nerdgirl 0 #1 November 6, 2008 (aka meta-, normative, and applied ethics of participatory democracy …) Quoting from a post in another thread that I think brings up some ideas that legitimately deserve thinking about: Quote *** *** the people that don't take the time to find out at least a little about the election have no right voting. Yes they do. legally yes morally no. the choice of voting for president is very important, almost the most important choice you could ever make, therefore voting without knowledge of the situation would be disservice to you and the country. There are genuine meta-ethical questions, i.e., one that can be asked without specific normative judgement/conclusions: What are the ethics underlying voting? There are also normative ethical questions, i.e., one that does judge some options better or worse: What are the moral or ethical obligations to participate in voting? And why are ethics/morals of voting important? An applied ethics: How should they be enforced? By whom? Okay, so let’s play this out for a bit as a hypothetical. Start with the range: What should be the requirements to vote in US in your opinion? If you were re-crafting the US Constitution, what would you propose as requirements to vote and *why*? Originally it was white, (effectively Christian), male land-owners. If you are XX, pigmentally-challenged and _rent_, you would not be eligible. Some like to invoke Heinlein’s purported assertion of only those who have served in the military. How about an education requirement? Why is that not a good idea? Or something as basic as the same test required of applicants for US citizenship? Or a PhD requirement? (Tempted to suggest a publication requirement … but that’s most gratuitous … as I signed a contract for my first book today. [happy-nerdgirl-dance] Someone thinks there’s an audience beyond dz.com for my pontificating on science, technology, and security. ) What’s wrong with having a community service requirement attached to voting? How about having show proof that you paid your taxes for the previous year? Or the last 5 years for which you owed taxes? How about limiting voting to black, Hispanic, Native American, and Asian (Central, East, Southeast, and South Asia) women over 75 years old? A la the pragmatic wisdom and experience of The Matrix’s "The Oracle". VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,122 #2 November 7, 2008 One of the problems, of course, is that someone who is quite capable of voting intelligently for one office has paid no attention whatsoever to some of the down-ballot offices. How to differentiate? One option would be, rather than having an education or other requirement, the first option for each office is "no vote." It's the same as not voting, but it might just remind people that each of those votes is as important to that candidate as the ones they are familiar with. Also, then the ones who just HAVE to fill in a box on each ballot will have something to do Wendy W. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #3 November 7, 2008 Any citizen willing to do what it takes to vote without being strong-armed or payed off. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #4 November 7, 2008 Quote (aka meta-, normative, and applied ethics of participatory democracy …) Quoting from a post in another thread that I think brings up some ideas that legitimately deserve thinking about: Quote *** *** the people that don't take the time to find out at least a little about the election have no right voting. Yes they do. legally yes morally no. the choice of voting for president is very important, almost the most important choice you could ever make, therefore voting without knowledge of the situation would be disservice to you and the country. There are genuine meta-ethical questions, i.e., one that can be asked without specific normative judgement/conclusions: What are the ethics underlying voting? There are also normative ethical questions, i.e., one that does judge some options better or worse: What are the moral or ethical obligations to participate in voting? And why are ethics/morals of voting important? An applied ethics: How should they be enforced? By whom? Okay, so let’s play this out for a bit as a hypothetical. Start with the range: What should be the requirements to vote in US in your opinion? If you were re-crafting the US Constitution, what would you propose as requirements to vote and *why*? Originally it was white, (effectively Christian), male land-owners. If you are XX, pigmentally-challenged and _rent_, you would not be eligible. Some like to invoke Heinlein’s purported assertion of only those who have served in the military. How about an education requirement? Why is that not a good idea? Or something as basic as the same test required of applicants for US citizenship? Or a PhD requirement? (Tempted to suggest a publication requirement … but that’s most gratuitous … as I signed a contract for my first book today. [happy-nerdgirl-dance] Someone thinks there’s an audience beyond dz.com for my pontificating on science, technology, and security. ) What’s wrong with having a community service requirement attached to voting? How about having show proof that you paid your taxes for the previous year? Or the last 5 years for which you owed taxes? How about limiting voting to black, Hispanic, Native American, and Asian (Central, East, Southeast, and South Asia) women over 75 years old? A la the pragmatic wisdom and experience of The Matrix’s "The Oracle". VR/Marg Cant be done. Some one with a completyly open mind and no opinons on anything would have to walk the planet. there is no such being. The who decides is the bump in this road"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #5 November 7, 2008 I actually think the larger the margin....the less informed the voters were. But that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is how people preach everyone should vote and then turn around and say only smart well-educated people should vote. And of course only smart well-educated voters voted their way. And besides...how does one become well-imformed when elections and state measures are not based on fact?www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #6 November 7, 2008 Quote Quoting from a post in another thread that I think brings up some ideas that legitimately deserve thinking about: Quote *** *** the people that don't take the time to find out at least a little about the election have no right voting. I think our history in the US is full of examples of the problems with anything of then the goal of universal suffrage. I can't ignore it even if the premise is reasonable. Personally I'd like to see any reform directed towards what gets put on the ballot for the voters to choose. SF put the handgun ban on the ballot even though the Mayor said it was probably illegal. Ended up costing the voters of SF 3/4 of million in court costs. There should be more of a filtering against illegal or vague items that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #7 November 7, 2008 QuoteAny citizen willing to do what it takes to vote without being strong-armed or payed off. I don't understand what you mean by that. (Seriously) VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #8 November 7, 2008 QuoteCant be done. Some one with a completyly open mind and no opinons on anything would have to walk the planet. there is no such being. The who decides is the bump in this road What can't be done? (I'm looking for clarification.) Set requirements or even meaningfully set come up with methods to determine such requirements? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #9 November 7, 2008 -21 years of age unless in the military, then minimum age of 18. (Should be that way for buying alcoholic beverages.) -American citizen, either born to citizenship or naturalized citizen. -Since gun ownership is illegal for those convicted of a felony punishable by 1 year imprisonment, those persons should not have the right to vote. -Present government issued photo ID at polling location. That's pretty much it.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #10 November 7, 2008 QuoteI actually think the larger the margin....the less informed the voters were. But that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is how people preach everyone should vote and then turn around and say only smart well-educated people should vote. As I'm reading it you're setting up some limits on a spectrum (& please correct any mis-assumptions on my part); at one end "less informed" voters and at the other end "smart well-educated people." I would note that smart may not equal well-educated & vice-versa ... but that's my opinion. Or maybe it's more of a Venn diagram ... Is it ethical/moral to set/create some method for determining where along the spectrum one falls into the "too uninformed" range? What's the hurdle to move from "too uniformed"? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #11 November 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteCant be done. Some one with a completyly open mind and no opinons on anything would have to walk the planet. there is no such being. The who decides is the bump in this road What can't be done? (I'm looking for clarification.) Set requirements or even meaningfully set come up with methods to determine such requirements? VR/Marg The latter. It boils down to who decides? In all cases or examples I can see subjectivity removed from the process. Hence, the problem."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #12 November 7, 2008 Quote I think our history in the US is full of examples of the problems with anything of then the goal of universal suffrage. I can't ignore it even if the premise is reasonable. Good point. Are we condemned to repeat history? Or is there some underlying ethical issue with disenfrancisement that trumps the potential for even the most apparently and rigorously vetted reasonable test? Historically the tests/barriors have not always been knowledge-based. E.g., XY chromosome does not automatically equal informed. But what about a requirement for community service? What's the ethical &/or moral basis for discarding such a requirement? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #13 November 7, 2008 Leave it to the States. I'd prefer passing an intelligence test of sorts be required, in addition to US citizenship. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #14 November 7, 2008 Quote Quote I actually think the larger the margin....the less informed the voters were. But that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is how people preach everyone should vote and then turn around and say only smart well-educated people should vote. As I'm reading it you're setting up some limits on a spectrum (& please correct any mis-assumptions on my part); at one end "less informed" voters and at the other end "smart well-educated people." I would note that smart may not equal well-educated & vice-versa ... but that's my opinion. Or maybe it's more of a Venn diagram ... Is it ethical/moral to set/create some method for determining where along the spectrum one falls into the "too uninformed" range? What's the hurdle to move from "too uniformed"? VR/Marg Yeah I'm tired as hell so I wasn't sure if I understood what I wrote either. So yeah I'll revisit this tomorrow. www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #15 November 7, 2008 QuoteI'd prefer passing an intelligence test of sorts be required, in addition to US citizenship. What kind of intelligence test? Or to measure intelligence of what? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #16 November 7, 2008 Quote Leave it to the States. I'd prefer passing an intelligence test of sorts be required, in addition to US citizenship. Again, who decides? Does it become the right of the party in power? While I totally agree with your premise I see no way to use it pracitcally. If an idiot is put in charge of deciding where would that leave us?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #17 November 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteAny citizen willing to do what it takes to vote without being strong-armed or payed off. I don't understand what you mean by that. (Seriously) VR/Marg Guess I mean to say I think the laws are fine just like they are -- adding more criteria leads to potentially unfair discrimination, or at least I can't think of any that doesn't. (three edits just to get that feeble thought out -- having a Bush-like day) . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #18 November 7, 2008 Therein lies the problem. Intellect is extremely difficult to quantify, even if it is a desirable quality in a voter. I do think it clear that the founding fathers did NOT want everyone to vote. Part of the reason they designed a constitutional republic vice a democracy. Granted, the right to vote is not enshrined in the Constitution but one can easily deduce that from state constitutions and writings of the era. Today, I think a fundamental knowledge of mathematics, civics, economics, and current events would be a fine requisite for voting, but how to test that in a fair way would be a rather difficult thing to devise. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #19 November 7, 2008 QuoteToday, I think a fundamental knowledge of mathematics, civics, economics, and current events would be a fine requisite for voting, but how to test that in a fair way would be a rather difficult thing to devise. so...for now, is it safe to say that it's morally right to vote if a particular candidate motivates your lazy ass to get out of bed and vote for him/her/it...whatever motivation that may be?Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #20 November 7, 2008 QuoteIf you were re-crafting the US Constitution, what would you propose as requirements to vote and *why*? Over 18 and registered. That's it. If you live in a truly free country, there should be no need for any other "requirements." I do think there are some things that a person might do to disqualify themselves such as being a convicted felon, but not a lot more than that. If you have so little disregard for your fellow citizens that you break their largest laws, then, yeah, you give up your right to vote. Military service as a requirement? That's ridiculous. What that means is that the people in power will always have a captive group of minds to rely on to keep them in power. Military service can NEVER be a requirement to vote in a truly free country. Even public service is pushing it as those with dissenting opinions could easily be excluded from service by those in authority.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #21 November 7, 2008 Done, and done. .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #22 November 7, 2008 Put the polling booth at the back of a giant rat maze. If you're too dumb to find the polling booth, you can't vote. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #23 November 7, 2008 Anti-short prejudice, bigotry, and hatred personified by this evil sign. SHORT POWER! Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #24 November 7, 2008 A democracy is designed so that the people who live in a country have a say in how it is governed. To that end, over 18, and a law-abiding citizen is all that's required. If some "elite" branch of society then decides that certain laws be enacted, it should be up to that branch to explain their reasons for thinking this and the topic should be debated in parliament. That's all pretty much the system as it is in most democracies. The only thing I would add to all of this is that attempting to sway the vote by foul means, be it a simple willful misrepesentation of the truth (aka spin or just plain lying) or by more nefarious methods, should be a crime punishable by having "known scumbag" tattooed on their forehead and being barred from all jobs except sewer maintainance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Misslmperfect 0 #25 November 7, 2008 Quote (Tempted to suggest a publication requirement … but that’s most gratuitous … as I signed a contract for my first book today. [happy-nerdgirl-dance] Someone thinks there’s an audience beyond dz.com for my pontificating on science, technology, and security. ) Congratulations!!!!!! Oh Canada, merci pour la livraison! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
