[EM] Voting Requirements

[Raph Frank]

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Greg Nisbet <gregory.nisbet at gmail.com> 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 agree with you on 4 (Criminal Record).  If criminals are having an
effect on the voting system, then you have to many people in prison.

On 3 (Age), I can see an argument that children should get some kind
of vote.  For example, you might get a small vote starting at 10 (or
some other arbitrary age).  This allows them to participate.

If you disagree with Citizenship and Residency, then how do you
propose to decide who gets to vote?  Should everyone on the planet get
to vote for US President?

> 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.

Do you think parents should be required to care for their children, or
should a child who cannot work/convince his parents support him be
left to starve?

Children are not the same as adults.  This is reality and it needs to
be recognised.

Children don't suddenly change on their 18th birthday though.

> 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.

Well, I think they might make better decisions, but their priorities
wouldn't be the general welfare.

> 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.

A big problem with weighted voting systems is that it is impossible to
come up with a fair way to do it.  "Every adult gets a vote" is a
simple rule that isn't subject to mass corruption.

> 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.

Then you are accepting residency as a qualification.  In any case,
this seems reasonable.

It might be linked to years of residence in the country.  In effect,
naturalisation becomes a process rather than a situation where
suddenly you get all the rights to be a citizen.  After 2 years, you
get to vote in local elections and by the time you become a full
citizen, you have been able to vote in increasing higher levels of the
system.

> 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.

Ultimately, that is a decision for the people of the US to make.  It
is perfectly reasonable for a country to control the level of
immigration to a level that allows it to integrate the immigrants into
their culture/society (or just close its borders if that is what the
people want) .. and ofc, there are considerable economic benefits to
allowing immigration.