Support NeoGAF

[Dilbert]

Before getting this off my chest, I should start by acknowledging that at least half the responses to this post will be "Why don't you go back to reading Plato's Republic, you elitist prick!" (Well, maybe not half...unless I've vastly underestimated the level of Plato readership on the forum.) Hopefully the other half will generate some interesting conversation...

Lately, American politics has been giving me an ulcer because of the rampant idiocy on both sides of the fence: candidates for office speak in soundbites which are often devoid of any real content, and a good chunk of the electorate arrives at their opinions based on those slogans -- or, worse yet, completely emotional responses unrelated to records or issues. Meanwhile, real issues needing real solutions go unaddressed.

It seems to me that the fundamental issue with our political system is that there is NO restriction on who can vote. To be blunt: Even if you're a COMPLETE MORON, your vote counts as much as someone who spends the time to investigate issues and candidates and consider the consequences of their choices. Since there are a LOT more stupid, uneducated people in the general public, politics ends up being centered around saying just the right things to push buttons and avoiding anything of substance.

So why is it that EVERYONE has the right to vote just by virtue of breathing? If you want to drive a car, you need to go through a licensing process which demonstrates a basic knowledge of motor vehicle laws and the ability to apply that knowledge in a practical environment...and driving a car is FAR less complicated than many political issues that we have to solve. And yet, even though we have NO guarantee that voters have a basic understanding of our system of government and an understanding of how to take practical political action in our system, we let them vote anyway? That seems completely insane to me.

Although we allegedly have an "American political systems" requirement as part of high school education, it is VERY clear that people either do not receive an adequate political eduation, do not retain the information, do not stay current on issues and candidates, do not have the slightest clue how to think logically, or a combination of all of these. It seems clear to me that we need a "voter licensing process" of some kind to force politics back onto substantive ground.

Of course, if you asked me to define the qualification criteria right now, I would honestly struggle to write a good set...but it seems like it has to be a combination of a) knowledge about American history, b) knowledge of political philosophy in general (not tied to our current parties or platforms), c) knowledge of current candidates and issues, and d) some kind of general aptitude test to demonstrate that they can assimilate information provided to them in verbal and written form and reason logically. As tempting as it might be to give the whole nation an IQ test and withhold the right to vote from anyone who scored less than 140, I don't think that would fly.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you think that our current system of awarding franchise rights to everyone is the best way to go? If not, what criteria would you have for granting the right to vote?

 

[Azih]

To license people to vote, you'd have to come up with some sort of a regulatory body which would enforce the criteria, procedures and exams that the American populace would have to go through to earn the right to vote.

There's like a dozen things in there that are impossible to do.

 

[human5892]

You bring up a good point, but I think the criteria for selective suffrage would be impossible to create, not to mention it would bring with it heavy-handed questions like who would be in charge of creating it, and why their standards should be more acceptable than someone else's. Also, even people who aren't necessarily very politically informed can still make the decision based on their own needs; if they know that one candidate will help improve their welfare situation and another will not, they deserve the right to vote for the one who will.

Your fundamental assertion is a solid one -- I'm sure there are plenty of people who vote based on the amount of candidate billboards they see on the way to the polling station -- but unfortunately altering the current system is something that's almost impossible to carry out... at least from where I'm standing.

 

[impirius]

Well, in the past, some places made potential voters pass a reading test...

 

[Drinky Crow]

Because the results of voting affects EVERYBODY directly, whereas driving really only affects you and those you'll encounter on and about the road. Hence, everyone deserves a say, no matter how retarded or ignorant they may be (and that includes everyone who reads Ann Coulter).

That said, I wouldn't mind weighting votes: if you take a couple hours worth of education on the issues and candidates before you vote, you should get 1.5 times the voting power. Of course, that would inevitably get corrupted, but it makes me feel all warm to think about in an idealistic sense.

 

[Azih]

Thing is that even the practice of not allowing convicted criminals to vote in America is open to abuse, as happened in Florida. Adding further restrictions or requirements would require extra bueracracy which would also be open to similar abuse.

 

[The Fronde]

You took the words out of my mouth, Drinky. If everyone's affected, everyone's entitled to a say in the process.

 

[Triumph]

The world would be a better place if only I had the ability to vote.

 

[Drinky Crow]

I'll vote for you if you promise me a pyramid of heads freshly sliced from the torsos of FOX newscasters and management.

 

[ManDudeChild]

Because the results of voting affects EVERYBODY directly, whereas driving really only affects you and those you'll encounter on and about the road. Hence, everyone deserves a say, no matter how retarded or ignorant they may be (and that includes everyone who reads Ann Coulter).

That said, I wouldn't mind weighting votes: if you take a couple hours worth of education on the issues and candidates before you vote, you should get 1.5 times the voting power. Of course, that would inevitably get corrupted, but it makes me feel all warm to think about in an idealistic sense.

Not to open up another can of worms, but one could argue that everyone's affected when you drive. People on the road, people outside, everywhere. Or to streamline it, the butterfly effect.

 

[Triumph]

I'll vote for you if you promise me a pyramid of heads freshly sliced from the torsos of FOX newscasters and management.

Not only that, but Nintendo would have their worldwide headquarters immediately sacked and burned, and then all of the fanboys would be chained together and forced to watch the ashes settle. Man I'm evil!

 

[Drinky Crow]

If "the butterfly effect" is a valid argument, then I should need a license to take a shit, or even move one picometer in this nice ergonomic chair I'm sitting in toward the bathroom. Hell, I'd need a license to get a license, ad infinitum.

 

[Wolfy]

Whose bright idea was it to give women the right to vote.

 

[Triumph]

If "the butterfly effect" is a valid argument, then I should need a license to take a shit, or even move one picometer in this nice ergonomic chair I'm sitting in toward the bathroom. Hell, I'd need a license to get a license, ad infinitum.

Don't worry about it, though. I have a permit to issue licenses, so it's all good in the hood.

 

[ManDudeChild]

If "the butterfly effect" is a valid argument, then I shouold need a license to take a shit, or even move one picometer in this nice ergonomic chair I'm sitting in. Hell, I'd need a license to get a license, ad infinitum.

lol. Yeah, I was kind of splitting hairs there. The point is that more than just the people on the road are affected by driving Not to the super extreme in my previous post but along those lines, how much does voting change things when you have two idiots, neither with any vision? Just food for thought

 

[Matt]

The essential problem with that you are saying (outside of what already has been stated) is that what you are proposing would be neither a democracy or a republic, but an oligarchy run by the so called intelligent. We have spent thousands of years trying to brake away from a system where a minority oppress the majority, which is what you propose. Everyone deserves to have a stake in the government, which is what the vote is. Denying that right to people who you, frankly, deem lesser then you, is completely amoral and ridiculous. After all, what gives you the right to judge them, or to deem their methods of deciding whom they will vote for of no substance?

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

The essential problem with that you are saying (outside of what already has been stated) is that what you are proposing would be neither a democracy or a republic, but an oligarchy run by the so called intelligent. We have spent thousands of years trying to brake away from a system where a minority oppress the majority, which is what you propose. Everyone deserves to have a stake in the government, which is what the vote is. Denying that right to people who you, frankly, deem lesser then you, is completely amoral and ridiculous. After all, what gives you the right to judge them, or to deem their methods of deciding whom they will vote for of no substance?

Best response to this question.

 

[ManDudeChild]

The essential problem with that you are saying (outside of what already has been stated) is that what you are proposing would be neither a democracy or a republic, but an oligarchy run by the so called intelligent. We have spent thousands of years trying to brake away from a system where a minority oppress the majority, which is what you propose. Everyone deserves to have a stake in the government, which is what the vote is. Denying that right to people who you, frankly, deem lesser then you, is completely amoral and ridiculous. After all, what gives you the right to judge them, or to deem their methods of deciding whom they will vote for of no substance?

That's a valid point, but in a sense aren't we already in that situation? I'm not saying we should take it further, that wouldn't help matters, but look at the distribution of wealth and power in the world. A minority rules a majority, not something that can be escaped really, just pointing out the inherent fact there.

 

[Triumph]

The essential problem with that you are saying (outside of what already has been stated) is that what you are proposing would be neither a democracy or a republic, but an oligarchy run by the so called intelligent. We have spent thousands of years trying to brake away from a system where a minority oppress the majority, which is what you propose. Everyone deserves to have a stake in the government, which is what the vote is. Denying that right to people who you, frankly, deem lesser then you, is completely amoral and ridiculous. After all, what gives you the right to judge them, or to deem their methods of deciding whom they will vote for of no substance?

How about this: every sub-section of society would have their smartest members represent them. Every ethnic, gender, and sexual persuasion would have the intellectual cream of the crop be their representatives in Washington, Topeka, or wherever the fuck.

We already have representative democracy, and I don't think it works all that well. Well, now we can have representative oligarchy!

 

[human5892]

The essential problem with that you are saying (outside of what already has been stated) is that what you are proposing would be neither a democracy or a republic, but an oligarchy run by the so called intelligent. We have spent thousands of years trying to brake away from a system where a minority oppress the majority, which is what you propose. Everyone deserves to have a stake in the government, which is what the vote is. Denying that right to people who you, frankly, deem lesser then you, is completely amoral and ridiculous. After all, what gives you the right to judge them, or to deem their methods of deciding whom they will vote for of no substance?

Well, the criteria could be denying the people who vote on completely groundless reasons -- i.e., because their friend is, or because of a sign -- but who get to affect the outcome for those who put a little more effort into it. It wouldn't necessarily be a case of "you're inferior to me, you can't vote".

But as everyone has said, putting such a system in place would be more or less impossible, so it's really a moot point.

 

[Azih]

All governments (of whatever form) are in some sense, an oligarchy.

 

[Shouta]

Drinky hit it on the head. If it affects everyone, everyone should have the right to decide.

However, you do have a point jinx. There aren't enough informed voters and that's mucking the system up in a horrid way. I personally think that the voting age should be raised so that there are more level heads amongst the voting population. As opposed to 18, I think something like 25 would be more suitable in this day and age. Even my peers (20-year olds) still honestly don't fully comprehend the ramifications of their voting (exceptions excluded). Although I do like the idea or raising it 25, I realize it has its own problems and we'd have one hell of a fight from the after-teens that want the right to vote despite their lack of knowledge in the issues. -_-

Whose bright idea was it to give women the right to vote.

Who ressurrected the caveman?

 

[yoshifumi]

Whose bright idea was it to give women the right to vote.

let's not forget about those damn minorities too

 

[Boogie]

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"

-Winston Churchill

 

[Matt]

However, you do have a point jinx. There aren't enough informed voters and that's mucking the system up in a horrid way. I personally think that the voting age should be raised so that there are more level heads amongst the voting population. As opposed to 18, I think something like 25 would be more suitable in this day and age. Even my peers (20-year olds) still honestly don't fully comprehend the ramifications of their voting (exceptions excluded). Although I do like the idea or raising it 25, I realize it has its own problems and we'd have one hell of a fight from the after-teens that want the right to vote despite their lack of knowledge in the issues. -_-

That would never happen, as it was only in ‘71 that the voting age was lowed from 21 to 18 by Amendment XXVI (based on the damm good argument that if people are old enough to fight for their country, they are old enough to have a say in how it’s governed.)
Plus, it’s not like they generally vote anyway, or seven years will really make a difference in peoples' basic understanding/appreciation of politics.

 

[Matlock]

Lesson for the day: your opinion should not, and will not hold weight over another's at the polls.

 

[MC Safety]

Ah, I just realized I was attempting to discuss politics, even in a marginal way, on a video game message board.

Silly me.

 

[Dilbert]

First of all, props to everyone for keeping this thread quite level-headed. (Well, everyone except Wolfy. I think he should be forced to wear that quote on a sign hung around his neck on all of his first dates for the next five years.)

The essential problem with that you are saying (outside of what already has been stated) is that what you are proposing would be neither a democracy or a republic, but an oligarchy run by the so called intelligent. We have spent thousands of years trying to brake away from a system where a minority oppress the majority, which is what you propose. Everyone deserves to have a stake in the government, which is what the vote is. Denying that right to people who you, frankly, deem lesser then you, is completely amoral and ridiculous. After all, what gives you the right to judge them, or to deem their methods of deciding whom they will vote for of no substance?

You raise some good points that I'd like to address. First, in a democracy, the real danger is the "tyranny of the majority" -- not the other way around. Quite frankly, I think that MY interests are not being represented when my vote is being drowned out by millions of people who decide on a candidate based on how he looks and sounds on television.

Second, as Azih pointed out, what makes you think you aren't living in an oligarchy right now? Make no mistake -- money runs this country, and those who have money are the only ones eligible to run it. Given a choice between a system in which corporations call the shots, and one in which the intellectual elite call the shots, you're damn right I'm going to go with the smart people. As an added bonus, the demographics of smart people -- and their beliefs -- are considerably more diverse than the monied elite.

Finally, although I'm vaguely tickled to be labeled "amoral and ridiculous," this isn't about labeling people as "lesser than" myself or anyone else. The whole point of politics is to do what is best for the country and its people, and right now, our process is broken because there is no standard of quality for its participants. Like I said, I couldn't write the "voting rights exam," and that alone is a sufficient hint that it probably isn't a good idea. But at the same time -- how is it a good thing that someone IN ALL SERIOUSNESS said to me the other day, "I refuse to vote for Kerry because his face looks funny?"

And if you too think that kind of attitude is fucked beyond belief -- what would you propose to fix it?

 

[Sergenth]

jinx... you seem to be interested in justice and good living, cause you are assuming that the voting system should only be used for the power of "rightness". Giving this power to undiscerning people... YES... it is screwing things up. Giving it to people who are easily bilked, is even worse.

It's not a system for advancing the best possible solution and only that solution -- it's a system for spreading convincing and popular ideas. An engine without intrinsic morality. Apart from the actual voting process, you can be on one side, and say the right idea is to provide for people in need, and actually deliver on it, or you can be on the side and upromise and then cut funding and proclaim how wonderful you're doing.

It all comes down to this though -- when people are personally affected by the outside world, they're going to vote their own interest. Until then, they'll remain undecided or apathetic.

We aren't going to get a 100% voter turnout... not even a 90% turnout. There are too many people who live insulated lives, and just don't benefit directly or indirectly (or don't notice lifestlye change) by voting.

 

[impirius]

Disco Stu does not advertise his views on suffrage

 

[Socreges]

Fix the media. Not the electorate.

 

[MC Safety]

Disco Stu does not advertise his views on suffrage

Although I really did like the bit on "The Man Show" where the hosts went to some boardwalk somewhere and started to get people to sign a petition to end women's suffrage.

 

[Matlock]

And if you too think that kind of attitude is fucked beyond belief -- what would you propose to fix it?

Mind you, I'm going to get off of my usual stupid jackass routine, and enter the other stupid jackass routine on this one. First of all, people are stupid as a whole. I'm stupid, you're stupid, the whole world is stupid. But you know what, we make it through 86,400 seconds a day without completely decimating the entire population.

For over two hundred years, we've had a popular volting system that's worked...well, until the basic open-faced roast beef sandwich of perversion that was the last race. We all know it hasn't been the first time (See: Kennedy/Mafia) that it's happened, but people still bitch about it.

And so we come to here, where the people thought to not be so bright cannot decide what goes on in their nation to any extent (although that itself is marginalized nowadays)...but you know what, this was the same thought that went behind reading tests and 3/5ths. They're not smart enough! They're not eligible people!

Well, you know what...Piss on this elitist idea, and let the world turn as it will. I'll be damned if anyone I know can't vote, even those who vote Bush for the fact their old workplace benefits from lax pollution standards...even those who vote Nader out of rebellion...even that crazy guy who passed out Kucinich stickers.

And you know why?

Because it's their right as a citizen.

Good day, sir.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

So why is it that EVERYONE has the right to vote just by virtue of breathing? If you want to drive a car, you need to go through a licensing process which demonstrates a basic knowledge of motor vehicle laws and the ability to apply that knowledge in a practical environment...and driving a car is FAR less complicated than many political issues that we have to solve. And yet, even though we have NO guarantee that voters have a basic understanding of our system of government and an understanding of how to take practical political action in our system, we let them vote anyway? That seems completely insane to me.



everyone has the right to vote because everyone has different issues they want adressed/fixed/looked at. just because you are smarter or well read doesnt mean that the farmer in iowa or the old senile lady in florida cant have a say in what candidate represents him/her and his/her concerns. you dont need to know what the issues are, you need to know if that candidate is gonna help you or not. everything else smacks of elitism and borderline discrimination.

 

[Matlock]

Also, I think that bald men shouldn't be able to vote.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

Finally, although I'm vaguely tickled to be labeled "amoral and ridiculous," this isn't about labeling people as "lesser than" myself or anyone else. The whole point of politics is to do what is best for the country and its people, and right now, our process is broken because there is no standard of quality for its participants. Like I said, I couldn't write the "voting rights exam," and that alone is a sufficient hint that it probably isn't a good idea. But at the same time -- how is it a good thing that someone IN ALL SERIOUSNESS said to me the other day, "I refuse to vote for Kerry because his face looks funny?"

i think you'd be surprised at the number of people who have opinions like that actualy go out and vote.

 

[Shouta]

That would never happen, as it was only in ‘71 that the voting age was lowed from 21 to 18 by Amendment XXVI (based on the damm good argument that if people are old enough to fight for their country, they are old enough to have a say in how it’s governed.)
Plus, it’s not like they generally vote anyway, or seven years will really make a difference in peoples' basic understanding/appreciation of politics.

Of course it wouldn't happen, I didn't say it would. I'm just saying I like that idea. However, 7 years is a big jump at that age range. Many folks start to get everything straightened out and their focus in life starts to become clear. Important decisions like who's leader of our country start to matter at that point and afterwards. It doesn't seem like it but lots of people start to change starting at 25 and finally start making decisions that aren't done on a whim. Of course that's my opinion ;p.

I'm not going to get on the fight for their country/voting thing, that's a whole different can of worms I'd rather not get into personally. ;p.

 

[Wolfy]

There are people who vote for candidate based on who looks better. My grandmother voted for Clinton because he had "nice hair."

 

[ConfusingJazz]

But Universal Sufferage decreases the effect of war weariness in a democratic state.

 

[Azih]

But Universal Sufferage decreases the effect of war weariness in a democratic state.

HAHAHAHAHA.

*thumbs up*

 

[Matt]

First of all, props to everyone for keeping this thread quite level-headed. (Well, everyone except Wolfy. I think he should be forced to wear that quote on a sign hung around his neck on all of his first dates for the next five years.)

You raise some good points that I'd like to address. First, in a democracy, the real danger is the "tyranny of the majority" -- not the other way around. Quite frankly, I think that MY interests are not being represented when my vote is being drowned out by millions of people who decide on a candidate based on how he looks and sounds on television.

Second, as Azih pointed out, what makes you think you aren't living in an oligarchy right now? Make no mistake -- money runs this country, and those who have money are the only ones eligible to run it. Given a choice between a system in which corporations call the shots, and one in which the intellectual elite call the shots, you're damn right I'm going to go with the smart people. As an added bonus, the demographics of smart people -- and their beliefs -- are considerably more diverse than the monied elite.

Finally, although I'm vaguely tickled to be labeled "amoral and ridiculous," this isn't about labeling people as "lesser than" myself or anyone else. The whole point of politics is to do what is best for the country and its people, and right now, our process is broken because there is no standard of quality for its participants. Like I said, I couldn't write the "voting rights exam," and that alone is a sufficient hint that it probably isn't a good idea. But at the same time -- how is it a good thing that someone IN ALL SERIOUSNESS said to me the other day, "I refuse to vote for Kerry because his face looks funny?"

And if you too think that kind of attitude is fucked beyond belief -- what would you propose to fix it?

First, I didn’t mean that you were amoral or ridiculous, just the notion.

Secondly, again, your vote is no more important then the people you speak of, and therefore it’s not being drowned out, just countered. You many not agree with their method, but that doesn’t make you right and them wrong.

Thirdly, of course money runs the country. Money runs everything. But to say that we are living in an oligarchy is extreme. A man who was born into poverty in now well on his way to being Vice-President. But here is a little newsflash, the rich are generally the intelligent. The poor generally are the stupid people you speak of. Why? Because they can afford the education. What you propose would mean cutting off most of the lower classes of society from participation in government.

Fourthly, the basic problem with such a test is, well, let’s say you made it. Forget the fact you say you couldn’t, let’s say you did. Who would most assuredly pass the test? You would. You’re children would, you’re friends would, and the people that believe and think the same way as you would. Some others would, but not too many. That’s the problem with what you propose.

And how would I fix the “problem” you speak of? The same way I would fix almost every other problem in this county. Fix our goddamn schools.

 

[Matt]

But Universal Sufferage decreases the effect of war weariness in a democratic state.

That’s the funniest thing I have read all week.

 

[Azih]

Fix our goddamn schools.

I agree with this.

 

[Dilbert]

Also, I think that bald men shouldn't be able to vote.

Well, no shit, Sherlock.

 

[Wolfy]

DESTROY HTE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, BRING BACK NEWT GINGRICH!111

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Suffrage isn't universal. There are several sections of US citizens that are uneligible to vote.

 

[Minotauro]

I think the problem is that "intelligence" is a somewhat subjective term. I know a number of people who can memorize political facts and balance an equation who are dumb as rocks. Besides, even "intelligent" people can be ignorant and self-serving.

 

[brooklyngooner]

First of all, props to everyone for keeping this thread quite level-headed. (Well, everyone except Wolfy. I think he should be forced to wear that quote on a sign hung around his neck on all of his first dates for the next five years.)

You raise some good points that I'd like to address. First, in a democracy, the real danger is the "tyranny of the majority" -- not the other way around. Quite frankly, I think that MY interests are not being represented when my vote is being drowned out by millions of people who decide on a candidate based on how he looks and sounds on television.

Second, as Azih pointed out, what makes you think you aren't living in an oligarchy right now? Make no mistake -- money runs this country, and those who have money are the only ones eligible to run it. Given a choice between a system in which corporations call the shots, and one in which the intellectual elite call the shots, you're damn right I'm going to go with the smart people. As an added bonus, the demographics of smart people -- and their beliefs -- are considerably more diverse than the monied elite.

Finally, although I'm vaguely tickled to be labeled "amoral and ridiculous," this isn't about labeling people as "lesser than" myself or anyone else. The whole point of politics is to do what is best for the country and its people, and right now, our process is broken because there is no standard of quality for its participants. Like I said, I couldn't write the "voting rights exam," and that alone is a sufficient hint that it probably isn't a good idea. But at the same time -- how is it a good thing that someone IN ALL SERIOUSNESS said to me the other day, "I refuse to vote for Kerry because his face looks funny?"

And if you too think that kind of attitude is fucked beyond belief -- what would you propose to fix it?

I suppose first off that I am wondering whether you mean "smart" or "educated," since you seem to use these two terms interchangably. In the latter's case, there's too much of a relationship in this country between money and level of education for me to feel comfortable providing the means to control government to only "the educated." I know there are a great deal of exceptions to this, but we seem to be speaking in generalities at this point. I'm not sure you'd weed out the monied elite to the degree you believe, but that is just my feeling.

If you mean "smart" than I'd wonder how you'd define that, for voting purposes.

 

[levious]

I'm not a smart man... but I know what elitism is

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

what say you now jinx?