Tea Party leader desirous of Property requirement for voting

[Supr49er]

2. Minimum age for voting set to 25.
Early voting rights were usually set at 25 years of age and above (in addition to things like property ownership, etc.). It was then lowered and is now set at 18 for most countries. I would contend that people grew up fast and were usually ready for the realities of life during the times the voting age was lowered, and that today people in general take too much time to grow up and still act like yesteryears teenagers far into their twenties. Thus, I suggest we raise the age of voting to make sure the people that vote have a better grasp of what life as a normal adult is like, instead of the life where they can mooch of their parents, be irresponsible and do a half-hearted attempt at studying or working. I don't suggest we use the age of 25 just because of tradition, but to me it seems like a good age where we can cut of enough people who are too immature to vote while not cutting of too many.

Then how could you ask young people to fight for their country?

 

[Cheetah]

I've always believed there should be an understanding of political knowledge for a voting test, but this seems a bit arbitrary.

I think there should be some sort of panel set up to craft an exam that evaluates knowledge of the checks and balances and our Constitution's protections. I wouldn't ask for the specific number since that's kind of going overboard, but merely the protections - women's voting rights, freedom of speech, etc. Amendments like Prohibition and Congress's salaries would be left out due to being irrelevant.

You don't want the test to be narrow or it will create an oligarchy, but you don't want it too general either as that defeats the point.

The specific questions would probably need work.

I pointed out exactly who should write the test, so as to avoid that powerful people and entities after some time get to decide who will sit in that panel you suggest.

Leaving it in the hands of politicians will only corrupt it, leaving it solely with the judiciary or the elite will make it too narrow, and leaving it with the general populace will leave it ineffective (if it can ever be assembled).

 

[countrygrl]

Is he actually advocating for this policy to be put in place? Is there more to the story? Or is this the most damning part?

I don't see him actually advocating that we move in this direction, but merely making a point.

Also, people should be careful about saying things like, "people on welfare shouldn't get to vote because they are able to vote for my money!" Having what may seem to be a conflicting interest in government is no excuse to disenfranchise anybody, because at some point we all benefit from the expenditure of taxes.

All in all this is much ado about nothing...

 

[galdre]

No it's not. Beating your children is illegal. Improperly raising your children so that they and society suffers, but indirectly, should also have some dis-incentive.

but improperly raising your children doesn't mean they will end up being criminals, and properly raising your children won't guarantee that they won't become criminals

 

[Traitorfish]

Alright, I'll give it a try!

*snip*

And done. What do you think?

It still has too many flaws-

Point 1 is self-evident, and Point 2 is really another debate.

Point 3 doesn't really seem to stem from any solid principle; there's no solid definition of what constitutes either "valuable input" or "society", no underlying principal. Also, 3-1 rather unfairly discriminates against those suffering from a legitimate cause of long-term unemployment, such as disability, yet permits anyone with children to vote under 3-3, which seems inconsistent. Also, 3-2 seems open to abuse; how does one define the amount of volunteer worked deemed necessary? Could this not just be a mask for the non-working rich to retain their franchise?

Point 4 is just plain old authoritarian. I don't think that one would have the slightest place in any liberal democracy.

Point 5 is too easily manipulated, and fundamentally illiberal. Who decides what is "sane", after all? How do you introduce an appropriate system of checks and balances for the testing? Why on earth do the wealthiest capitalists have a more firm grasp of political reality than anybody else? What do the hard sciences have to do with politics?

Honestly, I think the only sound principal is universal suffrage. If your society extends suffrage to parasites, then the problem is with your society and with the parasites, not with the principal of universal suffrage.

And which one of those lived to die of old age? That's right, none of them! So perhaps the solution is somewhere in the middle?

 

[Cheetah]

Cheetah, I appreciate the spirit of your post, but its impossible.

Stop being so negative, that has never brought the world forward.

In terms of age, if you're old enough to die for your country, you're old enough to vote.

Then how could you ask young people to fight for their country?

If the reason for not lowering the minimum age to join the military below 18 is that kids are not grown-up enough to make an informed decision, then you may just as well raise the minimum age for joining the military to 25 as well. Or should we let 15 year-olds both join the military and vote?

In terms of taxation, we ALL pay taxation. Sales tax, gas tax, etc.... I'd wager that's not one person in the US who doesn't pay a tax of some (ANY!) kind.

Right, I forgot about sales taxes and other fees. They do not count either, as they are (usually? or always?) for private consumption and does not contribute directly to society.

 

[GhostWriter16]

1. Being a citisen of the country.
I think this is pretty self-evident for everyone, though a discussion of citisenship can probably be had. I'm not going into that for now however.

I agree, though we should actually start enforcing it.

2. Minimum age for voting set to 25.

Early voting rights were usually set at 25 years of age and above (in addition to things like property ownership, etc.). It was then lowered and is now set at 18 for most countries. I would contend that people grew up fast and were usually ready for the realities of life during the times the voting age was lowered, and that today people in general take too much time to grow up and still act like yesteryears teenagers far into their twenties. Thus, I suggest we raise the age of voting to make sure the people that vote have a better grasp of what life as a normal adult is like, instead of the life where they can mooch of their parents, be irresponsible and do a half-hearted attempt at studying or working. I don't suggest we use the age of 25 just because of tradition, but to me it seems like a good age where we can cut of enough people who are too immature to vote while not cutting of too many.

25 is too old. If 18 is the age where you can die for your country, you should be able to vote then as well.

3. Require actual productive input to society, either through income tax, voluntary work or child rearing.
If the "No taxation without representation!" actually has merit, then does not "No representation without taxation!" also have some merit? Now, a simple (or not so simple) taxation is not a good way of judging if one provides productively to society. Limiting voting rights to land owners definitely isn't. I suggest that three aspects are taken into account to decide if someone contributes productively to society in a way that should be rewarded with voting rights. Only one of the aspects are needed to pass this requirement. Firstly, one can have paid income tax during at least one of the years during the sitting government. Doesn't matter how much, as long as it is actually taxes from an individual's work. Taxes on property or capital income does not count, as one can get this without actually working in the society. Secondly, one can be an active member of a government acknowledged (so one can't just make up an organisation) voluntary organisation that works domestically with helping the less fortunate. Thirdly, one can raise children (either one's own or adopted, but as said children's parent or guardian) to be well-adjusted members of society (i.e.: the children have not committed felonies or otherwise severely broken any laws or customs). This of course means that if one's child does commit a felony, one would lose one's right to vote (even if one has other children who have not committed felonies) unless one can fall back on the first or second option.

I don't deem parents responsible for the actions of their children, and find the idea that you can lose your voting privleges due to your child's actions to be a poor one.

I'd modify this to: Pays income tax (While we still are stuck with it, after we finally are rid of it we can be rid of the new voting system too), is in college (Or High School at age 18), is retired, or is married to someone who qualifies to one of the above (Gay Civil Unions would count for this.)

4. Loss of voting rights if one has not raised any child by the age of 60.
The next generation is necessary if society is going to continue to function. As such, there should be strong incentives - or perhaps even a duty - to raise well-adjusted children to replace oneself. After all, it doesn't matter if the pensioners are all rich and can pay their way through old age, if there are no people to work society will stop functioning. Furthermore, old people without children have much less vested in the future of the society; for them it might be okay if society collapses a few years after they are gone. The voting rights should be limited to the people who will continue to live in society in the future.

I disagree on this. You should not lose your right to vote because you have no children.

5. A mandatory political literacy test.
Everyone who passes the previous requirements must also take a mandatory test of general and political knowledge. This test will check if the individual has the necessary understanding of reality, common sense and the political geography of the society. I suggest that 20% of the questions are made by the Supreme Justice, 50% by the political parties currently in parliament (the questions within those 50% are divided according to seats in parliament), 10% by the 5 wealthiest people in the country, and 5% by the most newly hired engineer (or other graduate from a field within the hard sciences) of the 4 most popular workplaces in the country. 75% of the test must be answered correctly to be allowed to vote. If this means people actually have to study for the test, than that is all the better.

I agree with the principle, but I think more important than "Common Sense" (Which could easily be subjective) we should have questions related to the major candidates. If you don't know the basics about the major 2 candidates, you should not vote. Also, if you think America won independence from France (And you live in America) you have no business voting. They should have to know basic facts.

 

[.Shane.]

If the reason for not lowering the minimum age to join the military below 18 is that kids are not grown-up enough to make an informed decision, then you may just as well raise the minimum age for joining the military to 25 as well. Or should we let 15 year-olds both join the military and vote?

Age of service and the vote should be the same. Where that number is is the question.

Right, I forgot about sales taxes and other fees. They do not count either, as they are (usually? or always?) for private consumption and does not contribute directly to society.

Wrong. They directly contribute. Every 8 cents I pay on the dollar for, say, some new clothes, goes to fund a school, keep a highway open, cops on the beat, whatever.

Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Age of service and the vote should be the same. Where that number is is the question.

18 IMO. MAYBE 17 but I don't trust 17 year olds to be smart (And I'm 15 saying that.)

Wrong. They directly contribute. Every 8 cents I pay on the dollar for, say, some new clothes, goes to fund a school, keep a highway open, cops on the beat, whatever.

True...

However, that's the problem with our tax system, too many things. Just keep it simple and cut to one sales tax.

 

[Xanikk999]

Never mind delete.

 

[bhsup]

Age of service and the vote should be the same. Where that number is is the question.

Why? Really, why should those things be linked? I see no more legitimacy to this than I do the ridiculous argument that age of service and drinking age should be linked (though admittedly you don't hear that from folks over 21). And for the record, you can enlist at 17, so it isn't even linked now.

Perhaps link draft age, there might be some legitimacy to that, but I'd still have to be convinced, but not just age of service overall.

 

[Ajidica]

18 IMO. MAYBE 17 but I don't trust 17 year olds to be smart (And I'm 15 saying that.)

I'm 17 and I am able to put up a far more coherent and informed political argument then at least 40% of America.

However, that's the problem with our tax system, too many things. Just keep it simple and cut to one sales tax.

So make it an insanely regressive tax?
So lets take a page from Milton Friedman and institute the Negative Income Tax.
What? Too socialist for you?

 

[.Shane.]

Why? Really, why should those things be linked? I see no more legitimacy to this than I do the ridiculous argument that age of service and drinking age should be linked (though admittedly you don't hear that from folks over 21). And for the record, you can enlist at 17, so it isn't even linked now.

Perhaps link draft age, there might be some legitimacy to that, but I'd still have to be convinced, but not just age of service overall.

Because if you country can ask you to DIE for it, you should have a say in the governance that could lead directly to your death.

Sidenote: I'd have no problem w/ a permanent draft. We would be less likely to end up in a mess like Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

[kiwitt]

4. Loss of voting rights if one has not raised any child by the age of 60.As such, there should be strong incentives - or perhaps even a duty - to raise well-adjusted children to replace oneself.

Actually the world already has too many children being born now. The birthrate should be slowed to maybe 1 child per couple and let the actual level of population drop off slowly and gradually. This Warning has been ignored for decades and now we have the problems of too little resources for too many people.

Population
The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth's limits. Current economic practices which damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations, cannot be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair.

Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth. A World Bank estimate indicates that world population will not stabilize at less than 12.4 billion, while the United Nations concludes that the eventual total could reach 14 billion, a near tripling of today's 5.4 billion. But, even at this moment, one person in five lives in absolute poverty without enough to eat, and one in ten suffers serious malnutrition.

No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.

and how to achieve that

We must stabilize population. This will be possible only if all nations recognize that it requires improved social and economic conditions, and the adoption of effective, voluntary family planning.

 

[bhsup]

It's not a matter of grasping what you're saying so much as disagreeing.

Again, though, it isn't even linked now. You can join, serve, and be killed in combat without having reached the age granting you the right to vote. So basically you're asking that, if we raised the voting age, adopt a policy that isn't even used now.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Why? Really, why should those things be linked? I see no more legitimacy to this than I do the ridiculous argument that age of service and drinking age should be linked (though admittedly you don't hear that from folks over 21). And for the record, you can enlist at 17, so it isn't even linked now.

Perhaps link draft age, there might be some legitimacy to that, but I'd still have to be convinced, but not just age of service overall.

Well, the way I look at it, you are an adult at 18. Period. At that age, you should be allowed to do anything (That's legal at any age.) Alcohol age should be 18, tobacco age 18, exc.

However, if something is moved BEHIND THAT does not mean that everything should be.

Just my opinion.

I'm 17 and I am able to put up a far more coherent and informed political argument then at least 40% of America.

Well, that may be true, but I meant 17 year olds in general.

Though considering how far-left you are, I kinda doubt it

So make it an insanely regressive tax?
So lets take a page from Milton Friedman and institute the Negative Income Tax.
What? Too socialist for you?

Negative Income Tax is moronic. As for the Sales Tax, I would advocate making it 12% on everything but basic food items and non-tangible items (Hiring a worker would not be taxed.) There would also be an inheritance tax though if you held onto tons of money.

Moderator Action: Flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[GamezRule]

I'm 17 and I am able to put up a far more coherent and informed political argument then at least 40% of America.

I am 15 and I feel the same way.

I would support a negative income tax, but it takes away from the incentive to work.

 

[.Shane.]

It's not a matter of grasping what you're saying so much as disagreeing.

Fair enough. When you said "why" it read like you didn't understand the argument.

Oh, and as for how the law is now, I can't control that. I'm only arguing for what I think is right and moral.

 

[bhsup]

Oh, and as for how the law is now, I can't control that. I'm only arguing for what I think is right.

Welcome to my Constitutional worldview life!

 

[Cheetah]

but improperly raising your children doesn't mean they will end up being criminals, and properly raising your children won't guarantee that they won't become criminals

And I'm sure we can find 12 year-olds perfectly fit and knowledgeable to vote, and so on. In general however, it is very clear that the vast majority that do commit felonies did not receive the kind of upbringing non-criminal people got.

It still has too many flaws-

Point 1 is self-evident, and Point 2 is really another debate.

Point 3 doesn't really seem to stem from any solid principle; there's no solid definition of what constitutes either "valuable input" or "society", no underlying principal. Also, 3-1 rather unfairly discriminates against those suffering from a legitimate cause of long-term unemployment, such as disability, yet permits anyone with children to vote under 3-3, which seems inconsistent. Also, 3-2 seems open to abuse; how does one define the amount of volunteer worked deemed necessary? Could this not just be a mask for the non-working rich to retain their franchise?

The point is that those things require people to actually use their time to contribute to the production, health, standards, welfare and/or future of the society (for society, read "county", "state", "empire", "country", "kingdom", "district", "neighbourhood", "union", "bundesrepublic", or whatever else you desire. It consists of the area/entity where the representatives supported by one's potential vote will rule). It is enough that one of the requirements are fulfilled, and they allow more or less all willing people to contribute in a way that benefits society and will thus give them the right to vote. As for "active volunteer work" I would think at least 8 hours a week (if one is not fit for full time work for instance), but if one is healthy and without a job, the normal 40 hour week would be sensible (if one wishes to vote).

And I would have thought you to be one of the last people to argue that properly raising children is not a full time and valuable work.

Point 4 is just plain old authoritarian. I don't think that one would have the slightest place in any liberal democracy.

Well, we both know I have authoritarian musings from time to time. Though I personally think it is a rather good idea. After all, if people have no incentive to make sure their society will function in 20 years (since they'd long be dead by then), why would we reasonably expect them to vote in anything but their own self-interest?

Point 5 is too easily manipulated, and fundamentally illiberal. Who decides what is "sane", after all? How do you introduce an appropriate system of checks and balances for the testing? Why on earth do the wealthiest capitalists have a more firm grasp of political reality than anybody else? What do the hard sciences have to do with politics?

By setting hard rules as to who should make the test, you avoid some politicians in the future setting up their pet committee to draft the test, which I would think limits the chances of the test being biased. I included the wealthiest and the hard sciences to get some input from where a great deal of wealth is concentrated, and to get input from people I believe have a greater chance of having a clear understanding of how reality and politics work, while hopefully avoiding well-educated groups where a lot of greedy people may be found (law, economics, etc.). Note though that half the test is still made by the representatives who were elected by the voters during the last election, which should make sure the test does not become too elitist (unless the voters have previously voted for members of the elite).

Honestly, I think the only sound principal is universal suffrage. If your society extends suffrage to parasites, then the problem is with your society and with the parasites, not with the principal of universal suffrage.

And I'm suggesting a way to make sure the parasites does not get a say in how the country is run, thus eliminating the problem with "your society".

Meh, the Steelman's death is surrounded by at least as much conspiracy as the death of JFK, and much more believable conspiracies at that.