Qualifications for suffrage?

[ductonius]

I think its completely and totally asinine that time and place of birth are virtually the only criteria that a person has to conform to in order to qualify for the vote. Since a person has no control over where and when they are born having that as pretty much the only qualification is paramount to handing out a vote to a portion of the earth’s population on a roll of the dice.

The question is then: what criteria should there be on voting?

The goal of the criteria should be to ensure that those who qualify for voting are not only more likely to be informed about the choices they're making, but that they will make their choice with the interest of the country in mind as opposed to themselves.

The old way of doing this was to only allow those who had a significant investment in a country - the land owners - to vote. This was fraught with inequities because at the time it was difficult to become a land owner if your family did not already own land, and land ownership was restricted to certain segments of the population particularly men, though not strictly.

This was dropped in favor of universal suffrage on the principal that all men are created equal and should therefore have a equal say in their country.

However, universal suffrage does not guarantee that those voting are either informed about thier decision or that they have the countries best interest in mind when they do.

Therefore, I put fourth the argument that the restriction of the vote to land owners (who are citizens of the country) should be reinstated. I do this on the basis that it is easy enough for anyone to buy and own land nowadays; there is no gender or family restriction on owning land and land - a suburban house for example - is easy enough to acquire if one is so inclined to do so.

What are your thoughts on restricting suffrage? Should there be criteria placed on voting?

 

[Direwolf]

I think the current system is the best you're ever gonna get. The landowning thing is stupid...people with apartments should have no say in what goes on?
As it is, while the people may vote for their best interests, the people also make up the country, so usually it works out that they're infact voting for the country's best interests.

 

[Dedalus]

your theory relies on people having the intial capital to invest in land, and not everyone who wants to vote has the ability to raise enough funds to invest in land. so essentially what you're putting forward simplyfies to " you can only vote if you have enough money". although i do applaud you for forward thinking.

i too dislike the current system. i month or so ago, i was a little bit tipsy and i suggested that people who have an IQ over 120 should be allowed to vote. of course it's very exclusive, and el Chi pointed out that IQ tests are notoriously biased to a certain way of thinking. but i definitely think it's along the right sort of lines. being of a certain physical age does not mean you are of a competent mental age.

maybe the current system could remain, and instead of banter between parties, each candidate sends out a little portfolio about their party and where they want to take the country and all other sorts of stuff. this pack would be compiled by an independant committee. to qualify, citizens would be required to read the packs (which would not be overly complicated or time consuming) and return a signed form. it's not a fool proof system by any means.

anyway, i dunno, seems a bit too restrictive in one light, but absolutely necessary in another.

 

[ductonius]

I think the current system is the best you're ever gonna get. The landowning thing is stupid...people with apartments should have no say in what goes on?

Other than paper and a bank account, there is nothing connecting people who rent apartments to the country itself. They are, in effect, transient. They could - should they desire to - get up and leave anytime they wanted and leave nothing behind.

As it is, while the people may vote for their best interests, the people also make up the country, so usually it works out that they're infact voting for the country's best interests.

This is debatable. It is in many peoples personal interest to have the rest of the country pay for them to sit around and do nothing. However, you would be hard pressed to argue that its in the best interest of the country to pay for these people to do nothing.

Personal interests do not equal national interests.

 

[PunisherUSA]

The current criteria are to allow all those born in the time/place to be equal. This has it's advantadges and disadvantadges. 'Uninformed' people who fit the criteria can vote. That is a bad thing. 'Informed' people not born in the proper time/place will be excluded, despite being the ideal person to vote. That is also a bad thing.

The only issue with the 'landowner' voting system is it widens the gap between the upper/middle class civilians and the lower class. Anyone who owns land will be able to vote to cut benefits for the poor and give them to themselves.

I don't know what system would work best. Every sytem has it's flaws.

Oops, I think i meant to vote 'Yes' up top, but like I'm saying, no systemworks so it really doesn't matter whether it changes or not, as there will always be some flaws to the system.

 

[CptStern]

landowners only-vote? back to the feudal system? talk about elite-ism. Democracy (in theory) isnt only for the privledged few that can afford land. What about all of the people that rent?

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

I like the way they did it in Starship troopers (it was explained bewtter in the book) but you had to become a "citizen" before you were allowed to vote.

However the current system is probably the best we have had up to date and i dont think it will change for a while. Like Dedalus said, Land ownership is very unfair because not everyone is able to get hold of land so easily. Its just a backwards way of thinking really.

 

[Direwolf]

Actually, I do like the information package idea, in that it forces the candidates to run on a certain set of principles. They can't say one thing to one crowd and something else to another without looking stupid.

 

[mortiz]

Only having land owners vote is rather dumb, they'd always vote conservative, because it's in their best interests.

 

[CptStern]

I'm a land owner and have never voted conservative ...so are my parents, my brothers, my friends ...all landowners ..no conservatives

 

[PunisherUSA]

That's not his point that you as a land owner would vote conservatively. It's that the poor (for sake of arguement, poor is synonomous with not owning land) are typically (not always) in favor of welfare programs and most liberal points of view. Under the landowning voter idea, all these 'poor' would be excluded, and thus a noticeable, alhough not major, portion of liberal voters.

I think that's mortiz's point (at least I hope) and it just needed to be reworded.

 

[mortiz]

That's not his point that you as a land owner would vote conservatively. It's that the poor (for sake of arguement, poor is synonomous with not owning land) are typically (not always) in favor of welfare programs and most liberal points of view. Under the landowning voter idea, all these 'poor' would be excluded, and thus a noticeable, alhough not major, portion of liberal voters.

I think that's mortiz's point (at least I hope) and it just needed to be reworded.

yes yes, that's what I meant.

I meant generally speaking, only conservatives would be getting the positions in office and legislation passed through because of the lack of liberal voters.

 

[CptStern]

k, I did misunderstand your statement ...now that you've clarified, it makes sense

I'll try to refrain from making "knee-jerk-isms"

 

[ComradeBadger]

I don't like the idea of restrictions on voting. In Dedalus's example, I'd be unable to vote, since my IQ is waaay below 120.

 

[Voodoo_Chile]

I think people should have to take some sort of test which proves they have the mental maturity to vote.This would allow 15,16 year olds to vote(and lower) if they passed the test and got their "Voting Licence"(Like the Citizenship in Starship Trooopers without the nessecity to fight giant bugs).THis would also exclude dumbasses who put down BugsBunny when they vote.