“Do we not continually hear them quote Blackstone’s assertion that ‘no subject of England can be constrained to pay any aids or taxes even for the defence of the realm or the support of government, but such as are imposed by his own consent, or that of his representative in parliament?’ And what does this mean? It means, say they, that every man should have a vote. True, but it means much more. If there is any sense in words it is a distinct enunciation of the right now contended for. In affirming that a man may not be taxed unless he has directly or indirectly given his consent, it affirms that he may refuse to be so taxed; and to refuse to be taxed is to cut all connection with the state. Perhaps it will be said that this consent is not a specific, but a general one, and that the citizen is understood to have assented to everything his representative may do when he voted for him. But suppose he did not vote for him, and on the contrary did all in his power to get elected someone holding opposite views – what then? The reply will probably be that, by taking part in such an election, he tacitly agreed to abide by the decision of the majority. And how if he did not vote at all? Why, then he cannot justly complain of any tax, seeing that he made no protest against its imposition. So, curiously enough, it seems that he gave his consent in whatever way he acted – whether he said yes, whether he said no, or whether he remained neuter! A rather awkward doctrine, this. Here stands an unfortunate citizen who is asked if he will pay money for a certain proffered advantage; and whether he employs the only means of expressing his refusal or does not employ it, we are told that he practically agrees, if only the number of others who agree is greater than the number of those who dissent. And thus we are introduced to the novel principle that A’s consent to a thing is not determined by what A says, but by what B may happen to say!”

If we take it as a given that there are 305 million people in the country (and I don’t think the census bureau-rats can count properly; I suspect there are many who refuse to be counted and many others the fed goons won’t count) and if we take it as a given that 69.5 million people voted for Obama in 2008 (and I don’t think the votes are counted properly in many counties) then we get a figure of about 22.8% who voted for Obama.

Now you will say, lissismore, that the people who are under 18 don’t count because you don’t like young people. And the people who don’t register to vote don’t count because you don’t like non-voters. And the people who didn’t show up to vote don’t count for the same reason. But that’s all stupid idiocy and not a meaningful argument.

The reality is that the president of the united States of America represents at most the 22.8% who voted for him. And nobody else. And since his approval ratings have dropped substantially, he certainly doesn’t represent all 69.5 million who once thought to vote for him.

You also forget that many people are not allowed to vote by virtue of being incarcerated, or formerly convicted of felony, or regarded as mentally deficient. Including those who are discriminated against on account of their age, people who are not allowed to vote because your government is bigoted and hateful may be around 25% or more of the population of a given county.

Then you’ll say that people aren’t registered and don’t deserve to be counted if they won’t register to vote. About half the voting eligible population don’t register. And why should we? It isn’t like the votes are counted properly.