Meritocratic Isles
November 12, 2018, 10:28:29 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Please take a look at the historical documents in The Athenaeum.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Poll
Question: Who Should Exercise the Voting Franchise?
Every Adult not Incarcerated for Crimes - 3 (75%)
Only Adult Males (or Females) - 0 (0%)
Only Adult Tax Payers / Property Owners - 0 (0%)
Only Adults who have Served in the Military - 1 (25%)
Total Voters: 4

Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Formal Debate and Poll: Who Should Exercise the Voting Franchise?  (Read 10132 times)
King Chester
Geronta
Perioikos
*

Merit: 16
Posts: 183



« on: October 27, 2008, 10:44:03 PM »

WE submit that the democratic-republic system of government in the United States of America is in need of adjustment.

Non-productive citizens are allowed to vote for persons that promise them tax refunds, even if they didn't pay any taxes.

Currently, in some states of The Union, the law allows the franchise to any person not incarcerated in prison, including felons who have served their sentence.

In the realms of history, as well as science fiction and fantasy, voting has sometimes been only allowed to one gender.

In some societies, only former soldiers were allowed the voting franchise.

Should the qualifications for the voting franchise be changed in the U.S.A., and to what qualifications?

Robert A. Heinlein makes a good argument for the voting franchise to be placed in the hands of former soldiers, in his book, "Starship Troopers" (the book is more than just a Bug Hunt/War).

Historically, government spending in the U.S.A. on social matters was quite restrained, until women were given the voting franchise.

There is a good argument for only allowing tax-payers and land owners to vote, because the government depends on a portion of the money and goods that are produced.

WE are coming more and more to the opinion that allowing the vote to every adult not incarcerated in prison is NOT a good idea.  As Mr. Heinlein wrote (paraphrase):  When the people learn to vote themselves more goods and services at the expense of the producers, that great democracy is officially dying.

« Last Edit: October 27, 2008, 10:50:27 PM by King Chester » Logged
Kadoshim
Archon Basileus
Spartiate
*
*
*

Merit: 14
Posts: 407



« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2008, 12:08:41 PM »

All adults not incarcerated for crimes should be allowed to vote in a representative democracy. Both males and females should be allowed to vote because neither gender is superior to the other (contrary to the beliefs of many elementary school students).
Citizens should be allowed to vote regardless of owning or not owning property because this clearly discriminates against the poor and sets up a form of neo-feudalism. Feudalism is not a good way for a society to make progress (see the Dark Ages).
Felons who have served their full sentences in prison should be allowed to vote. After serving the length of the sentence the felon is rehabilitated and therefore can re-enter society.
There is a problem in the American voting system, but those who qualify to vote is not it. The problem lies in the public's lack of education on many issues. More thouroughly educated voters will make better decisions on who they choose to lead them, and will therefore result in a more functional and effective democracy.
Logged
King Chester
Geronta
Perioikos
*

Merit: 16
Posts: 183



« Reply #2 on: October 28, 2008, 05:32:36 PM »

OUR esteemed colleague and Archon Basileus, your initial response to OUR question was mostly succinct and forthright.  Now, WE shall expand upon OUR initial statement and query you as to an omission in that response.

Quote
All adults not incarcerated for crimes should be allowed to vote in a representative democracy
WE ask, why do you not also let incarcerated criminals vote?  WE believe a better standard should include the crime and it's magnitude of which one has been convicted.  Not really a point for OUR argument, but you did make a plain and broad statement.

Quote
Both males and females should be allowed to vote because neither gender is superior to the other....
WE agree that the genders are comparable in intellect and ability, however, male and female thought processes seem to work differently and the genders seem to hold different priorities.

Quote
Citizens should be allowed to vote regardless of owning or not owning property because this clearly discriminates against the poor and sets up a form of neo-feudalism.
Being a Kingdom, WE have nothing against feudalism Grin .  But as this debate touches on the United States of America, which WE fondly admire, WE shall argue along the lines of what is best for a democratic-republic.  Yes, the ownership of property is not necessarily the best qualification in OUR eyes, either.  Still, it is worth considering.  A person who successfully manages their property, and possibly even thrives, could be considered a thoughtful person and worthy of exercising the voting franchise.  This same logic also applies to a person who is a successful employee.  Both the land owner and the employee are productive persons who pay taxes to the state.  The unemployed person is a drain on the state.

Quote
After serving the length of their sentence the felon is rehabilitated and therefore can re-enter society
Recidivism rates undermine this statement entirely.  There is no proof that a convict has rehabilitated after completing his sentence.

What surprises US most is that you have made no comment regarding the restriction of the voting franchise to former members of the nation's armed forces.  Clearly, these persons have either gambled and been willing in peacetime, but likely recognized the possibility of war or a training accident in a dangerous profession, to place their lives in harm's way for the protection of the nation, OR joined their country's military while it was facing an active threat to the nation and it's people.  Their loyalty to their nation ought to be rewarded with a say in who represents them.  Can the life-long civilians prove their loyalty in such a fashion?

Finally, WE disagree with your suggestion that the problem with voting in America is a matter of education.  WE believe the problem with voting in America is GREED.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2008, 06:04:18 PM by King Chester » Logged
Kadoshim
Archon Basileus
Spartiate
*
*
*

Merit: 14
Posts: 407



« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2008, 12:39:58 PM »

Incarcerated criminals should not be allowed to vote because they are not yet rehabilitated and are separated from society. Why should the state trust an incarcerated criminal who has brought harm upon his or her fellow citizens to elect the public official who will best help those same citizens?
Male and female thought processes as a whole work differently. It is impossible to say which thought process is superior because the one who judges would have to be either male or female as well.
Voting rights based on land ownership would split society into sharply differentiated classes with little to no vertical movement. Such a system is as equally unfair as pure communism.
Those who serve in the military do get a say in their government. It is the same say as everyone else. A military position is a profession that involves self-sacrifice and a state must be sure to provide its troops and veterans with a generous salary and opportunities for later careers through scholarships and such.
Greed you say? I find this quite intriguing. Please elaborate.
Logged
King Chester
Geronta
Perioikos
*

Merit: 16
Posts: 183



« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2008, 01:13:20 PM »

Again, if UN-incarcerated criminals are allowed to vote, should not the qualification, or disqualification be dependent on the crime that they have commited?  Should the prisoner for a felony be accorded the same privilages as the prisoner for a misdemeanor?  Also, WE have previously mentioned that recidivism rates indicate that criminals having completed their sentences are usually NOT rehabilitated.

WE can determine that the government was more fiscally responsible prior to the suffrage movement.  This would be an argument in favor of the male only vote.

You continue to ignore the employee in this equation.  Does the employee have a right not to be robbed by the unemployed?  Does a producer of goods and services have a right not to be robbed by non-producers?  That sounds more like communism to me.

The statement wasn't that members of the military should have a vote, the question was if it would not be a good idea for only former military to be allowed to vote.  Veterans have earned the privilage to vote far more than civilians.  In fact, voting IS a privilage, which has been unwisely extended to groups that include greedy opportunists

In many instances, a politician vows to enact laws that will benefit non-productive voters at the expense of the productive citizens.  The non-producers then feel entitled to goods and services they do not labor for, and vote for more taxes on productive citizens.  This is the Greed that WE are speaking of.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!