Here's one none of you will like.

[elwoodblues]

Not only is this a dumb idea in principle, why would knowledge of what a party does matter at all? You don't vote for parties, you vote for people.

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

This reminds me of an argument I had with my father-in-law a few years back. It went something like this:

Him: "People should be required to have a high school education to vote."
Me: "I totally agree, actually I think people should be required to have a PhD or the equivalent."
Him: "That's a dumb idea, then you'd only having an elite group voting."
Me: "Yep."

[Kaz The Original]

Geeze this is alot to wade through, but I suppose I asked for it didn't I : )
"
Yawn? YAWN?

Is this a joke? I’m not quite sure why I’m taking the rest of this seriously after a comment like “yawn,” but, okay.

I always did think rule of law was pretty boring. Why let the Constitution get in the way of a debate about legal rights? "

The constitution is just a piece of paper, that contained some good ideas.

" So, to answer your question, I think we do not allow children to vote by using weak/untenable justifications."

I'm glad you see the inanity of once you are a certain age you can vote. A pretty ridiculous statement. Note how well a test on knowledge would work in integrating children into being able to vote.

"States have no justifiable right to compel citizens to learn civics. In fact, if citizens choose to remain woefully ignorant of politics, they reserve that right and then some. Those with political knowledge do not posses dictatorial powers over those who do not have the capability to learn such knowledge, or those who choose not to. I suppose Kaz’s response (and those who agree with Kaz) would respond, “The state does not have the compel citizens to learn civics; they just don’t have to extend them voting privileges. “

It would be highly unethical (i.e., wrong) to deny suffrage to those who fail a political knowledge test."

There is no such thing as right and wrong, there is cause and effect.

"Universal suffrage is the hallmark of legitimate democracies. Denial of voting privileges to less informed voters (or any voter) delegitimizes democracies because democracies only become legitimate through the participation of its voters!"

A democracy is delegitimized by people making decisions when they don't even know what the question is!

"If states deny the participation of voters in its democracy, it is de facto functioning less democratically."

*yawn*
"
I’m not claiming the United States is a perfect democracy;"
or a democracy at all (not to nit pick, but the U.S. is a replubic).

"certainly, not all decisions are made by the whole of the people; just most of them. I’m not claiming the United States even has universal suffrage; the denial of voting privileges to citizens under the age of 18 is clearly antithetical to universal suffrage. But I think we can also agree that denying voting rights to citizens, regardless of the reason, does indeed make us less democratic, and moves us farther away from functioning ideally."

Obviously we can't all agree, because I made my post.

"“Why is functioning democratically important in our considerations of being ethical?” a skeptic like Kaz might ask."

(I like this part).

"If Kaz or someone who is persuaded by Kaz isn’t convinced that democracies are inherently ethical (i.e. right/moral), then this conversation about who to grant/deny voting privileges to is irrelevant anyway, and we all just wasted our time."

Well I do not accept that democracies are inherently right (a pretty foolish concept if you ask me), I do not think we have all just wasted our time.

I’m not saying its illegitimate to consider democracies unethical; only that, if we’re going to discuss questions of suffrage, the notion that democracies are ethical is necessarily assumed.

"Actually, the more I think about how Kaz responded with “Yawn” in regards to his proposal’s constitutionality, the more I’m starting to believe his proposal might not be such a bad idea."

I don't think that a discussion of what could be, should ever be controlled by a discussion of what's allowed.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Felix_Nietsche]

I'll guarantee you I could swing an election 20 points...

In Brazil you are REQUIRED TO VOTE by law. As a result, every drooling-slacked-jawed-dolt votes. The result is they elect morons. I think they have a socialist as president now....

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
The constitution is just a piece of paper, that contained some good ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Constitution is not just a piece of paper; it's the supreme law of the United States. Is it really necessary for me to explain why laws are important?

[ QUOTE ]
There is no such thing as right and wrong, there is cause and effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a firm believer that there is right and wrong; but I think this is someplace where rational people can disagree. I'm guessing neither of us have the time nor the will to debate whether or not 'right and wrong' exist; such a discussion should probably take place in a different post on a philosophy board somewhere. If Kant and Nietzsche can disagree, I suppose we can too. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
A democracy is delegitimized by people making decisions when they don't even know what the question is!


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that voter apathy/ignorance is bad and does a great deal of damage to democracies. but voter disenfranchisement is worse and would do/does more damage.

[ QUOTE ]
or a democracy at all (not to nit pick, but the U.S. is a replubic).

[/ QUOTE ]

First, you fully intended to nitpick. Second, I fully intend to nitpick as well. The U.S is a representative democracy. We elect representatives to act in our interests. These representatives act according to the will of the people and act in their interests, although not necessarily by their proxy. Merely because the United States is a republic does not mean that the US fails to be a government which is ruled by its citizenry, which is how we would characterize a democracy.

[ QUOTE ]
Well I do not accept that democracies are inherently right (a pretty foolish concept if you ask me), I do not think we have all just wasted our time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not claiming that when democracies act, they always act rightly. I'm claiming that democracies are, by their very nature, the most righteous form of government.

If you disagree (and you could), then why bother debating about who to grant voting rights to, if you find democracies to be inherently unjust anyway?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that a discussion of what could be, should ever be controlled by a discussion of what's allowed.


[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose I could be a multi millionaire if banks would just allow me to take whatever I wanted from their vaults and not attempt to stop/press charges on me. But questions over what 'could be' need to be tempered by concerns over what's fair.

[Kaz The Original]

"I'm a firm believer that there is right and wrong; but I think this is someplace where rational people can disagree. I'm guessing neither of us have the time nor the will to debate whether or not 'right and wrong' exist; such a discussion should probably take place in a different post on a philosophy board somewhere. If Kant and Nietzsche can disagree, I suppose we can too. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]"

"Agreed. To disagree : p"


"I agree that voter apathy/ignorance is bad and does a great deal of damage to democracies. but voter disenfranchisement is worse and would do/does more damage."

This is of course not measurable. I obviously do not think disenfranchisement is so bad, because I made this post.

"First, you fully intended to nitpick. Second, I fully intend to nitpick as well. The U.S is a representative democracy. We elect representatives to act in our interests. These representatives act according to the will of the people and act in their interests, although not necessarily by their proxy. Merely because the United States is a republic does not mean that the US fails to be a government which is ruled by its citizenry, which is how we would characterize a democracy."

This is all semantics. If you want I AGREE with what you said. But a democracy is not a republic, no matter how you change it.

" [ QUOTE ]
Well I do not accept that democracies are inherently right (a pretty foolish concept if you ask me), I do not think we have all just wasted our time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not claiming that when democracies act, they always act rightly. I'm claiming that democracies are, by their very nature, the most righteous form of government.

If you disagree (and you could), then why bother debating about who to grant voting rights to, if you find democracies to be inherently unjust anyway?"

Your first point is aimed at one I did not make. Luckily your second point was aimed at one I did, so we'll ignore the first (a natural mistake to make) and move on to the second.

I do not find democracies to be inherently unjust, I simply find them 'NOT to be inherently just'. That is to say, I believe a democracy is not neccessarily the be all and end all of government. It is, I believe, the best form we have found so far, but I think it is a little ridiculous to assume we simply beings have solved the mystery of government at this stage.

It is difficult, but important, to look outside the structure you are in.

Why should we debate how a democracy should be structured? Because we're in one, and it should function as optimally as possible.
"
I suppose I could be a multi millionaire if banks would just allow me to take whatever I wanted from their vaults and not attempt to stop/press charges on me. But questions over what 'could be' need to be tempered by concerns over what's fair.

[/ QUOTE ]"

That has nothing to do with 'whats allowed'. Absolutely we should debate whether or not we should do no things, but a blanket statement like 'this is wrong' or 'this is illegal' doesn't accomplish anything. Thus, when discussing what should be, we don't discuss whether it IS allowed, but whether it should be.

[masse75]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do we not allow children to vote?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
There are activists working for youth suffrage movements in numerous states, lobbying state legislatures to lower the voting age to as young as 14 years old. Why 14 and not 13 (or 12 or 11, etc.)? I have no idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think because 14 is the age where they start sleeping with their 23 year old math teachers.

[Kaz The Original]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do we not allow children to vote?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
There are activists working for youth suffrage movements in numerous states, lobbying state legislatures to lower the voting age to as young as 14 years old. Why 14 and not 13 (or 12 or 11, etc.)? I have no idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think because 14 is the age where they start sleeping with their 23 year old math teachers.

[/ QUOTE ]

ZING!

[DVaut1]

Okay, I think it must be said that this proposal is making a lot of headway. Frankly, the more I consider it, the more I begin to agree that a grossly uninformed electorate is almost as capable of delegitimizing democracy as a disenfranchised one; maybe I’ll sleep on it and have something different view of it tomorrow. But as of right now, I’m just about ready to agree with you. I’m not quite ready to agree with your proposal; I still believe it to be unethical, and horribly so. But I am ready to concede the following:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"I agree that voter apathy/ignorance is bad and does a great deal of damage to democracies. but voter disenfranchisement is worse and would do/does more damage."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is of course not measurable.

[/ QUOTE ]

you’re right, it’s not measurable. I still maintain that enfranchising the greatest number of potential voters is necessary to legitimize democracies, and that disenfranchising voters would do a great deal to delegitimize democracies; the very notion of a democracy necessitates enfranchisement. In other words, that government derives its sovereign power from the whole body of free citizens demands that we enfranchise the individual members of that body to the fullest extent possible.

But it’s undeniable that an uninformed electorate has a pernicious effect on the legitimacy of democracies, to the point that I’m willing to concede that this pernicious effect might be co-equal with the delegitimizing effect that disenfranchisement would have.

[ QUOTE ]
But a democracy is not a republic, no matter how you change it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you make an important distinction (in that democracies and republics are not the same), and you’re right to make it. But I disagree that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive; The US has characteristics that are both democratic and republican, so to speak. Some republican characteristics which exist even in contemporary America: the electoral college (we don’t directly elect the President), the Senate (California has close to 40 million residents and has the same number of Senators as Wyoming and its 600k residents).

But there are some characteristics that are unquestionably democratic as well! Income taxes, the FDA, compulsory education of children, and many other statutory laws are all paradigms of how democratic ideals have had an impact on public policy. Why can the government take half of your paycheck before you see it? Because 50.1% say so. Why can the government compel you to vaccinate yourself against communicable diseases? Because 50.1% say so. Why can the government deny you from taking certain medications available to the rest of the world? Because 50.1% say so. You get the picture. I agree a democracy is not a republic. I disagree that the United States takes the form of a republic exclusively (if that’s what you’re claiming).

[ QUOTE ]
I do not find democracies to be inherently unjust, I simply find them 'NOT to be inherently just'. That is to say, I believe a democracy is not neccessarily the be all and end all of government. It is, I believe, the best form we have found so far, but I think it is a little ridiculous to assume we simply beings have solved the mystery of government at this stage.

It is difficult, but important, to look outside the structure you are in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, fair enough. I must admit I may have been too enthusiastic in my defense of democracies in previous posts; at the very least, it conveyed that I believe democracy is the ideal form of government. Certainly, I’ll concede the possibility that democracies can be awfully tyrannical at their very worst; majorities are certainly capable of behaving unjustly, and democracies do create what even I would consider an unhealthy respect for majorities. I share your view that some higher form of government may prove to better than democracies. It was certainly a mistake on my part when I claimed this:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm claiming that democracies are, by their very nature, the most righteous form of government.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the very least, I ought to have made the caveat that democracies are only the most righteous form of government when viewed comparatively, and even with that caveat, I may have spoken too hastily.

However, I must still say this: I continue to believe that your proposal is inherently undemocratic; as I claimed before, suffrage to all potential voters is a necessary (and I can’t stress necessary enough) component of all legitimate democracies; to propose policy which would disenfranchise potential voters is a de facto rejection of democracy. Therefore, to enact a proposal of disenfranchisement is to reject democracy. Yet you agreed with me that:

[ QUOTE ]
democracy is not neccessarily the be all and end all of government. It is, I believe, the best form we have found so far

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps we can justify a proposal which disenfranchises voters, but such a justification is a rejection of democracy; it’s inconsistent to suggest that we should agree democracies are the best form of government, then enact policies which would go to undermine them. therefore, I stand by my claim that your proposal is undemocratic, which, along with unconstitutional and unethical, constituted my three objections for your proposal.

[ QUOTE ]
Thus, when discussing what should be, we don't discuss whether it IS allowed, but whether it should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps we misunderstand each other; I’m merely claiming that, in a discussion of what should be, we must continue to be constrained by what is fair . When considering what is ‘allowed,’ I don’t mean allowed in a legal sense; I mean allowed in an ethical sense. When discussing what’s possible, what we ought to do, and what we’re capable of, notions of fairness must continue to be given serious consideration.

All in all, though, I’ll admit I’m becoming more supportive of this proposal. Perhaps ‘supportive’ is the wrong word; it is fair to say I’m much less hostile to the notion than I was when I initially read it. You're certainly making valid points worthy of serious consideration.