[EM] Voting Requirements

[Michael Rouse]

Greg Nisbet wrote:
> Breaking a bit with voting methods, I would like to bring up another
> issue regarding one's ability to influence politics: suffrage.
>
> As the only one here not legally qualified to vote, I must express
> dissatisfaction with the status quo.
>
> There were several historical requirements for being able to vote:
>
> 1. Citizenship
> 2. Residency
> 3. Age
> 4. Criminal Record
> 5. Sex
> 6. Race
> 7. Class (arbitrary non-race inherited characteristics)
> 8. Wealth
>
> Half of these requirements are gone, only the first four remain.
>
> I disagree with 3 and 4 (and to a lesser extent 1 and 2).
>   
I think #1 is necessary by definition. Even if you extended the 
franchise to everyone, that just means that everyone would be considered 
citizens. Quoting from Wikipedia (as an example, rather than a 
reference)  "Citizenship is membership in a political community 
(originally a city or town but now usually a country) and carries with 
it rights to political participation; a person having such membership is 
a citizen."

On the subject of age, rights and responsibilities should be shared 
among citizens. A child who does not have the same responsibilities as 
an adult (to defend the country, for example), or is not considered an 
adult in a court of law, might be excluded from the right to vote. (As a 
side note, this is one of my disagreements with Selective Service -- my 
sister served in the Air Force, so I know first hand it is not a lack of 
ability but political will that keeps the requirements for citizen 
involvement different for men and women.)

As for my own political view, I think Robert Heinlein's idea (Service 
Equals Citizenship) is rather interesting -- it's certainly fairer than 
"Citizenship Equals Service" that accompanies a draft. Make both 
military and civilian service acceptable, and open it to anyone who can 
complete a specified period of service to the nation, and you wouldn't 
have to worry about age or birth requirements -- a 14-year-old Canadian 
could join if he was willing and able to serve.

Of course, this is all part of my sneaky plan to reduce the number of 
lawyers and politicians, since I'd require both groups to be citizens. :)

On a more serious note, my view is that citizenship has a certain value, 
and confers a certain obligation. Exchanging value for value seems fair, 
and requiring a person to serve the country they want to vote in is no 
more onerous than requiring them to play taxes (which are in effect, 
requiring them to set aside a portion of their time and labor in service 
to their country). I'm probably in a tiny minority on this subject, though.


> Here is why:
>
> A felony is simply a 'serious' crime. Who defines serious? What stops
> the government from making dissent a felony and disenfranchising
> political opponents? If that is too extreme, how do we know the
> government's definition of a felony is reasonable? There is no
> external judge and the penalty is inability to influence the system.
> Hence those affected by the system really cannot contest it. In
> addition the laws vary by state creating weird discrepancies.
>
> Preventing children from voting is IMHO wrong. My argument is simply
> going to be one of paternalism because I am quite fond of making
> anti-paternalism arguments. Very few people would argue that 5-8
> should be reinstated. Yet 8 might arguably lead to 'better' results.
> Wealthier people tend to be more educated and if you have educated
> people making decisions you end up with 'better' decisions. Most
> people would reject this argument on the grounds of civil rights. Let
> me put this in perspective. By extending the right to vote to all
> adults, anyone who does not support some sort of education requirement
> for voting is conceding that it is not justifiable to disenfranchise
> on the grounds that you will pollute the ballot pool due to ignorance.
> I say it simply doesn't make sense that children can be compelled by
> the government to do various things yet there is no check on its
> power. We are smart enough to commit crimes, but stupid enough to
> endanger the already threadbare fabric of American democracy.
>
> 1 and 2 are slightly less serious, but I think their role should be changed.
>
> I say let noncitizens vote in local elections. They live there and pay
> their taxes, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to vote on
> matters concerning their community. At higher levels, I would argue
> that the government needs to protect itself from outside interests
> messing with its politics. So it's more of a national security
> argument than anything else. Still, America is far too stingy with
> citizenship. It ought to be kinder to resident aliens. They mean us no
> harm; they are only trying to make a living. Ius Solis places strong
> restrictions on those without the privelidge of being born here.
>
> This issue is relatively important. Maybe not quite so much as getting
> FPTP removed, but still pretty high up there.
> What are your thoughts on disenfranchisement and the like?
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
>