Should 'everyone' be allowed to vote?

[Eudaimonist]

While I agree that the average 18 year old isn't wise enough, exactly how many average 18 year olds are going to go though it all to be able to vote for the other house.

They wouldn't take the test at age 18, but later in life, and I did say that I was aiming for only about 10% of the adult population having the vote for the Senate.

(Tests are a bad way of choosing, incidentally. Not everyone's good at tests.)

So what? Maybe some bad test-takers would be excluded. That's really no problem for my system. I'm not trying to include absolutely everyone I can. If you are a bad test taker, or don't care enough to study for the test, then you don't get to vote for the Senate. You still get to vote for the other house.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Lisa0315]

They wouldn't take the test at age 18, but later in life, and I did say that I was aiming for only about 10% of the adult population having the vote for the Senate.



So what? Maybe some bad test-takers would be excluded. That's really no problem for my system. I'm not trying to include absolutely everyone I can.


eudaimonia,

Mark

That is an elitist pov. My husband is not well educated but he knows more about American politics than anyone I know. The same was true about my great-grandfather, a sharecropper for most of his life, then a tobacco farmer, and only had a second grade education.

My grandpa had a sixth grade education, was a truck driver and farmer. He worked a full time job plus the farm until he was 80 years old. He retired to take care of my grandmother who was a bit more educated than he was. She had a 9th grade education.

Yet, my grandpa outsmarted the government and kept the family farm from being possessed to pay for my grandmother's medical bills. (She had to go into a home for advanced Alzheimer's) He willed everything to his kids except for 1 acre in the center of all of it. The State can try to make a claim on it but they have no access to it.

I would have like to see you tell my grandfather that he could not vote.

His farm was eventually annexed into the city. One day some fire inspectors came to the farm and asked my grandfather for his burn permit. They were going to fine him for burning within city limits without a permit. My grandfather sent my grandmother into the house for the burn permit. He did not even have to tell her what he really meant. She returned with the deed to the house and a gun. They never returned and they never sent a fine either.

This country was founded by men and women who would never pass your test and I am outraged that you would expect such a thing in order to keep or get one of our civil rights.

Lisa

 

[cantata]

So what? Maybe some bad test-takers would be excluded. That's really no problem for my system. I'm not trying to include absolutely everyone I can. If you are a bad test taker, or don't care enough to study for the test, then you don't get to vote for the Senate. You still get to vote for the other house.

How do you decide who gets to decide what's in the test?

I think your position is an elitist one. Illiterate people should not be excluded from voting. They may be highly intelligent and well-informed.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That is an elitist pov.

Yes, this little political thought experiment is precisely an elitist one, not a populist one.

This country was founded by men and women who would never pass your test and I am outraged that you would expect such a thing in order to keep or get one of our civil rights.

I indicated very clearly in my initial post that I was not actually advocating this system. It's just a thought experiment. Save your outrage for others.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Lisa0315]

Yes, this little political thought experiment is precisely an elitist one, not a populist one.



I indicated very clearly in my initial post that I was not actually advocating this system. It's just a thought experiment. Save your outrage for others.


eudaimonia,

Mark

LOL! I rarely get "outraged". That is what I get for not reading the whole thing thoroughly. Swry!

Lisa

 

[Eudaimonist]

How do you decide who gets to decide what's in the test?

I don't have a precise procedure in mind.

I think your position is an elitist one.

This is NOT my position. It's a thought experiment. Hasn't anyone actually read my initial post?

Illiterate people should not be excluded from voting. They may be highly intelligent and well-informed.

They might be, and they could vote for the other house. But why shouldn't people be excluded who are highly intelligent and well-informed?

I'll say it again: in this little thought experiment, it doesn't matter that some people are excluded. Trying to include everyone who could be a good voter simply isn't the point.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[DeathMagus]

I'd like to point out - the only thing that makes "elitism" a bad thing is that there's not a good objective measure for what makes one "elite." Who wouldn't want the best, brightest, and most informed Americans running the country?

 

[wanderingone]

Citizens who pay taxes should be allowed to vote.

That could be a 5 year old.... should 5 year olds vote?

 

[selfinflikted]

I do think the drinking age should be brought down though, if not for everyone, at least those in the military.

Lisa

Under what rationale would you grant the right to drink to those in the military, and not civilians that are the same age? This doesn't make sense..

 

[bgrass1234]

There should be no voting. There should be only self governing where you alone control your own life and are responsible for defending you life liberty and property from the aggression of others. This idea that popular opinion allows for legal aggression is wrong and immoral.

 

[Maren]

While I like the idea of a test in theory, I just can't see a way to make it work. Beyond the fact that it could discriminate against those that do not test well; the other problem is that a test could too easily become a political pawn and tool, with questions that require a "correct political view" rather than answers based on objective truth.

 

[DeathMagus]

There should be no voting. There should be only self governing where you alone control your own life and are responsible for defending you life liberty and property from the aggression of others. This idea that popular opinion allows for legal aggression is wrong and immoral.

Soo...anarchy. That's nice. Because of course, when the only rule is "every man for yourself," nobody would possibly form a group to rule over the others through violence, fear, and coercion.

 

[bgrass1234]

Just trying to remove the veil of legitimacy given to the aggression of the state provided by this idea of voting. There will always be groups trying rule over others though violence, fear and aggression. I just what people to understand that whether its a madman and his gang of thugs, or a democratically elected representative republic with its thugs, aggression is wrong. It does not matter if you get to vote against it or not. And to those that vote for the aggression to continue or advance, they are just as responsible for the fear and violence as the madman.

 

[WorldIsMine]

No one should be allowed to vote. Democracy is a lunatic's idol.

 

[CCGirl]

Hypothetical:

Bob is a mentally retarded person. While he is older than 18, he acts for the most part on the same level of a 5 year old. Without a doubt, he has no knowledge about who is running for President, but his mother takes him to the polls election day, of course after telling him who to vote for (Bob is a good boy and listens to mom), and gets him help so he can vote (he can't even write properly enough to use a normal ballot). Using what ever method they do, he is given a chance to pick who he wants to vote for, and thus he votes.

Should Bob be allowed to vote, as he isn't able to make an intelligent decision on the issue?

No, he has diminished capacity.

Another:

You have probably all heard about YFZ ranch, and the 'brain washing' done there. So assume a similar setting and situation (but no child abuse, potential or actual). Here, all the women are taught from birth that their husbands are to make the choices for them. Come election day, their husbands go to the polls with their wives who have been instructed on who to vote for.

Should the wives be allowed to vote?

Yes.

Another:

Mary is your 'good Christian woman'. She is a bit old (no offense Mary), and for the most part is a shut in. Now, she is a bit old fashion, not reading any of news papers and not having a TV in her home, instead settling for reading the Bible and some other 'Christian books'. Anyways, the church she belongs too, even if she only attends once every other month, is trying to be a good member of the community and help all the shut ins make it to the polls on election day. Now, it just so happens Joe, the one driving the bus going around to pick people up, is rattling on about how one Candidate is a God fearing Christian but the other two are a Muslim *cringe* and an Atheist *double cringe*, and how any good Christian would know who to vote for hands down.

Should Mary be allowed to vote?

Yes.

One last one:
Jim just turned 18 a few months ago. All he lives for right now is the 'good times'; partying, hanging out with his friends, getting a bit drunk (yes, illegally, but he at doesn't drink and drive), you know, the the fun stuff. Anyways, some of his more responsible friends (*gasp* he has responsible friends... who knew?) said only losers don't vote, and as such, he is going to go the polls and vote so he can wear one of those "I voted!" stickers. Now, he hasn't a clue in the world who to vote for, and all he did to get ready was look at a picture of each candidate and use his 'intuition' to pick the candidate he would vote for.

Should Jim be allowed to vote?

Yes.

Why don't we allow children and teenagers to vote?

I think the voting age should be 16.

Now, how about we replace voting with smoking?

Keep it at 18. Same as alcohol.

Having sex?

At 16, you can give consent.

Drinking alcohol (anyone who was listed between the ages of 18 to 20 instead treat as if 21, and forget about Jim's drinking)?

Our drinking age is 18.


Voting is a human right and cannot be taken away. We allow offenders to vote from jail.

 

[lawtonfogle]

While I like the idea of a test in theory, I just can't see a way to make it work. Beyond the fact that it could discriminate against those that do not test well; the other problem is that a test could too easily become a political pawn and tool, with questions that require a "correct political view" rather than answers based on objective truth.

Maybe your referring to another post, but I haven't viewed the previous page yet. See, my internet when I'm home at night is terribly slow, and CF's 'prettified' layout which requires a lot to load isn't, so for right now, I'll assume your talking about a theoretical alternative. As such, I do not disagree that such a test could easily be corrupted, but the point of this thread is not to offer a solution, just the problem. If people begin to realize that there are flaws in our system which they just don't often think about, then a solution could make it self available. If people go around not realizing the flaws in our current system, I doubt a solution presenting it self.

 

[stan1980]

No one should be allowed to vote. Democracy is a lunatic's idol.

I'd love to hear you expand on that

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'd like to point out - the only thing that makes "elitism" a bad thing is that there's not a good objective measure for what makes one "elite." Who wouldn't want the best, brightest, and most informed Americans running the country?

Yes, that's one big problem.

Another problem is how one prevents the elite from taking advantage of their power over people who have less influence in government. And that is why I offer the experimental idea of a house that exists only to repeal laws that is voted in by any adult citizen (except perhaps felons).

And yet another problem is that the populist genie may already have been let out of the bottle, and simply can't be put back in. Any attempt to found such an elitist democracy might very well fail due to protests from the 90% of adults who can't vote for members of the Senate.


Anyway, a little background behind my thought experiment. The reason I had developed it was due to a conversation I had with a real proponent of an elitist social democracy. At first, my reaction was similar to Lisa's -- outrage. It offended my populist sensibilities, and I figured there could be a civil war in a nation that only allowed a certain percentage to vote. (I also get ticked off by the governmental system in the novel Starship Troopers, where the only people who can vote at all are those who submit to years of government service, including the possibility of being sent to war as soldiers.)

However, I asked myself: could I address that concern somehow? And so I developed the idea of a balancing house where virtually all adults can vote and repeal onerous laws. It even may have the benefit of fostering libertarian sympathies among the general public, which as I see it would be a good thing.

Ever since I came up with this system, I have been picking at it, and trying to come up with solutions for its problems. As I said, this system is not at all my "position". It's just a fun thought experiment.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Beyond the fact that it could discriminate against those that do not test well

I don't really see the problem here. So some people might be discriminated against. So what? I suppose it might not be "fair", but that wouldn't mean that the people who do test well would not vote well.

the other problem is that a test could too easily become a political pawn and tool, with questions that require a "correct political view" rather than answers based on objective truth.

Yes, I had thought of this objection too. But perhaps with some oversight and debate this might not be so much of a problem.

One idea is that perhaps the populist house would vote on whether or not to accept the next version of the test. But would they have too strong an incentive to "dumb it down" and increase the population that would pass? This idea might not work.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

No one should be allowed to vote. Democracy is a lunatic's idol.

What is your alternative?


eudaimonia,

Mark