Should the right to vote be earned?

Great Debates
61

By introducing a civil service aspect to voting, you immediately disenfranchise all those who are ineligable for such service.

They could be too poorly educated, don’t they have a right to demand better education ?

They might be bedridden, don’t they have a right to demand better healthcare provision ?

They could be those who simply failed a urine sample drug test, they may actually want to vote for someone wanting to legalise cannabis.

There are only a certain number of public service posts available, its not possible to have even the majority of the population working for the state for the qualifiying period of two years.

What would qualify as public service and what would not ? Are we talking of those who work for the state, or the federal government, or just those in the military, or will we include those who work in charity shops, what about those caring for elderly relatives ? I can think of plenty of deserving cases who for reasons completely outside their control are unable to take up public service - which reminds me, do the physically disabled get a vote then ?

Plenty of public servants are arseholes of the highest order, and from what I’ve seen, quite a few struggle to read an write.

For some public servants, especially in the lower orders such as cleaners, etc, it may be the only job they could get.

So there is no specific reason why someone who has been in public service is any better qualified to understand the issues and vote better than anyone else.

As an idea it is utterly unworkable, as a principle it utterly sucks.

If you want better voters, then the answer is to address the problem, educate them, give them a stake in society, something to care about, campaigning and activism. Why does it seem to be that education funding is the one thing that seems to get attacked, education standards are dumbed down so that we can all achieve a mediocre level of understanding, which we then call ‘uniform success’ or ‘no child left behind’ - which actually means no child forges ahead, no child exceeds, no intellectual tall flower among that crop of plain old grass.

62

How does someone who joins the army or has a college degree “really have a stake in the country”? My grandfather was a dirt poor farmer and logger. He never served in the military, never finished high school, though he did get his GED when he was in his 60s. My other grandfather was a medical doctor, who served in the navy during WWII. Both were intelligent, thoughful men who did their best to raise families and take care of their communities. On what basis was one of them worthy of getting more votes then the other?

One person, one vote, applied across as broad a selection of the population as we can stomach. Anything else is the institution of some form of ruling class.

63

I just find this staggering, that someone would think it an okay idea to make working for the government a requirement for enfranchisement. Have you people ever actually seen how hard government workers work?

I always ask this question when this ridiculous idea comes up and nobody’s ever answered it:

Why is working for the government morally, ethically, or productively better for my country than working for a private enterprise?

Why is this better than going to school?
Why is this better than holding down a private, civilian job?

64

You’re the second person who specifically pointed out and taken issue with the term ‘have a stake in the country.’ If I had just omitted that passage, or had replaced it with something like, “contributed to the betterment of the nation,” would that make it different, or more palatable? If so, I apologize for obscuring my point in charged language.

Of course, this isn’t to say that I advocate it or it’s really my point. I’m simply bringing it up for posterity and to introduce a communitarian-ish Third Way to the “votes for all” “righteous people only” discussion.

65

Military service does mature the people it doesn’t kill, but it hardly seems fair to ask somebody to risk death just to vote. As I said before, it’s debatable that voting actually does that much for you, and among this country’s founding principles is the idea that people aren’t given their rights by governments, they’re born with them.

66

I doubt the liquor distributors, caterers, prostitutes and drug dealers would agree with you. :wink:

As to the OP: While it’s kinda frustrating - even counterintuitive - that the vote of someone with a room-temperature IQ and no interest in politics has exactly the same weight as that of a smart, committed, politically-aware voter, any test or qualifying process would be ripe for abuse. Besides, democracy is ideally about everyone having a say, not a select few, no matter how they are “selected.”

67

Besides military service I also suggested civil service or public works. Someone else suggested the Peace Corp. There is also that service program that Clinton created (can’t remember the name).
Being physically incapable is not an excuse for not being able to work or participate (remember the Americans with Disabilities Act?) so if someone is willing to work then and serve their country they cannot be legally precluded from doing so.
The US Government created a lot of public works programs during the Great Depression. Roads and dams were built, infrastructure repaired. As I drive down the highway I can see a lot of work that could be done to make things better, from landscaping to construction to demolition (tearing down abandoned buildings). Many of the jobs don’t require extensive training, merely a strong back and a willingness to put in a hard days effort. Not physically able to swing a hammer or plant a tree? They will need people in the offices to handle the paperwork, too.

A common complaint I have seen in articles about welfare recipients is that they have no place to put their kids if they did get a job, so they stay on welfare. What about creating federal daycare centers for the children of people doing these jobs? Background checks will be run, the employees will receive training and the centers could be open 24/7 for workers who have late shifts or weekend work. Before and after school programs would be available as well.

The feds can coordinate with the states on local works programs as far as eligibility. Illinois could include any projects on an eligibility list for the feds. The feds would determine if the project was of service to the public good and was a way to improve the country. Suppose Illinois has a rural route needing repair. Obviously, that would not be a federal project. Since the repair would improve the efficiency of commerce and transportation within the state it is of benefit to the country.

High school graduates who decide to go to college can receive an eligibility waiver if they are pursuing a degree on an “approved” list of majors (e.g. criminal justice, civil engineering, medicine). Other students can participate in an ROTC-type program where they can pursue their chosen major but promise to participate upon graduation in a civil service role for two years.

You all just wait! When I take over the world you will see that my plan will work! Bwa-ha-ha!

68

I think it was Spider Robinson who proposed an alternative to the current voting system. The curtains close on the voting booth, and you are asked a random question based on the junior high curriculum. It may pertain to history, geography, science, whatever, Get it right, you vote. Get it wrong, sorry, try again next time.

He also proposed a corollary where, if you got the answer wrong, the curtains would open and the booth would be empty. Ooooh! He may have been joking about this one.

69

Again, I’m so with you in theory. Now the problem in reality is the unions. There’s no possible way the local demolitions union is going to stand by while a bunch of 18 year olds with pickaxes take down old ruined office buildings.

This is akin to my excellent discipline suggestion in every school thread: put the troublemakers to work. Problem is, the janitors union won’t allow a non-union person to scrub toilets, as it jeopardizes the janitor’s job.

70

But ultimately the military is still an option, and might be the most strongly-encouraged one. You’ve organized your proposal very well and I compliment you on that, but it doesn’t change my objections. Putting roadblocks up in the way
of citizenship violates the very first sentence of the Declaration of Independence.

71

Actually, it was Heinlein, but I can see how they could be confused lately. :smiley:
How about a series of Steel Cage Death Matches to decide elections? The advantage here is that every election, we eliminate half the politicians from the political arena (and breeding pool.)

72

Your theory stinks. Lets face some simple facts. The damn Pols have already bread by the time they run for office. :wink:

Jim

73

Out of interest, do you consider yourself unusual for your age group ?

Believe me, 30 is not the significant age for adulthood, as my uncle wisely said you find 65 year old children.

The problem as I see it, is that our glorious leaders are selected by a load of people who don’t understand the issues - it is a bit like having trolls select the moderators for the SDMB

74

I’m talking about the book, not that waste of time & energy.

75

(Starship Troopers is a badly misunderstood and underrated flick. /hijack!)

-FrL-

76

I know. The local laborers union is ungodly strong. The majority of the workers are 18 year olds cleaning up demolition junk, carting away lumber, drywall and bricks, sweeping up job sites. But they are all union members because Uncle Shamus or Cousin Louie know a union member and get them sponsored for a card. And before anyone says that I am using stereotypes about connections within the trades, I am speaking from personal experience. Uncle Shamus (not his real name) got my wife’s cousin a laborer’s job on a construction site and Cousin Louie (again, NHRN) got my friend’s nephew into the pipe fitter’s union, ahead of other applicants. My FIL got me into the carpenter’s union because he is an electrical contractor (I quit that a long time ago).

Heh? First sentence of the DoI:

If you are referring to the “separate and equal station”, OK then maybe I can see what you mean.

Of course the military would be the most strongly encouraged option because that is the one that gets the advertising dollars. Anyone remember what Clinton’s Peace Corp type plan was called? America Works? Help America? Something like that, anyway. During the 90’s I saw a couple ads on TV and in magazines and then, poof, it disappeared. Does it even still exist? Put a few bucks into programs like that and put recruiters at high school job and college fairs alongside the military recruiters and you will see a little improvement.

Many kids are idealists. They look at a world full of struggle, pollution, hatred and they want to make it better. If you ask most kids they will tell you that they want to help people. Make the opportunities available and they will do it. If they see a personal benefit as well, they will be more eager to participate.

My proposal is not putting up a roadblock to citizenship; it would actually encourage people to want to be involved in what direction their country is taking. I have a vested interest in what is going on. I served in the military because I wanted to help this country. I have friends who have worked for the National Park Service because they want to preserve our wilderness areas. I work with soup kitchens and aid organizations because I want to improve the lives of my fellow countrymen.

If a person shows that they really give a damn about what is going on and are willing to roll up their sleeves and get to work, then they deserve to be rewarded. If a person pisses and moans about the condition of the country and the ineffectiveness of the government yet they don’t do anything to try and change it, then they deserve what they get. They will sit back and take what is given to them but don’t show that they want to make things better. Let the people who give more than lip-service the vote, because those are the one who make the difference in the world. The people standing with their hands out, expecting things to be given to them deserve what they get. They should not be rewarded for being a leech.

77

Yup, AmeriCorps still exists. I see their math and science tutors helping in an nearby latchkey after-school tutoring program pretty often: AmeriCorps - Wikipedia

78

Cool! We need more groups like that. I remember reading about scholarships being offered for teaching students who pledge to work a couple years in “deprived” areas (Appalachia, Native American reservations, inner-city, etc.). Include options like those in with the work programs. Make the options so prevalent that it would be hard to not be involved.

This country offers so many opportunities. It’s a shame that more people don’t appreciate just what a special nation was created here.

I didn’t appreciate the bike I was given when I was a kid. I just accepted it and didn’t take care of it. I left it out in the rain and it rusted up. It bothered me but not a whole lot because I expected my folks would just buy me a new one.

When they told me that they wouldn’t buy me a new one and I would have to pay for it myself, I was furious. They were the parents! They were supposed to take care of me! They were supposed to give me things!

I saved every dime I could make mowing lawns, walking dogs, babysitting, cleaning people’s garages, whatever odd job an 11 year old could find. When I had enough to buy the bike I wanted I made sure I took care of it. I earned that bike. I appreciated what I got through my hard work. I also appreciated my parents a little more. OK, it took me a while to realize what they were doing, but eventually I did thank them for the lesson.

79

Oops. Beginning of the preamble:

And, perhaps to a slightly lesser degree, this violates the idea of governing with the consent of the governed.

It’s incorrect to equate “make the opportunity available” with “require them to do it.” I strongly support making the opportunity available.

Then offer them a personal benefit - don’t deny them a very basic right and then force them to earn it back.

By not allowing them to be involved in that direction unless they fulfilled new requirements.

Then why not offer a reward that doesn’t involve taking something away from them?

The right to vote isn’t a reward for being a leech, or a reward for anything else. The founders of this country felt - or they felt in theory, anyway - that it’s a right everyone has.

80

Or in Mark Twain’s “The Curious Republic of Gondour.”