Conditional Suffrage?

[elwoodblues]

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.

"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.

[DVaut1]

[ 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.

[tylerdurden]

[ 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.

[Warik]

[ 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.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

People make bad decisions all the time. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't have the right to make the decision.

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
People make bad decisions all the time. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't have the right to make the decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

So 8 year-olds should be allowed to vote, too? When I was in elementary school and Bush Sr. was running against Clinton, the students were given an assignment to choose a side and create political ads. How did the students choose their sides?

"Well, my mommy and daddy are voting for Bush so I am too" or likewise for Clinton.

If these 8 year-olds used the same critical thinking skills as many 18+ voters do today to choose their candidate, why shouldn't they be allowed to vote too?

In fact, allowing children, who would choose their candidate based on what mommy and daddy say, to vote would be to the advantage of the Democratic party.

Can you see why?

[elwoodblues]

Age is different than testing --- though, I agree that 18 is a somewhat arbitrary number. Nonetheless, some number must be chosen.

[ QUOTE ]
"Well, my mommy and daddy are voting for Bush so I am too" or likewise for Clinton.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think this changes when people get older? The number 1 predictor of how a person will vote is how their parents vote.