In the ongoing campaign against voting, one half-truth gaining notoriety amongst pundit entertainers is the notion that the constitution doesn't include the "right to vote".

This is the same type of argument that could be made about other self evident functions in society, like using a public park, or a swimming pool; "The pool rules say 'no running' and 'no diving' it doesn't say you can swim in the pool." You could make that argument, but we all know what the pool is for.

The same holds true for the constitution. The right of citizens to vote is self evident. You can't have a Republic without the public being able to vote for representatives. Yet conventional wisdom is being shaped by media professionals repeating the mantra that the constitution doesn't include the right to vote and that the United States is not a democracy, it is a republic.

A constitutional Republic was chosen by the founders because it is the form of government that is the most representative of the public. It is the most representative form of government because it utilizes the democratic process to achieve public consensus. The democratic process also helps to prevent perpetual incumbents from depriving citizens of their 'right to vote'.

This is what is written in the constitution:

Article. IV. Section 4. "The United States shall guarantee every State in the Union a Republican Form of government."

Don't confuse a Republican Form of Government with the Republican Party. The United States is a federation of states that are Republics as guaranteed by the constitution. A Republican Form of government means one in which the supreme power is held by the people in those states, who elect, by voting, representatives to represent them, the public.

So without question, the intention of the constitution is to guarantee that the supreme power is held by the people. This is done by the public voting for representatives to represent them in the making of law as defined in the constitution.

State legislatures have the right, if they choose, to rescind voting rights in their states for certain reasons, such as non citizens, minors, and felons. States are no longer allowed to rescind the voting rights of citizens because they are minorities or women, whose rights to vote are now protected by constitutional amendments.

Technically one can argue the constitution doesn't guarantee everybody a right to vote, but they would be engaging in sensationalistic rhetoric to misinform citizens about the intention of their constitution and validating the narrative of elected officials trying to justify their assault on voting rights. The practical effect of such misguided rhetoric serves as a scare tactic to undermine the confidence of the public in their right to vote resulting in increased cynicism and apathy.

Political entertainers could just as easily point out that voting rights law, for the most part, is decided by the states. As well as rescinding voting rights, a State can also legislate that everybody can vote. So rather than finding flaw with the constitution, pundits should be blaming those in State governments who advocate the restriction of voting rights, and be organizing the public to remove them from office.

Another common misconception is that the United States is not a Democracy. I’ve heard this one way too many times. The semantic perversions of language and misleading conventional wisdoms over the ages have clearly obfuscated the definitions of the word Democracy. Just because some government somewhere called themselves a Democracy doesn't mean that’s what they were, or that our definition of the word must coincide to what that government practiced.

The distinctions between a Democratic Form of government and a Republican Form of government are meaningless. Democracy would be better defined as a process, not a form of government. A Republican Form of government is achieved through the use of the Democratic Process. A Republican Form of government is a Democracy.

Some liberty advocates claim that Democracy is a tyranny of the majority, as if a 'Democratic' form of government would have no law or representatives, only decisions by the majority. That is a tribal fairy tale, not a government. This fraudulent semantical distinction is just another way of undermining the confidence of the electorate about their right to vote.

To suggest the United States is not a 'Democracy' implies we have no inherent right to vote, as does the arguments that there is no right to vote in the constitution. Both claims are deceptions dependent upon semantic ambiguity.

The Federal Form of Republican Government, as mandated by law, is intended to prevent the central authority of a National Government from becoming too powerful. Legally, The United States is a federation of sovereign states with rights guaranteed to the citizens of those states by the Federal Government. The intention of which is the ultimate check & balance, as much so as the separation of powers as defined in the constitution's three branches of federal government.

The government closest to the people reflects the values of those people. That is the intention of our form of government as guaranteed by the constitution, which requires voting by the public.

What we have in the United States now is a National Government who serves global interests instead of insuring that states don't violate the rights of their citizens. This could only have been achieved through bipartisan constitutional violations.

States are now beholden to the National Government because of federal tax codes and the national debt. State officials have become subservient to Federal officials for a myriad of reasons. This allows the federal government to violate the constitution while State officials remain silent. The result is a public deprived of representation in order for the privatized global profit structures to continue.

Voting rights are being challenged by lawsuits for varying reasons throughout the states right now. This is because those who litigate for a living are in fear of losing elections. Regardless of their stated motivations, the status quo is in court because they are determined to win those elections by all means necessary.

Even though the Supreme Court overturned parts of the Voting Rights Act, allowing states to legislate new hoops voters must jump through to vote, and even with unlimited amounts of money allowed for campaign propaganda, all of those tactics combined will not change the outcome of elections, because there is very little voter fraud occurring compared to the number of legitimately registered voters that there are. These tactics will merely provide cover to make election results derived from election fraud seem more plausible.

The number of voters who won't vote due to purges, ID laws, and other voting rights battles will be inconsequential to election results rigged against the public. It's much easier to win elections by rigging them with electronic voting machines. 

All of these political shenanigans by the courts, incumbents, and other private interest groups, are merely a distraction from election fraud. The status quo will invest millions of dollars promoting the dangers of a few illegal votes and ignore the fact that the entire privatized electoral process lacks the credibility necessary for a Republican Form of government.

The right to vote is meaningless if the election is rigged and the results are fraudulent. The same holds true for the entire political system. The public must remove private money from the entire process to insure the system is not rigged. Candidates and elected officials must not be allowed to solicit or accept any private money if the public is to achieve the legitimate representation necessary for a Republican Form of government as guaranteed to the United States by the constitution.