Support NeoGAF

[StreetsofBeige]

Easy to vote in terms of accessibility. Not everyone is good with tech. So for sake of allowing the most people to vote, you need a combo of mailers, doing it at the local school or community centre, or internet based. People have a choice how to do it.

But it needs to secure and reliable, so no stupidity happens. Imagine if servers went down or the post office messed up delivering voting slips. So you need a wide range of options to cover the bases.

In terms of qualifications, there should definitely be some changes so it skews more to taxpayers, workers and able minded people. No fuck ups. You dont hand out jobs equally to anyone who shows up, nor does even a household give equal voice as the parents rule the roost. You dont give kids or numbnuts too much power or else the government dumbs down. You can already see it in countries where wacky DEI people with crazy bigoted one sided ideas are given a voice and it screws it up for the masses.

All it takes is one hole to sink a ship. So if you want the ship to run smoothly best as possible you let the people who know how to work on a ship handle it. You dont give numbnut passenger #273 in seat B12 an equal opinion how to steer the ship.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I'm trying to tow the line carefully on GAF is what I'm doing.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

But why did we choose to omit children from voting?.

Because we decided children aren't smart enough and therefore shouldn't be allowed. The reasoning ends there. No real discussion of substance went into the justification of it just like it didn't for a woman's right to vote

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Because we decided children aren't smart enough and therefore shouldn't be allowed. The reasoning ends there.

Perhaps this reasoning should be applied to more than just children?

No real discussion of substance went into the justification of it just like it didn't for a woman's right to vote

Are you suggesting the next great civil rights movement is a child's right to vote?

 

[Three]

Imagine rising unemployment and those suffering from it unable to even change things because they require proof of income. Why would governments care about it at all from that point on?

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Because we as a society have determined that being an adult is a prerequisite for voting, even though there are a lot of children under 18 who are smarter than most adults. It's a mostly arbitrary distinction that used to be 21 in the USA but was recently lowered to 18 in the 70s, and is even lower in some other countries.

Businesses, families, and nations are different things. Why should different things be expected to be run the same way?

But why did we choose to omit children from voting?

Probably because it's just 10000x easier just to slap an age threshold to something and hope it works. It'd take too long and costly to figure out if someone is smart enough to do something.

Depending where someone lives (for sake of argument), someone can be allowed to gamble, drink, drive and vote at age 18.

One person at age 18 is a totally irresponsible manchild. The other is smart and focused in life. Yet both people qualify. Sounds crazy, but thats how it is.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Perhaps this reasoning should be applied to more than just children?

Are you suggesting the next great civil rights movement is a child's right to vote?

I don't think we need a civil rights movement to lower the age to vote. Nor do I think there needs to be a barometer of intelligence for the right to vote. The point of a democracy is the individual gets their say. Their ability to understand what they're actually saying has never been relevant.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Probably because it's just 10000x easier just to slap an age threshold to something and hope it works. It'd take too long and costly to figure out if someone is smart enough to do something.

Depending where someone lives (for sake of argument), someone can be allowed to gamble, drink, drive and vote at age 18.

One person at age 18 is a totally irresponsible manchild. The other is smart and focused in life. Yet both people qualify. Sounds crazy, but thats how it is.

Ease vs Effectiveness

What is the downside to excluding all 20 year olds from being able to buy alcohol?

What is the downside to having an incompetent population effecting election outcomes?

Our current system is broken so I don't understand the timid response of "If you change it, it might be breakable."

 

[LordCBH]

I’d also eliminate early voting and mail in voting (with exceptions such as soldiers overseas and shit).

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

ID does disinfranchise people who are too poor to own a car or need a passport for holidays.

If this is your system, then your system is trash, many places in europe have a required national/european ID system, which isn't a passport, so it's not very expensive; if you're poor the cost of the ID card is waived entirely specifically because it's required to have a valid ID.

 

[Rentahamster]

But why did we choose to omit children from voting?

The part that you quoted is me telling you why we chose to omit children from voting.

The same principals can often be applied to different things. Good principles lead to good results.

That's too general of a statement and doesn't work. A family is typically structured as an authoritarian hierarchy. I wouldn't want my governments run in an authoritarian structure.

 

[jason10mm]

I don't think we need a civil rights movement to lower the age to vote. Nor do I think there needs to be a barometer of intelligence for the right to vote. The point of a democracy is the individual gets their say. Their ability to understand what they're actually saying has never been relevant.

Not true AT all. For almost all of human history the folks making decisions have been the most invested in the process, be they land owners, a 'ruling class', or whatever. The idea that "anyone living here has a vote" is quite novel a concept and relatively recent.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

The part that you quoted is me telling you why we chose to omit children from voting.

You just said "Because we as a society have determined that being an adult is a prerequisite for voting..."

I'm asking you why.

That's too general of a statement and doesn't work. A family is typically structured as an authoritarian hierarchy. I wouldn't want my governments run in an authoritarian structure.

A family with 2 kids is run by 2 adults. That's 50% of the families most competent population making the decisions.

Can you think of any large organization / team / group that is more effective with low competency inputs effecting it's trajectory? What is the benefit to allowing the most incompetent people to influence a countries path forward?

 

[Rentahamster]

You just said "Because we as a society have determined that being an adult is a prerequisite for voting..."

I'm asking you why.

I wrote more than that too, which answers why.

Can you think of any large organization / team / group that is more effective with low competency inputs effecting it's trajectory?

Generally speaking, the more competent the decision makers the better, but that oversimplifies the issue. When you extrapolate to complicated scenarios involving larger groups like businesses, and even larger groups like cities, and even larger groups like nations, who all have different constraints and different goals, it's not so simple anymore and the way one determines competence isn't so easy to figure out.

What is the benefit to allowing the most incompetent people to influence a countries path forward?

Generally speaking, there isn't one. I can see how you think that way if you feel that currently most voters are the most incompetent people, but I don't share that view, so I don't have as negative an opinion on the system as you do.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I wrote more than that too, which answers why.

Here is the rest of your answer...

"...even though there are a lot of children under 18 who are smarter than most adults. It's a mostly arbitrary distinction that used to be 21 in the USA but was recently lowered to 18 in the 70s, and is even lower in some other countries."

This doesn't answer the question WHY we don't allow children to vote.

Generally speaking, the more competent the decision makers the better, but that oversimplifies the issue. When you extrapolate to complicated scenarios involving larger groups like businesses, and even larger groups like cities, and even larger groups like nations, who all have different constraints and different goals, it's not so simple anymore and the way one determines competence isn't so easy to figure out.

Well we already implemented a pretty easy determenence of competency. We don't allow people under 18 to vote, some convicted felons to vote, or certain individuals with mental disabilities to vote.

Is it really too herculean an effort to take another pass at those restrictions and come up with a more effective solution? We put a man on the moon in 1969 but can't filter out the least competent voters from our elections?

Generally speaking, there isn't one.

Well then what are we doing here?

 

[Pegasus Actual]

No more voting. We'd pick our leaders on merit. And by that, I mean we'd hold grand tournaments... those who wish to lead will compete in mixed MMA, chess, and the racing of the automobile. The champion of this tournament will be Leader, and the runners-up his Left and Right Hand. They will be anointed to the fanfare from the Keith Courage in Alpha Zones main menu screen:


Winners and high placers at the local level will form a quorum to draft laws for Leader's approval, and to handle the day to day drudgery of government. Leader and his Hands shall rule for a period of 9 years. After which they will no longer be allowed to hold any direct power, but will ascend to the title of Wise Men. These Wise Men will advise the future Leaders. Sort of like how the portraits of previous headmasters advise the headmaster of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. But instead of portraits it's people. Because we don't have the portrait magic yet.

 

[ReBurn]

It shouldn't be difficult to vote. It should be difficult to vote more than once.

Where I live you have to have your voter registration card or picture id to vote, and you can only vote in the district you're registered in. When you arrive at the polling place the poll workers find your name on their paper roll sheets, check your id, and have you sign the roll. Then they give you a pass that indicates which ballot you're eligible for and send you to the voting booth. Your ballot is determined by whether you live inside or outside city limits. If you live outside of city limits you don't get to vote for city offices, only county and state.

 

[diffusionx]

it’s weird to read people who are apparently still under the spell of “democracy”, even though everyone knows it does not make one bit of difference who you vote for, and you have absolutely no say in the way government is run. It’s just a total waste of time, and a show the ruling regime puts on for you to consent to being ruled by them and to legitimize their claims to power. It’s also a way for the ruling regime to diffuse responsibility and make it so opaque that nobody really knows who is actually in charge and making decisions (we know, for example, that the sitting president isn’t doing it).

If you want to learn about the system we actually live under, read James Burnham “the managerial revolution” and “the engineering of consent” By Edward Bernays. If you want to read about what nonsense democracy is, it’s been done many times - Plato figured it out 2500 years ago.

 

[IntentionalPun]

The”children can’t vote so why don’t we also limit other people not smart enough?” argument is incredibly flawed because that law is applied equally. We all were children and couldn’t vote, then we turn 18 and can vote. That’s not the same as having some other bar you have to pass to vote based on intelligence or income.

Felons should be able to vote too IMO.

 

[Nydius]

Photo ID and proof of citizenship is all I think should be required. Because, let’s be honest: If US citizens had to pass a basic civics test to vote there would be tens of millions of natural born citizens who’d never be able to vote again.

However, I’m not a fan of any electronic voting. It’s too easy to manipulate digital forms of voting that do not include a hard, verifiable, paper trail.

 

[gothmog]

Make voting as easy as possible for everyone. It's a literal popularity contest and should be used to drive a better sense of civic duty among the population.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Not true AT all. For almost all of human history the folks making decisions have been the most invested in the process, be they land owners, a 'ruling class', or whatever. The idea that "anyone living here has a vote" is quite novel a concept and relatively recent.

That has nothing to do with what I said. Read again

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Voting on our leaders is not something that should be taken lightly. It is a serious issue that needs thought a consideration; it shouldn’t be comparably to seeing what kind of turnip is best on buzzfeed.

If you do not put any restrictions on voting as in IQ tests, civics tests, etc. then the very fact you make it more annoying to go and vote doesn't result in higher quality of voters. Look at the US or many other countries - it's always the dumbest, uneducated Christian nationalists / old people that always go and vote, it's the educated middle class that more often doesn't bother. That's why in many elections you have a party that will have a guaranteed 20-30%, but never more, since they only appeal to the most hardcore.

You should not try and "game the system" by putting artificial difficulties for people to exercise their civil rights (which is exactly what the US is doing with various voter restriction legislation in multiple states).

 

[6502]

If this is your system, then your system is trash, many places in europe have a required national/european ID system, which isn't a passport, so it's not very expensive; if you're poor the cost of the ID card is waived entirely specifically because it's required to have a valid ID.

It is trash. As said people could have applied for an ID or a postal vote in the run up to the election, though most don't know about the first and there were some issues with people receiving the latter in some places.

We can say, well that's just tough shit and maybe those people don't deserve to vote, but the question of whether it disinfranchises people is answered.. yes, it does unless your country issues ID to all as standard.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Maybe not pure iq test but something to know if you are a deranged moron...i guess it's hard ot make a test like that

I get what you are saying, but then you do not have a democracy. It's as with the quote attributed to Voltaire:

“I wholly disapprove of what you say—and will defend to the death your right to say it.”

You can say "I wholly disapprove with the people you vote in - and I will defend to the death your right to do so".

At the end I think it's the responsibility of more educated classes to mobilize enough to prevent terrible people from being voted in.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

I draw the line at proof of identification so that it can be ensured they are legal residents and of age. One thing I do want to see though is where the legal age to drink, smoke, vote, and go to war are the same. Regardless of the age, just make them match.

Problem with this is that there are two ways to go about it: make the state be responsible for doing it (which is good) or make the individual be responsible for it which leads to disenfranchising because it’s very easy to muck with the process to select voters.

Nah, the opposite. "I'd make tons of changes if I were in-charge", but the few related to voting would be:

1) A universal ID for each citizen (that's more sophisticated and secure than a fucking social security #, in the US)
2) Election Day is a national holiday (again the states - if people are concerned about an overabundance of holidays, I'd axe one of the two holidays we have specifically devoted to veterans and war outside of Independence Day).
3) Voting is done over the internet, with voting IDs tied to citizen universal IDs and hopefully citizens use the holiday time to think about their choices (lol). A limited number of physical locations to vote because most people should vote on the net.
4) Axe first past-the-post voting everywhere because it's the 21st century goddammit

The idea here is to make voting more accessible. As dumb as people can be, I fear permitting statutory limitations would inevitably be abused for the sake of partisanship.

1 and 2 are already a thing in most of Europe (or close enough, like laws mandating that businesses have to let people go to vote or face criminal charges).

 

[Cyberpunkd]

1 and 2 are already a thing in most of Europe (or close enough, like laws mandating that businesses have to let people go to vote or face criminal charges).

I never understood why US insists on holding elections on a work day and not on a Sunday as almost everywhere else.

 

[thief183]

There should be a test (a simple one) to state that you are not completely dumb, it is unethical but we are letting dumb ppl decide for everyone at the moment.

 

[Paulistano]

- Have a citizenship of your country
- Have at least basic education
- Have a Job
- Can get voters ID only when you complete 28 years old
- Your vote is optional
- Politicians can try for a seat when 30 years old and can't after retiring age
- Politicians can get elected and try for reelection, kind like the US president but this applies for all positions

 

[Toots]

They should test iq before letting people vote.

If that's ever the case i give my vote to gaf resident brainiac Heimdall_Xtreme .
He'll be the only gaffer allowed to vote, since he's smarter than Obama (who's anywhere between 102 and an estimated 140).

In my last test, which was years ago, I had 137 of IQ.

My recommandations for voting are you don't vote after 70 years old, a career in politics must be 10 years of terms max after you cannot be elected anymore. If you go to the private sector afterwards you still have to abide bny the duties of a civil servant. And last but not least, any prison sentence against you cannot be suspended. You go to fucking jail.
Then i pour myself a caïpirihna and watch the rats abandon the ship from l'élysée's balcony.

 

[Shake Your Rump]

It is difficult to Vote in the US already apparently.

It actually is. After I moved to Canada, I realized how embarrassing the voting system is in the USA. It is tremendously more burdensome than here.

In Canada, each citizen receives a unique card in the mail shortly before voting. Voting booths are within walking distance of every household, as they are usually at the local schools. Voting can be performed up to two weeks in advance at multiple locations around the city. To vote, you walk in, hand over your card (or provide ID if you don't have your card), and you vote. The entire process has never taken me more than a few minutes once I arrive.

That said, Canadians still don't bother to vote. Our most recent provincial administration won the election with a mere 17% of the eligible vote.

 

[Roxkis_ii]

Even children?

Successful businesses aren't run that way. Successful families aren't run that way.

Why would successful nations be run that way?

A business goal is to be as profitable as possible. A country should be trying insure the most amount of good for its citizens. (good being defined by the citizens.)

You shouldn't be trying to run a country like a business or a family (odd comparison).

 

[xellos2099alpha]

I never understood why US insists on holding elections on a work day and not on a Sunday as almost everywhere else.

It is simple enough votign as is with the early voting and mail in.

 

[Mistake]

It actually is. After I moved to Canada, I realized how embarrassing the voting system is in the USA. It is tremendously more burdensome than here.

In Canada, each citizen receives a unique card in the mail shortly before voting. Voting booths are within walking distance of every household, as they are usually at the local schools. Voting can be performed up to two weeks in advance at multiple locations around the city. To vote, you walk in, hand over your card (or provide ID if you don't have your card), and you vote. The entire process has never taken me more than a few minutes once I arrive.

That said, Canadians still don't bother to vote. Our most recent provincial administration won the election with a mere 17% of the eligible vote.

What problems did you have in the US? I had to register my info the first year I voted, but after that I was in their voter book and I basically get checked off after showing my ID now. Only issue I saw was getting time in to do it. Some states give time off, some don't

 

[MudoSkills]

Mandatory participation for eligible voters would be more useful than putting in any additional barriers to entry.

 

[Rentahamster]

Here is the rest of your answer...

"...even though there are a lot of children under 18 who are smarter than most adults. It's a mostly arbitrary distinction that used to be 21 in the USA but was recently lowered to 18 in the 70s, and is even lower in some other countries."

This doesn't answer the question WHY we don't allow children to vote.

Yes it does. Key word is "arbitrary".

Well we already implemented a pretty easy determenence of competency. We don't allow people under 18 to vote, some convicted felons to vote, or certain individuals with mental disabilities to vote.

Is it really too herculean an effort to take another pass at those restrictions and come up with a more effective solution? We put a man on the moon in 1969 but can't filter out the least competent voters from our elections?

That competence test is not easy nor is it accurate. There are many people under 18 who are smarter than people over 18. There are many convicted felons who are smarter than people who have a clean record. There are certain individuals who are classified as mentally incapacitated who are probably functional enough to more competently vote than many other "normal" adults.

Not only that, but these restrictions are unconstitutional.

It's no coincidence that the flow of history goes from more restrictive voting rights to less restrictive voting rights over the last 200 or so years of figuring out modern democracy. The abuses of power that occur when voting rights are restricted are more detrimental than the abuses of power that occur when voting rights are freer. Do we as a society value personal liberty, freedom, autonomy, choice, and responsibility, or don't we?

Well then what are we doing here?

Well, you're complaining about it, which is your right to do. And I'm telling you why it's not as big of a problem as you think it is.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Home / land ownership

I've been thinking this needs to make a comeback in local elections. The gig economy has people moving around at the drop of a hat and many policies are being made by people who own land in states they have never set foot in.
Not just own the land but LIVING in it and staying there.
Things nowadays don't get brought up or voted on because people can just up and move leaving all the issues behind.
Need a new highway around your city? NO I'm moving next year what does it matter to me?

 

[Alebrije]

Nope , once You put barriers to vote it's not longer a democracy.

Even for some countries the way U.S. elect it's president creates controversy since popular vote it's not the way it's elected.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Nope , once You put barriers to vote it's not longer a democracy.

Even for some countries the way U.S. elect it's president creates controversy since popular vote it's not the way it's elected.

Not sure how other countries do it, but Canada is similar. Not by popular vote.

US/Canada voting systems have elected people who have won by the country's electoral/ridings process. But if you look at absolute popular votes, the winner sometimes is second. The systems are different but kind of the same. US has state electoral pts of differing amounts, while Canada has a shit load of 1 pt ridings. It makes no difference if a candidate won by 1 vote or 1,000,000 votes. Its the same point value. So Justin Trudeau won last election though Liberals popular vote came in second.

The argument (which I dont believe in) is that if you use a popular vote system then whichever group of people is the biggest with the same mindset will vote and win. But you need to artificially boost the smaller groups with more voting power (their votes technically count more than 1) so you get more diverse representation instead of majority group wins all the time.

Makes no sense to me, since if voting is supposed to be democratic and equal among everyone. Then the most fair way is everyone's vote counts the same as 1 pt. Add it up and that's the popular vote. Whomever has the most wins.

 

[DeafTourette]

Are there any democracies across the globe where citizens can vote only if they pass a certain qualifier? A test, proof of income, evidence of some kind of competency. Or am I a bad person for entertaining such an idea?

Test? Proof of income?

In this country (the USA), we had those tests... They were impossible to pass... Guess who they made take them to be able to vote (who invariably weren't allowed)?

Proof of income? With so many between jobs? Or homeless but otherwise competent?

Evidence of competency? See the test question.

I don't think you're a bad person but these ideas have already been implemented and then done away with because those who used to be in power didn't want certain groups of people (women, minorities, etc) to vote.

 

[PaddyOCanager]

Are there any democracies across the globe where citizens can vote only if they pass a certain qualifier? A test, proof of income, evidence of some kind of competency. Or am I a bad person for entertaining such an idea?

 

[Nydius]

Even for some countries the way U.S. elect it's president creates controversy since popular vote it's not the way it's elected.

That’s because pure popular vote invites tyranny of the majority. The President would no longer be the President of the United States but rather the President of the Largest Cities. New York and Los Angeles alone would basically determine the President forever in a pure popular vote system.

People like to dump on the Electoral College when it doesn’t go their way but it was a genius system in 1787 and it’s still a genius system today. It ensures the citizens of all states - not just the citizens of the most populous states - have a say in Presidential elections.

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

Are there any democracies across the globe where citizens can vote only if they pass a certain qualifier? A test, proof of income, evidence of some kind of competency. Or am I a bad person for entertaining such an idea?

No.

The vote must be for everyone, it has the same value of a millionaire as that of a worker

Here in Mexico, thank heaven, we had elections and a responsible candidate won... Because the opponent was one of the worst in the country and irresponsible.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

That’s because pure popular vote invites tyranny of the majority. The President would no longer be the President of the United States but rather the President of the Largest Cities. New York and Los Angeles alone would basically determine the President forever in a pure popular vote system.

People like to dump on the Electoral College when it doesn’t go their way but it was a genius system in 1787 and it’s still a genius system today. It ensures the citizens of all states - not just the citizens of the most populous states - have a say in Presidential elections.

But they already do have a say. Vote. if the majority skews to an urban hub then so be it. Thats the vote.

A popular vote is the fairest of all systems because everyone's vote counts the same (1 pt). Any kind of US electoral or Canada ridings system gives extra voting power to smaller places, which makes no sense. If people are supposed to be treated the same, then voting should be the same too.

Skewed electoral/ridings systems are probably one of the only voting processes in the world for anything where some votes are worth more pts than other people.