Print

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

[Shub-Nullgurath]

Limiting who can vote by arbitrarily designed parameters simply creates a form of tyranny whereby those who can vote have power over those who cannot.  There is no inherent benefit to such a system, just closed perspective that ultimately leads to stagnation, revolution, or destruction through other means.

If that's the case, then how did disenfranchised minorities in the past get the right to vote? Clearly the enfranchised majority decided that the minority deserved the right to vote, proving that it doesn't create a form of tyranny.

Real talk though, I wish inmates and felons retained the right to vote in the US.

Why should they? If you've broken the social covenant that "you should not commit crimes", why should you keep the right to contribute to the change of that social covenant? You've shown you aren't capable of holding up your end of the deal.

Not quite.

Required males who had completed a certain degree of military service-- hence the starship troopers like angle. specifically, they had to complete the training while they were still teenagers.

What if there were a series of different possible enfranchisement methods to be followed? Attaining a PhD, public service, military service, business ownership over a certain point etc. You'd have a diversity of people with different opinions who have all, in some way, contributed to society. What is wrong with that?

But White men born inside the US can become citizens before that.

Again, not about universal suffrage or not, but limited universal suffrage or not.

[wierd]

Limited sufferage was the very first form of democracy. Look up how Athens did it. Practically starship troopers in implementation.

Athens and the other greek city states were all just that: city states, and the Polis is not necessarily a very helpful model for countries much larger than St. Marino. So even ceteris paribus (and needless to say, there's been 2000 years of stuff since then, so ceteris non paribus but work with me here), it's not necessarily wise to look to Athens on this issue. Frankly I'm of the opinion that its barely worth discussing.

I think you misapplied the intent with the reference Misko.  It was not a naive suggestion that the Athenians had it right(tm)-- It was that the concept had been applied, in a much smaller scale (as you rightly point out), and it resulted in systemic disparities in representation and accommodation by the government toward its citizens.

The point was, that if you wanted to create a society where people are treated justly and fairly, limited suffrage is not a good solution, as it tends toward systemic inequalities, even on small scales, like city states.

But meh. whatever.

[Neonivek]

Again, not about universal suffrage or not, but limited universal suffrage or not.

This seems very... political side stepping... as "Limited universal suffrage" is kind of a euphemism for "Non-universal suffrage"

[wierd]

Indeed. the very inclusion of the "limit" in the "limited universal suffrage" implies that there are at least two classes-- those that can vote, and those that cannot.

What is the trait that one wishes to use to define that limit? Whatever you pick, it will be used as a wedge to drive social inequality-- which is to say, the system will pander to those that meet the arbitrary requirement, and will not give two shits about the people who do not.

[Shub-Nullgurath]

This seems very... political side stepping... as "Limited universal suffrage" is kind of a euphemism for "Non-universal suffrage"

It's not.

Universal suffrage = Everyone has the same rights to vote regardless of race, gender, sexuality etc.
Limited suffrage = Everyone's right to vote is limited based on some factor.

So universal limited suffrage is a system in which no one is limited based on factors of birth but instead on something they do during life.

[Neonivek]

So universal limited suffrage is a system in which no one is limited based on factors of birth but instead on something they do during life.

Yes... not based on their birth... but rather the advantages they were both with.

This is like... euphemism city... and Shub-Nullgurath was the most equal one of all.

[Shub-Nullgurath]

Yes... not based on their birth... but rather the advantages they were both with.

That might be the case, but the intent in it is that it's not.

Under a limited suffrage system, those born especially rich don't automatically have the right to vote. You only have the right to vote after doing something to gain the right to vote.

[ChairmanPoo]

Bear in mind that afroamerican suffrage was limited in such a way to begin with... as other posters stated above. So yeah, for all practical intents and purposes this is about universal suffrage or not, very much.

[NullForceOmega]

Limiting who can vote by arbitrarily designed parameters simply creates a form of tyranny whereby those who can vote have power over those who cannot.  There is no inherent benefit to such a system, just closed perspective that ultimately leads to stagnation, revolution, or destruction through other means.

If that's the case, then how did disenfranchised minorities in the past get the right to vote? Clearly the enfranchised majority decided that the minority deserved the right to vote, proving that it doesn't create a form of tyranny.

As if it didn't take massive political action and a grass roots campaign like nothing seen in the United States before?  The parties realized that the availability of a massive font of untapped potential voters was potentially beneficial, and that massive public unrest was definitely undesirable.  And further, those minorities now have very definite attempts to actively disenfranchise them from one of those parties.

I don't know what the aim of this thread is, but the fundamental concept of 'limited suffrage' serves only to divide societies into social strata and make it impossible for those on the bottom to ever achieve equality.  Might as well just go back to full-bore feudalism in that case.

Further, how exactly would you define 'doing something to gain the vote'?  Nebulous as hell is what it sounds like to me.  if this is some kind of thought experiment you'd better come up with some form of actual guidelines, because as this is currently phrased it sounds like bait.

[wierd]

Again, there is a systemic contradiction between "limited", and "universal."

Weaseling out by trying to define "universal" as being on a physical traits only basis ignores other factors. 

Let me lead you down that road a moment. Sure, we will use this silly definition of "universal."  We will say that the limiting factor is attaining a degree.

Those that attain a degree will be able to vote, and thus have power to change the system of laws and regulations. They will have strong pressure to assure that their children also get degrees. There are only so many universities, and the universities have constraints on how they accept students, and how they award degrees. As the demand increases, the costs increase. Just this simple interaction alone will add additional limits on attainment, and thus on eligibility for suffrage-- Now you have to become increasingly wealthy to afford the continually rising costs of attainment.  It has been determined through statistical inquiry that "beautiful people" tend to earn higher wages, and get promoted quicker. This is a physical characteristic, but because it is associated with earning potential, and thus with financial potential for attainment, it becomes a defacto requirement, as the system becomes larger and more complex.

Even a simple limit becomes a source of systemic inequality, very quickly.

[Shub-Nullgurath]

Bear in mind that afroamerican suffrage was limited in such a way to begin with... as other posters stated above. So yeah, for all practical intents and purposes this is about universal suffrage or not, very much.

No, it wasn't limited. Everyone had the right to vote until they failed to pass a test. That's unlimited. Limited would be no one has the right to vote UNTIL they pass a test.

I don't know what the aim of this thread is, but the fundamental concept of 'limited suffrage' serves only to divide societies into social strata and make it impossible for those on the bottom to ever achieve equality.  Might as well just go back to full-bore feudalism in that case.

Further, how exactly would you define 'doing something to gain the vote'?  Nebulous as hell is what it sounds like to me.  if this is some kind of thought experiment you'd better come up with some form of actual guidelines, because as this is currently phrased it sounds like bait.

So if a method to becoming enfranchised is available and achievable for EVERYONE, even the very poorest and worst off, you'd still be against the idea?

Again, there is a systemic contradiction between "limited", and "universal."

Weaseling out by trying to define "universal" as being on a physical traits only basis ignores other factors.

I'm not weaselling out of anything, these are the meanings of the terms.

[wierd]

No, "universal" means "all encompassing", or "encompassing the whole."

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/universal

If there is a limit, it is NOT universal, BY DEFINITION.

[Shub-Nullgurath]

No, "universal" means "all encompassing", or "encompassing the whole."

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/universal

If there is a limit, it is NOT universal, BY DEFINITION.

Political science term, mate. If you prefer we can use common or general suffrage.

[wierd]

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.

[misko27]

No, it wasn't limited. Everyone had the right to vote until they failed to pass a test. That's unlimited. Limited would be no one has the right to vote UNTIL they pass a test.

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?

No, it wasn't limited. Everyone had the right to vote until they failed to pass a test.

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?

So if a method to becoming enfranchised is available and achievable for EVERYONE, even the very poorest and worst off, you'd still be against the idea?

The fact is that in order to enact this rule would require disenfranchising potentially large percentages of the population. The basic principle of the modern democracy is that the only right a government has to represent its citizens derives exclusively from their consent, represented through enfranchisement. Any groups who cannot vote are excluded from this rule.

If there exist a group who must pay taxes, serve in the armed forces, be subject to laws and criminality like every other person in the country, but has no legal representation in their government, this person now exists outside the political system. Tell me, having disenfranchised these people, what if they should find themselves disagreeing with the current position of government? With no legal political means to express themselves, would it not stand to reason that some of them would oppose the government very strongly? Is it wise to build up a core of people who hate the government, are not wedded meaningfully to democracy and who believe (quite accurately) that the system does not represent them? Imagine these people grew angry for some reason or another; how might they express this anger? Can you perceive no dangers here?

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