Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This thread is occasioned by the latest Congressional activity on voting rights. For background, I have selected an article I do not agree with, see What is in the 2022 voting rights bill? However, it is relatively balanced and reasonable. I do not wish this thread to have partisan bickering, which is why I selected an article with an opposing view to mine. A brief survey of voting in this country and to a lesser extent Britain is required.
The concept of government by consent of the governed is not new. There was a period of Greek democracy in ancient times. The Roman Republic is well known. For more history, see Cicero: Defender of the Roman Republic. Later, in Iceland, there was the Althing, the world's oldest (more or less) functioning Parliament. See Icelandic Parliament - History and location of the Althing. Excerpt:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelandic Parliament - History and location of the Althing
Iceland's first parliament, the Althing (Icelandic: Alþingi), was established in Thingvellir National Park in 930 AD - a flag stands in the exact spot today in commemoration. After several centuries being run by a government that was highly advanced for its time, the history and politics of Iceland changed when it was conquered by Denmark.
Under colonial rule, the Althing lost all power except as a court of law, until the 19th century when a growing nationalist movement spread across Iceland. The desire for independence took shape with the establishment of a new Icelandic Parliament in the same building where it is located today, which at that time also served to store the works of art that would later be in the National Museum of Iceland.
The Magna Cara came later. As described in the UK Parliament site (link):
Quote:
Originally Posted by UK Parliament site
Magna Carta was issued in June 1215 and was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law. It sought to prevent the king from exploiting his power, and placed limits of royal authority by establishing law as a power in itself.
****
Raising taxes made John increasingly unpopular with the English barons, whom the king relied on to assist him in governing the kingdom. The immediate cause of the Barons' rebellion was the decisive defeat in battle of King John's army at Bouvines in 1214, by the force of the king of France. This, together with John's personality and ruthless actions, which seem to have provoked hostility and fear in others more than the loyalty on which kings of this period had to rely, caused much opposition among the barons. The defeat at Bouvines led to the meeting at Runnymede, but opposition to the king had been brewing for longer; in 1212 there had been rumours of a plot to murder him.
Magna Carta was hammered out in negotiations between the leaders of two armed parties – the king on one side and the rebel barons on the other. Neither side expected it to settle the matter, and both anticipated continued war between king and barons.
The Magna Carta was almost immediately annulled, and then after King John's death reinstated. It remains a basis for liberal rule in the Anglosphere, including the U.S.
Neither Britain nor the U.S. initially made the vote available to all. In the beginning only male white property owners could vote. This in the U.S. evolved into a potential voter either having property or money. Inflation thus widely broadened the base of those who could vote. I credit my Cornell history professor, Professor Silbey of blessed memory for teaching this. The 15th Amendment in theory broadened voters to include former slaves, though until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 this was honored more in the breach than reality.
Also important was the woman's suffrage movements of both the U.S. and the U.K. Women got the right to vote in the waning days of WW I, though some states, surprising Wyoming, granted it earlier. The voting age was reduced from 21 to 18 in 1971. Literacy tests and poll taxes,which were blatantly discriminatory against minorities, also fell during the 1960s.
The current battle is far different. The dance is to make voting not only universally available, but available without a modicum of effort on the part of the voter. My view is that voters should be incentivized to educate themselves about what they are voting on, who they are voting for. I welcome others' views.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 01-15-2022 at 02:17 PM..
Reason: Add omitted link
Moderator's Note: Anyone who posts a one-liner in answer to the title question posed by the OP, or merely posts "Yes" or "No," is going to have their post deleted.
Participants should be aware that this is a debateforum -- which means that participants are expected to post well thought-out, cogent responses to advance their views in the debate. The OP did a good job of it. Now it's your turn.
My view is that there should be as few barriers as possible for those eligible to vote, the minimum needed to ensure voting integrity.
You say "My view is that voters should be incentivized to educate themselves about what they are voting on, who they are voting for," but who decides if they have sufficiently educated themselves? You? The government?
And what counts as educating themselves? Is it the number of hoops they jump through? Is having an ID "educating themselves?" Or will a university degree be required?
I'd personally be more inclined to go the opposite direction rather than the current trend of focusing on trying to get everyone and anyone to vote.
Does a higher percent of your population voting lead to better outcomes? Imagine if the goal of a society was to increase the amount of doctors and engineers in a society, so they lower the requirements for becoming a doctor/engineer. Sure, there'd be more of them, but I wouldn't say it's better than what it was before.
I think the founding fathers really had some well-thought out ideas about government and how it should be run, and I think we've forgotten many of those ideas. You want a well-educated group of people who know the issues, know how government functions, and at least have some idea of what effect certain policies will have on the country to choose who will run the country. We've gone in the complete opposite direction. We've devolved down to a Jerry Springer-like debate, complete with zingers and comebacks, in order to choose our President. I have no doubt this comes from more uneducated voters who don't understand the issues, but know a good comeback when they see one.
Though not possible, it'd be nice to see all candidates be write-in candidates. It should just say President, Vice-President, etc. with just a blank space underneath and you have to write down who you want. At least the voter would have to know who they are voting for instead of just filling in a bubble.
Another idea is having people live in society as an adult for at least a few years before voting, so at least they know some of the issues they will face. I'd raise the voting age to 25.
I think voters should also have something invested in the U.S. if they are going to vote. I think there should be a minimum requirement of federal taxes paid in order to vote in national elections. If you are not paying anything in, and in some cases just receiving benefits, then why should you have a say in how tax money is spent? In many cases I see voters who essentially just vote for whatever will benefit themselves the most, regardless if it hurts our society as a whole. Making sure someone pays a reasonable amount of taxes might mitigate this to some degree.
A lot of this stuff just comes down to problems/issues that the founding fathers already anticipated. They had already created systems to mitigate these effects, yet we have moved away from or even completely abandoned many of these. Unfortunately, I don't see us returning to any semblance of a well-thought-out system to select the best people to lead us. I see our voting system further devolving into a bad reality t.v. show in an attempt to get every last person we can find to put a mark on a ballot, even if they know nothing about the candidates.
This thread is occasioned by the latest Congressional activity on voting rights. For background, I have selected an article I do not agree with, see What is in the 2022 voting rights bill? However, it is relatively balanced and reasonable. I do not wish this thread to have partisan bickering, which is why I selected an article with an opposing view to mine. A brief survey of voting in this country and to a lesser extent Britain is required.
The concept of government by consent of the governed is not new. There was a period of Greek democracy in ancient times. The Roman Republic is well known. For more history, see Cicero: Defender of the Roman Republic. Later, in Iceland, there was the Althing, the world's oldest (more or less) functioning Parliament. See Icelandic Parliament - History and location of the Althing. Excerpt:
The Magna Cara came later. As described in the UK Parliament site (link):
The Magna Carta was almost immediately annulled, and then after King John's death reinstated. It remains a basis for liberal rule in the Anglosphere, including the U.S.
Neither Britain nor the U.S. initially made the vote available to all. In the beginning only male white property owners could vote. This in the U.S. evolved into a potential voter either having property or money. Inflation thus widely broadened the base of those who could vote. I credit my Cornell history professor, Professor Silbey of blessed memory for teaching this. The 15th Amendment in theory broadened voters to include former slaves, though until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 this was honored more in the breach than reality.
Also important was the woman's suffrage movements of both the U.S. and the U.K. Women got the right to vote in the waning days of WW I, though some states, surprising Wyoming, granted it earlier. The voting age was reduced from 21 to 18 in 1971. Literacy tests and poll taxes,which were blatantly discriminatory against minorities, also fell during the 1960s.
The current battle is far different. The dance is to make voting not only universally available, but available without a modicum of effort on the part of the voter. My view is that voters should be incentivized to educate themselves about what they are voting on, who they are voting for. I welcome others' views.
If voting truly is a right than we ought to be able to do without incurring any costs doing so.
My thinking about most things is basically utilitarian. I believe before most people engage in an activity they do a sort of cost/benefit analysis. Does what they hope to accomplish outweigh the cost of doing so? Voting is generally the most difficult for people who live in states that do not have mail/vote options. Or, who make those options difficult to exercise. For example, if Smith is a construction worker and works from 9-5 voting is only possible if the polls open early and close late. It is worse if Smith is required to work overtime. This may become problematic if there are long lines at Smith's polling station. You know what I mean, you seen the television reels of people lined up with hour or longer waits to vote. It takes fortitude indeed to cast a vote under such conditions. What these polling places usually have in common is that they are in large cities primarily in districts populated by brown and black people.
Everyone of legal age and citizenship needs to have a reasonable opportunity to vote. If in person voting is required, a wait should never be longer than thirty minutes. My conservative republican state of Utah has been doing voting by mail for about fifteen years now. We have had no problems. Voting by mail works well here. As long as you are properly registered to vote there is no need to submit ID with your ballot.
In my mind, we should be educating voters and at the same time encouraging as many as possible to vote by easy voting options.
My view is that there should be as few barriers as possible for those eligible to vote, the minimum needed to ensure voting integrity.
You say "My view is that voters should be incentivized to educate themselves about what they are voting on, who they are voting for," but who decides if they have sufficiently educated themselves? You? The government?
And what counts as educating themselves? Is it the number of hoops they jump through? Is having an ID "educating themselves?" Or will a university degree be required?
That's not the way I feel at all. I am definitely not the one to judge.
In a perfect world I would use some kind of literacy or civics test. Trouble is that those were badly abused in the South during and after the Jim Crow era. Perhaps a fairly administered test of that variety, with the ability to take it over almost unlimited times would be good. I just think that voters should care.
If you're from the Northeast an old discount clothing chain, Syms, used to have a slogan "an educated consumer is our best customer." Longer versions of the ad explained that did not mean university education, only shoppers who make informed choices. Maybe that's the road.
A lot of this stuff just comes down to problems/issues that the founding fathers already anticipated. They had already created systems to mitigate these effects, yet we have moved away from or even completely abandoned many of these. Unfortunately, I don't see us returning to any semblance of a well-thought-out system to select the best people to lead us. I see our voting system further devolving into a bad reality t.v. show in an attempt to get every last person we can find to put a mark on a ballot, even if they know nothing about the candidates.
I largely agree with the thrust of your post.
That being said, the system the "founding fathers" had in mind was voting for the intelligentsia and aristocrats. The Founding Fathers were, no doubt, a collection of the brightest people that have ever been in a room together. Think George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson (I'm not crazy about his but he was quite bright), Ben Franklin, Benjamin Rush, and, though not in the room but may as well have been a Founder, Abigail Adams. We are far away from that limited version of participation solely by the elite, as well we should be. One of the reasons I started this topic is that I struggle, myself, to come up with a workable system for what I want; voters who care and have a stake in society, and an inclusive version of that dream.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
If voting truly is a right than we ought to be able to do without incurring any costs doing so.************
Everyone of legal age and citizenship needs to have a reasonable opportunity to vote. If in person voting is required, a wait should never be longer than thirty minutes. My conservative republican state of Utah has been doing voting by mail for about fifteen years now. We have had no problems. Voting by mail works well here. As long as you are properly registered to vote there is no need to submit ID with your ballot.
In my mind, we should be educating voters and at the same time encouraging as many as possible to vote by easy voting options.
I don't disagree. But the voter does need to incur some time costs in self-education.
That's not the way I feel at all. I am definitely not the one to judge.
In a perfect world I would use some kind of literacy or civics test. Trouble is that those were badly abused in the South during and after the Jim Crow era. Perhaps a fairly administered test of that variety, with the ability to take it over almost unlimited times would be good. I just think that voters should care.
If you're from the Northeast an old discount clothing chain, Syms, used to have a slogan "an educated consumer is our best customer." Longer versions of the ad explained that did not mean university education, only shoppers who make informed choices. Maybe that's the road.
The real problem with the south's literacy tests wasn't so much that the test had absurd questions, but it was that whites didn't have to take the test. My first thought was our government would have been quite different if we prevented all those (us) ignorant whites from voting.
But I would be wrong. During the decades of slavery, the only people allowed to vote were mostly the elite. Most people vote from self interest first and group affiliation second, and then seek rationalization for what they do. A sense of fairness, right and wrong, and what's best for posterity is far down on the list.
Another thought was, if we're to have a test, then everyone takes the same test everywhere and the test will be the same one that immigrants take for naturalization. If they have to know this then so should we: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...swers/100q.pdf
My gut feeling is literacy/civics test would not make any difference other than some profit for test prep vendors. But I'm an American, so making some money sounds good, lol.
Anyway, in my dream world, we don't vote for candidates by name or party.
We'll be given a selection of many questions on policies, both future, past, and ongoing.
The questions will be made public before the election so you can study up.
Candidates will be required to make the same selections on voting day and the winner is the one with the best match. The candidates choices will be made public.
Ok, yes I see some problems with this, but that's how I run my dream world.
That's not the way I feel at all. I am definitely not the one to judge.
In a perfect world I would use some kind of literacy or civics test. Trouble is that those were badly abused in the South during and after the Jim Crow era. Perhaps a fairly administered test of that variety, with the ability to take it over almost unlimited times would be good. I just think that voters should care.
If you're from the Northeast an old discount clothing chain, Syms, used to have a slogan "an educated consumer is our best customer." Longer versions of the ad explained that did not mean university education, only shoppers who make informed choices. Maybe that's the road.
I see. Well I agree with half of what you say. I think more civic education and involvement should be encouraged. But I don't think it should be done in the form of limiting voters, as voting should be a universal right. By limiting voters, you are preventing them from having a say in the rules that govern them, which to me is a breach of the social contract regardless of their education.
Instead I would support better civic involvement being taught in schools, to encourage people to understand and think about the world and how they can influence it.
OP, educating oneself re: the issues and people to be voted on is not what the current attempt to address voting rights is about. It's about some states passing laws allowing local or state government to take over election commissions if they don't like how things are proceeding, laws eliminating ballot drop-boxes, more laws requiring voter ID (in spite of some voter ID measures already having been struck down in court several election cycles ago in some states), and other suppression methods.
I don't know why it would be assumed, that voters haven't educated themselves on the issues on any given ballot, anyway. And how would a voter prove they'd researched the issues? What kind of proof would be required? Would having read the voter booklet everyone receives, that outlines the initiatives on the ballot, pro and con, be sufficient? Isn't that what those are for? How would reading that be enforced? Would people be required to take a quiz before voting? This smacks of the old-fashioned literacy tests, that were already deemed unconstitutional. There's no way to apply such a measure without having it end up discriminating against ethnic minorities, who tend to vote against the interests of the people designing these measures.
OP, you say you just want voters to care. The current crisis, though, is due to the fact that the voters representing moneyed interests, and the "commoners" they're able to win over to their side, care too much. . They're manipulating the general population into supporting their candidates, who have already gone through several presidencies of awarding them tax breaks at great public expense. And the more lopsided the economic rewards are, the greater the motivation to suppress opposition votes as much as possible. We're watching the process by which an oligarchy is formed, to use one of the terms in your linked article about Rome.
Of course the people whose votes are being suppressed should care. They do. But they don't have the access to power and money to influence the system, that the wealthy have. The US' original requirement of landownership as the criterion for exercising the right to vote was made on the assumption, that landowners would vote in favor of the common weal. Thus, the early colonies were called "commonwealths".
What we have now, is the upper classes abusing their power to benefit themselves only, by siphoning off public funds to further enrich themselves (as if they were in need of still more wealth). This is exactly why oligarchies are dangerous and anti-democratic.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 01-17-2022 at 11:25 AM..
Reason: Edited out response to a deleted post that was irrelevant to the topic. Thank you for pointing it out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
