrage. After all, it sounds so noble. So ethical.  It's an easy trap to fall into.  But is it noble and ethical?

We live in a country where 40% of the adult population pays no federal taxes whatsoever. But all 40% of them can vote on what's done with the treasury. Think about that.  Many people today live in a home owner's association. We pay dues and as a group we vote on what to do with that money. But imagine living in a neighborhood of 100 homes where 40 of them don't pay a cent into the association but still got to vote:

"We want a neighborhood pool with all the trimmings!" says one. Instantly they have 40% of the votes in favor of that. A neighborhood pool sounds great. Good for the kids, fun in the summer, etc.

"But pools cost a lot of money to build and maintain." says one of the people who pays dues.

"Tough luck rich boy!"

And so they vote and it passes by a margin of 51 to 49 with all 40 of the non-payers voting in favor of the pool. Association dues go up 25% to pay for the pool but that means nothing to those who aren't paying.

The federal government, to a certain extent, operates on the same principle.  Hey, let's have prescription drugs. Sounds great. But 10% of the population is going to be stuck paying for 90% of the cost even though they don't benefit from it any more than the guy who pays zilch. In fact, they probably won't benefit at all because they usually have their own health care plan.

So when Calor and those who agree with him complain about how Gore lost despite having the "plurality" of votes, the right's answer is, so what? Personally, my interest is in what the "intent" of the people who live in a household that pays federal taxes think. And from working on The Political Machine and looking at the exit polling data, it's pretty clear how they voted -- Bush by a landslide. Gore got the vast majority of the lower 40% in income and Bush got a significant majority of the other 60% of the voter population.

So the left can whine all it wants about Bush and his so-called "unelected" back end. Because to many of us in the middle or on the right, particularly tax payers, Democrats increasingly are winning by pandering to the people who don't pay the bills. Or worse, pandering to people who aren't even citizens!

I'm not a big fan of Bush myself, I may not even vote for him in 2004. But he was elected in 2000 fair and square.