The development of Democracy: a Licence to vote?

[Karmagun]

Premise 1: We have driving licences. Why? Because driving a car is dangerous to yourself and to others. So we have developed a system that tries to minimize the possibility of accidents. The driving license.

Premise 2: Not everyone is eligible to vote. Some countries deny voting rights to convicted criminals while in prison. Other countries take away your right to vote if you do not vote in two consecutive elections. Equally, people under 18 years old are not allowed to take part in the democratic process.

So I'm thinking. Isn't voting even more dangerous than driving? Your vote affects others in ways that are somewhat greater than driving your car. And universal suffrage is not that universal, see premise 2.

Therefore, couldn't we come up with a simple system to make sure that people who vote have a basic grasp of civility, a devent level of empathy, interest in the voting process and the capacity to at least not desire great harm unto others?

I'm thinking of really, really basic questions. For example:

License to vote questionnaire - section 1

You see a child sitting down in a supermarket aisle. He's crying and is alone. What do you do?

A. Ask 'what's wrong? Are your mummy or daddy here?'

B. Ignore it. It's none of your business.

C. Yell at him to stop crying. He's showing no respect for others.

D. Slap him until he stops.

Now, I find it absurd that someone who answers 'D' has the same right to vote that I do. It's mad. He shouldn't vote. Notice that I could even stretch my ethics and accept a 'C' answer, just to show that you must be really quite evil to be denied voting rights.

You might say, 'nobody's going to choose 'D' as an answer'.

Maybe.

But if only one person out of 200 million chooses 'D' and is denied the right to vote for the next 4 years, haven't we done some good?

[Zagadka]

Well, first of all, you don't have a right to drive a car. You do have a right to vote.

Second of all, such a system would probably be looked upon as something similar to the Soviet Union. You only really count if you are in the Party, and being in the Party means agreeing to the Party's logic.

Third of all, nothing shows that people can't cheat on that test. A white supremecist could easily just choose the answers he hates most and pass with flying colors.

Fourth of all, there is absolutely nothing to say that said white supremecist does not have a right to vote because either you disagree with him, or the majority of the people disagrees with him.

Fifth of all, while ideology can indeed be more destructive than a car, the analogy is false. Someone doesn't necessarily have a chance to kill another person if they vote, whereas with a car, they can easily cause harm to others.

Sixth, to continue the above, there is no "right" way to vote, as opposed to there being a "right" way to driving a car. Even suggesting it destroys what democracy is about.

Lastly, while you may find it distasteful to have a person who would strike a child vote, there is nothing to say that someone who strikes a child loses their vote (unless convicted of a crime). The "questions" on the test would be loaded badly for a specific point of view.

[Lord Ashtar]

Isn't the definition of what is evil quite subjective? Why should what you consider to be an evil person be prevented from voting? What's the worst they could do, vote for David Duke?

[Karmagun]

Originally Posted by Zagadka

Well, first of all, you don't have a right to drive a car. You do have a right to vote.

Agreed. But in the system I was proposing, your ability to vote is determined by the test results, like you ability to drive is. Furthermore, that right to vote is exactly what I'm trying to take away.

Originally Posted by Zagadka

Second of all, such a system would probably be looked upon as something similar to the Soviet Union. You only really count if you are in the Party, and being in the Party means agreeing to the Party's logic.

I think I see what you're saying, although this system would not narrow the options available to the voter. You'd still be left with democrats, republicans, greens etc. There is still the same space available for disagreeing.

Originally Posted by Zagadka

Third of all, nothing shows that people can't cheat on that test. A white supremecist could easily just choose the answers he hates most and pass with flying colors.

Sure. That's why I was saying that if only one 'evil dude' loses the right to vote, that is still a good thing.

Originally Posted by Zagadka

Fourth of all, there is absolutely nothing to say that said white supremecist does not have a right to vote because either you disagree with him, or the majority of the people disagrees with him.

But I wasn't targeting white supremacists specifically (although we probably would both use their manifestos as toilet paper). I don't really care what party they vote fore once they pass the test.

Originally Posted by Zagadka

Fifth of all, while ideology can indeed be more destructive than a car, the analogy is false. Someone doesn't necessarily have a chance to kill another person if they vote, whereas with a car, they can easily cause harm to others.

Hmm. Tell that to the people who voted against Hitler in 1933.

Originally Posted by Zagadka

Sixth, to continue the above, there is no "right" way to vote, as opposed to there being a "right" way to driving a car. Even suggesting it destroys what democracy is about.

Again, I don't care what party they vote for once they pass the test.

Originally Posted by Zagadka

Lastly, while you may find it distasteful to have a person who would strike a child vote, there is nothing to say that someone who strikes a child loses their vote

Well, the voting license would be the system by which someone who is stupid/evil enough to go for option D on the voting test loses their right to vote. Of course the system doesn't exist now, there would be no point to my OP otherwise.

[Zagadka]

Originally Posted by Karmagun

Furthermore, that right to vote is exactly what I'm trying to take away.

I don't see people getting in line to have their right to vote potentially taken away.

Hmm. Tell that to the people who voted against Hitler in 1933.

What makes you think people who would have voted for him would be filtered out?

Again, I don't care what party they vote for once they pass the test.

Good intentions do not make for a good idea. The best intentions lead to the worst abuses - even if you do not do it on purpose, anyone creating such a test would subconsciously apply their own values into it. Imagine if the test was created by Ashcroft's regime. It would disqualify a good number of people (assuming they answered honestly).

I think it is against our very concept of government and freedom to have to meet someone's ethical standards in order to be able to vote, and even with the best purpose, such a system could very easily be turned against the people by a ruling government.

[Karmagun]

Originally Posted by Zagadka

I don't see people getting in line to have their right to vote potentially taken away.

Sure, just like you don't see people standing in line in front of the 'Have Your Taxes Volountarily Increased Here' office.

What makes you think people who would have voted for [Hitler] would be filtered out?

I detect a slight shifting of the goal posts there, Zagadka. What you said previously was that voting did not give someone the chance to kill others, and I understood it as meaning 'voting is not as dangerous as driving a car'. That's why I gave you the example of a time when voting for a particular candidate has indeed been as or more dangerous to others than driving a car.

Good intentions do not make for a good idea. The best intentions lead to the worst abuses - even if you do not do it on purpose, anyone creating such a test would subconsciously apply their own values into it. Imagine if the test was created by Ashcroft's regime. It would disqualify a good number of people (assuming they answered honestly).

I think it is against our very concept of government and freedom to have to meet someone's ethical standards in order to be able to vote, and even with the best purpose, such a system could very easily be turned against the people by a ruling government.

Now, I accept your considerations and agree with you.

But your objections refer to impracticalities, imperfections, slippery slopes. Those shouldn't be the (only) reasons for not considering the voting licence idea.

Apart from the practical issues involved in putting into practice what is essentially a theoretical exercise in modifying democracy, do we have a philosophical reason why that shouldn't be so?

Don't you sometimes secretly agree that you wish some people didn't vote?

[Zagadka]

Originally Posted by Karmagun

Sure, just like you don't see people standing in line in front of the 'Have Your Taxes Volountarily Increased Here' office.

Sure they do, every year.

I detect a slight shifting of the goal posts there, Zagadka. What you said previously was that voting did not give someone the chance to kill others, and I understood it as meaning 'voting is not as dangerous as driving a car'. That's why I gave you the example of a time when voting for a particular candidate has indeed been as or more dangerous to others than driving a car.

What's the point of a democracy if the people can't be trusted to vote? If they want to elect a dictator to rule over them, then how do you, democratically, stop them? Most at the time had no clue that Hitler would go on to kill millions of people and start one the worst wars in the history of the planet, just like many Republicans did not know that Bush would end up running a neocon administration, and are upset about it.

Now, I accept your considerations and agree with you.

But your objections refer to impracticalities, imperfections, slippery slopes. Those shouldn't be the (only) reasons for not considering the voting licence idea.

Other than the fact that it is a rape of democracy, that you blithely blew aside?

Slippery slopes are sometimes real, you know. This is one of those cases.

Apart from the practical issues involved in putting into practice what is essentially a theoretical exercise in modifying democracy, do we have a philosophical reason why that shouldn't be so?

It would no longer be democracy isn't good enough? Your "theoretical exercise" is very vague. Before anyone could make concrete judgements, we would need to know what the "test" would be like, and who would determine what is "right" and what is "wrong." I do not see a practical way that you can do that, as such judgements are subjective to whoever is in power at the time.

Don't you sometimes secretly agree that you wish some people didn't vote?

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

[The Tim]

Who is producing the test? Do the questions stay constant or are they subject to revision? How often can you retest for the right to vote? When must you be retested to keep the right to vote? How are these issues determined?

The problem with this idea is that the answer to these questions are going to resolve to the decision of those in power. Anybody in office who desires a test like this is going to be looking to exclude those they don't want to vote. This allows the slow shaping of the voting population until there is no change in those holding power.

You may say "That won't happen. The questions are just to weed out those who don't take the process seriously by answering with things like 'D' and really we don't want them voting." To that I say anyone who actually bothers to go and vote isn't going to be tripped up by any test that would weed out those who don't take voting seriously. If you want to include weeding out the obviously evil I don't think there are enough people who match that description voting to worry about.

As for the Hitler being elected issue that was about him gathering a great deal of violent support, playing that up correctly and having supporters already in government. It was not an example of normal democratic process and a country in a situation like Germany at the time is not going to be helped by silly tests to see if you understand that most people don't like you to hit random crying kids.

On preview Karmagun when people secretly wish that others do not vote is always because the wisher doesn't believe the other person is voting the right way (i.e. for the wisher's canidate). It is possible for rational people to disagree over the best canidate because the isuses are complicated.

For a purely theoretical refutation of your idea of a limited democracy is that it is no longer truly a democracy. In the US's case it would cease to be a representative democracy and become instead something like a big representative oligarchy. Only the select who pass the test determine government. This is different from removing the right to vote under specific conditions as the existing scenario assumes everyone participates and that by some actions you opt out. In the testing scenario it is assumed you cannot vote until you prove yourself worthy to. That is what makes it no longer democracy.

[clairobscur]

Some questions :


Who is to decide which questions wil be included in the test and what are the "bad" answers?


If the question are so blatantly loaded in order to deprive only the most "evil" people from their right to vote, it seems to me that the "correct" answers would be obvious to everybody, hence only an "avil *fool* would lose his right to vote.


More importantly : I would point out that there's already a system in place to deprive people deemed unworthy from their right to vote. In most countries, people convicted for serious offenses lose this right. While your system deprives people *potentially* unworthy (and not many of them, from your own agreement), the current system deprives people who have actually proven to be so. Much more clear cut than an arbitrary test, IMO.

[Zagadka]

I think the term, "innocent until proven guilty" comes into mind.

The basic fact that you don't EARN the right to vote trumps it all. At the very least, don't mince words by alleging that your proposition is "improved democracy" - it isn't.

[MLS]

BTW, I'm sure you know that there was a time when voting qualifications were quite stringent. Once upon a time not so very long ago you had to be not only an adult, but a white, male, property-owning one. There were also times and places when and where you had to pay a "poll tax." Or pass a "literacy test." I've heard that it was mere coincidence that the people administering and scoring the "literacy tests" were generally of European ancestry and the people failing those tests were not.

Don't get me wrong -- there are lots of people I consider to be so foolish that I wish they would simply stay home on election day. Unfortunately, some of them probably think the same thing about me.

[2sense]

I believe elections are for people to judge their government not the other way around.



__________________
Just my 2sense

[gex gex]

So, you want to filter out people who hold "Belief X." True, Belief X is something extraordinarily evil in your eyes, but your post is essentially a proposal to prevent those who admit holding Belief X from voting.

This is unnecessary and undemocratic.

If Belief X (for example, it is wrong to hit random crying children) is truly "evil," then the majority of the population should be aware of this (the population being reasonably capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong). Hence, people who admit to holding Belief X, though they may be voting for a party hoping to legitimise Belief X, will not succeed in administering their abhorrent belief, because the majority will vote against this belief.

You, or any other person, are not infallable. How can you declare another's belief "evil" to the extent that that person's right to vote should be denied on the basis of that belief? Indeed, if such a belief is powerful enough that its proponent can be elected to public office by a majority of the population, surely that suggests the belief has merit?

Now, of course beliefs that can be considered "evil" do belong to elected public officials. There are some positions that politicians take that I do think are evil. However, my belief should not prevent those views from being aired. Most, perhaps all democracies have a system of checks and balances. These are effective in filtering many abhorrent beliefs, and although some may fall through, any process to prevent those beliefs would be so contentious and clumsy that we would be worse off for having administered it.

Also, those who hold Belief X, through being able to vote, feel included in society and are less likely to organise in armed rebellion against society. A voice denied is far more likely to rebel than a voice ineffective through lack of support.

Your driving/voting comparison is also faulty. It is widely agreed that we have a right to live. Living is a default state. It requires no special privelege. In our democracies, we figure that (barring unusual circumstances - such as convicted felons - though I feel felons should be able to vote) adults have a right to say how that society should be governed. After all, they live in that society, and since living requires no special privelige, why then should making choices about the way one lives? Why should one not have a right to influence their government?

However, driving is not a default state. Driving is a skill that must be learnt (unlike staying alive) and due to the immediate dangers presented to and by those engaging in it, the state has every right to regulate it. Yet the regulation, generally, only requires that you show you have the ability to drive. As everyone has the ability to live, everyone has the ability to vote. There is no test needed.

[Karmagun]

Thank you all for your replies. Forgive me for not quoting properly, I have 5 minutes and must leave. Nevertheless:

MLS, About the time when only white males could vote etc. : weak comparison IMO, those were distinctions based on race, sex and class. The voting test would be open to everybody regardless.

Zagadka, strong use of words there: 'Rape of democracy that you blithely put aside'; 'Slippery slopes are sometimes real you know, this is one of them'; 'don't mince words by alleging that your proposition is "improved democracy" - it isn't'. Woah. Easy. A slippery slope isn't one because you say so. My OP was 'development of democracy', not improvement. It could be that one day democracy won't be seen as the most 'fair and advanced' sytem of governance. I think it's healthy to discuss ways in which democracy might develop, as it probably will. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that we've got all the answers already. [covers his head waiting for the next rebuttal]

gex gex, the only similarity between driving and voting, natural rights aside, is that they are both potentially harmful activities.

[Karmagun]

Originally Posted by Zagadka

What's the point of a democracy if the people can't be trusted to vote?

See, that's the key to it, right there. You're asking a rethorical question. I ask myself that same question and take it seriously. I am not satisfied with democracy.

[Zagadka]

Originally Posted by Karmagun

Zagadka, strong use of words there: 'Rape of democracy that you blithely put aside'; 'Slippery slopes are sometimes real you know, this is one of them'; 'don't mince words by alleging that your proposition is "improved democracy" - it isn't'. Woah. Easy. A slippery slope isn't one because you say so. My OP was 'development of democracy', not improvement. It could be that one day democracy won't be seen as the most 'fair and advanced' sytem of governance. I think it's healthy to discuss ways in which democracy might develop, as it probably will. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that we've got all the answers already. [covers his head waiting for the next rebuttal].

That doesn't change the fact that it is a rape of democracy that you are so blithely putting aside. Just because the slippery slope fallacy exists doesn't mean that you can't take an argument to its logical conclusion. The slippery slope doesn't immediately disqualify something - for instance, someone in government who wants to make all of the Jews wear special armbands and register with the government can point to a larger future discrimination against the Jews, though someone defending the policy could easily start crying "slippery slope."

You still haven't answered the important questions - who defines what evil is? What basis is the judgement made on? Who controls the questions? What right does anyone have to call someone evil and deny them their basic rights? Take a look at the "Political Compass" threads for enough proof that a simple question can be taken any number of ways, and present a basic bias.

Your proposition, while probably well intended, is one that can easily be abused in the most undemocratic way. Making people second-class citizens because they don't agree with your belief structure is no way for democracy to change.

Frankly, you toss aside some of the basic premises of democracy. Someone is free to say pretty much anything, as long as they don't do something to break the laws.

There is no absolute "right" or "wrong."

[Karmagun]

Originally Posted by Zagadka

You still haven't answered the important questions - who defines what evil is? What basis is the judgement made on? Who controls the questions? What right does anyone have to call someone evil and deny them their basic rights?

Ok, hang on a second.

Societies have constitutions. Bills of rights. Civic codes. Criminal codes. Laws, decrees, rules, regulations, permits.

All these documents, some of which are continually evolving while others are more or less untouchable, define what is allowed, not allowed, punishable, incentivated, permitted, forbidden.

In essence, they define what is good (please bear with me: I mean in the sense of useful and constructive) and what is evil (in the sense of harmful and destructive).

And yet individuals have their own morality. And our personal morality is often in contrast with what is laid out in the documents listed above. Our stance on abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty, for example.

Now take a look at your list of the important questions I should answer. Do they relate only to the voting licence idea?

I don't think they do. I think that whether you meant to or not, you are addressing a much, much broader concept of how humans manage to live together in societies.

So I ask you: why are we so touchy about universal suffrage? Can we justify it? Does it do more harm than good? Can we change it somehow? Are we allowed to even talk about it or has the word democracy become our new secular god?

Like when you talk about the rape of democracy. Ok, maybe it's a rape of democracy. Is it that evil by definition? And if it is, why?

[Karmagun]

Originally Posted by Zagadka

Frankly, you toss aside some of the basic premises of democracy. Someone is free to say pretty much anything, as long as they don't do something to break the laws.

Nowhere did I limit free speech. My OP is about universal suffrage. Like I said, I don't care who people vote for once they earn their right to vote. And they're free to say whatever they like, whether they vote or don't.

[Zagadka]

Originally Posted by Karmagun

Societies have constitutions. Bills of rights. Civic codes. Criminal codes. Laws, decrees, rules, regulations, permits.

All these documents, some of which are continually evolving while others are more or less untouchable, define what is allowed, not allowed, punishable, incentivated, permitted, forbidden.

In essence, they define what is good (please bear with me: I mean in the sense of useful and constructive) and what is evil (in the sense of harmful and destructive).

No, they define what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Good and evil are entirely different beasts.

So I ask you: why are we so touchy about universal suffrage? Can we justify it? Does it do more harm than good? Can we change it somehow? Are we allowed to even talk about it or has the word democracy become our new secular god?

No one is stopping you from talking about it - but that doesn't prevent anyone from thinking you a fool for it.

I believe in the equality of people and their right to decide government.

You don't. You believe in an arbitrary definition of who has rights and who doesn't based on a moral judgement by the existing government.

The fact is, your argument is vague and elitist, neverminding the fact that it can be easily used as a tool for fascism.

Like when you talk about the rape of democracy. Ok, maybe it's a rape of democracy. Is it that evil by definition? And if it is, why?

No, it is not evil by definition.

[skarf]

Well there is this thing called the U.S. Electoral College. I don't know much about it. Could someone tell me why it hasn't been brought up?

[The Tim]

Karmagun now that your position is clear the debate is different.

What does a system with limited voters offer than a democracy does not? If there are truly individuals that are better voters than others then perhaps limited vote governemnts would work better, but I do not think that is the case.

Voting in this country puts into place other individuals who are then responsible for governing by a collaborative process. I think this already blunts the dangers of voting. I don't think even a perfect screening system for those dangerously inept at voting would provide greater blunting. Not because our system is so great but because I fail to see how those who pass screening according to your definitions would pick different representatives than those who currently vote.

[Karmagun]

Originally Posted by Zagadka

No, they define what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Good and evil are entirely different beasts.

Well, there goes the 'bear with me' request. So how about defining whether universal suffrage is acceptable or unacceptable. That sound better?

No one is stopping you from talking about it - but that doesn't prevent anyone from thinking you a fool for it.

That really helps the discussion, thanks.

I believe in the equality of people and their right to decide government.

I believe in the equality of people and that they should earn their right to decide government.

The fact is, your argument is vague and elitist

Of course it's vague. It's a random thoughts that entered my mind, and in this case it entered these boards as well. Yes it is also elitist. What's wrong with that?

[Karmagun]

Originally Posted by The Tim

What does a system with limited voters offer than a democracy does not? (...) I fail to see how those who pass screening according to your definitions would pick different representatives than those who currently vote.

My reasoning is this: when something is free and taken for granted, people do not place much value on it. Hope we can agree on that.

Look at how many people fail to vote for any given election. I find that insulting to the democratic process, considering that the majority of people in the world do not have the luxury to vote.

If we had a simple licence to vote, maybe people would take voting more seriously.

And I agree, it's not necessarily the case that people who pass the test would vote for different parties.

[Zagadka]

Originally Posted by Karmagun

Well, there goes the 'bear with me' request. So how about defining whether universal suffrage is acceptable or unacceptable. That sound better?

Well, now we're getting at the heart of it. This isn't a "The development of democracy" (should use the small "d" there), it is "the validity of universal suffrage." Two very different beasts.

That really helps the discussion, thanks.

No problem.

I believe in the equality of people and that they should earn their right to decide government.

Who decides who earns that right?

Of course it's vague. It's a random thoughts that entered my mind, and in this case it entered these boards as well. Yes it is also elitist. What's wrong with that?

Um, you can't come in with a vague hypothesis, have no idea how it would work, be implimented, be controlled, etc, and expect to have a "debate" about it. Debates generally involve arguing for your side and proving that a point or opinion is more likely to be true than another. You raised a question and haven't placed one iota of support for it other than, "I think it would be right."

[kunilou]

Originally Posted by Karmagun

MLS, About the time when only white males could vote etc. : weak comparison IMO, those were distinctions based on race, sex and class. The voting test would be open to everybody regardless.

It's not a weak comparison in my opinion, because I happened to be a young boy in the pre-civil rights South.

Old Southern Joke

Election judge: "We're sure happy to have you vote ma'am. 'Course you have to pass the literacy test. Spell 'cat.'"

We're sure happy to have you vote, sir. 'Course you have to pass the literacy test. Spell 'dog.'"

(To Black voter.) "We're sure happy to have you vote, boy. 'Course you have to pass the literacy test. Spell 'antidisestablishmentarianism.'"

And yes, I do think it could happen again.

[Karmagun]

Kunilou, the voting test would be the same for everybody regardless of race, creed, status etc.

[Zagadka]

Originally Posted by Karmagun

Kunilou, the voting test would be the same for everybody regardless of race, creed, status etc.

I think you are missing the point.

The test itself may be neutral - the people administering the test may be suspect.

I ask once again: Who administers the test to make sure it is fair and not biased?

[The Tim]

Originally Posted by Karmagun

My reasoning is this: when something is free and taken for granted, people do not place much value on it. Hope we can agree on that.
...
If we had a simple licence to vote, maybe people would take voting more seriously

I think you are missing why this is the case. It has to do with how much people subjectively value something, and yes having to do work for something alters the subjective value of something but it doesn't always do it the way you'd expect and it has a good deal to do how much that thing is already valued. People can value the right to vote because it indicates something about the country they live in, they feel it gives them control over the process or because registering to vote does already entail a bit of a hassle (you can be called for jury duty).

It seems clear that you want to make people take voting more seriously, but I think more civics education in high school would accomplish this. If you want to put additional hurdles in the way of voting you are only going to deny the vote to those who already take it serious enough to go out and vote.

The OP seems to indicate though that you think there are some that do vote but don't take the process seriously or don't vote correctly because of some deep defect. I think that this is mostly incorrect. There are only a few who don't take the process seriously who bother to drag themselves out to vote. I also don't believe there is any defect that makes people bad voters.

[gex gex]

originally posted by karmagun
gex gex, the only similarity between driving and voting, natural rights aside, is that they are both potentially harmful activities.

True. However, you ignore the fact that the possibility of harm is different in the case of each activity. You are trying to dishonestly conflate the two. Similarly, that something is a harmful activity is not, in itself, cause to regulate it. As I showed in my previous post (the majority of which you conveniently did not respond to) the negatives of restricting voting would far outweight the benefits.

Of course it's vague. It's a random thoughts that entered my mind, and in this case it entered these boards as well. Yes it is also elitist. What's wrong with that?

What's wrong with that? If you're posting an argument intending to fundamentally restrict certain people's rights, and your plan is only vague, it shows that you care little about society and your thought has little merit. Also, your plan for change is elitist, as you admit. Democracy is the domain for all, not the domain of the elite. It is not for you to tell the rest of the population whether they can vote or not, regardless of what they believe.

I think, for instance that Fred Phelps beliefs are evil. Should he not have the right to vote?

[Karmagun]

Originally Posted by zagadka

I ask once again: Who administers the test to make sure it is fair and not biased?

I am not sure how to take that question. Do you mean:

1. The test will be biased for certain, you should know that. It's a rethorical question.

2. I am interested in denying voting rights according to test results. How should we accomplish that in a fair manner?

3. I want to see what your reply is, so I can proceed to smash it to bits because I don't agree with your premise anyway.

Originally Posted by gex gex

How can you declare another's belief "evil" to the extent that that person's right to vote should be denied on the basis of that belief?

There is no difference between defining evil through laws and defining evil through voting licence. The only difference relates to the sanctity of universal suffrage. Can you see that?

Indeed, if such a belief is powerful enough that its proponent can be elected to public office by a majority of the population, surely that suggests the belief has merit?

No, it suggests that people can be idiots.

Also, those who hold Belief X, through being able to vote, feel included in society and are less likely to organise in armed rebellion against society. A voice denied is far more likely to rebel than a voice ineffective through lack of support.

Great. Now that's the best rebuttal so far.

You are trying to dishonestly conflate the two. Similarly, that something is a harmful activity is not, in itself, cause to regulate it.

Come on. It was a comparison for argument's sake. Both are potentially dangerous activities, that's all. It helped create the argument in the OP. What more do you want me to say about that? There's hardly any other similarity between driving and voting.

I agree with your second statement; in fact, I am against regulating activities that do not harm others, at least. But the point was not about regulating all harmful activities. I said that since some harmful activities are regulated, and voting can be dangerous to your health, shall we regulate voting as well?

you care little about society and your thought has little merit.

It might sound strange to you, but I care a lot about society. And if my thought has little merit, maybe it's because it is just a little thought. I wanted to share it with people on this board, because I respect many of them.

You see, it's something that could come into your mind when an idiot goes through a red light and causes a cyclist to break hard and fall. 'Look at that idiot! Can you believe that guy has the same say in how society should be as I do? I would never do that!'. That's all.

[Zagadka]

Originally Posted by Karmagun

I am not sure how to take that question. Do you mean:

1. The test will be biased for certain, you should know that. It's a rethorical question.

Well, yes.

2. I am interested in denying voting rights according to test results. How should we accomplish that in a fair manner?

Where do you get the crazy little idea that I am interested in denying voting rights to anyone? This whole premise is that you are interested in opposing voting rights, and I am not.

3. I want to see what your reply is, so I can proceed to smash it to bits because I don't agree with your premise anyway.

Welcome to debating.

I propose an option 4. I meant what I said. How do you prevent a future government from revising the questions or scoring in a manner that prevents their opposition from voting?

There is no difference between defining evil through laws and defining evil through voting licence. The only difference relates to the sanctity of universal suffrage. Can you see that?

Nope. Unfortunately for you, in this country we have something called "innocent until proven guilty." It is not illegal to consider commiting a crime, or believing in commiting a crime. It is only illegal if you actually do it. What you propose is to enforce a legal restriction on people who have done nothing wrong.


Come on. It was a comparison for argument's sake. Both are potentially dangerous activities, that's all. It helped create the argument in the OP. What more do you want me to say about that? There's hardly any other similarity between driving and voting.

I agree with your second statement; in fact, I am against regulating activities that do not harm others, at least. But the point was not about regulating all harmful activities. I said that since some harmful activities are regulated, and voting can be dangerous to your health, shall we regulate voting as well?

You see, it's something that could come into your mind when an idiot goes through a red light and causes a cyclist to break hard and fall. 'Look at that idiot! Can you believe that guy has the same say in how society should be as I do? I would never do that!'. That's all.

Interestingly, I know exactly how you feel. I see someone proposing a system to restrict voting rights based on ideological points of view, and am shocked that this person has the same say in government that I do. I fear that our country will become a fascist dictatorship within my lifetime.

But I don't try to deprive that person of their right to vote.

[Zagadka]

Er, minus the

Come on. It was a comparison for argument's sake. Both are potentially dangerous activities, that's all. It helped create the argument in the OP. What more do you want me to say about that? There's hardly any other similarity between driving and voting.

I agree with your second statement; in fact, I am against regulating activities that do not harm others, at least. But the point was not about regulating all harmful activities. I said that since some harmful activities are regulated, and voting can be dangerous to your health, shall we regulate voting as well?

rhetoric

[The Tim]

There has been something nagging at me from the moment I read the OP and I finally, thanks to gex gex, realized what it is.

Karmagun you do realize that if stupid/dangerously evil people are having a true impact on the government they have to be the majority? Since your proposition, even in the ideal case, only excludes a few ultra jerks it just doesn't matter except to give some people the right to go "Ha ha I have the right to vote and you don't!" Which is a pretty bad plan given that the kind of people you probably don't want voting are the kind of people who'll stab someone for doing that.

To be slightly more serious I honestly don't think you've come anywhere close to managing to justify why we need to switch from a democracy to an oligarchy of sorts. I understand it is a whim of yours but you are clinging to it as a position to defend despite the lack of substance to it. I think if you came up with something more concrete and sensible it might be a valid position, but I can't tell right now because your side isn't really developed at all.

[Quartz]

If you want a fair test, how about the test of service, a la Heinlein? Serve your country for X years, knowing that your life might well be on the line, to get the vote.

(And no, I don't agree with it.)

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Karmagun

There is no difference between defining evil through laws and defining evil through voting licence. The only difference relates to the sanctity of universal suffrage. Can you see that?
.

I can. And I can see too that if my opinion/belief/whatever is deemed evil by the laws, I can try to change the laws by casting a vote. But if I'm deemed unworthy to vote because I hold this "evil" opinion/belief, I've no hope of anything changing ever. Even if, say, the majority of the population eventualy agree with me, it won't change a thing since in this case the majority of the population will be denied the right to vote (except if we lie while taking the test, that's it)


Let's assume for instance that it had been implemented, say 75 years ago. There's a fair chance that, say, homosexuals would have been deemed unworthy to vote. As a result, homosexual behavior would still be punished by laws, even if the general opinion had evolved in the same, much more tolerant way it historicaly did, since nobody supporting gay's right would be allowed to vote.


It's not like our currents moral standards are guaranteed to never change. Your system prevents any change from happenning, ever. Had it been implemented when your constitution was drafted, since there has been an enormous change in the values, way of thinking, etc.. since then, most americans wouldn't be allowed to vote. And the test would never had changed, since only the people agreeing with its content would pass it. So, you would be governed by a tiny minority of "super-citizens", allowed to vote, who would all have a XVIII° century mindset. Wouldn't it that great?


Of course, it wouldn't work this way. People would "cheat" when passing the test so they could vote. Which makes the whole concept pointless.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Karmagun

My reasoning is this: when something is free and taken for granted, people do not place much value on it. Hope we can agree on that.

Look at how many people fail to vote for any given election. I find that insulting to the democratic process, considering that the majority of people in the world do not have the luxury to vote.

If we had a simple licence to vote, maybe people would take voting more seriously.

If it's the result you want to achieve, you don't need a test. You could state, for instance, that only people doing X hours of community service (providing they're physically/mentally fit) could vote. So, you help cleaning the streets on saturday, then on sunday you can vote. Even this would be objectionnable, but it would at least be less subjective than your "licence". If you're right and people don't place value on what is taken for granted, then, it would have the same result.

Actually, if the value is proportionnate to the effort required, it would probably be more efficient, since a lot of people would rather pass a silly test than spend their week-ends working in a homeless shelter or such...

[Karmagun]

Originally Posted by zagadka

Where do you get the crazy little idea that I am interested in denying voting rights to anyone?

I don't. It's one of the options.

Welcome to debating.

Sorry, that is not a debate. If you don't agree with my premise, then a sincere question about how I would put it into practice is just being cheeky.

How do you prevent a future government from revising the questions or scoring in a manner that prevents their opposition from voting?

Constitutionally.

I see someone proposing a system to restrict voting rights based on ideological points of view, and am shocked that this person has the same say in government that I do.

I am surprised that your passion for disagreement is stronger than your open-mindedness. Can't you just play the game?

Originally Posted by the tim

you do realize that if stupid/dangerously evil people are having a true impact on the government they have to be the majority?

No. They could just be the marginal minority that tilts the balance.

To be slightly more serious I honestly don't think you've come anywhere close to managing to justify why we need to switch from a democracy to an oligarchy of sorts. I understand it is a whim of yours but you are clinging to it as a position to defend despite the lack of substance to it. I think if you came up with something more concrete and sensible it might be a valid position, but I can't tell right now because your side isn't really developed at all.

Your last paragraph is more of a challenge. Ever since I started this thread I have not had the chance to expand on how to apply it in practice, because I'm forced to play in defense.

All I got was a 'everybody should vote' dogma that didn't inspire me to develop the idea. There's nobody here even willing to play devil's advocate and come up with a way to implement the system.

Originally Posted by clairobscur

if I'm deemed unworthy to vote because I hold this "evil" opinion/belief, I've no hope of anything changing ever.

Not ever, just every x years.

Let's assume for instance that it had been implemented, say 75 years ago. There's a fair chance that, say, homosexuals would have been deemed unworthy to vote. As a result, homosexual behavior would still be punished by laws, even if the general opinion had evolved in the same, much more tolerant way it historicaly did, since nobody supporting gay's right would be allowed to vote.

Not if the test questions evolve with society.

Your system prevents any change from happenning, ever.

No. I haven't even had a chance to think about the questions. And see my reply above.

So, you help cleaning the streets on saturday, then on sunday you can vote. Even this would be objectionnable, but it would at least be less subjective than your "licence".

The licence is not subjective, it depends on what the questions are. If the questions are related to what is endorsed in the constitution, then they are objective insofar as they relate to what it means to be an american (in your case; I'm in europe).

To all: if you don't agree with curtailing universal suffrage, then there's no point in going into the details of defining the test.

One more thing, consider this: you allow your fellow voters to vote in favour of state killings (the death penalty) but you are not willing to allow for a system which only takes away your vote, not your life. I think there's a twisted reasoning there.

[gex gex]

originally posted by Karmagun

There is no difference between defining evil through laws and defining evil through voting licence. The only difference relates to the sanctity of universal suffrage. Can you see that?

Not at all. Laws defining evil (which they do not really do - they only define what is not permissable in society) govern actions. Your plan would take into account people's thoughts (or, more accurately, people's honest expression of their thoughts), and would give suffrage to people based not on their actions, but on their beliefs. In our democratic societies, we do not have thoughtcrime. We value freedom of speech, and since speech is the expression of belief, we value freedom of thought. Your proposal would not only violate the sanctity of universal suffrage, but would violate the sanctity of freedom of thought and speech.

No, it suggests that people can be idiots.

Who is to determine idiocy? I think John Gray is an idiot. Other people think he's brilliant. To give one person the option of determining idiocy over another suggests there is some universal standard that can determine such things. Any determination of evil, or idiocy, or any other value you care to place on the thoughts of other human beings must be subjective. That's OK if you're just calling other people names ("Damn, Ann Coulter's is a dumb bitch!"). But the subjectivity of these judgements shows why no person should be permitted to deny another suffrage as a result of these subjective beliefs.

Also, those who hold Belief X, through being able to vote, feel included in society and are less likely to organise in armed rebellion against society. A voice denied is far more likely to rebel than a voice ineffective through lack of support.

Great. Now that's the best rebuttal so far.[/quote]
Thanks. Actually, I took this, and a lot of the rest of my argument, from what I remember of an essay written by John Stuart Mill discussing freedom of speech. Since I consider voting rights to be inherently related to freedom of speech (voting is, after all our most directly effective means of communicating with the government), I find that many of his arguments for freedom of speech apply to universal suffrage. While I'm paraphrasing many of his points, if you're interested, you'd be better served by reading his text. I believe it was called something like "On Liberty of Speech" or something like that.

You are trying to dishonestly conflate the two. Similarly, that something is a harmful activity is not, in itself, cause to regulate it.

Come on. It was a comparison for argument's sake. Both are potentially dangerous activities, that's all. It helped create the argument in the OP. What more do you want me to say about that? There's hardly any other similarity between driving and voting.[/quote]
I'm pleased you admit there is little similarity between driving and voting. There is little similarity even when purely discussing the dangers. However, since your flawed comparison "helped create the argument in the OP," it is likely the argument in the OP is greatly flawed. An argument relying on a faulty comparison is not a strong argument.

I agree with your second statement; in fact, I am against regulating activities that do not harm others, at least. But the point was not about regulating all harmful activities. I said that since some harmful activities are regulated, and voting can be dangerous to your health, shall we regulate voting as well?

There are plenty of things more immediately dangerous to your health that remain legal for all adults. Smoking, for instance. Yet tobacco remains legal. Democracy has many safeguards to minimise the chance a government will harm its citizens. In the U.S., for instance, the President is seperate to the House, the courts are seperate to the government, and the whole thing is governed by the constitution. I am not saying harm isn't caused by governments, but your plan is not an adequate way to correct this situation. Instead, it would make things astronomically worse.

you care little about society and your thought has little merit.

It might sound strange to you, but I care a lot about society.[/quote]
Odd then, that you do not show concern for the voices of those who make up society.

And if my thought has little merit, maybe it's because it is just a little thought. I wanted to share it with people on this board, because I respect many of them.

Since it is just a little thought, I wouldn't hold on to it too tightly.

You see, it's something that could come into your mind when an idiot goes through a red light and causes a cyclist to break hard and fall. 'Look at that idiot! Can you believe that guy has the same say in how society should be as I do? I would never do that!'. That's all.

Yeah, we all have our "If I was supreme-ruler of the universe things would be done a lot differently round here" moments. I recognise that the moment resulting from seeing some moron do something stupid in their car is not the basis for a system of government. I also recognise that, for whatever failings the moronic driver in the other car has, he is also a fellow human being, and hence I have no more right to restrict his opportunity to change society than he has to restrict mine.

I know the effects of people with (in my opinion) stupid ideas having a say. A few years ago, a politician rose to prominence in my country (Australia). The politician, Pauline Hanson had a lot of extreme right wing beliefs, and was generally regarded by much of the population to be a racist nut.

She had no hope of becoming leader of the country, but she did tap into a vein of dissatisfaction amongst some groups in society, and found a certain level of support. She formed her own party and they actually won some seats in a state election. She had an impact on national politics, too; her party did not recieve a substantial level of support, but it caused the governing conservative party to shift their policies slightly to the right, in an attempt to win back those who had deserted them for Hanson.

I'll admit it. I think anyone who voted for Pauline Hanson or a member of her party is a complete moron. And if we could somehow have weeded these people out and prevented them from voting, my country would probably be a nicer place today.

But these people would still exist. Preventing them from voting would not change the feelings they had. They would still feel hard done by. They would still feel that the major parties were not representing them, and that their interests were being overlooked in favour of other people's. Preventing them from voting would not alleviate their concerns; it would heighten them.

The resulting situation would be a nation split into two. The ruling class would have a valid reason to consider themselves above other members of society. Perhaps they would even consider those "not smart enough to vote" to be less human.

Also, the rightward swing the nation took post-Hanson was only permitted because much of the rest of the population supported it. The minority of Hanson's supporters may have triggered it, but their voice would not have had an effect if there weren't other, more moderate people who could find common ground with them.

Not if the test questions evolve with society.

However, society has far less chance of evolving if members do not have a say in the political process. True, in many parts of the world groups that did not previously have the vote now do. But change should not have to be so hard won. America should not have had to go through what it did to achieve civil rights for black. Women, worldwide, should not have had to go through what they did to achieve suffrage. In your imagined society, the voiceless should not have to struggle as hard as they would have to to be heard.

That you acknowledge test questions could evolve with society shows that there is no arbitrary system of right and wrong. Society is constantly redefining what should be included under those terms. Hence, your questions, and thus, your licence would always be based on some subjective view of 'evil,' even if that view is shaped by the tyranny of the majority.

To all: if you don't agree with curtailing universal suffrage, then there's no point in going into the details of defining the test.

Of course there is. You're trying to convince me, so I'm asking for more info. Just because I disagree with you now does not mean I must always disagree with you. The more information you give me on your position, the better I am able to determine its merit.

One more thing, consider this: you allow your fellow voters to vote in favour of state killings (the death penalty) but you are not willing to allow for a system which only takes away your vote, not your life. I think there's a twisted reasoning there.

To nitpick, voters only vote to allow a court to make a decision relating to state killings. Your proposal would have more merit, though it would still be flawed, if it proposed a court being given the power to remove a person's suffrage on a case by case basis.

However, this is all meaningless, because as far as I'm concerned voters should not be authorising courts to authorise the killing of another human being; a country's constitution should explicitly prevent this.

[Karmagun]

Thank you gex for your long, well-argued and thoughtful reply.

Indeed, if such a belief is powerful enough that its proponent can be elected to public office by a majority of the population, surely that suggests the belief has merit?

Maybe we disagree on the meaning of merit in that sentence, then. By 'merit' I thought you meant that 'it is a good belief, since lots of people agree with it'. In that sense, I don't believe that the number of followers of any particular belief has any impact on that belief's moral goodness.

However, since your flawed comparison "helped create the argument in the OP," it is likely the argument in the OP is greatly flawed. An argument relying on a faulty comparison is not a strong argument.

In terms of the danger to others than can result from both driving and voting, the comparison holds. If on the other hand you extend the comparison to include other qualities that bind voting and driving together, then that would be fawlty. But I limited the comparison to the aspect of danger, exclusively.

There are plenty of things more immediately dangerous to your health that remain legal for all adults. Smoking, for instance. Yet tobacco remains legal.

Danger to others is my point. I like the idea of smoking and non-smoking bars. I don't like the idea of banning things that are harmful solely to myself.

Odd then, that you do not show concern for the voices of those who make up society.

Please don't radicalise my statement. If anything, I may show more concern for some voices and less for others. Which I think most of us do, but are unwilling to admit to.

Since it is just a little thought, I wouldn't hold on to it too tightly.

I don't.

You're trying to convince me

But I'm not trying to convince you! I'm sharing a thought and engaging in discussion. I like to be convinced. I like change.

To nitpick, voters only vote to allow a court to make a decision relating to state killings.

I'll try and make it a little clearer: our current system of justice includes a number of different punishments that range from the mild and harmless to the drastic and irreversible.

Some of these are deprivation of physical freedom (prison), deprivation of free time (community service), deprivation of life (the death sentence).

What we don't consider humane punishment, on the other hand, is deprivation of limbs, chemical castration, lobotomy and other assorted tortures.

So all I meant by the comparison with the death penalty is that the collective 'we' (not me and you personally) allow for deprivation of life but not deprivation of suffrage (say in cases of actual crimes and not thought crimes). I find that odd.

Ultimately, I agree with you about allowing people to express their faulty beliefs for the sake of avoiding civil unrest, and that punishing people for a thought crime is wrong. That is enough to convince me.

What I didn't quote from your reply, I agree with.

[Zagadka]

Originally Posted by Karmagun

Sorry, that is not a debate. If you don't agree with my premise, then a sincere question about how I would put it into practice is just being cheeky.

How is asking how in high bloody hell your concept would work in practice being "cheeky?"

Constitutionally.

Ooh, explain that magic trick to me in more detail, please. How would this Constitutional ammendment read?

I am surprised that your passion for disagreement is stronger than your open-mindedness. Can't you just play the game?

I thought that one of the premises in debating was taking a side and arguing it. Silly me.

One more thing, consider this: you allow your fellow voters to vote in favour of state killings (the death penalty) but you are not willing to allow for a system which only takes away your vote, not your life. I think there's a twisted reasoning there.

It is called democracy, or is your entire premise here to take away voting rights from everyone who thinks the death penalty is a good idea?

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Karmagun

I don't. It's one of the options.

How could it evolve with society, since only those who agree with the "correct" answers have a say (through their votes)?



No. I haven't even had a chance to think about the questions. And see my reply above.

And how could the questions not be subjective?

I'm european too, but anyway :

-Furst, the content of the constitution can evolve itself. Once again, how this would be possible if the only people who can modify it are elected only by people who answer "correctly" the questions?

-Second, apart if the test is actually a quizz about the constitution's text, I stil fail to perceive how it could be objective. How could you determine the correct course of action when there's an annoying brat crying in a supermarket (as in your first example) on the basis of the constitution?

To all: if you don't agree with curtailing universal suffrage, then there's no point in going into the details of defining the test. [/quote]


Problem is, I think that until now you failed to provide a good reason to consider curtailing universal suffrage at the first place. If you don't see any yourself, how can you expect us to find one?

One more thing, consider this: you allow your fellow voters to vote in favour of state killings (the death penalty) but you are not willing to allow for a system which only takes away your vote, not your life. I think there's a twisted reasoning there.

I'm oposed to death penalty, but anyway, this is irrelevant. People sentenced to death aren't deprived of their life on the basis of their answers to a test, but on the basis of their actions.

Besides, people do accept a system where your vote can be taken away. Convicted felons do lose their right to vote (once again, on the basis of their actions, not their opinions). So I can't see the contradiction here.

[clairobscur]

ooopss...I completely mangled the quotes in my previous post. Hope you'll be able to sort it out...

[clairobscur]

Not ever, just every x years.



Not if the test questions evolve with society.

How could it evolve with society, since only those who agree with the "correct" answers have a say (through their votes)?

The licence is not subjective, it depends on what the questions are.

And how could the questions not be subjective?

If the questions are related to what is endorsed in the constitution, then they are objective insofar as they relate to what it means to be an american (in your case; I'm in europe).

I'm european too, but anyway :

-Furst, the content of the constitution can evolve itself. Once again, how this would be possible if the only people who can modify it are elected only by people who answer "correctly" the questions?

-Second, apart if the test is actually a quizz about the constitution's text, I stil fail to perceive how it could be objective. How could you determine the correct course of action when there's an annoying brat crying in a supermarket (as in your first example) on the basis of the constitution?

To all: if you don't agree with curtailing universal suffrage, then there's no point in going into the details of defining the test.

Problem is, I think that until now you failed to provide a good reason to consider curtailing universal suffrage at the first place. If you don't see any yourself, how can you expect us to find one?

One more thing, consider this: you allow your fellow voters to vote in favour of state killings (the death penalty) but you are not willing to allow for a system which only takes away your vote, not your life. I think there's a twisted reasoning there.

I'm oposed to death penalty, but anyway, this is irrelevant. People sentenced to death aren't deprived of their life on the basis of their answers to a test, but on the basis of their actions.

Besides, people do accept a system where your vote can be taken away. Convicted felons do lose their right to vote (once again, on the basis of their actions, not their opinions). So I can't see the contradiction here

[clairobscur]

I fixed the quotes and reposted. Hope some moderator will be willing to delete the previous version.

Thanks in advance.

[Karmagun]

Originally Posted by Zagadka

It is called democracy, or is your entire premise here to take away voting rights from everyone who thinks the death penalty is a good idea?

Thanks for the suggestion.

Originally Posted by clairobscur

How could it evolve with society, since only those who agree with the "correct" answers have a say (through their votes)?

You can't possibly believe that people are not capable of change other than through voting.

And how could the questions not be subjective?

So that's like saying that laws are subjective? That the constitution is subjective? What do you mean by subjective? If the questions are laid out by the same lawmakers that pass laws, they are just as 'subjective' as laws.

Once again, how this would be possible if the only people who can modify it are elected only by people who answer "correctly" the questions?

Society changes and evolves all the time. No voting licence can change that.

Problem is, I think that until now you failed to provide a good reason to consider curtailing universal suffrage at the first place.

I don't trust people equally just because they are humans. I agree with giving everyone the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Gex gex has given good reason for not curtailing universal suffrage, and I agree with that, see my last reply.

People sentenced to death aren't deprived of their life on the basis of their answers to a test, but on the basis of their actions.

Again, I have agreed that thought crime should not be a crime. You could try to read my replies to others as well.

Which still leaves a question. Could we not use deprivation of voting rights as a system of punishment? I don't mean for people in prison, I mean as an alternative to prison.