Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

Yeah, it's a terrible idea, mainly because whoever represents those who are able to pass the test has a vested interest in reducing the ability of additional people to pass the test. e.g. if it's a literacy test then leaders have a vested interest in reducing the literacy of non-voter populations. They can then reduce subsidies/tax-breaks/etc to those groups while promising more subsidies/tax-breaks/etc to the remaining "voters". If you want to go against that you actually need to take money out of the pockets of eligible voters in order to subsidize the non-voters. Which would be political suicide.

[Neonivek]

Well another problem is that it would be a racially based way of limiting who has the ability to vote, for one.

Because what a coincidence it favors people with fluent English, Typically White, who have access to high levels of education, and who lack any sort of disability.

limiting suffrage immediately breaks down Universal Suffrage, it seems.

---

Not to mention that the SATs are ALREADY the largest freeken sink in the USA and is, not to mince words, ruining their education system. This would assassinate US education.

[wierd]

As somebody who's IQ is absurdly high, but fully comprehends his own social deficits, I can directly attest that raw test scores alone is not a useful metric of utility or value.

That black guy who was the child of former slaves (and thus supremely economically and socially disadvantaged for his time, and likely prevented from attaining higher education), and had a terrible job? He invented the traffic light. And a gas mask that saved lives.

The value of an individual to society is not based on things like your education level, or how pretty you are, or how rich you are. It is based on what one does, and if they go out and do stuff with their talents.  It need not be things like Mr Morgan either, who invented life saving and revolutionary technologies-- NO, it could just as well be the home maker who makes a difference in the local punk kids' lives, and turns them away from lives of crime.

I don't believe that there even really *IS* a universally applicable metric by which one can define "useful" and "essential' people. The only way to assure that they do not languish, and are not prevented from using their talents, is to assure true universal engagement in governance. The only "advantage" to imposing limits, is to silence sources of argument that the in-crowd finds disfavorable. This is not useful if the goal is genuine improvement and happiness of the human condition.

[Shub-Nullgurath]

Alright, with that out of the way--

See the other part of my argument-- even a non-physical criteron, like attainment of higher education, will ultimately lead to physical discrimination, due to how humans operate.

By what criterion are you going to determine eligibility to vote, and what are the consequences of choosing that criterion? Are those consequences logically in line with the implied constraints and goals of the "general" suffrage requirement?

You might be sadly forced to accept that the concept is not workable. Either you accept a double standard, or you have to discard the idea of limitations on who is eligible.

Like I say, multiple paths would be the way to go. Military service, civil service, PhD completion etc etc. Giving something and getting voting rights back in return.

What, exactly, is wrong with that?

As a man with near perfect SAT scores I'd like to remind you that tests are bullshit. I mean I'm a huge slacker, lazy, unproductive, mentally ill, in a perfect society people like myself would not be allowed to breed, let alone vote. And yet this system advantages people like myself over hardworking citizens. Tell me, how high does your score have to be? Do you have one in mind? Have you, incidentally, ever taken this test? Would I be correct in assuming that any hypothetical restrictions wouldn't include your score?

I'm not suggesting a test, I've never suggested a test. I'm merely defining the terms around a test.

And your problems sound like they start and end with you. Would you join military service to gain the right to vote? Would you attend and complete a PhD? Would you give something to your country in order to get the ability to have a say in it?

So can I just opt out of the test than? No? Than what is the point? And if the test isn't optional, than why play wordgames? You take a test: if you pass, you can vote; if you don't pass, you can't vote. Am I wrong?

Yes, you're wrong because you misunderstand the concept.

Let's say we have a man who is clearly on the borderline of an intellectual disability. We have a law in place that says that no one with a severe learning difficulty like this has the right to vote since they can't truly understand what they've voting for. We issue them a test to see their comprehension of issues and English. They fail that test and we disenfranchise them.

That's unlimited suffrage that has been removed due to some circumstance. We do the same with felons.

Do you understand now?

(Unfortunately, in the history of America people felt that all black people were on the borderline of an intellectual disability.)

More broadly speaking, from the perspective of the US this can be safely rejected, given the founding principle "No Taxation without Representation".

What if someone doesn't pay tax, then? Should they be disenfranchised? "No Representation without Taxation"?

Yeah, it's a terrible idea, mainly because whoever represents those who are able to pass the test has a vested interest in reducing the ability of additional people to pass the test. e.g. if it's a literacy test then leaders have a vested interest in reducing the literacy of non-voter populations. They can then reduce subsidies/tax-breaks/etc to those groups while promising more subsidies/tax-breaks/etc to the remaining "voters". If you want to go against that you actually need to take money out of the pockets of eligible voters in order to subsidize the non-voters. Which would be political suicide.

That's very conspiracy theory-esque. I imagine you'd be shocked how many people like their own country and want to see it thrive.

[Neonivek]

We do the same with felons.

Sort of... It is an interesting read. (There is a state where a Felon will NEVER lose their right to vote)

Then again the USA has a LOT to answer for when it comes to their treatment of Felons and will be considered a black mark as soon as they catch on.

Then again the entire US prison system is a cluster garbage dumpster fire.

[wierd]

The US has mistreated felons for generations. It is practically cultural here, sadly.  Be it crushing rocks in the 20s and 30s, to stamping license plates, to stuffing envelopes.  And that is just getting the equivalent of slave labor out of the penal system, nevermind the rampant abuses of physical needs and persons in the penal system. (the way the US does solitary confinement is KNOWN to cause lasting psychological harm, for instance, but still practiced-- to say nothing of the rampant prison rape, and other problems in the US penal system, and the overly dramatic incarceration rate statistic the country has.)

And why do we remove their ability to vote? Because they want better treatment, and that is cost prohibitive, and thus undesirable.

The silencing of undesirable voices is the FEATURE of limiting the voting pool. That feature is tied dramatically to societal inequality.

[Shub-Nullgurath]

<snip>

The prison system in America is for a different thread, as is whether rehabilitation works on felons and whether they do deserve better treatment.

[Neonivek]

<snip>

The prison system in America is for a different thread, as is whether rehabilitation works on felons and whether they do deserve better treatment.

You brought it into the conversation... and it is kind of the perfect example isn't it?

We wanted a example of "Limited Suffrage" and a sense of "Faux-Universal Suffrage".. Look no further than how we treat felons.

And their treatment shows why we might take away their voting rights... because it gives them rights as felons.

The ability to vote is the ability to exercise your rights.

[wierd]

Indeed. A derail was not the intent. (and discussing the US prison system would certainly require its own thread)

Instead, it was intended to point out how a limit to suffrage, like being a felon, can result in seriously skewed cultural trends-- like the US's "Harsh on crime!" policies.

The criminals are denied the civic tools required to change their circumstances, while those that can, denigrate the felons, and completely ignore the reality that already, everyone is technically a felon.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842

Who else to draw attention to the matter, than the people suffering the problem-- the felons? Yet we remove them from the discussion, because allowing them is unpleasant.

[Harry Baldman]

Like I say, multiple paths would be the way to go. Military service, civil service, PhD completion etc etc. Giving something and getting voting rights back in return.

What, exactly, is wrong with that?

Military service, civil service, PhD completion and virtually any other sphere of human endeavor is no indication of one's political competence, which is what one would assume you are expecting to achieve with this system - a voting base that feels invested in its country and is prepared to cast a well-reasoned vote (not that military or civil service or even the attainment of a PhD is particularly indicative of any of this).

The problem is that voting does not require any kind of competence. It is simply an act in which you choose which issues and solutions are more important to you by selecting their appropriate advocates, which runs under the assumption that the issues that are important to you are the ones you have the most personal experience with. Not to mention that politics are such a muddled thing that there seems to be no such thing as an indisputably qualified opinion. You don't need to be well-informed to take an active part in republicanism any more than you need to have studied law to hire a lawyer, and to put forth such a requirement would defeat the entire point of the system.

[wierd]

Misko already pointed out that it also basically reverses the social contract with government.

Civilians create and support a government, because the government is needed to assure basic needs and order. The government exists at the discretion and direction of its citizens.

A system that introduces limits on who is allowed to engage in government (such as limits to voting), is the government telling some of its citizens that, in exchange for some service, they may be PERMITTED to speak with government.  A complete 180 degree reversal of that contract.

[martinuzz]

Being 'productive' should also not be a criterium. I think someone who refuses to work and sits at home, living off welfare, and consuming minimally, contributes more to society than someone who slaves 40h per week in a factory producing completely unescessary and environmetally harmful luxury products, like cosmetics, vaginal perfume, or anal anti undie-stain creme. By not going along with the mass phsychosis that is 'consume moar, produce moar, fuck the consequences to our environment', such person demonstrates to be sensible enough to have earned the right to vote.

[Shub-Nullgurath]

Being 'productive' should also not be a criterium. I think someone who refuses to work and sits at home, living off welfare, and consuming minimally, contributes more to society than someone who slaves 40h per week in a factory producing completely unescessary and environmetally harmful luxury products, like cosmetics, vaginal perfume, or anal anti undie-stain creme. By not going along with the mass phsychosis that is 'consume moar, produce moar, fuck the consequences to our environment', such person demonstrates to be sensible enough to have earned the right to vote.

Is this satire?

[martinuzz]

Not in it's essence. I really believe that refusing certain jobs because they are destructive to our environment and add nothing to society except profits for the company shows wisdom.

Now I don't think that someone who just says 'meh I dont like work so I'll just live off benefits and not take any job at all' is wise, or contributing to society.
But if there is no meaningful job to be found, it's better to sit at home and get benefits, than to go along with the mainstream of destroying our planet for profitssss, and take any job you can, just to be employed. You could just as well take a job in child pornography then, I hear it pays well (/sarcasm).  Employement is no higher goal in life, it's mostly just a means.

[LethalShade]

I don't think factory workers are privileged enough to turn down job offers, martinuzz. They shouldn't sacrifice themselves for this.