Is It Time To Reconsider Voting Rights Yet?

[Mudcat]

Well America, I think it's far past time to admit this whole 'absolute freedom' thing isn't working out too well for us. And nothing brings that to light more adequately than the fact that we have Donald "Incompetent Asshat" Trump as president. What makes it worse is that his only legitimate competition for the job was Hillary "Criminally Incompetent" Clinton.

How is it that only the least qualified people are capable of holding this or other positions of authority? I submit, ladies and gentlemen, is that the least qualified people are deciding who is holding this or other positions of authority in this country. Please note that no, I am not talking specifically about blacks or women or gays or illegals or any other group that conservatives like to target.

I'm talking about your average citizen (of which I include myself when I say 'least qualified') because there's an enormous degree of separation between the common man and the president. Simply put, most people are not informed or qualified enough to be making the decision about who should be running the running the country because they are not in possession of enough of the relevant facts.

If you aren't willing to consider restricting the right to vote to only those qualified to vote then would you note agree that there needs to be a drastic change in the electoral process so that we don't have another Donald Trump in office? Because, let's face it, the whole thing has devolved to the point that calling it a three-ringed circus would actually be an insult... To three-ringed circuses.

Please discus.

 

[Loss Leader]

I had this totally impractical idea that every year we select 12 outstanding Public Administration graduate students. Then, we send them for paid internships across government life for the next twenty years - congressional aides, homeland, governor's offices, HUD, DOJ, DOD, everything. Then we have an election for President wherein the only people qualified to run are the graduates of the program.

It's like if Divergent were real but Shailene Woodley went to college instead of starring in The Fault In Our Stars.

 

[Mudcat]

I actually wouldn't be opposed to that idea, to be honest.

 

[McHrozni]

Well America, I think it's far past time to admit this whole 'absolute freedom' thing isn't working out too well for us.

No, it's working well enough. USA needs to change the way elections are handled and replace first past the post with either a runoff election or with a single transferable vote and things will improve very quickly.

McHrozni

 

[Ziggurat]

Well America, I think it's far past time to admit this whole 'absolute freedom' thing isn't working out too well for us.

What do you mean by "absolute freedom"? Because by my understanding of the term, that's something we have never actually had.

 

[Ziggurat]

I had this totally impractical idea that every year we select 12 outstanding Public Administration graduate students. Then, we send them for paid internships across government life for the next twenty years - congressional aides, homeland, governor's offices, HUD, DOJ, DOD, everything. Then we have an election for President wherein the only people qualified to run are the graduates of the program.

It's like if Divergent were real but Shailene Woodley went to college instead of starring in The Fault In Our Stars.

Terrible, terrible idea. It exacerbates the agency problem that government produces. Wherever the interests of government employees and the general population diverge, it ensures that the president will always be on the side of government employees. It would also encourage group-think and discourage novel approaches to problems.

We need government employees to spend LESS time within the bubble of the bureaucracy, not more time.

 

[Mudcat]

No, it's working well enough.

I would argue the opposite, to be honest.

USA needs to change the way elections are handled and replace first past the post with either a runoff election or with a single transferable vote and things will improve very quickly.

McHrozni

Can you please explain further?

What do you mean by "absolute freedom"? Because by my understanding of the term, that's something we have never actually had.

I mean practically unfettered freedom, just for the accident of having been born in America. Yeah freedom is a wonderful thing and I would argue against the unreasonable restriction of freedoms, but I don't think people appreciate the responsibility of using those freedoms responsibly. There are plenty of examples but, to keep the conversation on track, I remind you that it is that freedom is what allowed people to to have Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton as president. Obviously someone (several someones, actually) wasn't exercising their freedom to vote responsibly. Seriously, what rational person would think that either person was competent to hold such a position?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Terrible, terrible idea. It exacerbates the agency problem that government produces. Wherever the interests of government employees and the general population diverge, it ensures that the president will always be on the side of government employees. It would also encourage group-think and discourage novel approaches to problems.

We need government employees to spend LESS time within the bubble of the bureaucracy, not more time.

The Gang of Four had some interesting ideas along these same lines.

 

[Giz]

Well America, I think it's far past time to admit this whole 'absolute freedom' thing isn't working out too well for us. And nothing brings that to light more adequately than the fact that we have Donald "Incompetent Asshat" Trump as president. What makes it worse is that his only legitimate competition for the job was Hillary "Criminally Incompetent" Clinton.

How is it that only the least qualified people are capable of holding this or other positions of authority? I submit, ladies and gentlemen, is that the least qualified people are deciding who is holding this or other positions of authority in this country. Please note that no, I am not talking specifically about blacks or women or gays or illegals or any other group that conservatives like to target.

I'm talking about your average citizen (of which I include myself when I say 'least qualified') because there's an enormous degree of separation between the common man and the president. Simply put, most people are not informed or qualified enough to be making the decision about who should be running the running the country because they are not in possession of enough of the relevant facts.

If you aren't willing to consider restricting the right to vote to only those qualified to vote then would you note agree that there needs to be a drastic change in the electoral process so that we don't have another Donald Trump in office? Because, let's face it, the whole thing has devolved to the point that calling it a three-ringed circus would actually be an insult... To three-ringed circuses.

Please discus.

You mean, we can't trust the people to take the the nation in the right direction, we need an elite group or person to set policy. If only there were a term for setting aside universal suffrage in favor of a fuhrerprinzip...

 

[Loss Leader]

We could have primaries where people vote for their first and second choices. First gets 3 points, 2nd gets 1 or 2 points. Then you get a candidate who is less polarizing for the party and a field of 15 people doesn't crowd everybody out.

 

[Ziggurat]

I mean practically unfettered freedom, just for the accident of having been born in America.

I was born in America, and I've never, ever had that. I have considerable freedom, but it's not practically unfettered. I encounter restrictions on that freedom daily.

Obviously someone (several someones, actually) wasn't exercising their freedom to vote responsibly. Seriously, what rational person would think that either person was competent to hold such a position?

I don't really think freedom is the culprit here. But regardless, any time you want to restrict people's freedom, you must grant someone (which always ends up being the government in one form or another) the power to do so. And while you may complain that the choice people have made here is bad (and I don't dispute that), on what basis can you claim that government has proven itself worthy of the incredible power you want to grant it? The government too has failed. That's a large part of what got us in this current mess.

 

[Mudcat]

You mean, we can't trust the people to take the the nation in the right direction, we need an elite group or person to set policy. If only there were a term for setting aside universal suffrage in favor of a fuhrerprinzip...

If having a more dictatorial government means no more people like Trump can get the vote, than I'm all for it. The people have spoken and proven they categorically are not capable making rational and informed decisions about who should or should not be steering this boat.

Have a better idea? Provide it or hit the street.

 

[Mudcat]

I was born in America, and I've never, ever had that. I have considerable freedom, but it's not practically unfettered. I encounter restrictions on that freedom daily.

And a fat lot of good those restrictions do. Anytime that you remind people that they're a part of society and thus have certain obligations to it they get all pissy about it and complain that they have freedoms.

I don't really think freedom is the culprit here.

Than what is?

But regardless, any time you want to restrict people's freedom, you must grant someone (which always ends up being the government in one form or another) the power to do so. And while you may complain that the choice people have made here is bad (and I don't dispute that), on what basis can you claim that government has proven itself worthy of the incredible power you want to grant it? The government too has failed. That's a large part of what got us in this current mess.

If you have a better solution than feel free to provide it.

 

[Belz...]

Well America, I think it's far past time to admit this whole 'absolute freedom' thing isn't working out too well for us. And nothing brings that to light more adequately than the fact that we have Donald "Incompetent Asshat" Trump as president. What makes it worse is that his only legitimate competition for the job was Hillary "Criminally Incompetent" Clinton.

How is it that only the least qualified people are capable of holding this or other positions of authority? I submit, ladies and gentlemen, is that the least qualified people are deciding who is holding this or other positions of authority in this country.

Yeah well the issue in a democracy is that it works best when the electorate is well informed, something that even with the information age you can't expect. But if you start putting standards on who can vote and why, and who can run for office and why, who writes the rules? Who decides who is qualified, and how do we ensure that those standards aren't manipulated to only benefit a very select few who view themselves as the moral guardians?

There's no solution to this. You want democracy, you have to take the bad with the good.

 

[Foolmewunz]

You mean, we can't trust the people to take the the nation in the right direction, we need an elite group or person to set policy. If only there were a term for setting aside universal suffrage in favor of a fuhrerprinzip...

We call it "Thailand".

 

[Mumbles]

I'd actually like to make it easier to vote.

Get rid of all prohibitions for former felons. Open up more voting locations, or allow voting by mail or by internet. More places for in-person voting (which I love doing, personally). And stop idiots from harassing voters, no matter who they're for.

ETA: also, primaries should be held on one day. One reason I didn't vote for Clinton or sanders is that, by the time we got to vote, Clinton had won. The fact that neither was a great candidate was secondary...

 

[McHrozni]

Can you please explain further?

A good deal of the problems in US politics - from Trump to Hillary and more - could be resolved if more candidates could hope to scoop the seat. First past the post system favors two parties, each with a single candidate. This binary option with the overwhelming majority of races leads to problems down the line.

With a runoff election, or the more modern single transferable vote, you could vote for a candidate from any party, and only vote for the lesser evil some of the time and not much of the time. The improvement is notable, and would go above and beyond any improvements you could obtain from choosing who gets to vote. It is also constitutional because it doesn't betray the founding principles of the country. Leaving the voting rights only to some people does that.

There are two more minor issues that would be beneficial to US - campaign silence starting 18-24 hours before the polls open and going on until the polls close. Election day harassment and campaigning is so 18th century. Another thing is mandatory voter participation, the state demands you cast a vote. The vote can be blank if you want to, but every other year you're obligated to cast it. This significantly reduces the return of the negative propaganda. Coupled with more than two choices in the elections it effectively destroys it. This would force the candidates to focus on why to vote for them and not why not to vote for the other guy, changing the political landscape to the better.

I realize that all of this means it would be probably easier to only allow people who score over 110 on an IQ test to vote though.

McHrozni

 

[Belz...]

I'd actually like to make it easier to vote.

Get rid of all prohibitions for former felons. Open up more voting locations, or allow voting by mail or by internet. More places for in-person voting (which I love doing, personally). And stop idiots from harassing voters, no matter who they're for.

Harassing voters? What are you refering to?

 

[Ziggurat]

And a fat lot of good those restrictions do.

That's not really true. For example, traffic laws. They do considerable good. Not so much the speed limits, but the stuff about which side of the road to drive on, what to do at stop signs/stop lights, etc. They're so effective and purposeful that most of the time they just fade into the background. They don't feel like restrictions, but like what you're just supposed to do. But they are, in fact, restrictions.

I'm not against all restrictions on freedoms, but they have to be well-justified. Restrictions on political rights are among the most difficult to justify.

Than what is?

In large part, the failure of the governing elite. With an assist from other factors like an increasing cultural divide between rural and urban life, etc.

If you have a better solution than feel free to provide it.

I would first and foremost caution against the idea that there even is *A* solution. There are lots of things we can do that I think will improve things, but no one master plan. For example, term limits might help. Ending the tax break that universities get on their entitlements might help. But it can't be fixed in one go, because it wasn't broken in one go.

 

[Beerina]

Terrible, terrible idea. It exacerbates the agency problem that government produces. Wherever the interests of government employees and the general population diverge, it ensures that the president will always be on the side of government employees. It would also encourage group-think and discourage novel approaches to problems.

We need government employees to spend LESS time within the bubble of the bureaucracy, not more time.

Something like 95%+ of all testimony before Congress are government employees themselves, which is government pleading to itself for its own growth. These suggestions just make these things worse (to say nothing of attempts at factional capture of the power anyway, which will merrily go on.)

Just who does one think will seek out this power? It's like arguing for communism because it puts those evil capitalists in their place, when all you've done is shut down all but one avenue for power, and therefore, wealth. Who the heck do you think will go for that astounding power?