Should we have to earn the right to vote?
| So this is something I've been thinking about and probably not a very popular opinion, but I think it makes more sense for voting to be something you have to earn rather than something that is given to everyone, despite their contributions to society. If you look back it this concept was implemented by only allowing land-owners to vote and in the United States today only men that sign up for the military draft are allowed to vote (women get a free pass though of course). Usually you at least have to be a citizen of the country and at least 18 years old to vote... although the whole citizen thing hasn't really been enforced in recent years from what I understand, especially if they are permanent residents. So aside from being a resident and being 18+ (which should actually be enforced) 2 other conditions that make sense to me would be first being a net tax payer. I don't feel like people who are receiving more in benefits from the state than they pay in taxes should be allowed to vote, because obviously they're just going to vote for more welfare programs at the expense of net tax payers. It's not really fair that the people that are benefiting the most from taxes through social welfare programs are the ones deciding how much money is put into those programs. Second is military service. There are already drafts in many developed nations like South Korea, Singapore, Norway and Austria have drafts (usually male only). Now I don't think conscription (a draft) is necessary, but some sort of military service should be a requirement for voting. Why should people that have never risked their lives for their country decide where you have to go and what countries you go to war with? I don't understand how its fair for people to sit comfortably in their homes and make the decisions for people that are going out and risking their lives. Like I said probably not a popular opinion. No one likes getting their rights taken away, but I don't see why people that are not contributing to the society should be allowed to make decisions about it and the people that contribute and defend the country. |
 "The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -Friedrich Nietzsche |
| I think some people are retarded and just vote for the person that offers the most free shit or the thing that is best for them in that moment. I know a lot of people who are wanting to vote Labor purely because he says he wants to make University free, and not looking at all the crazy shit that constantly comes out of Corbyn's mouth and what hes going to do to our futures should he be prime minister. |
 |
| Yeah, voters should be required to have a certain level of political and historical literacy. |
| Be thankful for the wisdom granted to you. |
| I think the skin-in-the-game concept works well on paper/in theory, but falls apart in practice. This would give too much advantage to the demographics of the people who stereotypically sign up for the military. |
the40ftbadger said: i have palpable amounts of salt for FO4. It's like a clown put on my dead dad's clothes and is running around my house going "LOOK I'M YOUR DAD, ISN'T THIS FUN?!?!" |
MortalMelancholy said: Yeah, voters should be required to have a certain level of political and historical literacy. but Trump's base wouldn't be able to vote :3 |
| Of course. There's too many witless pieces of shits floating around. I mean I was legitimately afraid France was gonna do a fucking America on us and vote in Le Pen .-. Too many people are willing to vote first, research later. |
  There's a lady who's sure All that glitters is gold And she's buying a stairway to heaven When she gets there she knows If the stores are all closed With a word she can get what she came for Oh oh oh oh and she's buying a stairway to heaven |
| This idea reminds me of Starship Troopers. Public voting systems definitely allow a lot of poorly-suited people to have a chance to affect their country, but I think that comes with the territory. A system that's based around giving its citizens the freedom to control its direction on such a wide scale isn't in a position to single out which citizens are allowed to do that. If a person who legally lives in a country isn't given the right to vote, that defeats the whole purpose of the system representing its citizen's needs. If those groups are able to influence the votes considerably, it must mean they make up a sizeable portion of the population and will be affected by any decisions the country makes. Which means the country itself will also be affected by the state of that population in turn. The military service part is especially iffy to me. What if you already don't agree with the conflicts your country is taking part in, and you have to fight in those conflicts just to try to steer your country away from them? The tax payer part makes more sense, but it also disregards the context of people who can't pay their taxes. If the reliance on welfare is a result of widespread poverty for example, then it's more of a country-wide issue that should be addressed rather than penalized. And not giving the people who are affected by it the right to influence it is likely to exacerbate the problem. Most people vote based on what will benefit them personally anyway, so what does that leave for the people who aren't allowed to vote at all? Seems like the idea would help to perpetuate existing problems and inhibit the citizens it's ostensibly representing. And it also has a bit of a built-in ideological bias that requires the eligible voting population to already agree with its country's policies to some degree. Whether or not certain groups are a burden to their country, their condition still affects the society as a whole. Choosing to ignore the desires of certain aspects of it creates an imbalance in that whole. Taking away their ability to vote doesn't necessarily take away their ability to affect society. Especially in a negative way. Not that I think the current method is great either, but I don't see an alternative that solves all of its problems. This is trading a set of inefficiencies for other inefficiencies. But these ones are skewed in a certain direction. |
Abby-May 26, 2017 1:42 PM
Zeally said: The pool of candidates for 2016 from every party wouldn't have even been as mediocre and awful as they were if there was a standard set for voters in the first place. At least the GOP put up 17 people so they get an A for effort.MortalMelancholy said: Yeah, voters should be required to have a certain level of political and historical literacy. but Trump's base wouldn't be able to vote :3 |
 |
| Maybe not earn, but prove that you are "Sane" enough to vote. People who have radical/extreme views, whether left or right shouldn't be allowed to vote. Also, people over 50 shouldn't be allowed to vote no matter what their political alignment is, because they're too mentally archaic to understand how the contemporary world works. |
 |
| I've believed for a while there should be more requirements than just being an 18 year old citizen. Being a net tax payer sounds good. Requiring military service is too restrictive. I think being tested on your knowledge of how things in the government work and political history makes sense. An ignorant vote is not a properly represented vote. Testing your political views for "extremism" seems like it would end up being abused so keep it objective. |
MasterGlythMay 26, 2017 2:47 PM
 I can see you |
| Throughout history every society that had citizenship and voting as a privilege which has to be earned has collapsed. For example Roman, Greek etc. |
| Leaders should just seize power. Voting is more a thing for local cooperatives and city states. |
| -"you know, the elections are coming up." -"oh did you register for the military?" -"crap, I forgot. Lets go before it's too late" EXTRA EXTRA! US mobilizing millions of troops before important elections. How will other world powers respond to blatant militarist resurgence across the pond? |
 |
| I like everybody having a vote but I can see how this sort of thing might be cleverly manipulated to make sure certain people can't vote. Like making it harder for said people to own land or join the military. Why not just have an IQ test? |
 |
| I rather voting stay as a privilege than something that has to be earn. My major concern with adding more restrictions and/or test to determine who and can't vote is that when people say qualified voters it's code for I just want people who agreed with my viewpoints to vote and add unnecessary obstacles to keep certain groups of people from voting. How can I trust that these added restrictions will actually lead to better informed voters? |
| Some sort of standard would be preferred, but in reality implementing this would be quite difficult. |
╮ (. ❛ ᴗ ❛.) ╭ |
DateYutaka said: PurplePanties said: I think some people are retarded and just vote for the person that offers the most free shit or the thing that is best for them in that moment. I know a lot of people who are wanting to vote Labor purely because he says he wants to make University free, and not looking at all the crazy shit that constantly comes out of Corbyn's mouth and what hes going to do to our futures should he be prime minister. not like right wingers do not think like that for the fachist may Nothing really to do with your political choice, they all promise stuff that never even happen, or will never happen. You always get the classic of we wont increase tax on lower earners, or the we'll increase minimum wage to some absurd number etc etc that never happen but because people are stupid and just believe anything they politicians ramble about. |
|
| Maybe there should be a political competency test. People can only vote on what they understand. Your idea on the other hand is just a militaristic bureaucratic dictatorship not democracy. "oh shit Im going to lose. I better put voters of my opponent on the front-line to purge them" |
traedMay 27, 2017 3:53 AM
| Well if you're in a "democratic" system, it is a right for everyone regardless of what your circumstances is.. :/ |
More topics from this board
» Is this forum dead? It seems like it.DesuMaiden - Apr 17 |
40 |
by Zayvex
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
» Anyone had a Drought Emergancy declared for their area?vasipi4946 - 2 hours ago |
7 |
by xthewarwithinx
»»
20 minutes ago |
|
» How many B Vitamin pills can one take a day ?scarydragon - 4 hours ago |
8 |
by logopolis
»»
28 minutes ago |
|
» Manga piracy website operator ordered to pay ¥1.7 billion to publishersMeusnier - 10 hours ago |
15 |
by traed
»»
29 minutes ago |
|
» Are you a slow or fast typier on a computer???DesuMaiden - 6 hours ago |
19 |
by xthewarwithinx
»»
36 minutes ago |