voting - should there be restrictions?

[relaxeus]

Should people of really limited intelligence be allowed to vote?

Should people comletely uninformed about the current political situation be allowed to vote?

Should naive people be allowed to vote?

Should jealous, hating people be allowed to vote, even though they may hate the person they are voting for and truly believe that the other candidate would be better, and are only voting for that person because they want to get back at someone?

If you think there should be restrictions, what kind of restrictions do you think could be created?

I'll start it off. Personally, I think there are many people that should not be allowed to vote, such as people who know almost nothing about politics but only go to the polls because they think its cool. Perhaps a multiple choice questionnaire must be filled out prior to voting. If a person gets less than, say, 60% on the questionnaire, they will not be allowed to vote. On this questionnaire many issues with relevance for the election would be covered. This way, we could filter out many "bad" voters.

 

[FadingWhispers3]

But who shall guard the guards?

 

[Spherical Time]

Should people of really limited intelligence be allowed to vote?

Should people comletely uninformed about the current political situation be allowed to vote?

Should naive people be allowed to vote?

Should jealous, hating people be allowed to vote, even though they may hate the person they are voting for and truly believe that the other candidate would be better, and are only voting for that person because they want to get back at someone?

If you think there should be restrictions, what kind of restrictions do you think could be created?

I'll start it off. Personally, I think there are many people that should not be allowed to vote, such as people who know almost nothing about politics but only go to the polls because they think its cool. Perhaps a multiple choice questionnaire must be filled out prior to voting. If a person gets less than, say, 60% on the questionnaire, they will not be allowed to vote. On this questionnaire many issues with relevance for the election would be covered. This way, we could filter out many "bad" voters.

Who would get to choose the criterion?

I don't think there is any way to implement this fairly, and I don't think that it's good idea anyway. Disenfranchising people isn't he best way to illustrate a government's respect for them.

 

[JVD]

The only people who should be allowed to vote are the people who think like I do.

In fact, why don't we all just save a lot of time and trouble and just let me vote for everyone else.

 

[Byelotsar]

This is the sort of thing that, despite having, perhaps, the best of intentions, is almost certain to go awry. If I am of a mindset that fears Jewish conspiracies, I might seek to eliminate Jews as voters - and depending on my beliefs, this can easily masquerade (even honestly) as "protecting the country".

I do think that people who do not stay alert in politics and remain informed on election issues do everyone a disservice, but there is no just way to eliminate them or force them to be informed. Besides, even if voters are ignorant, universal suffrage is a cornerstone of modern democracy. One tampers with that at his peril.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

There was a thread similar to this about 3 or 4 months ago. Here's the deal: we live in a society where people are free to vote. If you want to restrict the vote to only certain individuals, you are perilously close to a closed society or a possible dictatorship.

 

[Robinsegg]

Yes, I think voting should be limited. Here are the people who should lose out:

Those incarcerated.
Those who are under age.
Those who are not citizens.

Rachel

 

[Spherical Time]

Speaking of which, I'm a far of lowering the voting age to fifteen. Maybe more young people will vote if we hook them younger.

 

[Texas Lynn]

All adults should be permitted to vote and all votes should be counted.

 

[Brennin]

I believe in the unrestricted right to vote for everyone who thinks like KalEl76 and me.

 

[Byelotsar]

Yes, I think voting should be limited. Here are the people who should lose out:

Those incarcerated.
Those who are under age.
Those who are not citizens.

Rachel

As for those who are incarcerated, do you believe that this should hold even following their release? That is, should ex-convicts not be allowed to vote for the remainder of their lives? Or do you feel there should be conditions in which they can recover their vote?

And if the former, would you extend this to all criminals? Would you, for example, take away the voting rights of the guy who went to prison for having marijuana? Or would some crimes not carry this punishment?

Moreover, do you feel that this might present a potential for abuse by finding a method to convict and thus disbar certain segments of the population?

 

[Aimee30]

Should people of really limited intelligence be allowed to vote?

Should people comletely uninformed about the current political situation be allowed to vote?

Should naive people be allowed to vote?

Should jealous, hating people be allowed to vote, even though they may hate the person they are voting for and truly believe that the other candidate would be better, and are only voting for that person because they want to get back at someone?

If you think there should be restrictions, what kind of restrictions do you think could be created?

I'll start it off. Personally, I think there are many people that should not be allowed to vote, such as people who know almost nothing about politics but only go to the polls because they think its cool. Perhaps a multiple choice questionnaire must be filled out prior to voting. If a person gets less than, say, 60% on the questionnaire, they will not be allowed to vote. On this questionnaire many issues with relevance for the election would be covered. This way, we could filter out many "bad" voters.

Yeah, but only the ones who vote for people like Dubya.
I think there should be restrictions on voting machines--if they are erroneously putting in someone's vote as the wrong person--I have a feeling they might have been programmed to do it in purpose--then the vote must be recalled and done over.
If it was a tie the, the person who got the most popular votes wins hands down and states where relatives are governor must only be recounted by an outside source that is a neutral party.
There, those are my restrictions.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

There was a thread similar to this about 3 or 4 months ago. Here's the deal: we live in a society where people are free to vote. If you want to restrict the vote to only certain individuals, you are perilously close to a closed society or a possible dictatorship.

Then our society is "perilously close to a closes society or a possible dictatorship," because in our society - that is, all western societies - the vote is restricted to certain individuals. The vote is restricted by age, by criminal status and/or history, and so forth. Few people complain about this, but it's indisputable that the exact same disadvantages which would apply to taking the vote from any group apply to the groups from which we do take the vote.

Why does nobody complain about this? Why is not allowing 17 year olds the right to vote any worse than (for example) not allowing blacks to vote?

 

[Robinsegg]

As for those who are incarcerated, do you believe that this should hold even following their release? That is, should ex-convicts not be allowed to vote for the remainder of their lives? Or do you feel there should be conditions in which they can recover their vote?

I do think they should be able to recover the right to vote. Those who are incarcerated at the time of the election should not be able to vote. If they're out of prison at the time of the election, and have had enough time to register to vote, they should be able to vote.

Moreover, do you feel that this might present a potential for abuse by finding a method to convict and thus disbar certain segments of the population?

The way I see it, no. I don't see how you're gonna imprison all people of a certain group (we can't even do that with gangs or terrorists), or even a significant number of said group. And once out, they'd be able to vote again.

Rachel

 

[relaxeus]

This is the sort of thing that, despite having, perhaps, the best of intentions, is almost certain to go awry. If I am of a mindset that fears Jewish conspiracies, I might seek to eliminate Jews as voters - and depending on my beliefs, this can easily masquerade (even honestly) as "protecting the country".

The jewish conspiracy example is extreme. Basically, the fundamental traits common to all people would be targeted, and not things like race or height, so the bad voters, regardless of race or height or whatever, would have a good chance of not being able to vote.

I do think that people who do not stay alert in politics and remain informed on election issues do everyone a disservice, but there is no just way to eliminate them or force them to be informed.

That's the issue. They are doing the system a disservice, so we should do something about it. Even if we can filter out a small percentage of the bad voters then our society, as a whole, would be better off.

Who would get to choose the criterion?"

Maybe Everybody?

What about Psychologists? They may be the best at coming up with an effective set of questions that would effectively weed out many bad voters.

I don't think there is any way to implement this fairly.

Sometimes fairness isn't the desirable goal. I think this is one of those situations. Our governments are a perfect example of this. Most Senators are intelligent and know much about law and politics. Unintelligent people who don't know anything about politics have a very small chance of reaching such a position. Is this fair? No. But its the right way to go, because we want as few unqualified people in our governments as possible. Governments are very important, and when it comes to important matters of such proportions, as few mistakes as possible would be desirable for our whole society. The process that gets those intelligent and politically informed people into office is thus very important as well. In the same way that we want the best people making all the big decisions, we should also want the best people deciding which of them gets those government positions.

 

[jayem]

Personally, I think the problem in the US is the opposite. We have too many apathetic people who don't vote. In presidential elections over the last 20+ years, about 60% of those eligible have voted. This is only about 50+% of the voting age population. We should do better than that.

Rather than restrictive requirements for voting, we should work on improving our educational system so people better understand how government works. Which hopefully, will stimulate participation in the process.

Click on the link to the voter turnout graph on this site:
http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm

 

[Byelotsar]

The way I see it, no. I don't see how you're gonna imprison all people of a certain group (we can't even do that with gangs or terrorists), or even a significant number of said group.

That was the problem I saw in my own contemplation, though it wouldn't require imprisoning all members of a group - just a lot. Still, if we were to withhold the vote after being freed from prison, this becomes a somewhat more viable concern. Even the four years between Presidential elections is a lot of time to start jailing, even if for a short while, those who would not vote the way a corrupt system might desire. Returning the vote following release, however, obviates this.

The jewish conspiracy example is extreme. Basically, the fundamental traits common to all people would be targeted, and not things like race or height, so the bad voters, regardless of race or height or whatever, would have a good chance of not being able to vote.

I don't think it is extreme, largely because we've seen voter polls established before by people with an agenda (in that case, keeping blacks from voting). They couldn't quite say that blacks couldn't vote, but, as The Onion once comically put it, "New Voting Law States That Black Voters Must Be White". It's nice to think that this could be avoided, but I don't know that it could. The only person that I would trust to establish such a system is myself, and I expect most people would feel the same about their own capacity. It isn't any particular faith in my own fairness as much as it is a suspicion of the fairness of others. When it comes to something like suffrage, I do believe that's the overwhelming consideration despite your claim to the contrary.

What about Psychologists? They may be the best at coming up with an effective set of questions that would effectively weed out many bad voters.

Obviously you'd get Scientologists dissenting your suggestion. But Psychologists are also by necessity trained in statistical analysis - what if we find that men over 190 centimeters tall are eight times as likely to be "uninformed voters" as the general populace? Shall we disenfranchise them? If our purpose is to strengthen the quality of voters by restricting the vote without appealing unduly to fairness, this seems like a reasonable decision to me... but, then, I'm just such a male so I'd lose out despite probably being an informed voter by whatever standards you hold.

Our governments are a perfect example of this. Most Senators are intelligent and know much about law and politics. Unintelligent people who don't know anything about politics have a very small chance of reaching such a position. Is this fair? No. But its the right way to go, because we want as few unqualified people in our governments as possible. Governments are very important, and when it comes to important matters of such proportions, as few mistakes as possible would be desirable for our whole society. The process that gets those intelligent and politically informed people into office is thus very important as well. In the same way that we want the best people making all the big decisions, we should also want the best people deciding which of them gets those government positions.

Yes, this all sounds very nice. But there is no objective "best" for these things. By your same logic, we might as well require political candidates to pass broad-spectrum exams testing their knowledge of geography, politics, history, law, and philosophy (at the least). This worked sort of well for China, but is an implosive and stagnant system.

I think you're going about this the wrong way. Instead of restricting the vote, why not work to make voters more aware? I seriously think we need to stress civics, philosophy, and critical thought in our schools (not to the exclusion of anything else, just as a point of making good citizens who aren't vapid ideologues). We need to encourage adults to remain sharp on these things by offering continuing classes (this is already fairly the case, though I see no particular encouragement to do so) following graduation from high school or University.

Perhaps you will disagree, but I do believe that implementation of your ideas would walk a very dangerous road which can easily lead to tyranny.

EDIT: Incidentally, some European countries make voting mandatory for all those eligible, and, if memory serves, making voting day a national non-working holiday. Does this result in better government? I don't know. Their parliamentary systems may take more to this kind of thing, though personally I think the US would be much better served by a parliamentary system anyway.

 

[christalee4]

The jewish conspiracy example is extreme. Basically, the fundamental traits common to all people would be targeted, and not things like race or height, so the bad voters, regardless of race or height or whatever, would have a good chance of not being able to vote.



That's the issue. They are doing the system a disservice, so we should do something about it. Even if we can filter out a small percentage of the bad voters then our society, as a whole, would be better off.



Maybe Everybody?

What about Psychologists? They may be the best at coming up with an effective set of questions that would effectively weed out many bad voters.



Sometimes fairness isn't the desirable goal. I think this is one of those situations. Our governments are a perfect example of this. Most Senators are intelligent and know much about law and politics. Unintelligent people who don't know anything about politics have a very small chance of reaching such a position. Is this fair? No. But its the right way to go, because we want as few unqualified people in our governments as possible. Governments are very important, and when it comes to important matters of such proportions, as few mistakes as possible would be desirable for our whole society. The process that gets those intelligent and politically informed people into office is thus very important as well. In the same way that we want the best people making all the big decisions, we should also want the best people deciding which of them gets those government positions.

It sounds like a caste society from Brave New World, but instead of being born into privilege, people are being tested or evaluated for it. By disenfranchising a group of people who aren't "worthy" to vote, you'll create a large group of resentful outsiders who will feel like they are not citizens. That can't be a good move for any society.

They used tests as a way to eliminate eligible black voters in southern states, knowing that blacks were struggling to get equal education for many years. That was discriminatory, unfair and immoral.

Furthermore, we don't extra government regulation on yet another civil exercise. This country already has enough of Big Brother's benign oversight, don't you think?

 

[KarateCowboy]

Should people of really limited intelligence be allowed to vote?

Should people comletely uninformed about the current political situation be allowed to vote?

Should naive people be allowed to vote?

Should jealous, hating people be allowed to vote, even though they may hate the person they are voting for and truly believe that the other candidate would be better, and are only voting for that person because they want to get back at someone?

If you think there should be restrictions, what kind of restrictions do you think could be created?

I'll start it off. Personally, I think there are many people that should not be allowed to vote, such as people who know almost nothing about politics but only go to the polls because they think its cool. Perhaps a multiple choice questionnaire must be filled out prior to voting. If a person gets less than, say, 60% on the questionnaire, they will not be allowed to vote. On this questionnaire many issues with relevance for the election would be covered. This way, we could filter out many "bad" voters.

Education tests would be just another thing used to manipulate the polls.
I know some people who have very high IQ's but can't change the oil in their cars. Intelligence is not a virtue but wisdom is. How do you judge that?
There should be age limits for voting and citizenship requirements. That's about it. Oh, and felons should not be able to vote.

 

[fillerbunny]

I'm against the restrictions posed in the OP (for the reasons so eloquently posted by KalEl76 on page 1), but I do think that providing proof of American citizenship should absolutely be a requirement when registering to vote.