Right to vote at national elections; should it be given to all or should people be filtered?

[Pattern-chaser]

Here in the US we have a time worn tradition of limiting the number of voters who can vote. Including passing laws to help accomplish this national goal.

Yes, the War on Drugs is a good example, introduced by the Nixon administration to criminalise young political activists. Then there were the more recent mass preventions of black voters in the Southern states, but I can't properly remember the details. Don't you just love "tradition"? ...

[InfinityMuse]

Here in the US we have a time worn tradition of limiting the number of voters who can vote. Including passing laws to help accomplish this national goal.

Yes, the War on Drugs is a good example, introduced by the Nixon administration to criminalise young political activists. Then there were the more recent mass preventions of black voters in the Southern states, but I can't properly remember the details. Don't you just love "tradition"? ...

On critical race and national events. The state of California can be compared to black voter suppression in southern states. California has this issue with black and white flight groups. Gentrification and migration are a major hinderance to state and local election. Democratic politicians are not allowed to speak about the black vote due institutional insecurity and tranquility. The nation needs tritate the congressional government. The three houses need to be adjudicated and reformed. The U.S is missing major pieces of legislation. we the people have only declared independence once and have been imperialised more then once since then. Currently the system of checks and balances, represenative govt model, and the door knocking campaign strategies have been halted. The us government is fearfull of civil combats. There are very strong corners of diplomacy being controlled by private sector and is comparative to the ruso-jewish migrants sectors, both are equally strong.

In the south, the current thought controll program is structured for blacks only recruitment success to the army and the race wars keep getting more preverse and backwards.

https://archive.org/details/sim_nationa ... l-1974_2_1
In volume 2 issue 1 of the counter-spy
The quarterly journal of the fifth estate
Called CIA Target Labor
Page 5 -trends section article: Thought Controll
"The Stanford Research Institute (SRI) in Menlo Park, California,has been conducting experiments to determine if computers can read a person's mind.
The issue also talks about the war on drugs.

There are some trendy causality to bell bottom corduroy jeans and counter spying in current events. I would say fear of change is catching up to people.

[Sushan]

In a democracy, voters get the government they deserve. Easily duped voters get corrupt governments. Sophisticated voters get governments that cater to the voters. Thus in order for democracy to represent the voter's interest, the population must have some education. So in the absence of strong public education it is an open question whether the population is better served, statistically by elected officials or whether a benign oligarchy ends up serving the population better.

Why "public" (government-run) education?

There is also the fact that some people are not educable, at least in those matters relevant to voting competence, for either intellectual or temperamental reasons.

Fair questions, here's the answers. Private education always caters to small numbers of the upper classes, ie those who actually "need" the specific value of education the least, therefore it makes the least impact on the society. Public education is consumed by far greater total numbers quantitatively and cannot refuse the unwilling, the underprepared and the disadvantaged (like private schools do) qualitatively. Thus high quality public education has a far greater potential to improve understanding in the population.

Of course some are uneducable, everyone knows that. If you think about it though, that group is heavily weighted towards nonvoters, so it's not really statistically important for the topic of this thread.

I agree that those who go for private education only covers a minority out of the voting population. But I am not sure whether those who go for private education are actually the ones who are willing to get educated and know the true value of education. Today, what matters is not the education, but the certificate. So most people (whether in private sector or government sector) target only for the qualification that will get them a decent job, rather than proper education that will make them better.

[Sushan]

Fair questions, here's the answers. Private education always caters to small numbers of the upper classes, ie those who actually "need" the specific value of education the least, therefore it makes the least impact on the society.

The alternative is some sort of voucher system, in which the State pays the tuition (up to a certain limit) at any school the parents choose, public or private. So far about half the states have some such program. Recent Supreme Court decisions have struck down provisions in state laws which prohibit state education funds to be used at religious schools. The average cost (national) per pupil for public schools is $15,205; of private schools $11,645.

https://www.yahoo.com/now/42-states-whe ... 07815.html

Public education is a real burden to any government. In my country the government provides schooling for everyone till the age of 18 for free, and even the university education for free to those who get selected to state universities. The cost covers a significant proportion out of the GDP. But if the government does not do that most of the parents will simply keep their children home because they value their basic needs rather than education.

[Sushan]

Fair questions, here's the answers. Private education always caters to small numbers of the upper classes, ie those who actually "need" the specific value of education the least, therefore it makes the least impact on the society.

The alternative is some sort of voucher system, in which the State pays the tuition (up to a certain limit) at any school the parents choose, public or private. So far about half the states have some such program. Recent Supreme Court decisions have struck down provisions in state laws which prohibit state education funds to be used at religious schools. The average cost (national) per pupil for public schools is $15,205; of private schools $11,645.

https://www.yahoo.com/now/42-states-whe ... 07815.html

If you want to go there, then let's go there.

First, while private school students outperform public school students, if you control for parental education level and income, there is no difference in performance. Second, since private schools don't require teaching certification and the teachers aren't unionized (their benefits are way lower) and private schools don't have the expense of special education, of course their costs are lower. Not a surprise. However, since their tuition is in addition to paying taxes, they do tend to draw from the higher economic groups (as stated). As to vouchers, there isn't a large unused capacity of high quality private school to provide space for a huge influx of voucher students. As an aside, in states that have voucher programs the performance of voucher students to nonvoucher private students is sub-par. This is expected by the previously mentioned fact that performance is related to parental education level and economic status on average.

A suggestion from my side. Since my country is based on mainly on a state supported education system we see many of these schools lacking in human as well as property resources. The voucher system can be used to rectify that issue, and then even the students from private sector will be attracted to the government sector.

[Sushan]

I'd settle for electors proving that they know the different functions of different levels of government. Not in detail, just to have some semblance of an idea to demonstrate that they can make at least a somewhat informed vote.

Every contributor — i.e. every adult citizen — has a right to a vote. I see no reason to compel, or try to, an "informed" vote. Yes, the desirability of an informed vote is clear, but as a necessary qualification? Too restrictive. Anyone who contributes gets their say, I think.

In a democratic system everyone cannot get their say, but only the majority can. If the majority are "non-informed voters", the result will be unbearable, and it have to be borne by the "informed voters" as well. Amd I think it is unfair as well as a hindrance for the development of a country.

[LuckyR]

In a democracy, voters get the government they deserve. Easily duped voters get corrupt governments. Sophisticated voters get governments that cater to the voters. Thus in order for democracy to represent the voter's interest, the population must have some education. So in the absence of strong public education it is an open question whether the population is better served, statistically by elected officials or whether a benign oligarchy ends up serving the population better.

Why "public" (government-run) education?

There is also the fact that some people are not educable, at least in those matters relevant to voting competence, for either intellectual or temperamental reasons.

Fair questions, here's the answers. Private education always caters to small numbers of the upper classes, ie those who actually "need" the specific value of education the least, therefore it makes the least impact on the society. Public education is consumed by far greater total numbers quantitatively and cannot refuse the unwilling, the underprepared and the disadvantaged (like private schools do) qualitatively. Thus high quality public education has a far greater potential to improve understanding in the population.

Of course some are uneducable, everyone knows that. If you think about it though, that group is heavily weighted towards nonvoters, so it's not really statistically important for the topic of this thread.

I agree that those who go for private education only covers a minority out of the voting population. But I am not sure whether those who go for private education are actually the ones who are willing to get educated and know the true value of education. Today, what matters is not the education, but the certificate. So most people (whether in private sector or government sector) target only for the qualification that will get them a decent job, rather than proper education that will make them better.

Actually when studied, its neither (the education nor the certificate), its the class and wealth of the family (parents).

[Sushan]

Why "public" (government-run) education?

There is also the fact that some people are not educable, at least in those matters relevant to voting competence, for either intellectual or temperamental reasons.

Fair questions, here's the answers. Private education always caters to small numbers of the upper classes, ie those who actually "need" the specific value of education the least, therefore it makes the least impact on the society. Public education is consumed by far greater total numbers quantitatively and cannot refuse the unwilling, the underprepared and the disadvantaged (like private schools do) qualitatively. Thus high quality public education has a far greater potential to improve understanding in the population.

Of course some are uneducable, everyone knows that. If you think about it though, that group is heavily weighted towards nonvoters, so it's not really statistically important for the topic of this thread.

I agree that those who go for private education only covers a minority out of the voting population. But I am not sure whether those who go for private education are actually the ones who are willing to get educated and know the true value of education. Today, what matters is not the education, but the certificate. So most people (whether in private sector or government sector) target only for the qualification that will get them a decent job, rather than proper education that will make them better.

Actually when studied, its neither (the education nor the certificate), its the class and wealth of the family (parents).

I am sorry but I did not get you. Did you relate to choosing private education over the state supported education, or did you relate to the expected outcome of the people who choose private education over the state supported education?

If it is the latter, I know people of wealthy families who obtained MBBS but never worked as a doctor. They just needed the title. Since they already have enough money, what they sought was respect and social acceptance. So they chose an educational certificate in a respectable field.

[Sushan]

Was it Plato who identified the one foreseeable problem with democracy: that anyone could become a politician.

Or... Plato actually identified an enduring strength of democracy. There are a lot of politicians I do not agree with, however I prefer a system which offers all the opportunity to serve as a politician.

Similarly, I prefer a system which allows as many as possible to cast their vote, even though the outcome is not always the one I seek. I am more troubled by the behaviour of many politicians once they attain office, and think a lot more needs to be done to identify and punish corrupt politicians. If someone wants to run for public office, then they must agree to intense scrutiny.

As for any scheme which seeks to prevent those 'without any political literacy' from voting, I think the problems with that line of thought have been well described. Returning to Plato, it seems he originated a form of elitism which endures to this day. How would I feel if told I knew too little about politics or government to be allowed to vote? Not happy at all.

I appreciate the frustration of Sy Borg and others - I share it - however I think there are more useful areas to investigate reform of democracy. In Australia the real problem is not the outright number of people 'without any political literacy' aka idiots or morons, but the fact that our 2 party-dominated system allows for the unscrupulous vote-buying in specific, marginal electorates. I would much prefer larger, multi-member electorates which would more closely reflect voting intentions, rather than the "first past the post" system we have, whereby most voters do not get the representative they voted for.

If there were to be any disallowing of the right to vote, rather than targetting idiots or morons, or plain clods (as determined by some statutory Board for Determining Individual Political Literacy or such) I prefer something along the lines of the (now prohibited) type referred to by GE Morton, whereby those who fail to pay their fair share of tax would be denied the vote.

And to answer GE Morton's question of Tommo: in Australia we are required to have our name on the electoral roll checked off on election days. Lodging a formal vote remains optional, and interestingly the fastest growing category of vote in recent times has been the informal vote. I have made informal votes myself at times, because of living in electorates where the possibility of anything other than an absolute blue-blooded fukkmit being elected is extremely remote, and I have gained more satisfaction from venting my anger on the voting paper. Failure to have one's name checked off incurs a small fine, or at least that is what is meant to happen. I know of people who have been fined, and people who have not, for not having their name checked off on election days.

Thank you for the in-detail explanation. I am not in a position to give my opinions regarding everything you mentioned. But I have witnessed 'multi party electoral system' in my country. Although we have many parties registered in the electoral commission, only the main two parties have run the government throughout the history. What has happened sometimes is one of the main party joining hand in had with some other small parties and gaining the majority of votes. I am not sure whether it is a fault in the electoral system of my country. But as per my understanding, having multiple electoral parties is not the solution for the issue.

[Sushan]

If there were to be any disallowing of the right to vote, rather than targetting idiots or morons, or plain clods (as determined by some statutory Board for Determining Individual Political Literacy or such) I prefer something along the lines of the (now prohibited) type referred to by GE Morton, whereby those who fail to pay their fair share of tax would be denied the vote.

In the US those restrictions typically applied only to elections seeking a tax, such as as annual school levies and bond issues to pay for some specific project, the bonds to be serviced by property tax levies. Voting in such elections was limited to property owners who would be liable for that tax.

Given the Newspeak meaning widely accepted these days for the phrase "fair share," limiting voting to persons who paid it would just enable more parasitism.

Lawmakers should be wise enough to avoid the pitfalls of so-called Newspeak, and rely instead on information held by the tax department to determine whether or not an individual owes a tax debt. What can be considered a fair amount of income tax to be paid will always be contested, however for the sake of this argument the amount set by law can be taken as a fair share. I don't see how more parasitism would be enabled by such a restriction on voting rights.

***

Having thought more about this matter since my last post where I sympathised with Sy Borg about people 'without any political literacy' being allowed to vote, I do have one suggestion for consideration (at least in the Australian context where compulsory voting - or thereabouts - is the law). If a person does not want to vote in elections, they could be given the option to forfeit their voting right, and thereby avoid the risk of receiving a fine. The Forfeiture of Voting Franchise document they sign would include the condition that they of course remain subject to all other laws.

Voting is not mandatory in my country. But that does not prevent people with less political literacy from voting. Everyone have a choice and there are no restrictions. Not knowing that you are an idiot is more dangerous than simply being an idiot. And I think majority of the people who vote without a proper political literacy do not understand the level of their knowledge in politics.

[Sushan]

Every contributor — i.e. every adult citizen — has a right to a vote. I see no reason to compel, or try to, an "informed" vote. Yes, the desirability of an informed vote is clear, but as a necessary qualification? Too restrictive. Anyone who contributes gets their say, I think.

Then we implacably differ.

My mother voted for the Liberal Party in 1972 because she didn't like Gough Whitlam. What did she not like? His "oily, squid lips". She did not know a single policy but she had the same say in our democracy as those with an informed vote. Under no circumstance, was my other fit to vote.

If we are to allow the completely clueless to vote, then voting should be made available to all people of any age. There are ten year-olds capable of far more informed votes than millions of adults.

Your mother's vote was hers to use as she saw fit. The alternative would seem to be that you give her a vote, and then mandate how she might use it. That isn't a vote, it's you, imposing your vote on her. I do not argue for ignorance, or anything like that, but only on the free choice of a voter to use their vote as they see fit. Maybe to spoil the ballot paper, and thereby abstain. Why is that wrong?

If people are okay with uninformed votes being treated the same as informed ones, then they are okay being lead by the likes of dishonest populists Trump, Bolsonaro, Erdigan, Morrison and Johnson - the very types that Socrates warned against. IMO it's a shame that not many heeded him.

Quite true. When all are allowed to vote and all the votes are given the same value, in most occasions the result have been what you have mentioned. It is okay for when the uninformed voters have to bear the consequences as they have a say in that result. But the sad thing is the same bad result being bourn by the informed voters who expected a better change, but ended up being the minority. They just have to live with frustration until the next election.

[Pattern-chaser]

I'd settle for electors proving that they know the different functions of different levels of government. Not in detail, just to have some semblance of an idea to demonstrate that they can make at least a somewhat informed vote.

Every contributor — i.e. every adult citizen — has a right to a vote. I see no reason to compel, or try to, an "informed" vote. Yes, the desirability of an informed vote is clear, but as a necessary qualification? Too restrictive. Anyone who contributes gets their say, I think.

In a democratic system everyone cannot get their say, but only the majority can. If the majority are "non-informed voters", the result will be unbearable, and it have to be borne by the "informed voters" as well. Amd I think it is unfair as well as a hindrance for the development of a country.

I wonder if the 'wisdom of crowds' has a role to play here?

[Robert66]

Was it Plato who identified the one foreseeable problem with democracy: that anyone could become a politician.

Or... Plato actually identified an enduring strength of democracy. There are a lot of politicians I do not agree with, however I prefer a system which offers all the opportunity to serve as a politician.

Similarly, I prefer a system which allows as many as possible to cast their vote, even though the outcome is not always the one I seek. I am more troubled by the behaviour of many politicians once they attain office, and think a lot more needs to be done to identify and punish corrupt politicians. If someone wants to run for public office, then they must agree to intense scrutiny.

As for any scheme which seeks to prevent those 'without any political literacy' from voting, I think the problems with that line of thought have been well described. Returning to Plato, it seems he originated a form of elitism which endures to this day. How would I feel if told I knew too little about politics or government to be allowed to vote? Not happy at all.

I appreciate the frustration of Sy Borg and others - I share it - however I think there are more useful areas to investigate reform of democracy. In Australia the real problem is not the outright number of people 'without any political literacy' aka idiots or morons, but the fact that our 2 party-dominated system allows for the unscrupulous vote-buying in specific, marginal electorates. I would much prefer larger, multi-member electorates which would more closely reflect voting intentions, rather than the "first past the post" system we have, whereby most voters do not get the representative they voted for.

If there were to be any disallowing of the right to vote, rather than targetting idiots or morons, or plain clods (as determined by some statutory Board for Determining Individual Political Literacy or such) I prefer something along the lines of the (now prohibited) type referred to by GE Morton, whereby those who fail to pay their fair share of tax would be denied the vote.

And to answer GE Morton's question of Tommo: in Australia we are required to have our name on the electoral roll checked off on election days. Lodging a formal vote remains optional, and interestingly the fastest growing category of vote in recent times has been the informal vote. I have made informal votes myself at times, because of living in electorates where the possibility of anything other than an absolute blue-blooded fukkmit being elected is extremely remote, and I have gained more satisfaction from venting my anger on the voting paper. Failure to have one's name checked off incurs a small fine, or at least that is what is meant to happen. I know of people who have been fined, and people who have not, for not having their name checked off on election days.

Thank you for the in-detail explanation. I am not in a position to give my opinions regarding everything you mentioned. But I have witnessed 'multi party electoral system' in my country. Although we have many parties registered in the electoral commission, only the main two parties have run the government throughout the history. What has happened sometimes is one of the main party joining hand in had with some other small parties and gaining the majority of votes. I am not sure whether it is a fault in the electoral system of my country. But as per my understanding, having multiple electoral parties is not the solution for the issue.

I was NOT writing about a multi party electoral system, I wrote 'multi-member electorates', which I think would be better than single member electorates. Eg:
Currently in Australia, as in many nations, we are divided into electorates of ~10 to 20,000 voters. At each election, only one representative, or member, is elected. Usually they have been the preferred choice of only about one third of voters. Therefore two thirds of voters are NOT represented by the politician they voted for! This is a huge problem for the political parties other than the traditional two main parties. In Australia the Green vote has steadily grown to ~10%, and Green candidates stand for election in almost every local electorate in the whole nation. Yet very rarely does a local Green candidate actually get elected to represent their electorate. So we have over a million Green voters, and only a few (usually between 1 and 5) local Green members of parliament.
In a multi member electorate system, the electorate itself would be larger (more like ~100,000 voters), and they would be represented in parliament by about 6 or 8 members. In this system, the Green candidate attracting ~10% of the vote has a good chance of becoming one of the 6 or 8 members elected. Across the nation, many more candidates who are not from the major 2 parties would become members of parliament. That is why I wrote that 'larger, multi-member electorates ... would more closely reflect voting intentions'. I doubt we will ever see my preferred system in Australia - the 2 major parties are content with the current setup and very unlikely to support such a change.

[InfinityMuse]

Was it Plato who identified the one foreseeable problem with democracy: that anyone could become a politician.

I appreciate the frustration of Sy Borg and others - I share it - however I think there are more useful areas to investigate reform of democracy. In Australia the real problem is not the outright number of people 'without any political literacy' aka idiots or morons, but the fact that our 2 party-dominated system allows for the unscrupulous vote-buying in specific, marginal electorates. I would much prefer larger, multi-member electorates which would more closely reflect voting intentions, rather than the "first past the post" system we have, whereby most voters do not get the representative they voted for.

If there were to be any disallowing of the right to vote, rather than targetting idiots or morons, or plain clods (as determined by some statutory Board for Determining Individual Political Literacy or such) I prefer something along the lines of the (now prohibited) type referred to by GE Morton, whereby those who fail to pay their fair share of tax would be denied the vote.

I am not in a position to give my opinions regarding everything you mentioned. But I have witnessed 'multi party electoral system' in my country.

Eg:
Currently in Australia, as in many nations, we are divided into electorates of ~10 to 20,000 voters. At each election, only one representative, or member, is elected. Usually they have been the preferred choice of only about one third of voters. Therefore two thirds of voters are NOT represented by the politician they voted for!
In a multi member electorate system, the electorate itself would be larger (more like ~100,000 voters), and they would be represented in parliament by about 6 or 8 members.

In the United States, the electoral college system is the most un-regulated program. The swing states are one thing counting the popular and house vote is the simple part.
The problem is the responsibility vote and the delegation system, witch have kerfunkled the senate filibusters. The serpentine on the senate and people is horrendous.

In Australia do the electorates represent people based on subjugation ( ie. work performance, jobs, job duties, strata of class, sociology, redlining or non redlining of economic sectors of finance, Polly econ, jurist duties, jurisdiction, so on and so Fourth)?

[ernestm]

This topic is about the October 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches by John N. (Jake) Ferris



Since this month's philosophical BOTM is related to 'women gaining right to vote', I thought of discussing the pros and cons of every citizen of a country having the right to vote.

Most of the third world countries were ruled by some of the ancient empires including Great Britain. Although, as I personally believe, these countries were simply robbed by those powerful countries, there are some valuable aspects that they gained from the empires as well. One such thing is the systemized voting system.

But when they gave the right to vote for the locals of these third-world countries, they gave it only to the people of high social status. Later only the right to vote was given to every citizen of these countries, actually by the local rulers and not by the foreign rulers.

The empires may have had different reasons for their actions. But when thinking about how people vote in elections nowadays in these countries, many people just vote without any political literacy. And the politicians simply cheat the poor, less educated, less privileged people and rob their votes.

IMO, this would not have happened if people were filtered when giving the right to vote. What do you think?

Aristotle discusses the rights of women and slaves, and children in the context of households, and came to the conclusion one voting representative, or 'citizen,' for a household was best. It's often ignored that Greece did not view women and slaves as not being represented, because all citizens represented a household.

But perhaps of greater current significance is Aristotle's discussion about the need for all citizens to have equal voting rights. The problem is, if any group is excluded from the right to vote, then it becomes the target of exploitation by the government, which only benefits by acting in the interest of voting citizens. So if there is no representation at all for any group, then democracy has the same problems as an oligarchy, but with an increased risk of revolution.