Demonstrable requirements to vote – what *should* they be? And what are the underlying ethics?

[PLFXpert 0]

Despite loving the idea of a comprehensive-filtering process for who gets to vote, I would not support requirements for such. It's a slippery slope. What about all the people having children (also a very important decision to think through that affects all of us) who never took "the time to find out at least a little" about what it will require to raise them?

I would argue it is more immoral to deprive those who "don't take the time to find out at least a little about the election" of their right to vote.

Having said that, I don't think anyone should be out in the streets, grabbing people by the hand and walking them through the voter-registration process.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[PLFXpert 0]

+1.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

If 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."

What is the ethical or moral reasoning behind the criteria you suggest: "Over 18 & registered"? Utilitarian?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

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!!!!!!

Thanks! Now I get to start working on the next one.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

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?

Is it morally right? Or morally wrong? Why? What are the underlying moral arguments? (That question is just as much to anyone reading.
Is it a case the the potential consequences of anything else than near-universal enfranchisement are judged (normatively) to be so reprehensible that it comes down to a utilitarian argument against anything else? I.e., are the potential negative ends of having any sort of vote testing deemed to be unallowable within our society? Why? Other than historical precedent for abuse that [kelpdiver] cited, are there other reasons?

Or to phrase it another way, what are the potential benefits to the Republic of restricting voters? I'm still pondering about my original proposal of limiting voting to black, Hispanic, Native American, and Asian (Central, East, Southeast, and South Asia) women over 75 years old. Trying to play out notional scenarios in my mind of how that would impact policy. Assume executive, legislature, and judiciary will still function under current requirements.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[DanG 1]

I see the regular cycle of elections as an important check on absolute authority. Any additional restriction on the right to vote above a simple age and citizenship requirement would create the potential to remove that check. As soon as the ruling group is given the ability to restrict who has a voice, they will no longer need to be responsive to the will of the populous. This is the argument for universal sufferage from a practical standpoint.

From an ethical standpoint, the government is charged with creating and enforcing laws that concern all of the people of the country. Since the laws apply equally to all, all should have an equal voice in the direction of government. Our current system of government assumes that citizens have equal legal rights, and equal legal responsibilities. By limiting the franchise to certain people, the balance is not maintained. Expecting all of the citizens to abide by the same legal responsibilities, but not grant them the same rights, is unethical.

Congrats on the book deal. Are you writing a book for general consumption, or it is more academic in nature?

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

You are assuming that elderly ladies are immune to the corrupting influence of absolute power. I doubt it.

The only potential benefits to restricting the franchise exist in fairy tales and science fiction. In the real world there is no evidence that a class of intelligent, educated, and wise souls exist that would selflessly make decisions for the good of the unwashed masses. In the real world those people become dictators.

- Dan G

[normiss 622]

Ethical and moral?
Citizenship, registration, and age should be the only requirements!

Why are you trying to exclude fellow citizens?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Ethical and moral?
Citizenship, registration, and age should be the only requirements!

Why are you trying to exclude fellow citizens?

Ah, I have only seen her ask questions and comment to some details. As of yet I have not seen her make any recomendations to exclude anyone.

Why are you so paranoid?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DougH 270]

I think the vetting process should be registration.

If you are too lazy or misinformed to register without being coddled you should stay a non voter.

Make it easier for people to register on their own, make forms available in public buildings and allow registration by toll free phone so it is easy regardless of status, location, or physical mobility. Every one can get to a post office, or phone one way or another.

And then the people that don't do it themselves can stay away from the polls.

Outlaw the parties and special interest groups role in voter registration. Voting is a huge responsibility, people should be able to shoulder the task of registration all on their own.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

Why are you trying to exclude fellow citizens?

I don't think she is. I understood her question to be why would excluding some who do not meet certain (educational-like) requirements be morally wrong?

Of course, she deviated from that toward the end of her OP. Me thinks she believes it IS morally wrong and there will be a follow-up question once there are several deemed-acceptable-enough responses.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

I think the vetting process should be registration.

Outlaw the parties and special interest groups role in voter registration. Voting is a huge responsibility, people should be able to shoulder the task of registration all on their own.

Agreed.

Quote

Make it easier for people to register on their own, make forms available in public buildings and allow registration by toll free phone so it is easy regardless of status, location, or physical mobility. Every one can get to a post office, or phone one way or another.

I would argue make registration more accessible, not easier in the sense you described.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[DougH 270]

Quote

Quote

I think the vetting process should be registration.

Outlaw the parties and special interest groups role in voter registration. Voting is a huge responsibility, people should be able to shoulder the task of registration all on their own.

Agreed.

Quote

Make it easier for people to register on their own, make forms available in public buildings and allow registration by toll free phone so it is easy regardless of status, location, or physical mobility. Every one can get to a post office, or phone one way or another.

I would argue make registration more accessible, not easier in the sense you described.

I typed easier but I was really trying to target accessibility. Sub accessible for easy and I bet we mostly agree.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Age (18 seems a reasonable compromise), and native-born or naturalized citizen is all that should be required. Others have written eloquently about the dangers of restricting membership in the club to certain classes of people (e.g. military service). The loss of voting rights upon a felony conviction varies from state to state; some have a lifetime ban, some have a difficult process by which rights can be restored by court order, and some have essentially automatic restoration after a certain number of years without re-offending. I agree with the latter; once the legally imposed penalty has been paid, and after a reasonable period of law-abiding behavior (say, 5 years maybe), people should be allowed a say in the type of government they will live under. I have some personal experience in "taxation without representation"; I lived in this country as a legal immigrant for over 15 years. There was a good reason why I was not allowed a voice in the government (as I was not yet a citizen), but it was frustrating. I did finally get through the naturalization process in August, so my first chance to vote (which I took) was in this election (yahoo!). I was a bit ticked off, though, that I had to keep proving my right to vote, first when I registered (as is entirely reasonable), but then again later because my DMV records had not been updated and still had me as a non-citizen. By the way, if anyone believes it's too easy to become a citizen here, I can tell you otherwise from my experience, and I know others who had a much worse time with the process.
I do think there might be a bit more selection for the informed in the voting process, though. In particular, how about leaving the party affiliation of the candidates off the ballot? If anyone wants to vote on party lines, then they would at least have to learn the name of the relevent candidates. As it is, you could just go and tick every republican or democrat without any clue who the candidates actually are. It might be even better to have to write in the name of your chosen candidate (i.e., no names at all on the ballot, only empty boxes beside the position, for example President/Vice President: ________________), but that would open a whole can of technical and legal worms.

Can you give us a title for your book? The web site just links to Springer's home page (about the priciest publisher around BTW). I might want to order it, or have the UGA library (as if they have any money ) order it. I tried to search for "nerdgirl" but somehow no-one by that name is listed as an author.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

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.

Knowledge-based tests/barriors are no less discriminatory, though, w/r/t one's right to vote.

Anything less than universal suffrage with limited disfranchisement (i.e. age, citizenship, registration) is immoral because it allows only a few the opportunity to make decisions for many with the few being the same people who decided who the few should be in the first place.



Is it morally wrong for someone to vote who has little to zero knowledge about what they're voting for? I think so. But, it's morally right to allow that possibility (and probability) because to focus on preventing those instances is to forget the bigger, more virtous picture.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If 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."

What is the ethical or moral reasoning behind the criteria you suggest: "Over 18 & registered"? Utilitarian?

No. Freedom.

Pretty much any other requirements take away somebody's freedom to live their life as they choose.

"Ethics" and "Morals" belong in philosophy and religion classes.

Freedom should belong to everyone, not just those that agree with my ethics and morals.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[happythoughts 0]

Television. The power of televised debates reveals itself in post-debate polls.

At the JFK-Nixon debate, JFK was rested, tanned, and well-dressed. Nixon refused makeup, was pale from a recent illness, and limping from hitting his knee on a car door moments before.

After the debates, many radio listeners gave the edge to Nixon. Television viewers, however, overwhelmingly agreed that Kennedy had won.

We are picking the President like we pick Miss America. Nobody cares about the talent portion, just the swimsuit competition.

So, the new requirement is that women, who are ovulating during the week of voting, will be excluded. I am for the womens right to vote, they just need to be sensible at the time.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

So, the new requirement is that women, who are ovulating during the week of voting, will be excluded. I am for the womens right to vote, they just need to be sensible at the time.

Would you also then exclude the men who voted for Sarah Palin based on their being controlled by their little heads???

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

So, the new requirement is that women, who are ovulating during the week of voting, will be excluded. I am for the womens right to vote, they just need to be sensible at the time.

Would you also then exclude the men who voted for Sarah Palin based on their being controlled by their little heads???

No, you need to understand how evidence of past discrimination is justified in its reverse application as its remedy.
(Similar to giving jobs to women now, just because they weren't educated enough in the past.)
Women voted for JFK ("he has a really nice tan and hair") and Clinton ("he has really nice hair").

So, now men get to vote for women based on their looks.

In the past, we only had Hillary Rottweiller Clinton. That's kind of like being a food critic and only getting to decide among British cuisine. (Except that some British food is palatable.)

Palin is attractive for an older woman, but not votable.

I am waiting for Blake Lively to run for governor of Calif. However, Calif seems to only be electing men as their gov currently, along with their other sexist/homophobic agendas.

[downwardspiral 0]

Vote, don't vote. It is a right. Not a duty. And it certainly isn't rocket science. Why would we need further requirements to vote? Would it have a significant impact on the results of an election? I don't think so.

A voter can actively research all the information that had any bearing on what or who they were voting on and still end up as equally confused as when they first started. In fact the more informed a person is probably just means they are less decisive because once a person makes a decision regarding their vote they need not research any longer and nothing short of criminal charges would sway their mind and even then it may not...*cough* Alaska *cough* Marion Barry *cough*

So does that mean the folks who are most informed are moderate?....perhaps.

Intelligence and education? What possible difference could this make? Absolutely none in my opinion. Take two individuals who are highly intelligent or highly educated or both and yet they will still disagree. Why is that? Is it because there is no right answer ? If so(which I believe is the case), how can intelligence and education have an impact on the results?

That being said....we do need requirements. 18 years of age seems logical to me. We can't allow all children to vote and we have to draw a line somewhere so why not when the government considers a person an adult? Citizenship? Of course. Registration? I'm not even sure why it is we have a registration process.

Now let's see if that's more understandable than yesterday.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

A voter can actively research all the information that had any bearing on what or who they were voting on

I try to get all my facts from Saturday Night Live clips on YouTube.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Or to phrase it another way, what are the potential benefits to the Republic of restricting voters? I'm still pondering about my original proposal of limiting voting to black, Hispanic, Native American, and Asian (Central, East, Southeast, and South Asia) women over 75 years old. Trying to play out notional scenarios in my mind of how that would impact policy. Assume executive, legislature, and judiciary will still function under current requirements.

I see likely outcomes of such an electorate, but few benefits. The *short* term health of SS would be secure. Same with Medicare- the patient handling would likely be better, but without regard to sustainable cost. Skateboards would be banned. You'll need to be 30 to drive. Bingo and Mahjong would be the national sports. Bus systems would work.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

(Similar to giving jobs to women now, just because they weren't educated enough in the past.)

Uhhhhhh ........Yeah........ the GOP still seems to be suffering from that one.. trying to slide Sister Sarah in on the American People as they did

[lawrocket 3]

I think that there is no way that it could be done. In a sense, do put any demonstrable requirements to a voter would be to punish a person for literally doing nothing.

I can see a couple of good reasons for denying a vote: 1) lack of citizenship (citizenship shows a vested interest); and 2) affirmative act waiving that right (i.e. felony conviction).

To put a test for something makes it a "license." We have a "right to vote" and not a "license to vote."

There are plenty of people who are uninformed. And you know, they have just as much right as anyone else. To limit voters to those who can demonstrate knowledge would be like limiting speech from people unless they can demonstrate that they know what they are talking about.

Would we limit the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure to those who can prove they have nothing to hide? That means "license from unreasonable search and seizure."

Would we limit the right to bear arms only to those who can demonstrate a basic knowledge of ballistics science and identification and statistics regarding civilian weaponry?

To put "tests" for the application of rights makes them "licenses." A "license" is not a right.

The whole thought is anathema to freedom.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

(Similar to giving jobs to women now, just because they weren't educated enough in the past.)

Uhhhhhh ........Yeah........ the GOP still seems to be suffering from that one.. trying to slide Sister Sarah in on the American People as they did

Today we are discussing the qualifications to vote.

I can't believe that you don't value on-the-job experience.

She has a 4-yr degree and experience as the governor. Being governor has direct decision making credentials. Plus, she didn't make the decision to allow her daughter to be publicly pawed in bars for votes. (I guess that is just a family policy for Hillary.)

I definitely think that Palin should be allowed to vote.
She has shown that she has a knowledge base to make decisions with.

Too bad the Dems didn't have any experienced candidates. The "co-president" merely lived with the person making the decisions. (So, essentially, all the Secret Service have 8 years "experience" have the same qualifications, while avoiding the mindless rage).

If Hillary had worked on her appearance, she could have gotten the "attractive vote" from her "constituency".