Where America Went Wrong

[Guest Raidne]

Like so many other lamentable things, we can thank Andrew Jackson for this one.

Once upon a time, voting rights in the United States were limited. Some of these limitations were facially not so cool, i.e. race, sex, etc. Others were less discriminatory on their face, but used to get at the same result, e.g. literacy tests and poll taxes. Another was arguably overly restrictive, but not based on immutable characteristics. This would be the requirement imposed by many states that an individual must own land to be able to vote.

So, when the Constitution was written, only white property owning men had the right to vote. This amounted to about 10-16% of the population. The property ownership requirement was eliminated state by state by 1850.

Naturally, women didn't get the right to vote until 1920, which we all know, but I just had to mention. And residents of DC didn't get to vote in Presidential elections until 1961.

But what I'd like to put forth in this thread is the idea that limited voting is a really, really good idea. For one, most people don't seem to want the responsibility of voting. And yet, they might be swept up by activists for some party or another and bussed down to the polls on election day. That is not the picture of an informed vote. Neither is voting for a candidate because he's the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with (no wonder Andrew Jackson was in favor of expanding voting rights...). How much of the problem in the United States currently is due to an uninformed electorate that can be bought with soft-money negative campaign ads on TV? How much would limiting voting to something more like 10-15% of the population - a population that earned that right - accomplish? Candidates would no longer pander to the masses, and maybe we'd no longer hear things like "get your government hands off my Medicare."

So, let's say limiting voting to people who care and really want the responsibility would be desirable. How to do it? Poll taxes and literacy tests are banned by Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966) and Oregon v. Mitchell (1970), respectively, for the reason that they were historically used for discriminatory purposes. So, without an amendment, those two options are out. Plus, they suck. You didn't earn any right just by being able to pay for it - just as likely with someone else (Mom and Dad's) money, and there is no standard intelligence test that doesn't show adverse impact for reasons that are not entirely clear.

So let's go with the Starship Troopers model. In order to obtain voting rights in the United States, you are required to give one year of service. Military, Peace Corps, and Americorps partipants automatically qualify. No doubt other programs would be developed. I would guess that federal employment honors program participants would also qualify, as would federal judicial clerks, and possibly state clerks.

I would not automatically qualify all federal employees, such as myself. I'm envisioning, rather, a year of service (or longer in other qualifying programs) that one would undertake either after finishing all education or between undergraduate and graduate school, or after high school if no further higher education was sought. Like peace corps, military, etc., these positions are paid and cover living expenses, but pay wages barely over the poverty level. It's not something you'd do for the money.

Naturally, there would have to be enough positions, and everyone who wanted to would have to qualify to do something, whether it ultimately be a year with Habitat for Humanity or whatever - although the need to make participation totally secular would be very, very important. I'm not granting anybody voting rights for teaching impoverished children about Jesus, or Mohhamed, or Buddha.

This appeals to me for a number of reasons. For one, with every right, there is a concurrent responsibility. This is not really true with voting rights. The responsibility is, of course, to make an informed decision. Hardly anybody really does this. Having to earn the right increases the respect for it, and therefore the obligation that people holding the right feel to exercise it responsibly. Secondly, it would get people engaged in the political process at a younger age, because once you've earned the right, you're more likely to exercise it. Lastly, it would end the pandering to the lowest common denominator. I think it would mitigate the effect that our failure to regulate campaign finance reform has had. And it would encourage public service and add in a meaningful way to the skill set of the participants.

I'm thinking this would probably limit voting to about 15% of the population. In 2008, 56.8% of the population voted in federal elections (in 2010, 37.8%, since there was no presidential election). So this would make a huge difference in the direction of the country.

What do we think? If this were enacted, would you serve to earn your right to vote? How would this change policy in the United States? What derogatory word would we use to describe the non-voters? I need something equivalent to Mercenary Chef's term "food touchers" only applicable to a political system. Nancy Kress uses "Livers" in her somewhat-crappy Beggars series, but that doesn't really do it for me.

[AverageGuy]

Lastly, it would end the pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Isn't that just a side effect of having millions of people voting? When you have to appeal to so many people with different ideas, only a few issues will really come through. Limiting the voting pool may or may not make voters more informed (I'm not really convinced, but for the sake of argument), but I don't know if it'll solve that issue.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

...stuff....

I understand your concern and agree with it to some extent. But I don't think barring some people from voting is a smart or moral way to go about it.

For one, with every right, there is a concurrent responsibility. This is not really true with voting rights.

What about the whole "consent of the governed" concept? We consent to be governed because we have the right to choose our government. If the mere fact of being governed isn't enough to give you the right to vote, then from what source does the government derive its legitimacy?

Your model proceeds from the ab initio assumption that the government has the right to control us. And we then have to earn the right to have a say in how we are governed. Seriously, that is barricades and bombs time as far as I'm concerned.

I also disagree with your assumption that people who serve in the Peace Corps or military are necessary more informed, and could somehow be assumed to make better decisions than everyone else. Those folks are just as likely to get swept away by rhetoric as anyone else. In fact, what I think your model really would do is polarize the electorate, with the military essentially leaning heavily conservative, and the do-gooders all leaning hard left.

I think the limitation of the franchise in that respect would create a huge risk of major social unrest. The whole reason why the "Call to Revolution" from fringies in (for example), the OWS movement can't take hold is that it founders on the idea that if they truly are a majority, then they can simply vote themselves into power. But once you take away the right to vote from most of the population, you create not only the conditions for violent resistence, but (in my opinion) the moral right to rebel violently.

On the other hand, I do think you raise some valid points, and I too disagree with the assumption that the more people that vote, the better.

Personally, I think the idea of spoon-feeding registration and voting is ridiculous, as is the plague of absentee balloting, which is ripe for fraud. If someone can't be bothered to take the time and effort to register, and to head down in person on election day (with rare, highly prescribed exceptions), then I really doubt they've taken the time to get acqainted with the issues in the first place. I oppose any artificial barriers to voting, but I think the "barrier" of being inconvenienced is perfectly legitimate, and would go some way to self-selecting out casual voters who aren't really paying attention anyway.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Would you like to know more?

[ljkeane]

I'm not sure that requirements to qualify to vote like working for the military or doing charity work would necessarily produce a significantly more informed voting population either. People that I know that have done those sort of things don't strike me as any more or less informed than the rest of the population. While I'm sure that some informed people who are sufficiently motivated to vote would put in the additional effort to qualify a number of currently informed voters wouldn't be able to afford the time commitments involved as well.

[Ser Greguh]

I would not automatically qualify all federal employees, such as myself. I'm envisioning, rather, a year of service (or longer in other qualifying programs) that one would undertake either after finishing all education or between undergraduate and graduate school, or after high school if no further higher education was sought. Like peace corps, military, etc., these positions are paid and cover living expenses, but pay wages barely over the poverty level. It's not something you'd do for the money.

Personally I think this is a terrible idea. It's not reasonable to suggest that serving in a menial government position (and any available positions would have to be menial in order to be available to everyone to the point where it wasn't just another fount for discrimination) automatically transforms someone from an ignorant member of the electorate to an informed member of the electorate, any more than getting to flip burgers for McDonald's for a year qualifies someone to design an upgrade to the formula for the Secret Sauce.

Furthermore this proposition is potentially counterproductive as the most likely citizens to compose an informed electorate (smart, educated people) have the most to lose from wasting a year of their lives in whatever menial task would be made available to them. If someone graduates with a degree in engineering and has the opportunity to make $70k right out of the gate in the private sector, that's a very appealing option even when placed against the counterweight of not being able to vote for the rest of their lives. Meanwhile someone that isn't going to make more than the government-required job will pay them doesn't lose a thing, but is still statistically less likely to become an informed voter. So in effect you weigh your voter base away from the populations most likely to get to where you want.

[Brienne the Beauty]

The more voters, the better, as it makes it harder to bribe them or commit election fraud.

I think schools should teach that voting is a patriotic duty, as too many people think that because their individual votes won't make a difference, it's no point voting.

[Quoth]

I'm with FLOW's post. And also wish to add:

For one, with every right, there is a concurrent responsibility. This is not really true with voting rights. (emphasis added)

So.... we're going to jettison the whole "certain unalienable rights" idea?

[David Selig]

Nothing fundamentally changes, really, the billionaires and the big corporations would still be able to get the politicians to work in their favour the same way they do it now. Heinlein neglecting this completely is one of the many reasons SW is a naive juvenile fantasy,

Who'd want to waste a year just to able to vote anyway (without planning to sell their vote to the highest bidder later, which would certainly be much more attractive option of the number of voters is drastically reduced)? I am talking about the vast majority of people don't join the military, Peace Corps, etc now - would they really give up an year of their life just to earn franchise? I sure wouldn't do it (not that I am American, but hypothetically speaking). Half the population doesn't vote now, when it costs them nothing.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

I agree with FLOW that this is a bad idea. I think when intellectuals rant about uninformed electorates and restricting voting, they do so under the assumption that an informed populace will agree with their beliefs, which of course probably isn't the case.

But, we can still think of ways to do this.

Here is my list of qualifying activities or characteristics:

1. Completion of at least one tour of active military (ie not Reserves or National Guard) service. Those discharged for medical or other honorable reasons will qualify.

2. Completion of one deployment to an active conflict zone as a member of the National Guard or military Reserves. Same qualifier as above for discharges.

3. Completion of significant volunteer work "tour" with Peace Corps, Americorps, Teach for America, and similar organizations. Those unable to complete their term for medical or other valid reasons will qualify if they have completed half of their term or became disabled as a result of their membership in the organization.

4. Attainment of an advanced degree of any kind, where advanced is described as a level able that of a bachelor's degree. (Masters, PhD, MD, JD, etc.)

5. Attainment of Master status in any trade such as plumbing, electrical work, etc.

6. Passing a standardized voting test compiled by a non-partisan organization that includes questions about the structure and history of the United States, some basic laws and rights, and recent events related to government and foreign affairs.

#6 should give anyone who wants to vote the ability to do so, but will weed out some of the riff-raff.

However, I don't think that this system would work on a practical level unless you had two preconditions:

1. All citizens of age retain full suffrage for all state and local elections, referendums, etc.

2. The current system is reformed in favor of a proportional representation system for both federal and state elections.

(null)

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Would never work. A large proportion of the 'uninformed' are part of the military, therefore you'd be unable to control the unwashed masses when they eventually rebel.

Edit: I mean the reserves obv.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I think when intellectuals rant about uninformed electorates and restricting voting, they do so under the assumption that an informed populace will agree with their beliefs, which of course probably isn't the case.

This is an excellent point, and I think has application to issues well beyond limited voting rights.

[Brienne the Beauty]

I think when intellectuals rant about uninformed electorates and restricting voting, they do so under the assumption that an informed populace will agree with their beliefs, which of course probably isn't the case.

I don't think this is restricted to intellectuals. Everybody thinks that if only people were more informed, they would agree with their political views.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I don't think this is restricted to intellectuals. Everybody thinks that if only people were more informed, they would agree with their political views.

And the corrolary is that when people vote in a way others don't think is correct, they blame it all on external factors, deliberately avoiding the possibility that the other person simply sees things differently.

[sologdin]

see, i told all'y'all last year that raidne is ann coulter.

[Relic]

Where America went wrong? Sometime around 1492.

[Reposado]

Here's the thing, are the 15% or so electing representatives, or voting on everything. If they are electing congresspeople, it wouldn't really change much. If were just making a massive congress of 15% of the population, then yes that would be better. Several million-member congress would not be able to be bought. Or at least, buying it would cost more than the benefits.

[Mack Kilimaro]

Where's America gone wrong?

Politically-influenced redistricting in an electoral system that's single-member district, winner-take-all -> the entrenched two-party system which has over time evolved into giving us a legislature that's more interested in partisanship than ideology -> a system full of elites that are happy to live in a corporations-are-people, post-Citizens United world which makes the kind of campaign finance reform necessary to start peeling back this stuff next to impossible.

A government professor would probably say that America started out working with the art of government, and for the last 150 years has been working with the craft of government, and after so long we need to remember the art again.

[Iskaral Pust]

I assumed the OP was comedic trolling but forgot that brevity is the soul of wit.

[Relic]

As for your premise, well, it blows. We need LESS elitistism, not more. Treating people as mean, rude, lesser beings based on some silly distinction is one of human kind's LEAST attractive qualities.