Is Universal Suffrage Representative?

Don · Oct 16, 2009

In another thread, the issue of restricting the vote to a particular group of people arose. Naturally, this tweaked my interest in thinking outside the box, so I want to throw the subject out here for discussion.

The concept of truly universal suffrage, relatively new historically, is almost sacrosanct today. I have no problem barbequing sacred cows, so I have to ask, is that absolutely the best solution for a democracy? Or does universal suffrage lead, inevitably, to bread and circuses and the collapse of the status quo, as argued by any number of philosophers?

What stroke of wisdom set the age to begin voting at 18? Why not 16, or 21? Should the right to vote end at some particular age? Should a certain level of civic competency be demonstrated prior to casting a vote? Or perhaps a term of service to the country in the military or a civilian service corps should be a prerequisite.

For that matter, is universal suffrage truly representative? For example, since I've paid no Federal Income Tax the last two years, why should I have a say in the way those tax dollars are spent? Should Bill Gates or Warren Buffet have more say in how those dollars are spent, since a lot more of the dollars being spent are theirs?

Set aside your first, programmed response, and don't hide behind partisanship. I'd like to see the question seriously examined.

Let's agree that civil rights rule, so any reference to race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. is ruled out. I don't want this to degenerate into a battle over racism, mysogonism, or the like.

Who should vote, and why?

Jcomp · Oct 16, 2009

I don't mind the idea that all such things can be discussed and analyzed for review, and agree that certain stipulations (such as age) seem somewhat arbitrary (unless there actually have been studies conducted of which I am unaware), but when you get into who "should" be voting vs. who "shouldn't" the issue of discrimination in some shape or form inevitably comes forth. It's an interesting, big, tough discussion. I'd have to do some ponderous pondering.

Don · Oct 16, 2009

Jcomp said:
I don't mind the idea that all such things can be discussed and analyzed for review, and agree that certain stipulations (such as age) seem somewhat arbitrary (unless there actually have been studies conducted of which I am unaware), but when you get into who "should" be voting vs. who "shouldn't" the issue of discrimination in some shape or form inevitably comes forth. It's an interesting, big, tough discussion. I'd have to do some ponderous pondering.

Cool. Me too. That's why I offered no opinion, simply threw out some alternatives.

Don · Oct 16, 2009

Oh, and we discriminate every day. We eat food instead of poison, we value the opinions of smart people more than the guy who lives in the van down by the river, we choose when to step off the curb based on traffic flow. Let's remember that discrimination has a valid purpose as well as an invalid one.

The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.

Jcomp · Oct 16, 2009

Indeed. I supposed the phrase I was looking for was something along the lines of unfair or immoral prejudice. Just because the guy in the van down by the river isn't so intelligent, does that mean he shouldn't be allowed a voice?

I actually have my own opinions on such things and truth be told I've been called elitist for those thoughts. But they're more hypothetical than practical. Ideally I'd love to see some standard set for who gets to contribute in choices that, in the present state of the world, can affect humanity and the entire planet's present and future. But in classic Compton fashion, I don't believe in even the smart people enough to be fair, empathetic or the least bit understanding in regulating such a thing.

Don · Oct 16, 2009

If you're looking for personal financial advice, would you value the opinion of the guy in the van down by the river as much as your economics professor? Is personal financial advice on a different level than choosing leaders who make financial decisions for the whole country? I agree the topic in general is a tough question, and it gets tougher as you delve deeper into the specifics.

Jcomp · Oct 16, 2009

I see where you're going with the question, but what I would do personally versus what a nation should do collectively can't be treated as exactly the same. And I mean, hypothetically, who's to say my economics professor might not give me terrible advice because he thinks he's the smartest guy in the room and his theories are infallible, while the guy in the van by the river might have some practical life stories about how he got to such a lowly state that might be worth listening to as words of warning. I've actually talked to some homeless guys while doing volunteer work and heard some stories that can be taken as decent advice on how not to screw your life up. But I digress.

The thing is, you still have to draw a line somewhere and who do we rely on to regulate where the line is drawn? Running with the analogical examples: Is it just a homeless guy by the river who'd be excluded from decisions? What about just a guy who's made really bad investments and is just getting by? Would you seek his advice? What about a guy who's inherited millions and done enough to maintain them but isn't anything special regarding financial wisdom? Where does the line get drawn? Geniuses only? A few regs?

In actual context of voting, the difficulty lies in determining where to draw the line, is it fair, and is there a fair opportunity for people on the non-voter side to crossover into the voter side? Who guards the line and can they be trusted?

Don · Oct 16, 2009

Jcomp said:
Where does the line get drawn? Geniuses only? A few regs?

In actual context of voting, the difficulty lies in determining where to draw the line, is it fair, and is there a fair opportunity for people on the non-voter side to crossover into the voter side? Who guards the line and can they be trusted?

Any discussion can be drowned in hypotheticals. I think the points you've raised above get to the core of the matter.

As a small-government guy, I personally believe that the less power resides in the hands of government, the less important it is who votes. Conversely, the more power, the more important the franchise. If government is to be all-powerful, the franchise becomes critical. I think history bears that out.

A government without the power to finance bread and circuses would be immune to the cries for bread and circuses, after all.

Dicentra P · Oct 16, 2009

Don said:
What stroke of wisdom set the age to begin voting at 18? Why not 16, or 21? Should the right to vote end at some particular age? Should a certain level of civic competency be demonstrated prior to casting a vote? Or perhaps a term of service to the country in the military or a civilian service corps should be a prerequisite.

Who should vote, and why?

Te voting age was set at 18 in the Vietnam era so those eligible to be drafted would also be eligible to vote. Still arbitrary but there was reason to it/

Don said:
Oh, and we discriminate every day. We eat food instead of poison, we value the opinions of smart people more than the guy who lives in the van down by the river, we choose when to step off the curb based on traffic flow. Let's remember that discrimination has a valid purpose as well as an invalid one.

But the man in the van by the river could also be a genius, who prefers to live of the grid for reasons other than intelligence.

One implied assumption in you original post that I cannot accept is that the status quo is always and in all aspects the best way. Any form of limitation in voting is extraordinarily vulnerable to manipulation but those currently in power for their own good, either in blindness to or without concern for the needs of those who are not in power.

Don · Oct 16, 2009

Dicentra P said:
The voting age was set at 18 in the Vietnam era so those eligible to be drafted would also be eligible to vote. Still arbitrary but there was reason to it.

If there was a reason, how is that arbitrary? Actually, I think it was a great reason. Whether it's sufficient or not is open to debate. And since the draft no longer applies, does it still hold as a great reason?

Just to throw a couple of monkey wrenches in the works; what about mature 16-yr-olds, or even younger? OTOH, why not restrict the vote to over 25 or 30, so people will have had at least some experience in the real world?

Dicentra P said:
But the man in the van by the river could also be a genius, who prefers to live of the grid for reasons other than intelligence.

Sure, there are always exceptions. We can drown in hypotheticals. I happen to come pretty close to living in a van down by the river, myself.

Dicentra P said:
One implied assumption in you original post that I cannot accept is that the status quo is always and in all aspects the best way.

I don't see that in the OP, and anyone who knows me would say I generally don't support the status quo simply because it is the status quo.

Dicentra P said:
Any form of limitation in voting is extraordinarily vulnerable to manipulation but those currently in power for their own good, either in blindness to or without concern for the needs of those who are not in power.

Absolutely true, and the single biggest objection to any form of limitation. Who will watch the watchers, and all that. Lenin pointed out a closely-related issue.

Vladimir Lenin said:
Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.

semilargeintestine · Oct 16, 2009

IME, 18-yos are not the people you want voting. Obviously there are exceptions, but just look at any college campus. The guy doing a keg-stand with the "fuck you" hat is going to pick the next president?

Dicentra P · Oct 16, 2009

Don said:
I have no problem barbequing sacred cows, so I have to ask, is that absolutely the best solution for a democracy? Or does universal suffrage lead, inevitably, to bread and circuses and the collapse of the status quo, as argued by any number of philosophers?

The association of the collapse of the status quo with bread and circus in opposition to the best solution for a democracy implies, intentionally or not, that it is something that should be preferred.

I think the setting the age at 18 for the draftees is arbitrary because it addresses only the issue of fairness to the 18 year old males eligible for the draft and not the most appropriate age for active participation in the democratic process. It was mainly an attempt to head off growing resistance to the draft, not an attempt to strengthen the democratic process.

Dommo · Oct 16, 2009

As someone who just finished college, I can tell you the college kids don't really vote. The apathy levels are pretty ridiculous, but I also think that their opinions are just as valid as the old folks views are. In fact I'd say they're more important.

It's the young people who strive for change and improvement in society, because as people age they tend to resist change.

Think about it.

Civil Rights -> driven by young people
Emancipation -> driven by the young idealists
Gay Rights -> young idealists
18 year old right to vote -> etc.

In fact the bigger problem is that young people DON'T turn out to vote. We're the ones being crapped on by the past generation who completely boned up the economy, and for all the bitching that old people make about social security and medicaid, at least they'll get to see it. Shit by the time I get to be 65 the only thing I'm going to get is a free whopper from burger king once a month.

That said I think some requirements should need to be met in order to vote or at least should increase the weight of your vote. Everyone gets to vote, just some have votes that are worth more. Things like graduating from high school, not being a felon, paying your taxes, regularly participating in elections, should all improve your influence simply because being a good citizen should be rewarded. If historically you can be shown to not give a flying shit about what happens, then your voice shouldn't be heard as loudly as those who do give a crap. Sure you're still heard, but your vote might only count for half of someone elses.

Dicentra P · Oct 16, 2009

semilargeintestine said:
IME, 18-yos are not the people you want voting. Obviously there are exceptions, but just look at any college campus. The guy doing a keg-stand with the "fuck you" hat is going to pick the next president?

Unfortunately many of these guys never improve. I know a few 40 year olds who are no better.

To stop my compulsive nit picking and actually address the issue at hand I don't think it is a matter of excluding people from the process but of providing them with the information they need and the critical skills to use it to make an informed choice. There would still be those who don't want to make the effort of make unwise choices but it won't necessarily be the less intelligent ones.

semilargeintestine · Oct 16, 2009

That's why I think you should have to take some sort of test before you get to vote. Keep away the nimrods.

SPMiller · Oct 16, 2009

Don said:
In another thread, the issue of restricting the vote to a particular group of people arose. Naturally, this tweaked my interest in thinking outside the box, so I want to throw the subject out here for discussion.

The concept of truly universal suffrage, relatively new historically, is almost sacrosanct today. I have no problem barbequing sacred cows, so I have to ask, is that absolutely the best solution for a democracy? Or does universal suffrage lead, inevitably, to bread and circuses and the collapse of the status quo, as argued by any number of philosophers?

What stroke of wisdom set the age to begin voting at 18? Why not 16, or 21? Should the right to vote end at some particular age? Should a certain level of civic competency be demonstrated prior to casting a vote? Or perhaps a term of service to the country in the military or a civilian service corps should be a prerequisite.

For that matter, is universal suffrage truly representative? For example, since I've paid no Federal Income Tax the last two years, why should I have a say in the way those tax dollars are spent? Should Bill Gates or Warren Buffet have more say in how those dollars are spent, since a lot more of the dollars being spent are theirs?

Set aside your first, programmed response, and don't hide behind partisanship. I'd like to see the question seriously examined.

Let's agree that civil rights rule, so any reference to race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. is ruled out. I don't want this to degenerate into a battle over racism, mysogonism, or the like.

Who should vote, and why?

I'm just happy we don't have to serve in the military to become citizens or to vote, as depicted in certain fictional wank-fantasies of the future.

Don · Oct 16, 2009

No comments on this part of the OP?

For that matter, is universal suffrage truly representative? For example, since I've paid no Federal Income Tax the last two years, why should I have a say in the way those tax dollars are spent? Should Bill Gates or Warren Buffet have more say in how those dollars are spent, since a lot more of the dollars being spent are theirs?

I thought that would be the most controversial.

Dommo · Oct 16, 2009

See I think more in the opposite direction.

Everyone gets to vote, but some get votes with heavier weighting.

Lets say the default vote has a value of 1. By doing different things, you get bonuses, or penalties to your vote.

Graduate high school +.5 votes for life
Pay your taxes on time +.5 votes
Commit a felony in the past 5 years? -1 vote
Vote in last year's election +.5 vote
Active Military Service or Honorable Discharge/Retired, Peace Corps, Americorps, etc. + .5 votes for life
Volunteer Work .001 votes per hour

I think this would be a better approach. Those who actively participate would benefit more in a system like this.

Fran · Oct 16, 2009

Is an uninformed vote better than no vote?

For example, there are plenty of people here who say 'I've voted Labour/Tory all my life, and I intend to continue'. I'm sure there are equivalent people everywhere. So, if Labour or the Tories said 'We're going to fire cannons into every third home in the country' or 'We're banning fish just because we can' would those people STILL vote for them? Probably a certain percentage would, because that's what they always do. I have no way of quantifying that percentage, it certainly wouldn't be a majority, but if a party has a core who will vote for them whatever they do, in my opinion it disincentivises them greatly. If I were ever going to be in favour of restricting votes, I'd rather look at the uninformed than the apathetic. The apathetic are sliding us into potential dictatorship, but the uninformed are helping to choose our potential dictator.

semilargeintestine · Oct 16, 2009

Agreed. An idiot voting for someone simply because they want to cancel out another person's vote or they always vote Dem/Repub/Libertarian/Mickey Mouse/etc should not be voting IMO.

robeiae · Oct 16, 2009

Don said:
The concept of truly universal suffrage, relatively new historically, is almost sacrosanct today. I have no problem barbequing sacred cows, so I have to ask, is that absolutely the best solution for a democracy?

We're not a democracy, as you well know. But for an actual democracy, universal participation is the means of identifying it as such. That said, the ideal of universal suffrage is--imo--the thing that should be the guiding principle for any republic that claims to be of, by, and for the People.

Or does universal suffrage lead, inevitably, to bread and circuses and the collapse of the status quo, as argued by any number of philosophers?

Well, that's what most of the Framers--especially Madison--assumed. Hence, the Electoral College, Senators chosen by State legislatures, and two-year terms for Reps (the only truly popularly elected Federal officials).

What stroke of wisdom set the age to begin voting at 18? Why not 16, or 21? Should the right to vote end at some particular age? Should a certain level of civic competency be demonstrated prior to casting a vote? Or perhaps a term of service to the country in the military or a civilian service corps should be a prerequisite.

Per JComp, you gotta have a line. And the line should be applied rigorously and consistently. Hence, no exceptions for "mature" sixteen year olds and the like.

For that matter, is universal suffrage truly representative? For example, since I've paid no Federal Income Tax the last two years, why should I have a say in the way those tax dollars are spent? Should Bill Gates or Warren Buffet have more say in how those dollars are spent, since a lot more of the dollars being spent are theirs?

A better solution--imo--is for you to pay some income tax...

Seriously though, under the rubric of the modern free nation-state, taxes are payments for services rendered. Thus, everyone should be subject to the same standard. Income is a stupid vehicle for figuring taxes, as it allows exactly what we have: a tyranny of the majority.

Who should vote, and why?

Every citizen should vote. The age of full-citizenship should be the only standard.

robeiae · Oct 16, 2009

Dommo said:
In fact the bigger problem is that young people DON'T turn out to vote. We're the ones being crapped on by the past generation who completely boned up the economy, and for all the bitching that old people make about social security and medicaid, at least they'll get to see it. Shit by the time I get to be 65 the only thing I'm going to get is a free whopper from burger king once a month.

Relax. Your age group is gonna fuck up plenty of things, and you'll crap on the ones behind you when you do it...

robeiae · Oct 16, 2009

Don said:
No comments on this part of the OP?

I thought that would be the most controversial.

Btw Don, we already have unequal voting, wherein some people's votes count for more then others: the Senate.

jennontheisland · Oct 16, 2009

Giving more weight to votes of those who make more money and less to those who pay less taxes creates an inequality. And I think your constitution-type-thingy says something about everyone being equal...

Me, I like bread and circuses.

As to the age thing... I find it hilarious that the US trusts people to vote but not to drink at 18.

blacbird · Oct 16, 2009

Don said:
What stroke of wisdom set the age to begin voting at 18? Why not 16, or 21?

It used to be 21, prior to the 1960s. A huge impetus for lowering it to 18 had to do with pre-21-year-olds being drafted into military service and sent to risk (and lose) their lives in Vietnam. We feel that we have to set a chronological maturity limitation, and that is admittedly arbitrary, but if we're going to do that, it has to be set at some level.

Beyond that age standard, there exist citizenship requirements and convicted felons are generally restricted from voting, at least while incarcerated and for some time thereafter.

What other standards would you propose?

caw

Is Universal Suffrage Representative?

All Living is Local

All Living is Local

All Living is Local

All Living is Local

All Living is Local

Help!!!!

All Living is Local

BassGirl 5000

Help!!!!

On Mac's double secret probation.

Help!!!!

BassGirl 5000

Prodigiously Hanged

All Living is Local

On Mac's double secret probation.

Slate grey mole person

BassGirl 5000

Touch and go

Touch and go

Touch and go

the world is at my command