Should we limit voting rights and change democracy?

[IglooDame]

I don't think this form of graduated enfranchisement (pardon the pun) is a good idea. Despite efforts to the contrary, higher education remains more available to the higher income brackets, and thus the democratic scale gets weighted toward the richest. While the decisions made by that electorate may indeed be wiser, the effective disinfranchisement of the poor will eventually lead to problems.


Edit: I voted yes, but because I favor a national-service-based enfranchisement, not an educational-based enfranchisement.

 

[Little Raven]

@Betazed

Because they deny the truth that all Persons are created equal.

Poppycock. Betazed is clearly operating under the assumption that all people are created equal, and he maintains that all people must have equal opportunity. However, he is suggesting that not all people contribute equally to soceity.

He then states that because all people are not equally valuable to society that not all votes should be counted equally.

Which of these statements do you disagree with? Because nothing in Betazed's proposal goes against the truth that all people are created equal. Only the notion that all people remain equal.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

It actually made sense right up until you started talking about education.
Education DOES NOT MAKE SOMEONE INTELLIGENT. Education is simply telling people to memorise and repeat. At the most it could be called knowledge, but never in a million years intelligence.
Also, education is determined by the amount of money that person's parents has and in no way by any merits of the person themselves.

 

[betazed]

I don't think this form of graduated enfranchisement (pardon the pun) is a good idea. Despite efforts to the contrary, higher education remains more available to the higher income brackets, and thus the democratic scale gets weighted toward the richest. While the decisions made by that electorate may indeed be wiser, the effective disinfranchisement of the poor will eventually lead to problems.

Igloo, I commented on that post #8 in this thread. I agree that for this system to be effective everyone should have equal oppurtunity (for education). I have put that in assumption 1.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

Edit: I voted yes, but because I favor a national-service-based enfranchisement, not an educational-based enfranchisement.

I also would have voted yes, or at least strongly considered it had it been service-based.
Education based is essentially based on a person's parents wealth and determining a person's worth according to their parents wealth is sick.

 

[Little Raven]

Edit: I voted yes, but because I favor a national-service-based enfranchisement, not an educational-based enfranchisement.

I have known far too many Marines to support such a system. I like them, I respect what they do, but they are not the people you want choosing leaders for the US. Hell, plenty of them signed up because a judge told them it was a good alternative to prison.

You want to make these guys kingmakers?

 

[betazed]

Edit: I voted yes, but because I favor a national-service-based enfranchisement, not an educational-based enfranchisement.

And why would that be more logical. does national service make you think better about national issues? If anything I would say most people (not you )come out of military service brain-washed and less able to think independently.

 

[Elgalad]

Poppycock. Betazed is clearly operating under the assumption that all people are created equal, and he maintains that all people must have equal opportunity. However, he is suggesting that not all people contribute equally to soceity.

He then states that because all people are not equally valuable to society that not all votes should be counted equally.

Which of these statements do you disagree with? Because nothing in Betazed's proposal goes against the truth that all people are created equal. Only the notion that all people remain equal.

I disagree with the phrase I highlighted in your quote. I find attitudes such as this disturbing, patronizing, and dangerous, since arguments identical to these have historically been used as justification for tyrannical dictatorships and other totalitarian regimes.

All persons deserve equal protection under the law, but unless they have equal representation, they will never have it.


-Elgalad

 

[~Corsair#01~]

And why would that be more logical. does national service make you think better about national issues? If anything I would say most people (not you )come out of military service brain-washed and less able to think independently.

By national service I assume he meant doing things like creating jobs/ inventing a new kind of ginger beer etc.

 

[Little Raven]

I disagree with the phrase I highlighted in your quote. I find attitudes such as this disturbing, patronizing, and dangerous, since arguments identical to these have historically been used as justification for tyrannical dictatorships and other totalitarian regimes.

Sure they have. And arguments about how government regulation in the market should be minimal have been used to justify violent strike busting, monopolistic corporate control, and de facto worker slavery. Does that render such arguments automatically moot, or does is simply mean that they should be examined carefully?

 

[Elgalad]

I have known far too many Marines to support such a system. I like them, I respect what they do, but they are not the people you want choosing leaders for the US. Hell, plenty of them signed up because a judge told them it was a good alternative to prison.

You want to make these guys kingmakers?

Not to quibble at bits, but IglooDude was a Sailor.. I was a Marine.

That being said, I cannot honestly say that his idea for service based enfranchisement would be so greatly disturbing to me.. until I remember why the United States fought for Independence in the first place: Unfair representation.

Any sort of prerequisite for participation in the election process that segregates people from their political voice is wrong. Other than the two exceptions for minor children and convicted felons, there must be no other limits on the right to vote.


-Elgalad

 

[Sanaz]

Every law abiding adult citizen should have one vote, period. Limits based on education, intelligence, or financial success are no less detrimental to a free democracy than are limits based on race, sex, or land ownership. Elitism is not freedom, it is tyranny.

That sums it up. Everyone should have one vote, and everyone should have the opportunity to be on the ballot. The system usually works to keep things mostly moderate, which is good. There is more variety on the local level, which is also a good thing. If the entire society shifts one direction or the other, then the candidates and laws will reflect this. The system is designed to work slowly, and to avoid trends for the most part. That's also good.

 

[Little Raven]

Not to quibble at bits, but IglooDude was a Sailor.. I was a Marine.

I know. My brother is also a Marine, and my uncle was in the Navy, so I've met plenty of both. Neither has given me reason to believe that a service based enfranchisement is a good idea.

Of course, I tend to hang out with the enlisted bunch, not the officers.

 

[Perfection]

A general trend is good enough.

No it isn't. You don't deny people their fair share because some of thier peers may make a decision based less on a thorough understanding of the issues!

His vote is still counted. Since it is his own choice to relinquish his extra education/vote for his career then why not? My assumption is that it is not his inherent right to be treated as equal as everybody else. Can you dispute that?

Yes, because the constitution garuntees the protection of the persuit of hapiness and if you discriminate against him for that then you're in violation.

It also violates the equal protection clause, and everyone alive would have to be grandfathered in.

 

[IglooDame]

And why would that be more logical. does national service make you think better about national issues? If anything I would say most people (not you )come out of military service brain-washed and less able to think independently.

I have known far too many Marines to support such a system. I like them, I respect what they do, but they are not the people you want choosing leaders for the US. Hell, plenty of them signed up because a judge told them it was a good alternative to prison.

You want to make these guys kingmakers?

Ironically, many military enlistments are motivated by college tuition offers by the services so in a way these folks are going to get enfranchised by either of our proposals. However, the crux of my argument is that they have professed a willingness to die in order to protect the US Constitution and by extension, forward the goals of the United States. I would argue that they would more carefully consider the policies given their experience with the costs of those policies. I would add to the proposal that all who have fulfilled their 'citizenship commitment' be given some several months of (free) civics-based education so as to prepare them intellectually for their responsibilities.

And specific to LittleRaven - I'm not sure of the age of your Marine acquiantances, but as of at least 1997 and I think going at least a decade back, the military is trying to put an end to judges saying "bars or boot camp", I was assisting in enforcing that policy in Alaska.

 

[IglooDame]

By national service I assume he meant doing things like creating jobs/ inventing a new kind of ginger beer etc.

For clarification, I am referring to either military service, peace-corps-type duties, or possibly dangerous civil responsibilities such as firefighting.

 

[Little Raven]

Any sort of prerequisite for participation in the election process that segregates people from their political voice is wrong. Other than the two exceptions for minor children and convicted felons, there must be no other limits on the right to vote.

But the fact that you allow for exceptions shows that you don't really believe in the principle of all men are created equal. After all, this forum provides plenty of examples of minors who are better educated about the state of the nation than most Americans, but who are denied the right to vote. Why? Were they not created equal? If that's the principle you're hanging your hat on, why do children not make the cut?

After all, we're talking about creating a whole new social contract here. One that is based on contribution instead of arbitrary voting age. Think of it as going from a seniority-based union system where all that matters is how long you've worked there to a performance based salary system that rewards you for accomplishment. What good capitalist could argue against that?

 

[betazed]

You don't deny people their fair share because some of thier peers may make a decision based less on a thorough understanding of the issues!

Ok, for the umpteenth time Why not? Why is that unfair.

Ok, let me again be more clear by posing an example.

You are sick. You have gone to see doctors. You have the oppurtunity/( are forced to) consult many doctors on your ailment. Some are just interns and some are well-known professionals who have been practicing for years. Would you be foolish to give more weight to the opinion of your treatment to the more experienced doctors?

In the same vein the nation is a person. It needs guidance. The people provide the guidance. Is it illogical to give more weight to the guidance from the more educated?

However, the crux of my argument is that they have professed a willingness to die in order to protect the US Constitution and by extension, forward the goals of the United States. I would argue that they would more carefully consider the policies given their experience with the costs of those policies.

Igloo, I do not doubt their patriotism and honor their willingness to die for me. But that does not mean they know what is good for me. Also, protecting the constitution is one thing; that does not entail the understanding of national affairs. For example, you may protect the constituion religiously, but would you from that know whether a fiscal deficit is good or bad. The way I think, if I need advice on something I would rather go to Steven Weinberg than Tommy Franks.

@to many posters in this thread: Please stop reiterating "this is bad. one vote is good". That is just an opinion. I pretty much can guess the opinion of most people here from their history.

Tell me why your opinion is such and such.

 

[Little Raven]

And specific to LittleRaven - I'm not sure of the age of your Marine acquiantances, but as of at least 1997 and I think going at least a decade back, the military is trying to put an end to judges saying "bars or boot camp", I was assisting in enforcing that policy in Alaska.

Wow. There are still some holes in the system, then. One of my brothers best friends found his way in through that route, and he can't be over 23. They went to boot camp together in 2003.

would argue that they would more carefully consider the policies given their experience with the costs of those policies.

Doubtful. Given the manner in which American troops are fed information. However, you will be breaking the traditional notion of a professional military implementing the will of a civilian government. Instead, you will have a civilian government implementing the will of the military, since the military holds the voting power. Does that really strike you as a good idea?

 

[~Corsair#01~]

You are making a major mistake in somehow assuming education is intelligence. It is not.
If someone took a physics degree... would that make him know more about politics than me?

If someone was unable to afford the crippling university fees and thus was forced to take a less "intellectual" profession, like say, plumbing does that make him stupid? Does it mean he is less important or deserves less say in matters than the example above?

If someone is rather stupid, but managed to do well in his studies solely because his parents could afford lots of nice tutors and library of textbooks... does that make him better than me?

Add into that the fact that most education is in fact spent learning about matters which are of no relevance to politics whatsoever, like Math, English, History, Chemistry, Biology, Physics... I could go on... How does having an intricate knowledge of any of these have anything to do with that person's political knowledge?