If you believe government gets to set rules on voting, then you believe voting isn’t a human right, but a government granted privilege that can be revoked. In other words, you believe that government authority is derived from some other source than the will of the people expressed through voting.People who call themselves government must control the rules on voting if they want to keep themselves in power.
Their authority is derived from force and the threat of force, nothing more or less. It certainly is not derived from the will of the people.
This can be clearly seen by looking at what they claim to be able to do vs what any single individual can do.
If they represented the people, they would not be able to do anything that the people themselves could not do on their own.
I don't doubt that negative voting might be a realistic option. I just do not see political voting as being of real use while the following are still true:
- Those voted into power do not have to do what they have promised or vacate their office
- Those voted into power trample the rights of those they claim to represent without recourse to those who have had their rights trampled
- Access to reasonable candidates is heavily restricted by "laws" designed to make sure that we continue with our faux two party system.
Unless the corruption in the system is removed, I believe political voting to be a moot point. Vote with your choices, your actions, and your spending.
Finally, democracy is over rated, especially if it allows people to create laws that take away the rights of the people. I'd rather have crowd funded government.