The Right To Vote- How Should You Get It?

[2kitties]

I've been thinking alot recently about the right to vote and I'm just not sure how I feel about it anymore. Any dipstick can vote so long as they're 18 years old. Makes no difference if you can read, understand, comprehend, anything.

So I wonder? Should there be a basic competency exam in order to vote? And if so, how would you possibly make it fair to everyone of all backgrounds? I don't know. But I do wonder if a kid with no respect for society who doesn't know how to read or tell one candidate from another--- is that democracy at it's best?

Thoughts?

[lizbud]

The beauty of democracy is that it does work. Wierd as it
sounds, but it does work out. We don't elect lifetime leaders
and if they don't work out our leaders can be replaced in 2 or
4 years, depending on the office held. It's a basic right and
should be available to all regardless of brain power.

Now owning an animal is something that should require a
written & verbal test. (strictly graded).

[Uabassoon]

But I do wonder if a kid with no respect for society who doesn't know how to read or tell one candidate from another--- is that democracy at it's best?

Thankfully most of these people don't even bother to vote anyways.

[tatsxxx11]

You said it best yourself, 2 kitties. To whose standards, to what criteria should we defer in deciding who and who is not worthy of the vote? There in lies the rub! Seems to me, in our own not too recent past, attempts HAVE been made to create an arabitrary, artifical, "standard" (e.g. a poll tax) that would overtly or implictly, grant or rather, not grant, certain individuals the vote. Such criteria would, at different times, deny individuals the vote based upon race, sex, status or level of "education." Some of the most frightenging opinions I have heard expressed in my lifetime have been expressed by those with an abundance of "education," while those whose opinons I have most respected, could barely write their names. Our system is inbuded with an abundance of checks and balances and I believe in the end, serves us best in this regard. Those who are motivated enough to register and get themselves to a polling district to cast their votes, have earned the right in my book. As far as I'm concerend, no further intervention needed

[Lady's Human]

Heinlein wrote many essays on the right to vote, which present many ideas on how the franchise should be earned. Starship Troopers (The book, not the movie) is essentially a political treastise on citizenship. BTW, before anyone reads it and gets the idea that he thought military service was the only way to win the franchise, read it again. His idea was federal service in some form, meaning anyone (not just those meeting the stringent requirements for military service) could earn the franchise, be it as an accountant or as a grunt, they just had to volunteer to do SOMETHING in federal service. Other ideas he had were a current events test prior to entering the voting booth (somtehing like the USA today headlines for the past 2 days, etc) or solve a simple math problem , just anything to prove that you were interested and informed. The founding fathers never meant for the US to be a democracy, they meant it to be a representative republic.

[2kitties]

Very interesting point of view. I may try to check out that book at the library.

[Soledad]

The founding fathers never meant for the US to be a democracy, they meant it to be a representative republic.

Yes, and the Founding Fathers also didn't think women or black people should vote. I don't think we have to go by their standards. They set up a foundation, but the government and its laws must reflect the changes of its society.

[Lady's Human]

The original rules for voting (federal) were based on property ownership, which the founders believed would limit the franchise to those who had a direct stake in the conduct of the government and eliminate the bread and circuses mentality which doomed (in part) Rome. The discussions of race and sex are well documented, so there's no real need for me to delve into those minefields. A democracy would be a disaster for the US, as a true democracy would require a general plebescite on every issue currently dealt with by congress. I agree with the founders on the principal that the franchise should be earned. The race and sex issues were simply an extension of the time in which the constitution was written and have been dealt with properly, as intended by the founders, in the form of constitutional amendments. Were the founders perfect saints? Not by a long shot. However, they were great men who left us with an excellent foundation for government. BTW, were they all rich landowners of english ancestry? No, they weren't. A good portion of them were broke from their efforts on behalf of the nascent United States.

[2kitties]

Well, if we base the right to vote on those "having a stake in the govt." then, in my opinion, that's pretty much everyone. I think you have a stake in the government if you contribute to it. I think that anyone who pays tax is contributing. And everyone pays tax- at least in most states. You're paying tax if you buy a gallon of gas or even a stick of gun. And dont' get me started on how I feel about my income taxes right now

[Edwina's Secretary]

I am far more concerned about why people don't vote. I know, I know....do I really want some of those people voting? Probably not. But I think the low voter turnout is very embarrassing to us as a nation.

And I know I shouldn't go there but.....every time I see someone with their vehicle plastered with tattered American flags...or "these colors don't run" bumper stickers or the like....I want to ask them if they voted.

I think there are things people should not be able to do if they don't vote....

[2kitties]

Agreed ES!
I vote: mainly because I like to complain. And I think if you don't vote, you have NO RIGHT to complain about your government.

[Lady's Human]

If everone who paid taxes was allowed the right to vote, then we would have a major problem.....remember, everyone who sets foot in this country and works or buys something, citizen or not a citizen, pays taxes.

[2kitties]

ooh good point. I was actually thinking of citizens 18 or older who pay taxes. But I should've been more precise.

[Barbara]

I think when states changed from monarchies to democracies many people were not educated and could not read because they weren't allowed to go to school -education for everyone has always been an important democratic issue.
So if you didn't allow people to vote if they can't read they would loose a chance to help themselves. (And in some 3rd world countries there have not been so many changes since 1790).

On the other hand I understand your point. It's not good if any moron has the same chance as a considerate person.

But on the other hand (sorry I think this is already my third hand ): who tells who is the moron?

[Lady's Human]

Given the current situation (basic education is widely available) literacy in this country should not be a problem. If you cannot read, how could you fill out a ballot in the first place? What scares me with illiterate voters is the following scenario:

An illiterate voter goes to the polling place, given a free ride to the polling place by (fill in the blank, your favorite or least favorite special interest). The person asks the volunteer transporting him or her " I can't read and I want to vote for ------, which place is he/she on the ballot?" The voter is told, but is told the position of the candidate who the group supports. The voter believes he/she has voted for their candidate, but has actually voted for someone else. BTW, this has happened in the past, yet another reason that registering to vote in the auto registry office (aka "motor voter" bills) scares the bejesus out of me. I don't know who decides, but there has to be a minimum standard of competency at some point.