The whole point of universal sufferage is not to produce the best possible government but to give us the abilty to avoid the worst types of government. We can’t all agree on the very best solution to each and every problem, there probably isn’t a best solution, but I think the majority of us can at least spot a truly shitty leader … eventually … in most cases … well, usually anyway.
When you say that you reject my premise, do you mean you reject the premise that (A) skilled people are more likely to produce a better outcome than unskilled people, or do you reject (B) my attempt to extend that line of thinking to voters electing office holders? If it is (B) that you reject, and you are asking me to prove that to you, I’ll admit that at this time I can not do that. I can’t do that any more than Jefferson, et alia, could prove to the nay sayers that the democratic republic they were proposing would work.
Lest you think that I am comparing myself to Jefferson by proposing a method to solve voter inequities, then you have missed my point. If you read the first input to this thread, I suggested two things: (1) that it would be helpful if a national data base were to be developed to assist voters, if they were so inclined, to become informed voters, and (2) that voter inequities exist between informed and uninformed voters. I thought I stated very clearly that “I have no idea how we are going to solve the voter inequity problem.”
I am aware however, that voter inequities have been a recognized problem starting with the “no religious test” clause in Article VI of the constitution. We’re all aware that the only way a government can establish justice is by eliminating injustice. For over two hundred years “right to vote” injustices have been struck down through amendments to the constitution as well as court rulings. Amendments 14, 17, 19, 23, 24, and 26 all have been ratified as attempts to prevent disenfranchisement due to race, sex, age, etc.
So why bother with all this nit picking? Why not just let everyone vote? The concept of universal suffrage has been around for a long time. The idea that the 6.8 billion people on this planet should be allowed to vote for the president of the good old U.S.A is obviously ridiculous. Yet when someone brings up the subject of developing a system to verify that voters should meet certain minimum requirements, we hear all sorts of teeth gnashing and hands wringing. We must be cautious when someone starts a statement with the phrase “history teaches us”. We should be aware that history teaches us the results of both good and bad behavior. It may not always be to our benefit to mindlessly follow an inductive finger as it points to a path we should take.
I think Warren Buffet was spot on when he cautioned investors to be wary of a broker’s advice if he had no skin in the game.
Life is a free lunch. Think of all the things you enjoy that you never did anything to earn.
I’d say that rational ignorance is a bigger problem than letting ie non-college-educated people vote. (Voters *know *they can’t influence elections, and therefore forget about rational analysis and pick policies the way they pick brand-name shoes, ie to signal alliance with high-status groups like professors or businessmen.)
Please summarize in print. Blind youtube links do not impress–except, perhaps, in Cafe Society.
THE FIVE NON-NEGOTIABLE ISSUES
These five issues are called non-negotiable because they concern actions that are always morally wrong and must never be promoted by the law. It is a serious sin to endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any of the five non-negotiables.
1. Abortion
The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is “never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it” (EV 73). Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide.
The child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child’s, who should not suffer death for others’ sins.
2. Euthanasia
Often disguised by the name “mercy killing,” euthanasia also is a form of homicide. No one has a right to take his own life (suicide), and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person.
In euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but true compassion cannot include doing something intrinsically evil to another person (cf. EV 73).
3. Fetal Stem Cell Research
Human embryos are human beings. “Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo” (CRF 4b).
Recent scientific advances show that any medical cure that might arise from experimentation on fetal stem cells can be developed by using adult stem cells instead. Adult stem cells can be obtained without doing harm to the adults from whom they come. Thus there no longer is a medical argument in favor of using fetal stem cells.
4. Human Cloning
“Attempts . . . for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through ‘twin fission,’ cloning, or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union” (RHL I:6).
Human cloning also ends up being a form of homicide because the “rejected” or “unsuccessful” clones are destroyed, yet each clone is a human being.
5. Homosexual “Marriage”
True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other form of “marriage” undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.
“When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral” (UHP 10).
Sorry, but those are unrelated to this thread as far as I can tell. This thread is about how to deal with a level of informed voter, not about specific issues.
My bad
Yes, this extra step of voter registration, and often registering for one party, too, in the US to keep people out is really weird from this side of the pond. It’s one of the advantages of having people register at their city office with their address** - about 4 weeks before an election I get the automatic notice that the election for mayor will be on Sun. 1st*, at school X, from 8am to 6 pm. On the back is the form to vote by mail if I can’t otherwise make it.
On election day, each voting district is issued with the “voter registration list” - all people who live in the district and are eligible to vote are listed by adress and name. We mark them off, so no double voting or similar.
- Because we are a secular country, and not a “pandering to the religious fundies” one, we vote on Sunday, so most people will be off from work and thus have a chance, instead of bowing to a minority’s interpretation of Leviticus restrictions on travel on Sundays.
** Strangely, that the country has a law that you need to register your residence is “infringing on my freedoms!” for the Yanks. But irregularities occurring at each US election, where thousands of people are struck from the rolls because of minor issues is not a problem for freedom. Or that the city has accurate data for tax and other purposes at their hand by looking at the population register.
You have completly failed to mention that besides getting more voters educated*, the other part that’s necessary to have the country well administered is having good politicans to choose from. If all your diligent research uncovers is that Candidate A is a lying scumbag out for his own power, and Candidate B is an dangerous ideologue, that’s not much of a help.
- Actually, I want well-informed, intelligent, and active citizens, that have learned critical thinking skills and history, so they stop being taken in by the yellow press and Fox news. Because the bigger problem is that voting every couple of years is not the maximum, but the bare minimum for the true democratic citzen. You need to follow the news during the whole time, not just before election, to keep the politicans honest.
Oh wait, the US doesn’t have real media anymore, just corporate companies following the buck. In theory, your press is free, because the govt. doesn’t censor it … but in practise, you lack the 4th estate that research and controls the govt., because it means higher quotas if they show Paris Hilton and Lohan. And proper research requires hiring skilled journalists, instead of throwing money after quota-drawing “pundits” who froth at the mouth without any real knowledge to back up.)
Anyway, you need to get involved, either in a party or a citizens group or similar. You need to talk to people and educate them, and stop politicans pandering to the dumbest denominator.
Part of your problem is also the ridicolus belief of the Yank that electing tax collectors and dog catchers makes them more accountable to the people. No, it only means (like in big offices) that people who talk well will rise over people who do good work. And it means that people with money will have influence, because they can buy the media for the vote, or threaten their workers to vote the guy they like.
If you want good reports about candidates, I would look at what organisations that work for issues that are important for you say about the track record of the candidates. So if the local charity and the Natur org and Human Rights ACLU say that Candidate X has done the following laws, and voted this way on the following issues, and Candidate Y has done the opposite, or said he wants to repeal those measures, you know who’s better for you.
Many non-profits have restrictions on political activity, meaning that they do not–and in fact are prohibited from–endorsing political candidates or otherwise participating in partisan political affairs.
I’m not talking about endorsing candidates in the sense of saying “vote for Candidate X”, instead, I talked of a record of past votes and activities of the candidates (plural), and of their official statements on what their future policy would be regarding certain issues. I’m sure as long as you list “Candidate A voted for the bill to raise unemployment from 5 to 6 Dollars/ day” and “Candidate B voted against the bill…” and ask each Candidate “What are you going to do about nuclear reactors” and candidate A says “Shut off” and candidate B says “prolong running time”, that’s not endorsment, since they’re giving both candidates the same space.
Unless your laws are written absurdly.
My employer would certainly never do anything remotely like that. One, it would be a misuse of our funding, and two, even what you suggest would possibly be considered practicing partisan politics. There are newspapers for that kind of thing.
I apologize for not being able to visit this site for a while, but I am pleased to read the thoughtful comments that have been posted in my absence. I’m afraid I unknowingly opened a can of worms when I posted my original statement asking for suggestions that would qualify voters in some way thereby improving the chance that elected officials would be more wisely selected. After reading all of the comments I can now see that it’s a lot easier said than done.
Initially, when I read comments like, “Do your own homework.” or “Get involved in some political party or organization.” or “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” I felt I was unjustly being attacked, but I now realize that those comments were justified. I was hoping someone would do my thinking for me and through their hard work my life would be better, but I confess that my laziness has caught up with me.
I’m seventy five years old and probably have only twenty or thirty more years to get my act together, so keep on writing and I’ll keep on reading. Those of us who live in a country where we are free to vote and free to express our opinions without fear of being persecuted are indeed fortunate and I’m optimistically thinking that as time moves along we will all tweak our respective systems and life will improve. As I stated at the end of my last book, “All are guests at a never ending banquet, always here, always now, without judgment, condition, or exception. It can be no other way.”
I’m a known curmudgeon, so discount accordingly.
LIBERTYLAND is absolutely correct. Except she should not be allowed to vote either. It should only be done by people who passed Poly Sci in college or people involved in politics. Others just don’t have the understanding to pass an intelligent vote. Just having property and kids is not enough.
We should go back to voting tests. Then we will have an informed electorate.
Property is important. So those with more property should have more votes.
The world has changed. the extremely wealthy who just love the little people to death, have not had enough political control. It is time we find a way to totally eliminate the vote of the uneducated and poor. The poor do not have enough of a financial stake to vote. The stupid should not be allowed to impact elections. they just do not understand the complexities of politics and economics.
Our presidents are culled from the proper ivy league schools. We accept that. So [perhaps they should also be the only ones who should be allowed to vote. Then all will be well.
Some Repubs understand this. That is why they killed ACORN. Every single institution that helps the poor is suspect. They encourage participation in the process by those who just don’t have the credentials to make the proper votes.