Conditional Suffrage?

[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.

[Borodog]

Suffrage is a bad idea, in general.

[BluffTHIS!]

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.

[bobman0330]

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.

[OtisTheMarsupial]

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.

[Warik]

[ 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.

[Ed Miller]

[ 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.

[MMMMMM]

[ 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.

[Ed Miller]

[ 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.