The entire problem is about who deems who as being sufficiently “educated” or “informed” to vote. Universal suffrage has its problems, but I can’t think of any scenario that would not unfairly disenfranchise people.
The greater problem concerns why certain members of the electorate aren’t armed with the facts needed to make an informed decision in voting. One problem, in my opinion, lies in how news is disseminated. I believe that any outlet that brands itself “news” should by law be required to adhere to certain standards of journalistic integrity, objectivity and truthfulness. (Fox News would then have to clean up its act or call itself something other than “news”.) I also believe that students should be taught critical thinking skills in high school.
Someone, somewhere already had a similar discussion to this and decided that 18 was a good age to let people vote. Makes it easy to just refer to someone’s age.
The real question for me is what the contents of the test would be like. I agree with such a test in principle as I think it could get people to think more about the consequences of their vote, and perhaps turn it into less of a popularity contest.
[quote=“NY Times”]
“To fail to have any standard that requires a person to have a grasp of what the process is all about would degrade the voting process,” said Dr. Paul S. Appelbaum, a Columbia University psychiatry professor who was a leader of a study that asked Alzheimer’s patients to choose between hypothetical candidates and describe how elections work.[/quote]
That changed during the Vietnam War when it was realized how unfair it was that people aged 18, 19 and 20 were being sent to fight a war waged by politicians they couldn’t vote for or against.
But then they’d all grow up to be republicans! [/quote]
I’m fairly certain - and I state this with only the first of this evening’s many tequila-based beverages in me - that in general, the higher the education, the less conservative and the less religious one gets, on average of course. So if everyone had a college degree for example, we’d probably end up with fewer bushes and more Imam Obamas (to quote a famous lyric from The Tokens).
It’s OK with me, with the following proviso: Those who pass the test should be allowed to opt out, to forfeit their right to vote, if that’s what they choose. But those who opt out must also be ostracized; they must be barred from associating with the enlightened elite.
That way, those who opted out will have a better chance of surviving when the unenlightened non-elites decide it’s time for a bloodbath.
[quote=“TwoTongues”]I’m fairly certain - and I state this with only the first of this evening’s many tequila-based beverages in me - that in general, the higher the education, the less conservative. . . .[/quote] In general, jobs which require more education involve more abstraction than those which require less. And in general, the more abstraction is involved in something, the greater is the tendency to snooker people (customers, clients, the public, etc.).
[quote]. . . and the less religious one gets, on average of course.[/quote] Maybe that’s ‘cause those folks get to thinkin’ they might be God, or something like it. You know, on average.
[quote=“Charlie Jack”]It’s OK with me, with the following proviso: Those who pass the test should be allowed to opt out, to forfeit their right to vote, if that’s what they choose. But those who opt out must also be ostracized; they must be barred from associating with the enlightened elite.
That way, those who opted out will have a better chance of surviving when the unenlightened non-elites decide it’s time for a bloodbath.
[quote=“TwoTongues”]I’m fairly certain - and I state this with only the first of this evening’s many tequila-based beverages in me - that in general, the higher the education, the less conservative. . . .[/quote] In general, jobs which require more education involve more abstraction than those which require less. And in general, the more abstraction is involved in something, the greater is the tendency to snooker people (customers, clients, the public, etc.).
Maybe… or it could just be that the more educated a person gets, on average, the more intelligent they get and the more rational they become. Also in general, the more education they get, the more they are exposed to other views and experiences, so they become more tolerant and understanding of other people’s points of view. Also a greater wish to see all boats lifted and not just survival of the fittest. Thus less conservatism and libertarianism, more liberals. Also, less irrational religion.
And as for the bloodbath - riiiiight, that’s the only way it’ll end, couldn’t possibly have a good outcome.
The minimum voting age is an arbitrary “voting test” - criteria anyway - that at its heart is intended to prevent “obviously” insufficiently educated/rational/moral individuals from voting, with the general understanding that having insufficiently educated/rational/moral voters is a bad thing. The assumption is you need at least a high school education to be sufficiently mature to make a “good” vote. The intention of the minimum voting age is clear. Yet no bloodbath… strange… Of course a bloodbath from teenagers is unlikely on a large scale, but the point is that the intention - to help ensure insufficiently educated or experienced people don’t F up the system - can be extended to other criteria, potentially including literacy tests.
Same thing goes for disqualifying the legally insane from voting.
[quote=“TwoTongues”][quote=“Charlie Jack”]It’s OK with me, with the following proviso: Those who pass the test should be allowed to opt out, to forfeit their right to vote, if that’s what they choose. But those who opt out must also be ostracized; they must be barred from associating with the enlightened elite.
That way, those who opted out will have a better chance of surviving when the unenlightened non-elites decide it’s time for a bloodbath.
[quote=“TwoTongues”]I’m fairly certain - and I state this with only the first of this evening’s many tequila-based beverages in me - that in general, the higher the education, the less conservative. . . .[/quote] In general, jobs which require more education involve more abstraction than those which require less. And in general, the more abstraction is involved in something, the greater is the tendency to snooker people (customers, clients, the public, etc.).
Maybe… or it could just be that the more educated a person gets, on average, the more intelligent they get and the more rational they become. Also in general, the more education they get, the more they are exposed to other views and experiences, so they become more tolerant and understanding of other people’s points of view. Also a greater wish to see all boats lifted and not just survival of the fittest. Thus less conservatism and libertarianism, more liberals. Also, less irrational religion.
And as for the bloodbath - riiiiight, that’s the only way it’ll end, couldn’t possibly have a good outcome.
The minimum voting age is an arbitrary “voting test” - criteria anyway - that at its heart is intended to prevent “obviously” insufficiently educated/rational/moral individuals from voting, with the general understanding that having insufficiently educated/rational/moral voters is a bad thing. The assumption is you need at least a high school education to be sufficiently mature to make a “good” vote. The intention of the minimum voting age is clear. Yet no bloodbath… strange… Of course a bloodbath from teenagers is unlikely on a large scale, but the point is that the intention - to help ensure insufficiently educated or experienced people don’t F up the system - can be extended to other criteria, potentially including literacy tests.
Same thing goes for disqualifying the legally insane from voting.[/quote]
It would be funny if it weren’t so sad that you propose to disenfranchise people while speaking of tolerance and understanding.
You accused another poster of “slippery slope” thinking. I’d say a more apt description of your proposal would be “snookery slope,” in that it would almost certainly be used as a pretext to disenfranchise the “wrong sorts.” In other words, it would be little more than an attempt to neutralize those whose ideas and beliefs are unacceptably different from yours.
But then they’d all grow up to be republicans! [/quote]
I’m fairly certain - and I state this with only the first of this evening’s many tequila-based beverages in me - that in general, the higher the education, the less conservative and the less religious one gets, on average of course. So if everyone had a college degree for example, we’d probably end up with fewer bushes and more Imam Obamas (to quote a famous lyric from The Tokens).[/quote]
Can critical thinking and high school be used in the same sentence? I’ve mentioned this and I’ll mention it again. High school teachers are motivated by mediocrity. Who becomes a teacher in a public school system? Someone who loved their high school years and who wants 2 months of vacation. Most of us enjoyed high school socially, but learned jack shit academically. Couldn’t wait to get out and go on to university. Other people can’t wait to get out to learn a trade. The people that loved those years, are lazy, and couldn’t get into any better faculty, choose teaching. And then the union protects their job for life and pays senior union leadership a six-figure salary. There are some great teachers but they often don’t teach in the public system and why should they? Overseas contracts in international schools and private schools in their home countries take the best and the brightest. I respect social workers and early-child educators a hell of a lot more. They take home shit pay but actually try to help the less fortunate. Teachers? They are full of themselves and actually think of themselves as a profession. Of cuorse, there are a minority of very dedicated public teachers, but funny enough, they are the ones that are usually harsh critics of the existing sytems.
Two Tongues, I take exception to your belief that more education=liberal. A combination of events can turn someone from one side of the spectrum to another, and I think education only plays a part. Sure, education can be a life-enhancing event, but does it make someone more or less liberal? I think it depends on personal circumstance. What about someone from an average background being let into an elite school? For example, in Clarence Thomas’s case, I would argue that more education made him more conservative. Depends entirely on their background, where they go to school and a whole bunch of other factors such as mentorship, job experiences, taxation rates in the country etc. For example, when Britain taxed people in the upper bracket (97% of their income) in the late 60s, I’m sure it made a lot of Oxbridge grads hate socialism.
Therefore, if anything, uni education taught me to think critically, but it didn’t cause me to change politically (I was left going in and left coming out but more suspicious of anyone with a cause). It was real life events such as being a part of a successful company (when it went from a regional to international company and the work that involved), being mentored by conservative-minded people a hell of a lot smarter than myself, and being involved with government overseas and seeing the limitations, personal vendettas, and most importantly, the waste, that caused me to become more right-wing.
In my opinion, the Australian system, where a high-caste of government Mandarin decides that everyone must vote smacks to me of elitist paternalism. This John Kenneth Galbraith type of paternalism where the educated elite (often from humble or petit beourgousie backgrounds) reinfoce their inner insecurities by having an ego trip and deciding what they think others should do. That they really have the interests of all people at heart when they makes such decisions. The great thing about democracy is the right not to vote. The right to say “they are all fucking crooks, and I’m going to drink a beer and not vote.” And with regard to the Galbraithian busybodies, I think CS Lewis was spot on:
[quote=“Chewycorns”]
Can critical thinking and high school be used in the same sentence? I’ve mentioned this and I’ll mention it again. High school teachers are motivated by mediocrity. Who becomes a teacher in a public school system? Someone who loved their high school years and who wants 2 months of vacation. [/quote]
Now that’s just crap, Chewy. You seem to be more than happy these days to smear as many people as possible while having no sympathy at all for their reasons for doing things.
Have you any idea how dedicated most teachers are?
Or do you think only the teachers in nice shiny expensive private high schools are any good?
[quote=“urodacus”][quote=“Chewycorns”]
Can critical thinking and high school be used in the same sentence? I’ve mentioned this and I’ll mention it again. High school teachers are motivated by mediocrity. Who becomes a teacher in a public school system? Someone who loved their high school years and who wants 2 months of vacation. [/quote]
Now that’s just crap, Chewy. You seem to be more than happy these days to smear as many people as possible while having no sympathy at all for their reasons for doing things.
Have you any idea how dedicated most teachers are?
Or do you think only the teachers in nice shiny expensive private high schools are any good?[/quote]
I’m saying that a lot of them didn’t enter the profession for altruistic reasons. For those who did, they have my respect. However, I would say that in most union systems, most entered the teaching for the holidays and lack of accountability. I think a lot entered as well because it was one of the only faculties that was open to them. You disagree? Or do you think that the majority are dedicated and decided to forego a career in finance, or medicicine, or nuclear physics to become a high school teacher?
They implemented a program in Texas allowing science and engineering majors to be recruited directly by public schools, such that the students do not have to take all of the requisite education classes. The idea being to get away from someone with a bachelor’s in educational psychology or whatever teaching physics. They still had to do some education classes as electives, but they took all of the same science classes as others in their majors. I had several classmates in this program, and they did forgo careers in science and engineering to teach public high school. So much for your theory.
How are we not disenfranchising those under 18, the legally insane, and in some states, those guilty of certain criminal offenses? Please explain to me why under-18’s and the legally insane should not be represented - with felons, I believe it is considered more of a punishment, and not a preventative measure. Instead of these knee-jerk reactions to a rational argument - and one in which I am clearly not proposing doing something malicious or selfish, but seriously investigating ways to improve the system - why not answer the question or argue the points?
The basic argument still holds - if there is already an intention to prevent uneducated, immature, and irrational votes - and I suggest it is clear there is that intention already based on the disenfranchisement of those under 18 and those legally insane - why is it conceptually wrong to put into place more policies to better achieve that goal?
You’re assuming the worst - I get that, and absolutely you have to have things in place to prevent the worst, you don’t just go ahead and implement literacy tests without oodles of protections and such - which is precisely what I’ve said maybe 10 times now.
But after women’s rights, civil rights, now gay rights, etc, there is some reason to believe that things can be better the next go 'round. Before we talk about how bad it can get - something I’ve said I totally agree with - let’s address what the goals are, and what the obstacles are in achieving those goals. Potential abuse of power can not be the sole reason for dismissing a concept, as just about any new rule or restriction the government makes has the potential for abuse… usually there is sufficient transparency and oversight involved for it to happen on a large scale.
How are we not disenfranchising those under 18, the legally insane, and in some states, those guilty of certain criminal offenses?[/quote]
I believe that voting, along with lawsuits and many other rights, had as its original, historical motivation a desire to preempt violent acts and upheavals which might endanger society. I believe that it still has that motivation to a great extent, albeit buried under layers of rationalization, sentiment, various ideologies, and side issues. So I believe that minors and others can’t vote because so far, their disenfranchisement has not threatened society in any serious way. I think it would take, at the very least, a lengthy essay to show the above (I didn’t say prove, because I don’t think it’s possible to prove it to everyone’s satisfaction), and possibly a book (and there probably have been books written on that subject), but in any case, I don’t think voting is the product of some pure, virtue- or utility-driven syllogism.
Speaking of syllogisms (or something along those lines):
[quote=“TwoTongues”][P]eople who do not know anything or enough about the subject under vote should not be allowed to make decisions on that subject, especially when they affect large groups of people.[/quote] Why there should be a voting test - in concept
And then the union protects their job for life and pays senior union leadership a six-figure salary. There are some great teachers but they often don’t teach in the public system and why should they? Overseas contracts in international schools and private schools in their home countries take the best and the brightest. I respect social workers and early-child educators a hell of a lot more. They take home shit pay but actually try to help the less fortunate. Teachers? They are full of themselves and actually think of themselves as a profession. 
[/quote]
Or do you think that the majority are dedicated and decided to forego a career in finance, or medicicine, or nuclear physics to become a high school teacher? 