Hmm . . . I remember hearing this somewhere . . . what if you always get one vote after you reach the age of majority, but then, through education or military service, you have the possibility to earn more? Then, everyone is enfranchised, but the people who really have a stake in country and have shown patriotic enthusiasm get more?
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
See, it’s that that I’m disagreeing with. Ideally, I’m saying, the person who gets elected should be the one who gets the majority of people to vote for him. If he’s an idiot elected by ignorant people, then so be it. At least he’s a popular idiot.
[/QUOTE]
And more importantly: a proper representative of the idiots that elected him
[QUOTE=Jaochai]
Hmm . . . I remember hearing this somewhere . . . what if you always get one vote after you reach the age of majority, but then, through education or military service, you have the possibility to earn more? Then, everyone is enfranchised, but the people who really have a stake in country and have shown patriotic enthusiasm get more?
[/QUOTE]
Last time I checked all the citizens of a country have a stake in what happens in the country that they live in.
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
It’s probably not relevant to that. But, what you’re saying comes with the assumption that the people who should be elected are those best able to “to make decisions representing the best interests of his constituents.” It’s fine that you believe that, but that’s an aristocratic value, not a democratic one. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong…there’s a lot to be said for aristocracy. But when you limit the franchise, when you say, “You can’t vote because you’re not voting for the most qualified candidate, but for some other reason.”, it’s anti-democratic.
[/QUOTE]
A very astute and interesting point.
If I’m remembering and interpreting my American History correctly, the major disagreement in in philosophy among the Founding Fathers[sup]TM[/sup] was between what you call the democratic and aristocratic values/points of view.
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
The latter would almost certainly mean that the poor would stop voting completely.
[/QUOTE]
Everybody except the rich, and maybe the politicians, would stop voting. Even if you vote regularly and you like being part of the process, which I generally do, you have to admit that the individual rewards for voting are minor at best. Money or a free car would make a much bigger difference in my life than casting a vote; it’s really common sense.
While I don’t like about these improvements to our democracy is that they’re undemocratic. There is no way to require voter education that doesn’t discriminate against the poor or working class, because people with more money and more free time are more able to pay attention to politics. It’s a much better idea to educate the voters we have than to try to weed out the ones we don’t want.
I always saw Starship Troopers as a satirical response to the arguments put forth by the PTB in that story.
Funny…I always saw Starship Troopers as a movie made by a hack who wouldn’t know a philosophical idea if it bit him. 
(Reply to a post that was later explained has been deleted.)
I’m still against “earning” the right to vote.
[QUOTE=silenus]
Funny…I always saw Starship Troopers as a movie made by a hack who wouldn’t know a philosophical idea if it bit him. 
[/QUOTE]
I thought his thought process was weak and he read the story as poorly as many seemed to, but the picture he made was fun in spite of the weak actors and large departure from the storyline.
Marley23, forget the test idea, what about the government service requirement idea? Would that work and be equitable? I am not saying this is correct, I am just interested in hearing what the problems are with a 2 year service requirement to vote?
Jim
[QUOTE=WhyNot]
Not “you can only vote if you can support your stance”, but “you can only vote if you can identify which candidate is for what.”
[/QUOTE]
The candidates often make it as difficult as possible to determine what they are for or against. I defy anyone to make a factual list rather than an interpretive one.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Marley23, forget the test idea, what about the government service requirement idea? Would that work and be equitable? I am not saying this is correct, I am just interested in hearing what the problems are with a 2 year service requirement to vote?
[/QUOTE]
It’s never occurred to me before, but for the first two years of their service, people in the military wouldn’t be allowed to vote for or against the candidates who could send them into combat. That’s a major negative in my book.
In the past, I’ve opposed this idea because I think the opportunity cost would be too high, and I don’t think the government should force people to work. And in particular, it shouldn’t force people to work for it and then deny them the ability to register their disapproval of what it’s doing.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
The candidates often make it as difficult as possible to determine what they are for or against. I defy anyone to make a factual list rather than an interpretive one.
[/QUOTE]
You are absolutely right. That’s part of what I’d like to see change, and it would have to to make the world a perfect place.
Understand, please, that my answers in this thread are all The World According to Me. It would probably have been a lot more succinct to use Frylock’s answer:
In Libertaria, the only laws protect the citizen against force or fraud. In Libertaria, you are never forced to do anything: serve on a jury, serve in the armed forces, pay taxes, stop for traffic lights… Nothing.
And in Libertaria, “earning” the franchise by meeting someone’s definition is perfectly OK.
But in the real world, each person is liable to arrest and trial for failing to meet certain obligations. Usually they’re not honerous ones, but they’re obligations nonetheless. Only if he as a citizen is entitled to vote on whether or not to continue imposing those obligations and/or impose new ones, or to choose the rulers who will make those decisions, is he being treated fairly. And if he isn’t, history is instructive on what happens. (Anybody see a D.C. license plate lately?)
Heinlein’s book, FWIW, is set in a hypothetical future in which a Time of Troubles resulted from governments unable to maintain order after they had wasted resources on “bread and circuses.” Vigilante peace was established by groups of veterans who were disinclined to trust the old governments and, in fact, didn’t trust much of anyone besides each other. The new government system grew out of an international alliance of those vigilante veterans groups. Hence the idea that the franchise was earned by being willing to invest a period of one’s time for the public good – as a soldier, as a civil servant, wherever one was needed. Those who had re-established order and peace were in charge; it suited them to share their authority only with those who were willing to do likewise.
Paul Verhoeven had every right to make whatever movie he chose using whatever rights he bought. And I sincerely hope that a group of Heinlein fans buys the rights to make a movie out of his autobiography. Of course, the scene where he and his fellow Klansmen gang-rape the Cub Scouts may be a bit raw for some – but hey, it’s a director’s artistic freedom, right? :mad:
[QUOTE=Book Monster]
Why? Why does someone “deserve” a say in how the country is run just because they have reached a certain age? If people have fought, bled and died for the right to vote, why should we automatically give that right to anyone, regardless of whether or not they even give a shit? Isn’t the right to vote worth more than that?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know how it works in Heinleinia, or in “the Land of The Free”, but around here, people fought, bled and died for the right to vote for everyone. And before that, lots of (mostly paler) people died, bled, fought for the right to stop some other people from getting the vote.
My point? Just because some idiots are willing to fight, kill & die for an idea or a “right” does not make that idea or “right” correct or worth having. But Yes, people fought, bled and died for the right to vote - but they did it for everyone, not just themselves.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
It’s never occurred to me before, but for the first two years of their service, people in the military wouldn’t be allowed to vote for or against the candidates who could send them into combat. That’s a major negative in my book.
In the past, I’ve opposed this idea because I think the opportunity cost would be too high, and I don’t think the government should force people to work. And in particular, it shouldn’t force people to work for it and then deny them the ability to register their disapproval of what it’s doing.
[/QUOTE]
Huh? I joined in Feb 1984 right after I turned 18 and voted that November. I don’t know where you got the idea that you couldn’t vote for the first two years. I have not read ST but was that listed in there?
I have nothing wrong with a requirement of some kind of service to the country, whether it is military or civil service. People should give more than lip service to the idea of improving their country and the way it is run. If people volunteered to clean up parks, work in soup kitchens, help fix the infrastructure or serve in the military, then I think they have sufficiently demonstrated that they give a damn about the direction this country is headed.
Lots of 18 year olds don’t know where they are headed and a stint at serving can be a great way to mature them. As a reward they are given the privilege of voting.
I know someone at work who is very proud of the fact that he has never voted. He thinks that all politicians are crooks and liars and he doesn’t trust anyone. But he is one of the loudest complainers about how poorly things are run. I finally asked him what he is doing to make things better if he refuses to vote. He didn’t have an answer.
Put up or shut up. The people who actually do things to help this country should have the right to decide it’s future. The people who are willing to accept things being given to them will just have to live what decisions are being made for them. It’s called acting like an adult versus acting like a kid.
I don’t like the idea of testing people before they can vote, though. If you are already interested enough to vote, then you can vote. If your only criteria is that the candidate be anyone but Bush, then that is your choice. At least you know what you don’t want.
[QUOTE=erie774]
Huh? I joined in Feb 1984 right after I turned 18 and voted that November. I don’t know where you got the idea that you couldn’t vote for the first two years. I have not read ST but was that listed in there?
[/QUOTE]
My fault, it was my conjecture based on Heinlein’s fictional requirements in Starship Troopers. He did not mean currently, **Marley23 ** meant under the proposal outlined.
Jim
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
My fault, it was my conjecture based on Heinlein’s fictional requirements in Starship Troopers. He did not mean currently, **Marley23 ** meant under the proposal outlined.
Jim
[/QUOTE]
OK, I was a little confused. Thanks for clearing that up.
Slight hijack: if you are opposed to earning the right to vote, what is your political leaning?
Many people my age don’t know what to do with their lives. That doesn’t mean they can’t make responsible choices when they vote. Besides, why should I be penalized because some of my peers are jackasses?
Being over 30 doesn’t mean you act like an adult, and being under 30 doesn’t mean you don’t. There are probably more people between 18 and 30 who act childishly than people over 30 who do, but you can’t take away the rights of an age group because of a generalization based on age.
The only people who should be allowed to vote are those impacted by the politicians and their policies… Oh. that’s everybody. Then they should be able to vote.
[QUOTE=Book Monster]
but would it be wrong to suggest that the right to vote should be earned?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, because it would contradict the modern idea of democracy, where everybody has one vote. Yes, however disturbing it might seem, that’d include pacifists, unemployed, humanists, females, gays, natives, criminals, and also generals, CEOs, philosophers, students and presidents. And you, whoever you might be. One person, one vote. All else is so called not-democracy.
(Edit: typos.)