Universal suffrage: pro et contra

[onodera]

Is universal suffrage a good thing?

A lot of people have fought for their civil rights, including the right to vote. But is it sensible to allow everyone to vote? There are people campaigning for giving voting rights to children. Who are next, great apes? Where will we draw the line? Or should we trace back and draw the line there?

The whole population of any country is not the best ruler you can find. It is easily swayed by the media, by empty promises, by personal qualities of the candidates. Does everyone who can vote right now have the ability to analyze what the candidate does really stand for, and vote accordingly, and not just follow the line of the party or catchy slogans? Maybe universal suffrage is not the best way to rule the country; maybe we should screen voters more carefully?

Voting rights could be given to those who own real estate, like back in the XIX century. If you own land or a house, you can vote. If you rent, or are still paying off your mortgage, you cannot. There should probably be some additional criteria, like the minimum value of the property, to prevent people buying one square foot of land in Idaho to get the right to vote.

This way, only financially stable and independent citizens will be able to vote. This will stabilize the economic policy and limit populist welfare schemes.

Voting rights could be given to those who have served in the military (hello, Heinlein!). If you haven't chosen to defend your country with your blood, what right do you have to say in which direction it should be going? You still can be a successful citizen, you still have your other rights, but you cannot elect or be elected.

This will lead to a more stable foreign policy, as the military are generally less hawkish than their civilian cousins.

Voting rights could be given to those who have a college degree or better. Community college graduates cannot vote. High school graduates cannot vote. I would exclude liberal arts majors as well, but that would be undemocratic.

This way only those who have proven their intelligence will be able to pick the best candidate. Hopefully, they will be able to see past empty words.

Voting rights could be given to those who have proven their knowledge by taking a standardized test. This could work better with a direct, not representative democracy. For example, should the government bail out the banks? If you want to cast your vote, go and take a macroeconomics test. If you pass, financial policy voting is unlocked for you. Should the US bomb Iran? Go and take a world history and a basic foreign relations tests. If you pass, you can go cast your vote.

This way we do not give the right to vote to anyone who has enough money to get a college degree, but explicitly shape the electorate to be able to understand the questions they are faced with.

What is your opinion? Is universal suffrage a good thing, or is more limited suffrage better? Note: this is not a single city challenge.

[Dauphin]

What's the old saying. "One man, one vote. I am the one man and I have the one vote."

[BeBMan]

Oh my, what happened to poly???

Anyway, the answer is in your post:

A lot of people have fought for their civil rights, including the right to vote.

"All this has happened before and all of it will happen again" once you take away voting rights. Countries in large scale social unrest don't get very far. Or it's oppressed, then yay to dictatorship, until it turns out that those don't get very far as well. Plus while I agree that a majority vote is not automatically the "best" decision in every issue, it's the same the other way around. History is full of examples of small circles or single individuals messing up stuff.

[Adagio]

Being allowed to vote could depend on what you know about what is being voted about. Make a simple test about the vote and if you succeed you get the right to vote in that voting. Questions for such test could include what is the key issue of a certain politician, what is PoliticianX's stance on Universal Suffrage/Abortion/Gun control/Being allowed to kill your neighbor if he insultes you/etc... For anyone who has stayed just a little up to date with the situation, there should be no problems getting the majority of the questions right
This way those who doesn't have a clue on what is being voted about, will not be allowed to vote, but those who votes also knows what it is about. This way teenagers interested in politics could also vote

Any other limitations will have an negative effect on the outcome. If we only allow people with a property to vote, we'll see fewer votes on politicians who wants to help the poor people. If we only let the people vote who was in the military, then we'll see an increase in votes for a military leader... etc, etc, etc

Unfortunately a test like this would require a lot more resources


I'm not sure where I stand myself on this question on allowing everybody to vote. Until I saw that video of that crazy women who kept telling people not to vote for Obama, just because his middle name is Hussain (remember, we're at war with the middle east, we can't have a Hussain in the White House), I was against not allowing everybody to vote, but now I'm not so sure anymore... Too many crazy people out there

[Riesstiu IV]

Interesting topic. I don't consider myself a big fan of democratic forms of government and universal suffurage. To me history has shown democracy is not really conductive for major socioeconomic restructuring which I think a lot of nations will need this century in the face of a shrinking resource base (especially in relation to petroleum).

A democratic nation is tasked with satiating the demands of its people no matter how wasteful or stupid, and universal suffrage is good for electing leaders with good charisma but often not much else.

I think a better form of government would be a centralized committee that included scientists, engineers, the best and the brightest from several fields of study. This committee would elect an overall executive leader. This government smartest who would actually focus on serious problems like the long term unsustainability of American standards of living, farming practices, and poor city design. A state with universal suffrage on the other hand, has to waste precious time trying to inform and get the permission from the citizens to implement changes.

I would gladly give up my vote to be governed by a body of talented and intelligent individuals who know what they are doing.

Still... Ideas of government and economics are only as good as human nature itself.

[onodera]

I never thought you were a technocrat, Riesstu.

[Riesstiu IV]

More like a fantasy ideology that mixes technocracy, environmentalism, sustainable population levels/living standards/growth, national self-sufficiency, and eugenics.

[onodera]

Eugenics

[Traianvs]

More like a fantasy ideology that mixes technocracy, environmentalism, sustainable population levels/living standards/growth, national self-sufficiency, and eugenics.

Eugenics

eugenics?

[Traianvs]

I rather agree with Adagio's suggestions than Onodera's. Universal Suffrage isn't always ideal, but giving people a test could be a solution.

Suppose a citizen makes a vote for politician X (on a computer), he will be given a list of say 10-20 questions about the stance and opinion of that politician X. Depending on how many questions the citizen answers correctly, his vote will weigh more or less in the total result.

So, people with little knowledge still get a vote, so they are in a way democratically represented, while those who make a well-considered vote have more representation.

I think this is better than giving a test and failing the citizen. Poor people with little education need to be represented as well. My system might stimulate them to learn more. If people are not represented at all, they will generate feelings of hate, and disinterest in politics. They won't feel involved. Need to give them a little incentive.

[Ben Kenobi]

Interesting thoughts in this thread. I'm rather fond of the monarchy and would like it to play a greater role in our political system.

The current system is terrible. The system has finally broken down. We cannot get stable governance not subject to coups for the last 5 years.

I would like to see several things.

1. Immediate redistricting to account for population changes.

2. Senate reform. Make the senate an elected body, with 4 appointments per province. That would shrink it to 40 overall, and no province would gain seats.

Fixed election dates, and the curtailment of the prime minister. Prime minister must be appointed by the Queen, at her prerogative from any one of the ministers available. PM will become Queen's representative in parliament, and the head of the senate.

Commons will be elected as they are, except with the PM becoming the new leader of the house.

Justices should be appointed by the Queen and the Queen only for separation of powers.

[onodera]

[QUOTE=Traianvs;5505289]Suppose a citizen makes a vote for politician X (on a computer), he will be given a list of say 10-20 questions about the stance and opinion of that politician X. Depending on how many questions the citizen answers correctly, his vote will weigh more or less in the total result./QUOTE]
And who will determine what X's stance is? It's not like the politicians themselves fill in a form where they indicate whether they are pro-babykilling or pro-clinicbombing. Can you summarize the views of Mitt Romney, for example? It's better to test the people on the subjects being discussed, not the presumable opinions of the candidates.

[Riesstiu IV]

@Ben - Your vile Canuck monarchism and cowardly willingness to have our government submit to the British crown would never be welcome.

[Traianvs]

[QUOTE=onodera;5505327]

Suppose a citizen makes a vote for politician X (on a computer), he will be given a list of say 10-20 questions about the stance and opinion of that politician X. Depending on how many questions the citizen answers correctly, his vote will weigh more or less in the total result./QUOTE]
And who will determine what X's stance is? It's not like the politicians themselves fill in a form where they indicate whether they are pro-babykilling or pro-clinicbombing. Can you summarize the views of Mitt Romney, for example? It's better to test the people on the subjects being discussed, not the presumable opinions of the candidates.

It's easy. The questionnaire can be about several basic convictions. What views he has on the state (separatist or not for example, pro-monarchy or not), the economy, etc. Also, what is his current occupation, what has he achieved in the past (has he done many interpellations in parliament and what about...). What are the issues the politician is concerned with most. Are his views 100% consistent with party views.

You can go pretty far with it and go to advanced topics. So a good mixture of simple questions and advanced questions would be good to see if the citizen is making an ill-informed vote or not.

With your suggestion, we would go back to the 19th century, when only the aristocracy was allowed to vote. Now only the rich and well educated would be allowed a vote. Poor people elect more intelligent people to represent them because they advocate their interests. Being smart doesn't equal making the best choice. All those financial bastards in the bank or stock market industry were smart boys, but they did screw it up big time. So in your system only the well to do would have power, and accordingly they would put it to their own advantage. Greed is universal, intelligence or money isn't an issue there.

The voters don't need to be intelligent, the politicians need to be. Everyone's opinion has its merits. The point is the vote needs to be well-informed and not a protest vote or a popularity vote. This is why questioning the knowledge of the voter on the person he is voting for would be better imo.

[Ben Kenobi]

Your vile Canuck monarchism and cowardly willingness to have out government submit to the British crown would never be welcome.

How so? America is going to be ruled by a British citizen anyways.