In a representative democracy, who should have the vote?

[Wilson]

Let's say that you are designing the constitution of a large new country. Let's postulate that it's the size of the United States, with similar demographics. Who should be given the right to vote?

Men only, or both sexes?

Certain races only, or all races?

Twenty-one years and older or eighteen years and older?

Wealthy people only, middle class or better, or every socioeconomic class?

Only those who believe in God, or heathens, too?

Property owners only, or everyone?

Those with college degrees, those with high school (or equivalent) degrees, or everyone, regardless of educational attainment?

Those with IQ tests above 120, those 100 or above, those 80 or above, or everyone?

Those certified as psychologically healthy, those never diagnosed as psychotic, or everyone, regardless of mental status?

Those never convicted of criminal activity, or everyone?

Tongue in cheek, of course, but it's a serious question. A representative democracy is, in my opinion, the only way to go, because otherwise the strongest and most ruthless will take power and run the country for his benefit. Even a great and benevolent dictator will likely be followed by a despot.

So if we agree that we want this country to be one whose leaders are elected by the rabble, who should have the vote? Which suffrage criteria, if any, should be applied to give this new county its best chance at fairness and prosperity?

[Harbal]

Given that the members of some of the classes you mention would not have the right to vote, what social responsibilities would they be exempt from in return?

[Wilson]

Given that the members of some of the classes you mention would not have the right to vote, what social responsibilities would they be exempt from in return?

I don't have a firm opinion on the subject. Fairness says that almost everyone of a certain age should have the vote, but so many people are so inept at knowing what's good for them that they might be better served if only the smart and fair-minded people of good will could vote. Probably no rational way to select and empower those people, though.

[Alias]

I would prefer universal suffrage - following a citizenship test. Why not have the native citizens meet the same standards that we require of naturalized ones? You should be allowed to take the test as soon as you want to: if a nine-year knows how government works, understands the issues and cares enough to make the effort, let her vote. Prisoners, too - They're paying their penance in the country, I don't see why they should be deprived of a voice in its administration.

[Harbal]

They're paying their penance in the country

Isn't being removed from society and prevented from participating in it, albeit temporarily, part of their penance?

[Alias]

Yes, that's the idea. But, in fact, if you've been convicted of a felony, you lose the franchise forever. Given the high arrest rate, the number of wrongful convictions, the ratio of African and Hispanic prisoners to white ones, the recurrence of the same surnames in a population descended from slavery and a population of migrants from Mexico, sloppy record-keeping and checking in some states, this is an excuse to take the vote away from an awful lot of people who tend not to vote Republican.

A by-product is that many people, mostly toughened males, no longer have a vested interest in the nation's welfare - and may even become enemies of the system that has mistreated and rejected them.

Besides, even in prison, people are affected by legislation. In fact, prisoners, and all those who have had dealings with law enforcement and the judiciary, have a unique perspective which could might better inform future policies.

-- Updated April 23rd, 2015, 7:16 pm to add the following --

PS That's in the US. And there is a movement to change it, apparently.

[Obvious Leo]

I would prefer universal suffrage - following a citizenship test.

I agree with this. I reckon everybody should be able to demonstrate that they understand their systems of government before being allowed to participate in the democratic process. In Australia the voting age is 18 but I'd prefer to see this lowered to 16 and that citizenship education be a part of every school curriculum. Sitting the test would then become a normal part of the education process. Most young people would then come to regard their citizenship as entailing an important civic responsibility and may feel more inclined to remain engaged with the process thereafter.

if you've been convicted of a felony, you lose the franchise forever.

This is outrageous and quite blatant discrimination. In my country a prisoner loses the right to vote if sentenced to a term beyond a certain length (I think it's about 2 years but I'm not sure exactly). However once released this right is automatically restored.

Regards Leo

[Sy Borg]

The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice.

You don't. You have no choice. You have owners.

They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They've got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They've got you by the balls.

[Alias]

I'm guessing you don't like them any more than dear old George did. There is a strategy to undermine (rather than overthrow, which is far too costly) them. 1. Don't buy the junk. 2. Co-operate with you neighbours. 3. Don't buy the junk.

[MHopcroft1963]

Now here's one of those topics that can get me into a world of hurt if I am not careful.

The notion of the vote not as a right, but as a privilege that must be earned and can be taken away, is both appealing to some minds and troublesome.

One theory (postulated by Heinlein) is that you do not have the vote until you have successful completed an enlistment in the armed forces. (it was in his novel Starship Troopers as part of the semi-fascist world he was building -- whether he would have seen that applied to reality is unknowable).

Another, which I can't recall precisely where I saw it, states that if you receive assistance from the government (such as a pension, support payments, or subsidies for things like housing) your vote is taken away. You might get it back when you're "on your feet", but possibly not. The reasoning is apparently that you can't "vote yourself money" without irreparably undermining democracy. There are still those who claim that the social safety net only exists as an attempt to buy the votes of the poor.

The thing about denying someone the vote is that it removes all incentive for those in power not to utterly ignore them, or worse. Even today political leaders almost exclusively "play to their base", to the point of actively working against the interests of everyone else. Which, of course, the "base" likes just fine because they really hate some of those other people.

[Wilson]

Now here's one of those topics that can get me into a world of hurt if I am not careful.

Online anonymity protects you from physical harm.

Besides, it's not clear from your answer where you stand politically, although I can make a guess.

An associated question that's interesting to me is, how should we decide who to vote for? Should we vote strictly in our own self-interest? Or should we vote for candidates who seem most committed to fairness for all, even if some of those decisions might tend to hurt me financially?

Personally I try to vote for people who are more statesmanlike, more dedicated to doing a good job for all .. but I can imagine that there could occur a situation where self-interest would push me to vote for a candidate who would represent my interests even if I liked the other guy better otherwise - but that would have to be a really unusual and important single issue to me. Voting is sometimes depressing because none of the candidates seem worth a damn.

[Sy Borg]

I'm guessing you don't like them any more than dear old George did. There is a strategy to undermine (rather than overthrow, which is far too costly) them. 1. Don't buy the junk. 2. Co-operate with you neighbours. 3. Don't buy the junk.

I think he disliked them more but I am not a fan of the Murdoch media's war mongering and constant misrepresentations.

We do need to re-learn the concept of "enough" though.

[Harbal]

One theory (postulated by Heinlein) is that you do not have the vote until you have successful completed an enlistment in the armed forces. (it was in his novel Starship Troopers as part of the semi-fascist world he was building -- whether he would have seen that applied to reality is unknowable).

Another, which I can't recall precisely where I saw it, states that if you receive assistance from the government (such as a pension, support payments, or subsidies for things like housing)

Or combine them: You can't vote till you've shot a pensioner. Has that one ever been "postulated"?

[Obvious Leo]

Or combine them: You can't vote till you've shot a pensioner. Has that one ever been "postulated"?

Yes mate. It's the central election platform of the Tea Party and should prove a winner with the religious right.

[Taokuoh]

Everyone should have the right to vote, regardless of sex, race and social class. The only one I see that you listed should be questionable is the criminal convictions one. A lot of people have been criminally convicted for reasons that may not of been their fault. So if you only choose to have the people who have never been convicted vote, you could also be throwing away the other people who were wrongfully accused. I'm a person that would let everyone have a chance more or less but with me being so friendly towards this, it could back fire on me. The more interesting poll would be a poll on who SHOULD be able to vote, at least you'll get back an idea of what the public thinks so you and the public can both agree on something and come down to the conclusion on what the solution is.