0
nerdgirl

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

Recommended Posts

Quote

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.






I hear she could probably even vote in the Republic of Alaska.....(pesky secessionists)

Yeah all that experience....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

4 year degree:o{ how long was that time warp to get that 4 year degree in journalism????}

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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. :D:P)



Congratulations!!!!!!
:)


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

/Marg


feel free to utilize me for research LOL. attempts at getting a prof. to take on an undergrad for independent research projects are coming up REAL short.[:/]
Oh Canada, merci pour la livraison!



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.



Concur – in thinking through the ethical argument while hiking around backwoods of southeast Georgia this afternoon (:)), I went back to the basis for the state.

Territorial sovereignty is the foundation of all other state activities since the Treaty of Westphalia. All sovereign states proclaim compulsory jurisdiction (whether autocratic, monastic, timocratic, or democratic) – a person is regarded as subject to the state, with or without consent.

For me, universal enfranchisement is central to the agreement between a democratic state and the subjects (citizens); as you describe, consent of the governed. The underlying ethical principle is justice. Justice between the sovereign democratic state and its citizenry. Anything less would be injustice and ethically weakened.

VR/Marg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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

Why are you trying to exclude fellow citizens?




I’m not trying to take away anyone’s right or exclude anyone.

There were a couple assertions in another thread that I quoted at the start of this thread:

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.

That brought up what I considered to be (1) issues separate from the thread in which it was contained, and (2) prompted me to think more deeply about the underlying ethical and moral arguments for (near-)universal enfranchisement.

Historically people have been excluded from voting based on phenotype & genotype (race, sex, ethnicity) and class (property owning versus non-property owning; slave vs freeman). The quote cited above suggests neither … but asserts a moral imperative connected to some knowledge, which suggests a requirement of certain attainment/level of knowledge. It also infers some means to determine that the electorate has met that ‘moral’ bar (suggested in the quote) for making the choice for President.

I don’t do ‘set-up’ or ‘gotcha’ arguments … which is not to say if someone opens a door, walks in, and delivers something on a gilded platter, that I might not elect to take advantage of the situation. (How I take advantage depends on what he’s carrying and how lascivious I’m feeling. :o;))

On reading the cited quote, the counter-arguments that initially occurred to me resembled a number of the comments posted here: core belief in ideals of personal and civil freedoms, core belief in democracy as a civil institution, historical problems of any ‘reasonable-appearing’ vote-test, etc. But what’s the moral or ethical arguments underlying either the quote or the counter-argument?

There was a genuine question in my mind beyond the immediate responses on the underlying moral and/or ethical arguments for or against an inherent requirement of some knowledge for enfranchisement, i.e., epistemology of enfranchisement – aka ‘how do I know what I know' or what I think I know about a right to vote. And what are the underlying ethical arguments for universal enfranchisement. One approach to logical argumentation (dialectics) is to explore counter-propositions/counter-hypotheses. For me, the process that leads one to a conclusion can sometime be as interesting as the conclusion.

I do look forward to you and others making such objections to limiting enfranchisement the next time a poster invokes the oft-cited, purported Heinlein stance, e.g., a most recent occurrence.

Also, if I was trying to make an argument for or against something do you really think it would not be more definitive? :P

VR/Marg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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



Really? There's no room for them on an internet chat board? :)
Nevermind politics, business, law, medicine, research, media, etc?

While I would agree that arguing normatives is generally not the best strategy, ethics are the underlying and often unspoken (or un-typed) foundation on which arguments of effectiveness and policy are built for me.

VR/Marg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Marg --

Love ya, but damn you use a lot of words sometimes. ;)



Thanks ... my pyschic powers just haven't been working of late ... clearly need more dancing naked under the moonlight :o... hence the reliance on words. :P

/Marg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

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


Really? There's no room for them on an internet chat board? :)Nevermind politics, business, law, medicine, research, media, etc?
While I would agree that arguing normatives is generally not the best strategy, ethics are the underlying and often unspoken (or un-typed) foundation on which arguments of effectiveness and policy are built for me.
VR/Marg


I think you misunderstood. They're fine on chat boards, but have no place in the determination of who should be allowed to vote or not.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Thanks ... my pyschic powers just haven't been working of late ... clearly need more dancing naked under the moonlight :o... hence the reliance on words. :P



S'okay . . . my telepathic powers are in full swing so lemme know when you're doing that dance and we'll all practice up on our Technical Remote Viewing.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you asked...how about a simple quiz to see whether the voter in question is paying attention??

In other words you show up to your place of voting, but before you get to vote you have to answer a random question or two to show that you are in fact up to date on current affairs. No pass, no vote.

Again it doesn't have to be a PhD level exam just enough to know that the person is tuned in.

Its not perfect but you did ask B|

Someday Never Comes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simple. All people of a nation above the age of 16 should be eligible if they wish for a fair process. And their vote would be compulsive too.

'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.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don’t do ‘set-up’ or ‘gotcha’ arguments



My apologies for that assumption...

Quote

There was a genuine question in my mind beyond the immediate responses on the underlying moral and/or ethical arguments for or against an inherent requirement of some knowledge for enfranchisement, i.e., epistemology of enfranchisement – aka ‘how do I know what I know' or what I think I know about a right to vote. And what are the underlying ethical arguments for universal enfranchisement.



This premise never occurred to me. :D

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Simple. All people of a nation above the age of 16 should be eligible if they wish for a fair process. And their vote would be compulsive too.



doing fine up to the compulsory bit.

citizens have to meet halfway and at least indicate a willingness to exercise their wish to vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Simple. All people of a nation above the age of 16 should be eligible if they wish for a fair process. And their vote would be compulsive too.



doing fine up to the compulsory bit.

citizens have to meet halfway and at least indicate a willingness to exercise their wish to vote.



I don't know where he gets -16- from. Doesn't make any sense to me.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

we let (or used to in most states) kids drive at 16. 18 seems the most reasonable value as that's where we judge people to be adults, but I suppose 16 could be done.



Something about an age at which legal contracts can be entered into and being considered an adult. Oh, and the 26th Amendment to the US Constitution for us.

Around the world 18 is pretty much universally accepted and think there re only a handful, maybe half a dozen, where the age has been lowered further to 16.

I'd love to hear a logical reason for going that low.

One minor note (pun intended) on the attached.

When signing something this important and the stated age is 18, try to have your signature look like it was made BY an adult rather than a 7-year-old. Nice signature CARL!
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

When signing something this important and the stated age is 18, try to have your signature look like it was made BY an adult rather than a 7-year-old. Nice signature CARL!



HAHAHAHAHAHAA. :D:D:D

.jim
"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Simple. All people of a nation above the age of 16 should be eligible if they wish for a fair process. And their vote would be compulsive too.



doing fine up to the compulsory bit.

citizens have to meet halfway and at least indicate a willingness to exercise their wish to vote.


The reason I believe it should be compulsive is more pertinent to the apathy amongst the electorate in the UK in recent years. I've heard numbers of people voting recently in the US as being as high as 132 million. At the very least, there has been a remarkable turnout. Wonder why, eh?;)

If there is apathy amongst the general electorate, you'll find only the more extreme people voting. Perhaps that's not quite the right word to use, but I'm sure you get my drift, and the unsaid implications.

As to the age of 16? I feel it's essential that 'everyone' should be able to vote, no matter what your colour, race, intelligence, etc.

If your 16 and not bothered with further education, you leave school. You get a job. As soon as your of school leaving age you should be able to vote. I would think anyone against such an idea to be of an arrogant & patronising character.

'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.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


The reason I believe it should be compulsive is more pertinent to the apathy amongst the electorate in the UK in recent years. I've heard numbers of people voting recently in the US as being as high as 132 million. At the very least, there has been a remarkable turnout. Wonder why, eh?;)

If there is apathy amongst the general electorate, you'll find only the more extreme people voting. Perhaps that's not quite the right word to use, but I'm sure you get my drift, and the unsaid implications.



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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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



Works out to about 67% of eligible voters and the highest turnout percentage-wise in the last 100 or so years.

That said, there are other country's voter turnouts (non-mandatory / non-coerced) that put that number to shame.

Forcing people to vote is traditionally the sign of a totalitarian regime.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

As to the age of 16? I feel it's essential that 'everyone' should be able to vote, no matter what your colour, race, intelligence, etc.

If your 16 and not bothered with further education, you leave school. You get a job. As soon as your of school leaving age you should be able to vote. I would think anyone against such an idea to be of an arrogant & patronising character.



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.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.



Reminds me of a fundraiser I was at for Senate hopeful Jim Martin (Georgia) earlier in the fall. At one point, Martin's campaign chief asked for a show of hands of how many of us in the audience watched PBS' "Newshour" ... good 90% or so of the hands went up. Then he asked how many of us watched ["x" game show], ["y" reality show], & ["z" night-time soap opera]. There were a few hands for each ... literally less than half a dozen. (And altho' it wasn't among the named tv shows, I do have my own fave 'guilty mental saccharine' show :$.)

Everyone in the room recognized the irony, that we who were motivated to know the issues (& one could say the same of his opponents closest supporters) also were the least likely to see the ads for which our contributions were being solicited.

VR/Marg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Everyone in the room recognized the irony, that we who were motivated to know the issues (& one could say the same of his opponents closest supporters) also were the least likely to see the ads for which our contributions were being solicited.

VR/Marg



unless, of course, everyone was lying. Who wants to admit they want the Bachelor? Or Gossip Girl?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Then he asked how many of us watched ["x" game show], ["y" reality show], & ["z" night-time soap opera]. There were a few hands for each ... literally less than half a dozen.



My hand would have remained at my side for both X and Z, but I've been known to dabble in Y. :$

And I like House, too. Would that be a considered a Z by definition?

I would have to add an additional "N" category for news networks. If you watch any of them, at any time, surely you're very likely to have seen & heard said ads.

I DVR the shows I enjoy and fast-forward commercials. I do sometimes enjoy various news networks, though. And I like the first 15 minutes of Ellen. :)
Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the only thing that should need to be proven to have the right to vote is your citizenship. period.

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

Taking away felon's rights is plain silly for example. You do not accomplish anything by doing that. And in Florida, it has become unmanageable anyway if you want an example of how badly that law can and does work. people get blacklisted and they cannot seem to get off those roles, even they are not supposed to be one them in the first place.

It is far simpler to give ALL citizen's the right to vote. Not to have to register - you ARE registered to vote BECAUSE you are a citizen.

I may exercise to NOT vote yes, but the pains that this country goes through to keep people out is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0