Making Voting In The USA Mandatory To Get A Driver's License

Great Debates
41

In Australia compulsory voting isn’t much of an issue but the effort required to both register and actually vote is negligible. Basically once you are on the electoral roll at age 18 you just have to fill in a form when you move to a new electorate. Nearly any metropolitan electorate will have all the local schools as polling stations. You can also vote away from your electorate or by post.

Many overseas countries achieve excellent voting turnouts, almost as high as Australia’s without compulsory voting just by making registration and voting simple matters.

Personally I would like Australia to do away with compulsory voting because, having been involved in a series of pre-election research sessions last year, it is obvious that many voters are simply going through the motions with no idea what they are voting for.

42

**SOME **of the reasons why a person doesn’t vote may include:

He is literally to stupid to understand anything about politics.
He’s totally apathetic.
He’s a clown who will vote for the candidate with the funniest name.
He is a terrorist.
He can’t make up his mind, because he’s easily swayed by everyone’s campaign speeches.
He is “bitter.”

Do you really want to force these people to make their opinions count? This makes as much sense as forcing people to drive, in order to earn the right to vote.

43

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I’ve never seen any evidence that’s a significant problem for get out the vote campaigns; it’s just an excuse the Republicans have for suppressing potential Democratic votes, in my opinion.
[/QUOTE]

I wasn’t aware that anyone opposed “get out the vote campaigns”. I presumed Mach Tuck was referring to measures that make registering to vote, and voting itself, easier, such as limiting the need for identification, etc.

44

[QUOTE=Huerta88]
I’m all for a poll tax. Anything that ensures that those casting votes are actual stakeholders, not kibitzers.
[/QUOTE]

Poll taxes are unconstitutional, so you’ll have to find something else. [Snark restrained in GD.]

45

[QUOTE=Huerta88]
I’m all for a poll tax. Anything that ensures that those casting votes are actual stakeholders, not kibitzers.
[/QUOTE]

As noted, it is unconstitutional. What amount of wealth must one have in order to be a stakeholder and not a kibitzer? And what recourse would “kibitzers” have if the “stakeholders” perpetually voted in candidates that kept “kibitzers” in their place?

46

I am sure that the poll tax in question would be graduated to income. Because that’s how you would assure that rich people had the same amount of skin in the game. You know, since, that (not the amount of money) is the point of a poll tax.

Po folks would pay $10 to vote and hugely rich people would pay a thousand bucks.

47

[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
As noted, it is unconstitutional.
[/quote]

Yes, I know. Doesn’t mean I have to agree with the 24th Amendment.

The old standard of being a landowner was not a horrible proxy for who the contributing stakeholders were, but was probably a little better suited to an agriculturally-oriented economy. (Though I note that all of our policies aimed at making people “homeowners” (sometimes with unfortunate fallout) seem to accept the premise that property ownership equates with being a stable and sober member of society). In today’s economy, I suspect a good cutoff would be: you can vote if you are a net financial contributor to the jurisdiction in question. That is, if you pay some net taxes (and do not take cash or in-kind benefits from the government in an amount that exceeds that tax). If not, you don’t have any skin in the game, and only mischief could be caused by letting you vote on how the game is played (for the same reason, the College of Cardinals doesn’t invite members of the Canadian Parliament, or Navajo chiefs, to vote on the next Pope). Especially in a heavily taxed, re-distributive government such as prevails in the West today, voting decisions are decisions over who gets the power of the purse. Someone who didn’t chip in to the purse doesn’t logically deserve a role in that decision.

Get job, become stakeholder.

48

So how do you handle people who are citizens who are currently eligable for a driver’s licence but not permitted to vote - 16-year-olds, convicted felons, etc.?

49

Why do we want more non-voters voting? If they can’t be bothered to get involved in the political process, do we really want their uninformed opinions being counted?

50

[QUOTE=Huerta88]
In today’s economy, I suspect a good cutoff would be: you can vote if you are a net financial contributor to the jurisdiction in question. That is, if you pay some net taxes (and do not take cash or in-kind benefits from the government in an amount that exceeds that tax). If not, you don’t have any skin in the game, and only mischief could be caused by letting you vote on how the game is played
[/QUOTE]

So in your view, a welfare mother who has three sons in the Marines should not be able to cast a vote for president because she has no stake in the outcome? In addition, not every decision elected officials make has anything to do with spending money. Should state legislators approve a toxic dump in a neighborhood of “kibitzers”? After all, they have no skin in the game.

51

[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
So in your view, a welfare mother who has three sons in the Marines should not be able to cast a vote for president because she has no stake in the outcome?
[/quote]

Presumably the sons can vote. So can she the instant she gets off of welfare. Presumably your hypothetical does not imply that anyone other than herself filled out the welfare application and chose to keep cashing the checks.

In a redistributive social democracy, many if not most do, in one form or another.

If I didn’t want to run that risk, I’d take steps to ensure that (a) I had done the (minimal) amount necessary to ensure I qualified for a vote (i.e., on my test, paid $1 more into government than I’d taken out), and (b) if I didn’t like what was happening in my neighborhood, I had the resources to find another one I liked better.

52

[QUOTE=Huerta88]
Presumably the sons can vote.
[/quote]
That’s great for the sons, but BobLibDem was talking about the mother. And it’s fairly common to find people who don’t hold the same political views as their parents, so your comment is really a non sequitur.

What difference does that make? Even if we accept the “many if not most do” as true, the simple fact that it isn’t “all do” demonstrates one flaw in using that type of approach. Under the rules you’ve laid out, a person would be prevented from voting on the legalization of gay marriage (or abortion rights, etc.) just because “most decisions have something to do with spending money.”

Doesn’t sound anything like a democracy to me.

53

This whole notion of basing one’s right to vote on a monetary contribution to society is morally bankrupt. People can contribute to society in non-monetary ways- the welfare mother who provided sons to the military is one. What do you do with housewives? Ralph Kramden gets to vote because he pays taxes, and Alice doesn’t because she doesn’t work? The 4.0 senior in high school who wants to major in political science doesn’t get to vote because he hasn’t started working yet? Apart from the moral bankruptcy, there are far too many unfair situations that such a rule would create.

54

[QUOTE=LilShieste]
That’s great for the sons, but BobLibDem was talking about the mother. And it’s fairly common to find people who don’t hold the same political views as their parents, so your comment is really a non sequitur.
[/quote]

No, the real non sequiter was Bob’s mentioning her sons at all. He did it to create sympathy for her and to imply that she has “contributed” by “sending her sons to the war” and so that she should get a vote for this in-kind contribution. I didn’t call him on it, but that was misdirection. No one “contributes” or “sends” their kids to the military, as most of us conceded in the silly Michael Moore debate over “why doesn’t GWB [or whoever] send their kid to Iraq.” If Mom wants to have some say in what happens in Iraq, for whatever reason (including the legitimate sentimental concern for her boys), Mom can readily do so by participating as a payor for, rather than a payee of, the common expenses of the country. The sentimental concern for her sons, while legitimate, is not anything that the Treasury can cash.

The American Revolution had a great deal to do with the relationship between having money forcibly extracted from you and then spent by someone over whose actions you had no control. Conversely, giving control of government (through the vote) to someone who has contributed nothing to its upkeep is antithetical to the taxation/representation calculus that the Founders wanted to see.

Your condo board is voting on a new bylaw to ban parties that go past midnight. Majority of the shareholders rules. Is it fair that I should be excluded from voting just because I don’t own a share in the condo, or because I do but I’m six months in arrears on paying my common charges? Yeah, I’d say it’s pretty doggone fair.

55

[QUOTE=Huerta88]
No, the real non sequiter was Bob’s mentioning her sons at all. He did it to create sympathy for her and to imply that she has “contributed” by “sending her sons to the war” and so that she should get a vote for this in-kind contribution. I didn’t call him on it, but that was misdirection. No one “contributes” or “sends” their kids to the military, as most of us conceded in the silly Michael Moore debate over “why doesn’t GWB [or whoever] send their kid to Iraq.” If Mom wants to have some say in what happens in Iraq, for whatever reason (including the legitimate sentimental concern for her boys), Mom can readily do so by participating as a payor for, rather than a payee of, the common expenses of the country. The sentimental concern for her sons, while legitimate, is not anything that the Treasury can cash.
[/quote]

Why does it all come back to money? We’ve already established that money isn’t the end-all-be-all, even if it is a major player.

Besides, what if the mom simply cannot “participate as a payor”? I get the impression that the whole idea of government assistance is very black and white in your viewpoint - and the truth is it’s far from that.

[QUOTE=Huerta88]
The American Revolution had a great deal to do with the relationship between having money forcibly extracted from you and then spent by someone over whose actions you had no control. Conversely, giving control of government (through the vote) to someone who has contributed nothing to its upkeep is antithetical to the taxation/representation calculus that the Founders wanted to see.
[/quote]

We keep coming back to this: it’s not all about money. The person who “can’t afford to vote” is still bound by the laws of the nation, and for this reason alone they have a say in things.

Sure it is - your condo board doesn’t have the responsibilty of making sure your children have access to a public school. Your condo board doesn’t provide you with clean, potable water. Your condo board doesn’t have the power to throw you in jail. Simply put: your condo board plays a ridiculously minor role in your life.

Your government, OTOH, affects your everyday life in countless ways.

56

People point out that “government does a lot of things that aren’t directly aimed at allocating money.” I’ve pointed out that the ones that do directly take and give money from A to B were among the ones most actively motivating the Founders, but more fundamentally: just by existing and doing anything to you or for you, government as an organism needs to be supported by something.

The compact theory of government: we got together, said, hey, anarchy won’t work, let’s start a government, and we can have it pass and enforce laws, and we can elect representatives, and make policies, but I’ve got to tell you, we’re all going to need to chip in a bit to run this thing. If someone pipes up: “Hey, sounds great, I like that voting thing, but count me out on chipping in to run it,” why should he be taken seriously?

My original comment arose out of the various posts to the effect of “if someone can’t even be bothered to make it to the polling station without compulsion, how likely is it that their vote would be very helpful?” So my “poll tax” comment is really not too different – if someone can’t pass the most de minimis threshold of being a grown up, contributing to the common expenses – remember, my theoretical poll tax would be you can vote if you pay $1 net into the fisc – how likely is it that that person is a responsible, well-informed, contributing member of society in other respects, such that their vote is going to do more good than harm to the commonweal? YMMV but the habits and attributes that correlate with financial solvency are not uncorrelated with being a well-educated, social-contract-minded, voter. The factors that correlate with an inability or unwillingness to make even a $1 net contribution are (IMHO) correlated with some habits of thought and action that aren’t going to necessarily lead to a wise vote.

57

I’ve come round to the view that people who are too stupid or idle to weigh up the issues and come to a rational decision shouldn’t be encouraged to participate in democracy

58

[QUOTE=Huerta88]
People point out that “government does a lot of things that aren’t directly aimed at allocating money.” I’ve pointed out that the ones that do directly take and give money from A to B were among the ones most actively motivating the Founders, but more fundamentally: just by existing and doing anything to you or for you, government as an organism needs to be supported by something.
[/quote]

“No taxation without representation” is not synonymous with “no representation without taxation”.

And I don’t think anyone here is of the mind that a government requires no operating costs. In fact, it’s why I’m generally pro-taxes.

[QUOTE=Huerta88]
The compact theory of government: we got together, said, hey, anarchy won’t work, let’s start a government, and we can have it pass and enforce laws, and we can elect representatives, and make policies, but I’ve got to tell you, we’re all going to need to chip in a bit to run this thing. If someone pipes up: “Hey, sounds great, I like that voting thing, but count me out on chipping in to run it,” why should he be taken seriously?
[/quote]

Well, for one thing, what if the person actually said: “Hey, sounds great, I like that voting thing, but what if I can’t afford to pay my share?”

[QUOTE=Huerta88]
My original comment arose out of the various posts to the effect of “if someone can’t even be bothered to make it to the polling station without compulsion, how likely is it that their vote would be very helpful?” So my “poll tax” comment is really not too different … <snip>
[/quote]

Actually, it’s quite different. There are plenty of rich people who don’t educate themselves on political figures and issues, just as there are plenty of poor people who do.

[QUOTE=Huerta88]
<snip>… – if someone can’t pass the most de minimis threshold of being a grown up, contributing to the common expenses – remember, my theoretical poll tax would be you can vote if you pay $1 net into the fisc – how likely is it that that person is a responsible, well-informed, contributing member of society in other respects, such that their vote is going to do more good than harm to the commonweal?
[/quote]

The likelihood is unrelated to their income. You might as well be arguing that the color I choose for my shoes depends solely on my salary. (No pun intended.)

[QUOTE=Huerta88]
YMMV but the habits and attributes that correlate with financial solvency are not uncorrelated with being a well-educated, social-contract-minded, voter.
[/quote]

Perhaps they are correlated - but perhaps there is also a lurking variable. Maybe it depends on the quality of their education. Maybe it depends on the amount of attention they got from their family, growing up.

[QUOTE=Huerta88]
The factors that correlate with an inability or unwillingness to make even a $1 net contribution are (IMHO) correlated with some habits of thought and action that aren’t going to necessarily lead to a wise vote.
[/QUOTE]

How do you figure? Why is the citizen who was born with a condition that prevents them from finding or keeping a job, less qualified to vote than you?

If you want to prevent uninformed voters from voting, then find a way to prevent uninformed voters from voting. At best, a poll tax only prevents poor, uninformed people from voting; it does nothing to curtail the problem with the rest of the country.

59

[QUOTE=LilShieste]
If you want to prevent uninformed voters from voting, then find a way to prevent uninformed voters from voting. At best, a poll tax only prevents poor, uninformed people from voting; it does nothing to curtail the problem with the rest of the country.
[/QUOTE]

I would definitely support (in addition to or instead of a poll tax) a literacy test, a current affairs test, a science test, or a Jeopardy-style general knowledge quiz. They’d accomplish most of what I think a poll tax would. I suspect the same people who don’t want a poll tax would oppose me there too (I can imagine them arguing along the lines that “illiteracy doesn’t really necessarily correllate with ignorance”) but maybe not.

It’s been seen throughout human history that people like extra bread and circuses. It’s been seen that even when they can’t afford to pay for them, they will want and demand them. It’s been seen that human nature is such that people are willing to take other people’s stuff. It’s apparent too that in a modern social democracy, poor voters will often make an economically rational (if invidious) decision to vote money away from anyone richer than they are and toward them. If the government didn’t have the ability to take my money away at gunpoint, none of this would matter, but it does.

I apologize to the OP for my hijack on this topic, by the way, though to return to the OP: disagreed, on the same rationale.

60

[QUOTE=Huerta88]
That is, if you pay some net taxes (and do not take cash or in-kind benefits from the government in an amount that exceeds that tax). If not, you don’t have any skin in the game, and only mischief could be caused by letting you vote on how the game is played (for the same reason, the College of Cardinals doesn’t invite members of the Canadian Parliament, or Navajo chiefs, to vote on the next Pope). Especially in a heavily taxed, re-distributive government such as prevails in the West today, voting decisions are decisions over who gets the power of the purse. Someone who didn’t chip in to the purse doesn’t logically deserve a role in that decision.
[/QUOTE]
How would you prevent the monied interests from tweaking the tax system to disenfranchise voters? Gerrymandering is a bad enough problem. Can you imagine the kinds of hijinks that would occur if you could affect the outcome of an election by changing the standard deduction?