Who should be allowed to vote?

[Matthew Dalton]

Looking around me I feel like there should be some kind of IQ test and/or current events test that goes with the vote. But equally I don't think I like the idea of limiting who has a say.

In Australia voting is more or less mandatory, you have to turn up and get your name crossed off the rolls and then you can put anything you like down on the ballot.

For this reason I wonder how many people actually cast an informed vote. If we had to register like in the US, I think there'd be more people who actually have a clue vs. those who don't picking who runs the show.

 

[Strider]

Who should be allowed to vote?

Every citizen of this country of legal age. Whether that age is 18 or 21 is neither here nor there. I've known 17 year olds who are more intelligent than 25 year olds attending college. :eusa_doh: Age doesn't always equal intellect. I've had intellectual debate with a 19 year old, and had someone in their 30's throw me the vaunted: "If you don't like it, don't live here" (direct translation: "Your points are too valid for me to contest. Instead of merely admitting defeat, here's some loyalist rhetoric for you."). So, I mean...it's a crap shoot when it comes to age, really.

 

[Sunny]

There's a few things I can respond to here, since I've been quite involved in the political process for a number of years.

People should also be required to show proof of Identification before voting. If that is required to board a plane it should be required before voting.

I've worked elections. Proof of identification is required, at least in our state/county. Think about it: If the election workers had to believe who I said I was, I could get the list of registered voters (available online) and go to every polling place in the county, casting hundreds of votes. What is not necessarily required is a voter certificate. More about that below.

My generation doesn't even vote in high numbers. Turn out ain't what it should be.

Now a days it is just as easy to get a library card as it is to register to vote. Back in the day, it use to be a real deal to get a library card, same for voting. Soooooooooooo, what is going on now?

Voter registration, voter turnout, and voter intelligence/informedness are three very different things. Voter registration is, and has been, boosted significantly by the Motor Voter deal - renew your driver's license and register to vote at the same time! Voter turnout is not necessarily boosted by increased registration; if John Doe registered only on a whim, because the DMV made it easy, will he bother to go stand in line to vote after he gets off work? On the contrary, voter turnout percentages slump if more people are registered but only the same small group exercises their rights.

Should it be so easy to register to vote? I'm not talking literacy tests - or English-speaking tests, or property-ownership requirements. I'm simply saying that I want people who really care to be deciding the future of the country. People who see the right to vote as a responsibility, and something that needs to be taken seriously and thought about. Boosting voter registration numbers isn't going to create an informed, intelligent electorate.

If 18 year-olds can serve in the Armed Forces, then they should also be allowed to vote.

Dixon Cannon has explained his reasoning well. Let me just add that citizenship, military service, and suffrage have rarely gone hand-in-hand at any time in history. In the our Civil War, many soldiers on both sides were Irish or German immigrants, certainly not citizens; and conscription began for both armies after Gettysburg, summer of 1863. In the latter days of Rome, its legions were almost entirely "barbarian" peoples.

I'm always required to show my voter's registration card AND my driver's license before I can cast my vote.

I'm also required to have a huge "Democrat" stamped along the side of it too, so they know where to send me. Which brings it to another couple of questions: should the way I vote have anything to do with me being a voter? Does it matter if I voted Democrat in the last election without having to have it broadcast on my card?

I wonder the same thing. The last 2 elections I voted in, I was handed a "democratic voter" card. Why did I need one of those? What's the difference between a republican and democrat card? Surely they all have the same choices and candidates.

There are reasons good for stamping the party on the voter card. (Caveat: Procedures vary by county and state, but the principles ar the same.)

First, the party stamp - "Democrat" or "Republican" - is only put on the card when you vote in the primary election. (A primary election works within the party system to choose the two strongest candidates from each party to run against each other. By definition, therefore, you must choose a party within which to vote. But that decision has absolutely no bearing on who you vote for in the general election in November.) The stamping is to prevent voters from voting in one primary, then walking across the room or next door and voting in the other party's primary. That violates the prinple of one person, one vote. But believe me, people do it! Voter fraud is a lot more widespread than we realize.

Second,the card is issued once every cycle, or once every two years. This is not a permanent party membership, by any means. You'll vote in the primary election, usually in the spring, and then in the general election in November. A year or so later, you get a brand new card with no stamp.

Third, a stamp on your voter registration card is not being broadcast to anyone. You and the person checking your name off in the book are the only ones to see that card.

 

[Elaina]

Third, a stamp on your voter registration card is not being broadcast to anyone. You and the person checking your name off in the book are the only ones to see that card.

Not quite. I have too frequently given it to a republican that rolls their eyes and then tells the room, in a loud voice: "Here's another liberal for you!" and much snickering and general junk from them. (I've seen it from the other side too.) Or they make you go to the area that is stamped on your card so everyone else can see you voting under the little "Democrat" or "Republican" signs and then everyone else knows generally how you vote.

And I've also voted at my little table and walked outside where it's gotten around I was a democrat and been accosted and yelled at for my beliefs, (of which I don't share at the polls, but eh), been told I was going to hell for being a democrat and once had an egg thrown at me.

While I'm sure in theory that it's supposed to be between me and the name checker, it's not always how it goes. Sadly, this is not in just one area, but several. I think I just get alot of older people that either don't want a younger voter or are just too set in their ways. That, or the people in my area are crazy.

Elaina

 

[scotrace]

Not quite. I have too frequently given it to a republican that rolls their eyes and then tells the room, in a loud voice: "Here's another liberal for you!" and much snickering and general junk from them. (I've seen it from the other side too.) Or they make you go to the area that is stamped on your card so everyone else can see you voting under the little "Democrat" or "Republican" signs and then everyone else knows generally how you vote.

And I've also voted at my little table and walked outside where it's gotten around I was a democrat and been accosted and yelled at for my beliefs, (of which I don't share at the polls, but eh), been told I was going to hell for being a democrat and once had an egg thrown at me.

While I'm sure in theory that it's supposed to be between me and the name checker, it's not always how it goes. Sadly, this is not in just one area, but several. I think I just get alot of older people that either don't want a younger voter or are just too set in their ways. That, or the people in my area are crazy.

Elaina

I am not familiar with Texas election laws, but those all sound like violations of your rights.
In most states, primaries are where your party affiliation is asked and recorded. There should be no need to record such information in the course of a general election. I know it happens, but even after working closely with election boards for several years, I see no reason for it.
You should not face any, and I repeat any kind of sneering, retribution, or special difficulty when casting your vote. I urge you to report these cases to your county or regional election board, which should have full authority to follow up on it. Most states also have clear prohibitions against any kind of political signs, slogans or protesting congregation withing X yards of a polling place.
If these things have happened to you, they are not right.

 

[Sunny]

That's right, this shouldn't be happening. The one part that's unavoidable is going to the table/area for your party. In the primary election, different ballots are printed and they must keep them separated. It's a private ballot, but going to vote is a public act.

But as for public ridicule, within the polling place it's definitely against the rules. Because that can be called trying to influence the outcome. The election judge (in charge of each polling place) is certainly enjoined to keep that from happening. That sort of junk goes hand in glove with out-and-out voter fraud, and it's all WRONG.

There are some good ones, believe me! Our election judge, this past primary, had a voter come up and say, "I have brain damage and I want to vote in the _____ primary!" Our judge had to send the voter over to the other primary location, without trying to influence him whatsoever. One of those *facepalm* moments. What were we saying about informed voters??

Outside a polling place, canvassers are not allowed within 100' (yards?) of the entrance, although that can be hard to enforce. And picketing is another animal entirely! Again, the election judge is supposed to keep that from happening, and if necessary that's something the police ought to stop - egg throwing in particular. Gah, what possesses people?! :rage:

There are such persons as elections observers, whose responsibility is to report fraud and other such behavior. I don't know details about them, but were I you I'd look into it. You can even be an observer yourself! Although I don't think in your home precinct.

In most states, primaries are where your party affiliation is asked and recorded. There should be no need to record such information in the course of a general election.

Definitely not. I've never seen it myself. In the general election, the party stamp is [officially] irrelevant. The only reason it's still on your card is because renewed cards aren't issued between the primary and general.

What does anger me is the crossover voters - voters whose ideology places them in one party, but deliberately cross over to try to influence the other party's primary. It's legal but definitely unethical. We had some BIG problems with it this spring. Very bad. :rage:

 

[Baron Kurtz]

surely having "XXX voter" stamped anywhere is an infringement of the secrecy of the ballot?

As someone who isn't allowed to vote here, i'd argue that i should not have to pay taxes either. If i have to pay taxes, i should be able to vote for the people who use and distribute my money ...

bk

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Let me just add that citizenship, military service, and suffrage have rarely gone hand-in-hand at any time in history.

Do you think this is a good thing?

In the our Civil War, many soldiers on both sides were Irish or German immigrants, certainly not citizens; ... In the latter days of Rome, its legions were almost entirely "barbarian" peoples.

Do you really think this was a good thing?


.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

In Chile, voter registration is voluntary, except for those in the military (who must register). However, once a person registers to vote, he or she must vote in every election unless he or she can prove (with extensive documentation) some incredible hardship. Those who don't vote are punished with severe fines; repeat offenders can go to prison.

There is great social pressure to register. You don't have to, of course ... but if you don't, people wonder about your civic-mindedness. You end up feeling ashamed of yourself. (Peer pressure plays a big role in Chilean life.)

The result is that most Chileans vote. The high number of voters makes the act of voting a very communal event. Since so many Chileans share in the experience, it is on their minds and in their conversations. I've never met a more politically-minded people.


.

 

[Section10]

surely having "XXX voter" stamped anywhere is an infringement of the secrecy of the ballot?

As someone who isn't allowed to vote here, i'd argue that i should not have to pay taxes either. If i have to pay taxes, i should be able to vote for the people who use and distribute my money ...

bk

"No taxation without representation!" What a concept!

 

[Baron Kurtz]

"No taxation without representation!" What a concept!

Those filthy Brits :whistling

bk

 

[Section10]

Glad to see you took it with humor as it was intended.:cheers1:

 

[Baron Kurtz]

believe me. i'm no defender of English colonialism ... My country is still colonised. One day, my friend, one fine day we'll be free.

bk

 

[Story]

Service (should) guarantee Citizenship.

 

[Pilgrim]

How many of you have read "Starship Troopers" by R.A. Heinlein?

One aspect of that book that was thought-provoking was the way voting rights worked in the future society of that book: you earned your voting franchise by serving in the military - period. No service, no vote.

This wasn't a major thread in the story - more like a social side note - but it illustrated the fact that Heinlein liked to play the "what if?" game in every book. He constantly played with questions like "who should be able to vite" as undercurrents in his stories. It was a most interesting way to stimulate the reader's thoughts...and an interesting way to setup the story.

In another story, he posited a society in which all members went armed, all the time. If one person offended another, they called on local monitors to watch, stepped into the hallway and had a quick duel. The survivor went about his business and the loser was disposed of by the monitors. Those who chose not to be armed were accommodated, but definitely had less social status. The society Heinlein posited in this story was a VERY polite one, because rudeness could have immediate and deadly consequences.

IMO there ought to be consistency in the ability to vote - I agree that if you're old enough to serve in the military, you should be able to vote. But intelligence tests are no substitute for common sense or following public issues, and they are contrary to the egalitarian laws and policies of the U.S.

 

[Story]

How many of you have read "Starship Troopers" by R.A. Heinlein?
One aspect of that book that was thought-provoking was the way voting rights worked in the future society of that book: you earned your voting franchise by serving in the military - period. No service, no vote.

To refine Pilgram's question - it was 'Federal service' that Heinlein wrote about, with the implication that the vast majority of the jobs guaranteeing citizenship were outside the military*.

The point was that without somehow having a vested interest in your country (by blood, sweat or tears), you didn't deserve to vote.

* Footnote: this would include time with the Peace Corps, for instance.

 

[Sunny]

Let me just add that citizenship, military service, and suffrage have rarely gone hand-in-hand at any time in history.

Do you think this is a good thing?

In the our Civil War, many soldiers on both sides were Irish or German immigrants, certainly not citizens; ... In the latter days of Rome, its legions were almost entirely "barbarian" peoples.

Do you really think this was a good thing?

Absolutely not! I was simply putting these forth, first because I'm a history nerd and find it interesting, second because I wanted to put the debate in perspective a little bit. It's too easy for us, with our modern sensibilities and heightened sense of our "rights," to look back and be appalled at the thought of conscription without suffrage. It's far more difficult for us to acquire the historical context and understand how the people of that time thought and why they made the decisions they did. (I deal with this all the time in ACW reenacting.) The immensity of the progress we've made toward a government truly of the people should not be minimized. In fact, this thread seems to be debating if suffrage has extended too far. I'm just making some observations.

By the way, in the days of the Republic the Roman legions were absolutely Roman, established farmers and solid "citizens." (In quotes because I can't remember for sure if they were technically citizens or not.) For them, non-Roman legions were a degeneration, whereas for us, armies with full voting rights, and the technological ability to exercise it even when deployed, are an advance.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

... you earned your voting franchise by serving in the military - period. No service, no vote.

So, those who could not serve in the military (due, say, to a physical disability or illness) would be barred from voting?


.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

It's too easy for us, with our modern sensibilities and heightened sense of our "rights," to look back and be appalled at the thought of conscription without suffrage.

Actually, I'm not appalled that conscription without suffrage existed back then. I'm appalled at the idea of having it exist today.

.

 

[Story]

So, those who could not serve in the military (due, say, to a physical disability or illness) would be barred from voting?
.

*ahem*
Read this
http://thefedoralounge.com/showpost.php?p=172546&postcount=36

AGAIN, by extrapolation, there were Federal service jobs that were non-military in nature. Why have an able-body potential grunt doing say.. IRS data-processing, when there was someone else more suited to the job?