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

[Andy9o8 0]

Requirements? Mere citizenship.
-Maybe disqualification for certain felons; although that's really a red herring: I don't envision "the felon vote" being a statistically significant subset.
-Knowledge or language tests? No. Remember your history: literacy tests (along with poll taxes, etc.) were one of the several ways the pre-civil rights Deep South used to keep "nigras" from voting. Would be very susceptible to abuse. Probably unconstitutional, too.
-As for minimum age, that's almost irrelevant to the main point. All "legal" ages, whether minimums or maximums, are basically arbitrary points along a bell curve of arguably relevant factors.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

-Maybe disqualification for certain felons; although that's really a red herring: I don't envision "the felon vote" being a statistically significant subset.

The US thanks to various "WAR on XXXX" has a HUGE prison population and an even larger population of those who have "paid their debt to society"

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Requirements? Mere citizenship.
-Maybe disqualification for certain felons; although that's really a red herring: I don't envision "the felon vote" being a statistically significant subset.
-Knowledge or language tests? No. Remember your history: literacy tests (along with poll taxes, etc.) were one of the several ways the pre-civil rights Deep South used to keep "nigras" from voting. Would be very susceptible to abuse. Probably unconstitutional, too.

So is there an ethical/moral/jurispridence reason underlying your objection to a minimum knowledge-based test ... or is it based on historical patterns? Historically the tests/barriors have not usually been knowledge-based but rather phenotype (race), genotype (sex), or class (land-owning or freeman).

Are we condemned to repeat history? Or do you see some underlying ethical issue with disenfrancisement that trumps the potential for even the most apparently and rigorously vetted reasonable test?

VR/Marg

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

[Amazon 7]

I will go against the grain here and put this forth.

To get your voter registration card you have to take a high school civics class and PASS the damn thing.

I really would like the people who are choosing our leaders to have a freaking clue on who and what they are voting for and WHY.. and not have it be just another American Idol contest on TV

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

limiting anyone's right to vote for ANY other reason is simply thumbing your nose at true democracy.

Do we have a true democracy? Or is it a republic?

The closest large-scale democracy as I see it is the Californian ballot initiative process.

Does the underlying ethical issues of a knowledge-test matter for a true democracy change when one thinks about a Republic? We do have additional requirements for elected representatives. Should there be a knowledge-based test for representatives to the republic?

VR/Marg

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

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

I really would like the people who are choosing our leaders to have a freaking clue on who and what they are voting for and WHY.. and not have it be just another American Idol contest on TV

But American Idol voters have watched diligently from the get and know who sounds better than the other.

Not a good analogy; American Idol is about vocal talent.

Actually, American Idol is exactly why a TV contest can be so valuable in our society. I mean, I haven't watched since Kelly Clarkson, but would she have had a chance "to make it" otherwise? I loved her. I cried when she sang "A Moment Like This" in the finale.

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

[Amazon 7]

OK.. I just threw up a little.

[PLFXpert 0]

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

To get your voter registration card you have to take a high school civics class and PASS the damn thing.

I think my dog could have passed my 12th grade civics class, and this was at one of the most highly regarded public schools in California.

I was thinking that if you wanted to go this route with a competency test, that the testing for citizenship would be suitable. I just don't know how subjective the scoring for that is.

Would the state DMVs take on this testing - when you renew your drivers license or state ID, you also renew your voter license? Would it be a single pass, like my motorcycle endorsement, or every 5 years?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Actually, American Idol is exactly why a TV contest can be so valuable in our society. I mean, I haven't watched since Kelly Clarkson, but would she have had a chance "to make it" otherwise? I loved her. I cried when she sang "A Moment Like This" in the finale.

But Simon himself has suggested the viewers aren't doing their job since, and that few if any winners since compare to Clarkson. Clearly the young girl viewership is voting on more than just singing merits.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

Clearly the young girl viewership is voting on more than just singing merits.

True. Look at the Claymates!

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

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

I really would like the people who are choosing our leaders to have a freaking clue on who and what they are voting for and WHY.. and not have it be just another American Idol contest on TV

...still?

People quote speech soundbites and SNL shows, but can't quote any actual campaign website materials.
Most don't know how actual campaign promises will be implemented.

Each state governor has a website with their plans on what they will be doing during their administration (Arkansas' is a monthly paid membership ).

I review ours and look at the programs that they are funding.
We have an amazing amount of "green" programs that go on in Florida and no one knows. Hydrogen cars, etc.

Most people can read, but are already ignorant because they refuse to educate themselves.

[vortexring 0]

Quote

If the apathetic are too apathetic to know anything about the decisions on the ballot (seems like a tautology), do you really want them voting? At best they vote based on the last commercial they saw on TV. At worst, they poke at random boxes.

132M is the highest ever, but it doesn't look that great when the country's population is 300M. Maybe 60% of eligible citizens?

Depends on the reasons causing the apathy. If you consider the increasingly high wages British politicians award themselves, their increasing lack of work, the increasing length of their holidays, their efforts to increase their allowances, the increasing amount of 'scandals', and so on, an increasing amount of voters decide to no longer encourage them by voting. An increasing amount of British voters view their politicians as nothing but a bunch of scumbags and refuse to involve themselves in the voting process. This highlights an issue but doesn't do much to address it.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Then why stop at 16 and not lower it to . . . 5? Seriously. Being "bothered" about education shouldn't be related at all since you don't have to ever attend school at all and still be eligible to vote.

Neither should be the ability to earn a living. I know a number of people that made quite a bit of money well before they were 16.

Having 5 year olds vote would be ridiculous. What's wrong with lowering the voting age from 18 to 16?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Then why stop at 16 and not lower it to . . . 5? Seriously. Being "bothered" about education shouldn't be related at all since you don't have to ever attend school at all and still be eligible to vote.

Neither should be the ability to earn a living. I know a number of people that made quite a bit of money well before they were 16.

Having 5 year olds vote would be ridiculous. What's wrong with lowering the voting age from 18 to 16?

The 5-year-old question is a logical extension of your argument. If it can be lowered from 18 to 16, then why not 15? If 15, then why not 14 and so on?

The reason 18 makes sense is that is the age at which people can enter into legal contracts and are considered adults.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[vortexring 0]

Your lowering of age isn't that logical. If the speed limits 70mph, why not 80mph, and so on. You have to draw a line eventually.

Of course, I do recognize 18 being a reasonable minimum age to vote. The reasoning I have for lowering the age to 16 is to simply increase the electorate, as I feel as many people as possible should vote - and 16 year olds are quite capable of making an informed decision in this regard. It isn't a big deal really.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[quade 3]

Quote

Your lowering of age isn't that logical. If the speed limits 70mph, why not 80mph, and so on. You have to draw a line eventually.

That's a poor analogy depending on where you live and how much you understand about physics.

I'm not knocking you for saying 16, but it's pretty out of line with the rest of the planet in terms of voting and contracts. I was just curious about some actual logic you may have had behind it. Increasing the size of the electorate "just to do it" isn't a great idea, but if you had another thought such as also lowering contract ages or something I would have liked to have heard about it.

I particularly don't like the idea of people voting while they're under the control and responsibility of others. As it stands now from 16 to 18 normally they'd still have a parent legally in charge of them and writing them off on their income taxes. It just doesn't sit well.

I realize you could put in a lot of other "if/then" provisions, but that just mucks up the simplicity of the entire system. For instance, you had mentioned "out on their own and earning their own wages." That's an awful test.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JackC 0]

Quote

The reason 18 makes sense is that is the age at which people can enter into legal contracts and are considered adults.

That depends where on the planet you are. In the US it might be 18, but in Scotland the age of independence is 16, in Japan it's 20, in most of Canada it's 19 and in some parts of Africa it's as low as 13.

So your objection to Vortexring saying 16, is just as valid as his objection to you saying 18.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Of course, I do recognize 18 being a reasonable minimum age to vote. The reasoning I have for lowering the age to 16 is to simply increase the electorate, as I feel as many people as possible should vote - and 16 year olds are quite capable of making an informed decision in this regard. It isn't a big deal really.

HOnestly, 16 year olds of today are dumbasses and unlikely, in general, to make any kind of informed vote.

I feel the same way about 18 year olds too. But
18 ties off with 'legal' adulthood, contracts, likely out of school in many cases and on your own.

Once someone is self sufficient, with a job, paying taxes, etc, they likely cross the 'reasonable enough to vote' line after a couple years past that point.

But requirements?

1 - legal adult
2 - legal citizen
3 - they haven't given up status #2 by betraying the public via a major crime - if you commit a major crime, then you have demonstrated you don't have any regard for society as a whole - that's as good a reason to lose the voting right as any

and they should have to prove it when they come in and vote - registration and ID checks

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[tkhayes 126]

and the difference between a true democracy and a republic would be.......?

insofar as voting rights goes?

If you want to set rules for voting, then somewhere along the line we have to vote on who makes those rules or what the rules are. My point is that is that it is simply easier to say that everyone has the vote. period. NO exceptions.

It appears from the 'outside' that the only people that want rules about who can vote are the people that think they might lose without those rules. They have already lost their perspective on the system. If you truly believe in it, then you truly believe in the majority rule. And if you do not, then you have demonstrated only that you have some other agenda (like not letting 'niggers' vote for for example....)

If we are a 'republic' then why is the 'Republican Party' trying to spread 'democracy' around the world......

it is all bullshit. I am a layman. I speak as a layman. Let the people vote, or eventually, you will have the French Revolution here on your soil......