Should People Vote?

[Dinwar]

Mods: I'm putting this here because I believe this is a more general topic than "Should USA citizens vote?" If you disagree, please move it.

In a discussion about Starship Troopers (surprise surprise ) we got into the topic of whether or not people should vote, and what the best situation for voting might be. Thus far, there are three options on the table:

1) Universal suffrage
2) Community service earns suffrage
3) Something in between

Personally, I'm of the "something in between" mindset. Don't get me wrong--I have no patience for the stupidity of racial or ethnic criteria on voting, or gender, or anything like that. My argument is that if one is ignorant of the issues (nothing against that person--I've met a lot of engineers surprisingly ignorant about basic biology, and a lot of doctors ignorant about basic geology, and the like) society as a whole is better off without your opinions. There's little value to the opinions of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, and history has shown time and time again (no matter what your political views I feel this will hold true) that the ignorant are too easily manipulated. Let the people who care enough to learn the basics, at least, state their opinions.

I practice what I preach. The first year I'm in a new city, I don't vote in the local elections, period. I don't know enough about the city, and therefore cannot hope to hold an informed opinion on the matters at hand. The second year....it depends. In grad school, no. I didn't pay enough attention, and I was transient anyway; I'm not going to force people to deal with my opinions when I'm just going to leave in a year. In other cases, sure, the second year I voted.

I'm not entirely sure how to scale this up to a society-wide thing....I know that encouraging large voter turnouts isn't the way to go. Perhaps make voting annoying, but possible, for everyone?

Heinlein's view was that one must do community service to earn the right to vote. His argument was (boiled down--for the long version, read Starship Troopers) doing community service, through the military or other means, is the minimum necessary to demonstrate that you care about the society. If you're unwilling to do that you have demonstrated yourself to be unwilling to do the minimum, and thus get no say in the laws. You have most other rights, you just can't vote.

Universal suffrage seems to be the predominant model in Western democracy. Any high school civics/government text book can give you the arguments for it.

So, what say you? What is the best way to run a democracy/representative republic? What should be the deciding factor on who gets to vote?

 

[gumboot]

Two, definitely. Democracy was created, in the first place, to ensure that government worked for the good of the society, and not for the benefit of individuals. Those who aren't willing to contribute to the collective improvement of society through community work shouldn't get any say in what direction society should go.

 

[Beerina]

Two, definitely. Democracy was created, in the first place, to ensure that government worked for the good of the society, and not for the benefit of individuals. Those who aren't willing to contribute to the collective improvement of society through community work shouldn't get any say in what direction society should go.

And yet...capitalism has put community service and volunteerism to shame in actually benefiting society.

Heinlein's idea was military service -- if you weren't prepared to defend freedom, you should have no say in how the government operates. It's hard to argue against that point.

Ironically some European nations are almost this way, in requiring universal military service for 2 years after high school, before college.

 

[Toontown]

Two, definitely. Democracy was created, in the first place, to ensure that government worked for the good of the society, and not for the benefit of individuals. Those who aren't willing to contribute to the collective improvement of society through community work shouldn't get any say in what direction society should go.

Of course. And why would those who are unwilling to contribute even want to have a say in the direction society goes? It is their choice to be uninvolved. They should be happy with the free ride, and should not rock the boat.

 

[R.Mackey]

The only answer I'll accept is the first one. Universal suffrage.

Without it, voting becomes a privilege, not a right. Maybe some voters are lazy bums and abuse their rights, maybe to the detriment of anyone, but the alternative is simply unacceptable. No government should be allowed to exist without the consent of the governed. And without the right to vote, what alternative do they have?

This is how violent revolutions are sown. And little good comes after that.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

I am a firm believer in compulsory voting for all of legal age.

 

[gumboot]

And yet...capitalism has put community service and volunteerism to shame in actually benefiting society.

Heinlein's idea was military service -- if you weren't prepared to defend freedom, you should have no say in how the government operates. It's hard to argue against that point.

Ironically some European nations are almost this way, in requiring universal military service for 2 years after high school, before college.

Military service was only one of the options offered in Starship Troopers. It's the one that every focuses on, partly because it makes it sound controversial, and partly because that happens to be the service that the protagonist of the book ends up with.

For my part I'd imagine a slightly different system so it wasn't that you put your life on hold while you did two years service necessarily, but rather that your work could qualify you anyway. For example if you decided you wanted to be a lawyer, so went to law school, and then spent a couple of years working at the government prosecutor's office or something before moving on to a private law firm, that would qualify you for public service. Likewise if a top plastic surgeon started their career in the ER of a major city hospital.

I think actually a lot of people in today's society would already qualify under such a system, so I don't think it'd be as much of an upheaval as others might imagine.

The real issue is what the vote means. Some see it as a basic right. I don't, to be honest. I think we're privelaged to live in a democratic society where our views decide how our government runs. Most people, through history, haven't enjoyed the benefits of such a society, and plenty of democratic states have fallen into anarchy, facism, dictatorship, and a myriad of other less appealing forms of government. So there's a responsibility inherent in enjoying the privelage of democracy. That responsibility is in ensuring that society remains strong and functional, so that it remains democratic.

 

[DC]

Sure you should vote.

 

[Pixel42]

Heinlein's view was that one must do community service to earn the right to vote.

Authors can explore alternatives without necessarily advocating them. I'm not saying that's what Heinlein was doing, in fact I suspect the system he describes in Starship Troopers was one he approved of, but you can't assume it.

No government should be allowed to exist without the consent of the governed.

Turnout is typically about 40% in many democracies so plenty of the governed haven't given their consent, yet the governments are allowed to exist.

Frankly I see little difference between a society in which everyone has the right to vote but not everybody bothers to exercise it, and one in which everybody can earn the right to vote but not everybody bothers to earn it. As I said in the other thread I doubt it would make much difference in practice, because the people who care enough to vote now would care enough to do the community service, and the people who don't care enough to vote now wouldn't.

The system Heinlein describes is very different to one in which people are denied the right to vote because of their gender, class, race or status. I'd say it is, in fact, a form of universal suffrage; the only difference to the current system is that people who want to vote would have to get off their arses and make a contribution to their society, rather than just get off their arses and make it down to the polling station.

 

[Kid Eager]

Universal suffrage, with the following conditions:
- voting is compulsory - you have both rights and responsibilities
- by declaring yourself FMOTL, you lose the right to vote and are required to use national facilities and infrastructure on a pay-per-use basis
- anybody who expresses the desire to be a politician is ineligible to hold public office. They remain real estate agents, property developers and lawyers forever...

 

[theprestige]

Two, definitely. Democracy was created, in the first place, to ensure that government worked for the good of the society, and not for the benefit of individuals.

What does this mean? Are you referring to the form of democracy practiced by some ancient Greek city-states? The democracy of the Roman Republic? The democratic system spelled out in the U.S. Constitution?

Who created the democracy you refer to, and what evidence do you have as to exactly why they created it?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I know many people who should not vote and should never have voted.

 

[Aidoneus]

The major problem I see with compulsory voting is that those who are ignorant of the issues will constitute a large proportion of the electorate.

I've often wondered the pros and cons of a system whereby voting is compulsory, but voters are required to prove their knowledge of certain issues on the ballot paper. If they cannot do so, no penalties are applied (as would be to those who did not vote at all) but their vote simply is not counted.

 

[DC]

The major problem I see with compulsory voting is that those who are ignorant of the issues will constitute a large proportion of the electorate.

I've often wondered the pros and cons of a system whereby voting is compulsory, but voters are required to prove their knowledge of certain issues on the ballot paper. If they cannot do so, no penalties are applied (as would be to those who did not vote at all) but their vote simply is not counted.

on the other hand it would increase the number of people that will inform themself about the issue, because they know they have to vote.

 

[Arcade22]

I'm clueless when it comes to macroeconomics. I might know what a recession is and roughly where my taxes go but i sure as hell wouldn't want to influence the policies that form the economy of the country that I'm living in. But such is the way of the democratic game.

In short: there should be some form of test that shows if you're smart and enlightened enough to influence the political system. Teaching kids rigorously on economics, and not just your own private economy, is obviously a requirement.

 

[Dinwar]

on the other hand it would increase the number of people that will inform themself about the issue, because they know they have to vote.

Will it? I wonder....

I find it somehow ironic that people will turn voting from a right to an obligation, enforcible by (I assume) armed force. "Do your civic duty or go to jail". Worse, this ignores the fact that many people are ignorant of the issues. What value is there in millions of random opinions, or worse opinions based on misinformation? Sure, it makes us feel warm and fuzzy, because we're being perfectly equal and forcing everyone to do what we consider their duty--but what about people like me, who acknowledge a very real lack of information on their part and abstain because they consider an uninformed opinion to be worse than no opinion? I suddenly become a criminal, not because I violated anyone's right, not because I harmed anyone, but because I was choosing a means of exercising one of my rights in a responsible manner, and society as a whole disagreed with me on what constitutes a responsible manner. Is that enough to put me in jail for?

Worse, it increases exponentially the chance that a skilled speaker will sway voters if everyone is forced to vote. Right now a VERY popular election can expect what, 50% voter turnout? If voter turnout is enforced at 100%, we can assume that at least many of those people aren't going to be informed on the issues. They're going to be swayed by the worst arguments and fallacies imaginable (they already are, according to BOTH sides and nearly every independant).

I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong; I can just see all kinds of problems with it, ranging from the abstract to the practical. Of course, many say the same about my proposed solution.

Authors can explore alternatives without necessarily advocating them. I'm not saying that's what Heinlein was doing, in fact I suspect the system he describes in Starship Troopers was one he approved of, but you can't assume it.

My appologies. I intended to mean that he presented this society and argued for it in the book; other works (Stranger in a Strange Land comes to mind) indicate that he thought other systems could be at least equally effective, if not more so.

the only difference to the current system is that people who want to vote would have to get off their arses and make a contribution to their society

This is really why I reject Heinlein's system: I disagree with him on what constitutes service to society. The military is not a productive entity; it doesn't matter how many bombs you blow up, you'll never raise a pig with bombs. That's not to say it's not an IMPORTANT entity--anyone who's ever done remodelling knows that sometimes destruction is critical to construction--just that it doesn't produce goods. This is important, because it means that without non-military people, the military cannot function. At the least you need farmers and people to make the weapons (I should say, I'm assuming a standing army here, as presented in Heinlein's book). Yet in Heinlein's system the farmer who fed the troops is disenfranchised, and the troops are given the right to vote. Similarly, the guy making the gun (or the guy mining, smelting, forging, and fabricating the pieces to make the gun) is considered to not be contributing to society. The teachers aren't necessarily considered to be contributing to society. Yes, I know, Heinlein included other types of service along with military service--but industry, which the services he wanted people to do rely on, was not one of them (Rico's father demonstrates this). Also, how would my company, that does environmental remediation and construction monitoring, be classified?

In the end you'd have to pick and choose what criteria for "service to hte community" you'd use, and I can't see an objective way to do that.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Frankly I see little difference between a society in which everyone has the right to vote but not everybody bothers to exercise it, and one in which everybody can earn the right to vote but not everybody bothers to earn it.

I do. You are passing the baton of voting from right to privilege. If I choose to not vote (as sometimes I do, usually when I move), that doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to vote. Lack of expression for my rights does not negate them - privacy being comparable example.

I'd say it is, in fact, a form of universal suffrage; the only difference to the current system is that people who want to vote would have to get off their arses and make a contribution to their society, rather than just get off their arses and make it down to the polling station.

It's not universal suffrage by any reasonable definition - you're excluding people, unless "contribution" is compulsory.

I'd say contribution is compulsory already. Whether it's working, going to school, renting/owning property you are contributing to society - which most people do everyday.

 

[R.Mackey]

Turnout is typically about 40% in many democracies so plenty of the governed haven't given their consent, yet the governments are allowed to exist.

Frankly I see little difference between a society in which everyone has the right to vote but not everybody bothers to exercise it, and one in which everybody can earn the right to vote but not everybody bothers to earn it. As I said in the other thread I doubt it would make much difference in practice, because the people who care enough to vote now would care enough to do the community service, and the people who don't care enough to vote now wouldn't.

I do. You are passing the baton of voting from right to privilege. If I choose to not vote (as sometimes I do, usually when I move), that doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to vote. Lack of expression for my rights does not negate them - privacy being comparable example.

What he said.

Suppose it were a different right up for debate -- in the United States, only about 30% of people own a firearm. We should take that right away, it won't matter, will it?

Less than 5% ever exercise their right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. May as well be useless. Don't need it?

Not voting is a choice. A stupid one, in my opinion, but it's a very, very important one to have -- and once a right like this is lost, we are unlikely to ever get it back.

I'm similarly underwhelmed by the notion of compulsory voting. Why ask your government to force you to do anything? It's none of their business.

And I also put my money where my mouth is. I volunteer about 30 days a year in a non-profit that, among other things, reminds people of their public debt, educates them about our American history and just how dear these rights are, and implores them to vote, to stay in contact with their elected representatives, and to be proactive in their own public welfare. Much better that this is handled by individuals than passing more stupid laws forcing one to do it.

 

[IchabodPlain]

I'm similarly underwhelmed by the notion of compulsory voting. Why ask your government to force you to do anything? It's none of their business.

I agree, but for a different reason. A large amount of people who don't vote, shouldn't vote. They typically aren't well versed in the issues/candidates - how many people who know local/national political happenings well don't vote? Forcing someone into the booth who wouldn't have otherwise bothered seems silly.

 

[Vorticity]

Heinlein's idea was military service -- if you weren't prepared to defend freedom, you should have no say in how the government operates. It's hard to argue against that point.

Wait, didn't you argue in another thread that those in the military should be denied the right to vote?