Conditional Suffrage?
 

Disclaimer: Just recently started visiting this particular forum, so my apologies in advance if this has already been discussed.

------------

Is conditional suffrage a good idea?

I'm not talking about racial or sexual discrimination here (i.e. "your grandfather's grandfather" recursive discrimination or no women voting), but rather, objective, competence-based restrictions that ensure that the unacceptable ignorance of the masses doesn't elect an unqualified individual into an important position. (Republicans & Democrats, please try to behave - GWB is not necessarily the topic of this conversation).

Right now, to the best of my knowledge, the only requirements to register to vote and do so are:

1) 18 years of age or older.
2) Be a US citizen.
3) Not be a convicted felon.

Should that be all?

Example:

Warik: "Who are you voting for in the presidential election?"
Person: "There's an election this year?"
Warik: "Yes. Are you registered to vote?"
Person: "I don't know. Who's running?"
Warik: "George W. Bush is running against John Kerry. Who are you voting for?"
Person: "I don't know... who should I vote for?"
Warik: "I am going to vote for __________. He is a member of the _____________ party. Don't vote for ____________. He's a member of the _____________ party and they are all assholes."
Person: "Ok I will!"

Is allowing "Person" to have the right to vote really in the best interests of this country... or... given the potential effects an individual can have in a particular position of power........... the world?

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

On the whole, I think the ignorant and easily manipulated should cancel each other out.

On the other hand, I don't believe in voting online or in having more than one day to vote

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
On the whole, I think the ignorant and easily manipulated should cancel each other out.

[/ QUOTE ]

The two terms are not mutually exclusive.

In fact, they are often partners in crime.

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, I don't believe in voting online

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe in voting online, and I believe that technology already exists to make it as legitimate as ballot voting.

[ QUOTE ]
or in having more than one day to vote

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor do I.

However, I don't believe in that day being Tuesday. Worst idea ever.

Unless all employers could universally be forced to allow employees to go vote during business hours and pay them for the time they are out..... which would replace the idea of voting on Tuesdays to being the worst idea ever.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

I support this:

Ban anybody who is a member of a religious organisation that was created for the purpose of maintaining human slavery from voting.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

Unless all employers could universally be forced to allow employees to go vote during business hours and pay them for the time they are out..

First of all, it's against the law in all States to take any disciplinary action against employees who take time off from work to vote.

Second, polls are open in most states from 7 AM - 8 PM. I would suggest that only a miniscule percentage of the electorate needs to miss more than an hour or two of work to vote.

I don't agree with forcing employers to pay for the missed time.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

Didn't they used to do this in the south? I don't think this is a good idea because of how easily it is to misuse.

Also, being a convict does not prohibit you from voting in many states.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

A short quiz on where the presidential candidates stand on major issues would be a good prerequisite. It will keep out the people who voted for bush because they want to have a beer with him.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

My plan would allow for longer time periods of actual voting. It would also create 2 categories of sufferage. There would be some sort of basic competency test. And those people would no longer require representation and would be allowed to vote directly on issues. Other who could not pass the competency test would still have sufferage to vote for representatives.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

I wonder how many people proposing a civics knowledge test as a voting requirement could actually pass the test they advocate.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

Well, maybe, but Kerry supporters will fail their's since even the candidates don't really know where they stand.

BTW, if people are annoyed with the way politics work today (which everyone should be) they should probably not focus on disenfrancising people of which they think less and start focusing on the real problems such as the role of lobbyists, the close connection between the congress and their families, the military, the private sector and the lobby firms or the hijacking of elections using new and improved computer vote rigging machines or the power of a consolidated media.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
A short quiz on where the presidential candidates stand on major issues would be a good prerequisite.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, since "where the presidential candidates stand on major issues" can be difficult to frame objectively.

A much better prerequisite test, if there is to be one, would examine two objectively measurable skills of great importance: 1) logic, and 2) reading comprehension.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder how many people proposing a civic's knowledge test as a voting requirement could actually pass the test they advocate.

[/ QUOTE ] Well the test can be fashioned in a manner to get any % you would like. Because of the way that polititians work, It is a bad idea to have these tests. But I would venture a guess that between 10% and 35% of the population would be qualified to have a direct vote on issues. I have no way of actually knowing what the political powers would chose to test, so I can't give an accurate answer. The rest would still require representation. I think the test should be fahioned not on candidates but on The Consitution, ethics, and government knowledge. I also wonder how many polititians would be able to pass it? There needs to be a migration from representative democracy toward direct democracy.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

Maybe the politicians should have to fill out a standardized questionaire. Instead, they are marketed by the same PR folks who make toothpaste commercials.

Nice to see the John Kerry smear campaign was effective. When the facts change, I change my opinion, what do you do?

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A short quiz on where the presidential candidates stand on major issues would be a good prerequisite.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, since "where the presidential candidates stand on major issues" can be difficult to frame objectively.

A much better prerequisite test, if there is to be one, would examine two objectively measurable skills of great importance: 1) logic, and 2) reading comprehension.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is how things were in the south until the 60's/70's... do you really think it's a good idea?

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

My father-in-law who went to college but never graduated (relevant for later in the story) came up to me to discuss this at Christmas one year (he's the type of guy who doesn't have a good sense of timing for conversations.) Anyway, he says that only property owners should be entitled to vote.

"Why is that?" I ask.
He gives some line about how you should have to pay taxes to vote and property ownership ensures that.
"Really, is there a federal property tax?"
"Okay, maybe not property ownership, but they should be educated."
"There's an idea. I think you should have to have a high school diploma. If having a high school diploma makes for better voters, surely a college degree would be better. Don't you agree?"
Silence...
"And if a college degree is good, surely a graduate degree would be better. I propose only people with phd's or the equivalent in their field of study should be able to vote. Agree?"
Silence...broken a few minutes later by "I just don't think all the idiots should be able to vote."
"me either" I mumble to myself and offer him another beer.

The problem with conditional suffrage is that it will ALWAYS be used to ensure those who favor your political positions will vote and those who disfavor them will not. In short, it will always be abused.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

"The problem with conditional suffrage is that it will ALWAYS be used to ensure those who favor your political positions will vote and those who disfavor them will not."

Mis-allocation of voting machines and rigged software work much better.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
My father-in-law who went to college but never graduated (relevant for later in the story) came up to me to discuss this at Christmas one year (he's the type of guy who doesn't have a good sense of timing for conversations.) Anyway, he says that only property owners should be entitled to vote.

"Why is that?" I ask.
He gives some line about how you should have to pay taxes to vote and property ownership ensures that.
"Really, is there a federal property tax?"
"Okay, maybe not property ownership, but they should be educated."
"There's an idea. I think you should have to have a high school diploma. If having a high school diploma makes for better voters, surely a college degree would be better. Don't you agree?"
Silence...
"And if a college degree is good, surely a graduate degree would be better. I propose only people with phd's or the equivalent in their field of study should be able to vote. Agree?"
Silence...broken a few minutes later by "I just don't think all the idiots should be able to vote."
"me either" I mumble to myself and offer him another beer.

The problem with conditional suffrage is that it will ALWAYS be used to ensure those who favor your political positions will vote and those who disfavor them will not. In short, it will always be abused.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, the rationality for such ‘knowledge tests’ inexorably leads to advocating some form of an intellectual oligarchy (when taken to its eventual conclusion, as you noted).

Which is why I’m genuinely wondering how many people here advocating such tests could legitimately pass it, and why they believe they’ll find themselves among the privileged few in power? I suspect it’s not a very high number.

I also suspect the same people who propose such tests, when they find themselves disenfranchised for not being able to answer what are rather simple questions posed by our intellectual overlords, would accuse said overlords of terrible elitism and ivory-tower subjugation.

jimmy carter and suffragemandering
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the politicians should have to fill out a standardized questionaire. Instead, they are marketed by the same PR folks who make toothpaste commercials.

Nice to see the John Kerry smear campaign was effective. When the facts change, I change my opinion, what do you do?

[/ QUOTE ]Jimmy Carter summed up the results of the 2004 election pretty well. 10% of the population votes for the sitting president during times of war.

If a test was introduced how do you think each party would suffragemander it, so that only people who vote for them would be able to vote.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

Suffrage is a bad idea, in general.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

No matter how stupid and ill-equiped to vote some people might be, you can either let them have their say in the voting booth or staring down from the business end of a gun. Lots of poor illiterate farmers who were excellent shots proved that in the American Revolution.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

The real problem in my mind is not that voters are stupid, but that people who choose to vote (an unreasonable act if you consider objective benefits) are either: a) irrational, or b) derive some sort of self-satisfaction from voting. This seems very undesirable to me. Instead, I propose the following system for federal elections:

1. Every election cycle, 10% of the population will be chosen to vote. It will go sequentially by the last digit of your SSN. 2000 will be the 1s, 2002 the 2s, etc.
2. Voters will be required to attend a half-day or so presentation. Candidates will write their own presentation material. (possibly with some sort of limitations, e.g., no more than 20 minutes of the presentation can contain material about an opposition candidate.) Voters may take as many notes as they like.
3. A non-partisan government committee will compose a test consisting of a number of factual multiple choice questions about the material presented. Voters may refer to any notes they have taken. Voters who fail will be fined ~$500.
4. Voters who pass vote.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I also suspect the same people who propose such tests, when they find themselves disenfranchised for not being able to answer what are rather simple questions posed by our intellectual overlords, would accuse said overlords of terrible elitism and ivory-tower subjugation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't they tacitly consent to such subjugation just by "being here"? Hey, they should probably move somewhere else.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, it's against the law in all States to take any disciplinary action against employees who take time off from work to vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disciplinary, no, but those who need to punch a time clock won't be paid for the time they missed.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, polls are open in most states from 7 AM - 8 PM. I would suggest that only a miniscule percentage of the electorate needs to miss more than an hour or two of work to vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you're living paycheck to paycheck, an hour or two of work is significant.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with forcing employers to pay for the missed time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor do I... that's the only way having election day be on a day when 99% of the working population works would make sense, though.

Better to just change the day.

But let's not get off topic.... we're talking about restricting the right to vote of otherwise eligible voters.

Conditional Suffrage? The answer is no.
 

Your idea is horrible.

Educated people already vote much more often than uneducated.

In 2004, 23% of people who hadn't finished 10th grade voted, whereas 77% of people with advanced degrees voted. 52% of high school grads who didn't go to college voted and 72% of bachelor degree holders voted.

http://www.census.gov/population/soc...04/tab05-1.xls

Where'd you even get this idea? From your subjective view that voters are uneducated? Take a look at the statistics. The people you want to restrict from voting already don't vote.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't they used to do this in the south? I don't think this is a good idea because of how easily it is to misuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

They did it based on race. That wasn't what I was proposing. Read my post.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, if people are annoyed with the way politics work today (which everyone should be) they should probably not focus on disenfrancising people of which they think less

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that I don't think highly of someone doesn't automatically mean I don't want them to vote, nor does the fact that I do think highly of someone mean that I DO want them to vote.

Example: I don't think highly of overpaid NY transit workers who went on strike to get more money; however, a lot of them are competent enough to vote.

Other example: I think highly of my friends, but a few of them are too stupid to vote for president.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the test should be fahioned not on candidates but on The Consitution, ethics, and government knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
I also wonder how many polititians would be able to pass it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The left would claim the test is racist.

[ QUOTE ]
There needs to be a migration from representative democracy toward mob rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, it's against the law in all States to take any disciplinary action against employees who take time off from work to vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see a cite on that. My understanding is that only about 20 states actually have such laws, and that the time allowed is not necessarily sufficient to cover the actual time needed to stand in line and cast a vote (ie: Ohio 2004).


q/q

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with conditional suffrage is that it will ALWAYS be used to ensure those who favor your political positions will vote and those who disfavor them will not. In short, it will always be abused.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see the point you're trying to make describing the discussion with your father in-law, but I don't agree that conditional suffrage will necessarily always be used to one party's advantage. In fact, it doesn't have to be.

Having a high school diploma or owning property are all arbitrary criteria that says nothing about one individual's ability to cast a competent vote. How many unintelligent people do you encounter on a daily basis who have high school diplomas? How many intelligent people with significant accomplishments dropped out of high school or college? Plenty on both counts.

The fact is that no one here can make a compelling argument in favor of EVERYONE who is currently eligible to vote is competent enough to make an informed decision (I challenge you to try, though). Knowing this, there should definitely be some sort of system in place to weed out many of those individuals.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First of all, it's against the law in all States to take any disciplinary action against employees who take time off from work to vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see a cite on that. My understanding is that only about 20 states actually have such laws, and that the time allowed is not necessarily sufficient to cover the actual time needed to stand in line and cast a vote (ie: Ohio 2004).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct. There is no uniform federal law regarding this. I believe the number of states that have laws requiring employers to give time off is closer to 30, but as you point out, some of them don't require very much.

Part of the reason that there is no uniform federal law about this is that there is no uniform federal election.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The left would claim the test is racist.

[/ QUOTE ] And the right would secretly harbor feelings of racial superiority?

[ QUOTE ]
There needs to be a migration from representative democracy toward mob rule.

[/ QUOTE ] I never said anything about getting rid of the courts.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the test should be fahioned not on candidates but on The Consitution, ethics, and government knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool, then let's start testing you immediately.

I'll start by testing your personal financial ethics, then move on to your knowledge of the Bill of Rights and the limited power of the executive branch, along with your true understanding (or lack thereof) of fundamental American civil rights and the 14th Amendment.

I'll happily email you your score, once I've decided whether or not you're intelligent and informed enough to be allowed to vote.

And if I just happen to discover that a large number of Republicans are just too misinformed and/or ignorant to be allowed to vote, well, I'm sure you'll have no problem with that.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also wonder how many polititians would be able to pass it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The left would claim the test is racist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. The fact that, under my test, white Republican Party members will be disenfranchised at 4x the rate of other demographic groups is just a statistical anomaly, and I'm sure you'll have no problem with that either.



q/q

Re: Conditional Suffrage? The answer is no.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Educated people already vote much more often than uneducated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point? Does the fact that you have a college degree or a PHD mean you know anything about politics or what is good for this country?

[ QUOTE ]
From your subjective view that voters are uneducated?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you mean "from your objective view that less than 100% of the people who are registered voters are competent enough to exercise the privilege?"

[ QUOTE ]
Take a look at the statistics. The people you want to restrict from voting already don't vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take this to mean that you are assuming that I believe that 100% of uneducated people are not qualified to vote and therefore should have their right to vote taken away. Even though that is completely wrong and not even close to what I said (you know, since I didn't even mention education at all), I'll humor you.

Assume that 100% of the uneducated vote for the wrong guy (according to me). If we define "uneducated" to mean "didn't finish high school," then according to the link you provided, over ten million people voted for the "wrong guy" in the last election. Even if half the people voted for the right guy, that's still five million who voted for the wrong guy in a race that was decided by less than 4 million votes.

I'm fairly confident that you're assuming I'm a Republican or Libertarian, since conditional suffrage is not something typically promoted by the Democratic party (if at all)... meaning that you believe I want to somehow rig the system so that the Republican candidate has an unfair advantage. If that is the case, does your "the people you want to restrict from voting already don't vote" comment mean that you are saying that people who are uneducated vote Democrat? I don't think that's the case at all. The fact that a friend of mine, who is an HS dropout, voted Republican seems like a good enough counterexample to me.

I have a better idea: Why don't we stop talking about education and start talking about voter competence, which is what this thread is supposed to be about anyway.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
And the right would secretly harbor feelings of racial superiority?

[/ QUOTE ]

NAACP says requiring photo ID at the polls is racist
[ QUOTE ]
Violates the 1965 Voting Rights Act because it results in the denial of voting rights to African-American and Latino voters.

[/ QUOTE ]

A racial fuss is made over photo ID and you don't think someone's going to form the same kind of fuss over requiring people to know who the current president is in order to vote for the next one?

[ QUOTE ]
I never said anything about getting rid of the courts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say you did.

A representative democracy exists to prevent the ignorant masses from taking advantage of the minority. By what stretch of logic are we permitting the same ignorant masses, from whom our representative democracy was created to protect our country, to vote for said representatives?

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'll start by testing your personal financial ethics, then move on to your knowledge of the Bill of Rights and the limited power of the executive branch, along with your true understanding (or lack thereof) of fundamental American civil rights and the 14th Amendment.

I'll happily email you your score, once I've decided whether or not you're intelligent and informed enough to be allowed to vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh gee, that's not fair! I was planning on being exempt from the test and being the only person in the country eligible to vote for anything. Darn.

Post your multiple choice / true or false / matching test (since those are the only two types of tests that can be objective). I'm confident that most people on this forum, both Republican and Democrat, will pass.

[ QUOTE ]
And if I just happen to discover that a large number of Republicans are just too misinformed and/or ignorant to be allowed to vote, well, I'm sure you'll have no problem with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you will have no problem with the potentially equally large number of misinformed Democrats being found incompetent to vote... actually, the number may be larger, due to OtisTheMarsupial's claim that uneducated people typically vote Democrat.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course not. The fact that, under my test, white Republican Party members will be disenfranchised at 4x the rate of other demographic groups is just a statistical anomaly, and I'm sure you'll have no problem with that either.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, your test will be opinion-based rather than fact-based, then? I mean, it would have to be, since white Republican Party members have the same facts as every other demographic, but surely have different opinions.

Discriminating people based on their opinions now are we???

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

****whoosh****

(that sound you just heard was the point going right over the top of your head)


q/q

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]

****whoosh****

(that sound you just heard was the point going right over the top of your head)

[/ QUOTE ]

*** cricket *** ***cricket ***

(that sound you just heard was a representation of how impressed I am with your wittiness)

If the point clearly went over my head, why don't you explain it less cryptically...? Or better yet, just plain explain it.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Right now, to the best of my knowledge, the only requirements to register to vote and do so are:

1) 18 years of age or older.
2) Be a US citizen.
3) Not be a convicted felon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think "conditional suffrage" is a bad idea. But I also think condition #3 on voting (I know, it's state by state, not federal) is outrageous.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right now, to the best of my knowledge, the only requirements to register to vote and do so are:

1) 18 years of age or older.
2) Be a US citizen.
3) Not be a convicted felon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think "conditional suffrage" is a bad idea. But I also think condition #3 on voting (I know, it's state by state, not federal) is outrageous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I really don't see what condition #3 has to do with it at all.

Re: Conditional Suffrage?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right now, to the best of my knowledge, the only requirements to register to vote and do so are:

1) 18 years of age or older.
2) Be a US citizen.
3) Not be a convicted felon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think "conditional suffrage" is a bad idea. But I also think condition #3 on voting (I know, it's state by state, not federal) is outrageous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I really don't see what condition #3 has to do with it at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's worse than that. Convict political enemies of some vague "undermining national interests" felony and they can't vote you out of office.