[Demosthenes]

In order to build a more perfect union...

Nah, Just looking at the irresponsible ways in which the very young, but vote eligible, handle their right. I'm inclined to support a Heinleinesque view on citizenship. As respnosible citizenship should be considered a privledge, not a right, or at the least a marriage of both, it is my feeling that this citizenship should be earned.

As discussed in the entry on Mandatory National Service a pre-citizen would not enjoy full voting rights, nor would they enjoy any of the other benefits society has to offer them until such time as they complete their term of service. For those who slip through the cracks, for whatever reason, and remain in society beyond their 21st year without having completed their mandatory two year term of service, they shall only be allowed limited voting rights.

Until an individual has completed their term of service, they will be allowed to vote at the age of 18, but this vote will count only as 1/2 the vote of a citizen. Part of a Term of Service will include rigorous Civics classes and tests that must be passed in order to earn full voting rights.

Care will be taken so that minorities are not intentionally or unintentionally left out of this system. If an individual fails to pass his/her civics exams they will be given the opportunity to retest at their leisure until such time as they can pass the exam. Until then, their votes shall count as 1/2 a vote, as stated above, whether or not they have finished their term of service.

One might be asking: "Why the insistance on such a seemingly drastic measure?" Simply put, this is an effort to weed out what I see as "celebrity voting patterns". Current US voters (strictly anecdotally speaking) seem to put the most emphasis on which candidates current celebrity status rates higher than the other. A simple, common sense look at, say: The last five elections can give us some insight into this voting pattern:

- Clinton vs. Bush Sr.: The new hep cat, vs. the old stodgy guy who didn't even know what a grocery scanner was. Never mind the politics, Clinton can play the Sax!!!

- Clinton vs. Bob Dole: Bob Dole? Talk about purposely tanking an election...What could that guy possible be the celebrity of?

- Bush Jr. Vs Al Gore: This is the exception, the celebrity factor was split almost evenly, though the slight edge went to Bush. I'll ignore all the controversy surrounding this election for my own selfish purposes.

- Bush Jr. Vs. John Kerry: Anyone catching the pattern here? I'd like to see Kerry vs. Dole, in a contest to see who could put the most people to sleep!!!

- Obama vs. John McCain: C'mon...McCain was never going to win this for a variety of semi-valid reasons, but most importantly McCain's wit was only any good when he turned it on himself. Obama clearly understands how to work a crowd. This really was never a contest.

Now, I realize those who read politics regularly and do their duty by being informed will scoff, but it is their very disconnection with the "average" voter that causes them to misread voting patterns. They are too far removed from the common man in terms of political intellectualism to understand how apathetic the system has made these average voters. And so the well informed voters and pundits tend to ascribe motives in voting to the average voter that the latter simply doesn't have.

The fact that a very large block of voters is so uninformed, and votes with so little knowledge of who they are voting for and why is clearly a very big success for the liberal-conservative alliance, I'd say.

In my perfect world, you will be required to know the major players of both parties (and hopefully all the future parties that form as "winner-take-all" is abolished), and you will be required to know who your local representatives of these parties are, not to mention that you will have to demonstrate an understanding of the workings of the government and it's election processes.

This isn't too much to ask of those who wish to influence that same government.

Some general links on current US voting...

...System
...Rights
...Turnout
...and Process

Am I a nutball? Am I a prophet? Somewhere in between? Tell me about it here!

[Dan]

I like it, except for the part about giving them the half vote.

[Dr House]

I would say the voting age needs to be raised to 25, at least.

[Godstud]

I agree with raising the voting age.

In my perfect world, you will be required to know the major players of both parties (and hopefully all the future parties that form as "winner-take-all" is abolished), and you will be required to know who your local representatives of these parties are, not to mention that you will have to demonstrate an understanding of the workings of the government and it's election processes.

I agree totally! Maybe Bush wouldn't have even served had informed voters had been filling out the ballots and not people who barely know which person they are voting for.

[Dr House]

I actually have a number of requirements for the franchise, but a higher voting age is the most basic one. It's scientifically proven humans on average don't reach full mental maturity until that age, so that's a necessity.

[Demosthenes]

I actually have a number of requirements for the franchise, but a higher voting age is the most basic one. It's scientifically proven humans on average don't reach full mental maturity until that age, so that's a necessity.

I can attest to not knowing WTF was going on until the age of 25, and even then...it was just the beginning...

Still I'm confident my programs, if enacted, would at least succede in an informed voting electorate.

I'm keeping the 1/2 vote btw. I'm not so heartless to ignore them, but they shouldn't get free passes either.

[Korimyr the Rat]

I disagree with enhanced voting requirements. I am willing to consider a public service requirement, but looking at the amount of political indoctrination that occurs within the military, I do not consider it a particularly good idea.

On the matter of the voting age, I have considered raising it to 25 and would like to make a counter-proposal:

Lower it to 15.

I had a job when I was 15. I paid my taxes on money I earned-- not the income tax, certainly, but the payroll tax and sales taxes. Paid for the license plates on my car. If I'd committed any serious crimes, you could bet that the State would attempt to prosecute me as an adult. If I'd gotten a woman pregnant, I'd be held financially and legally responsible for the child.

On what grounds could I have been morally denied the vote?

Men and women in their late teens and early twenties do not think and behave in an immature fashion by any quirk of biology or neurochemistry. They are immature because they are allowed to be, because they are not raised with responsibilities and duties from early childhood-- "let kids be kids"-- and are suddenly thrust into the world of adult responsibilities somewhere between their 18th birthday and when they graduate from college, depending on when their parents decide to cut the cord.

[Shayn]

Completely agree that citizenship is a priviledge.

I think that if you're forcing people to learn about the process and be informed, its worth your time to legislate mandatory voting as well. But, the only way to make this inclusive would be a "none-of-the-above" option which would allow voters to default on the choices presented, so as to ensure the liberal-conservative trap isn't continued on into the new system. It would also have to fall under some form of porportional represenation. Seeing as you're encouraging everyone to be informed on the electoral process, these seems like the ideal situation in which to try out new systems on a more local and state-wide level, before implementation. Whatever is most effective in encouraging citizen participation and knowledgeable transfer of the franchise should be allowed to be proven and risen to national politics.

I don't like the idea of the half vote. It just seems far to cumbersome. A better idea would be in limiting the young from voting in higher levels of government - let them have a say in their local government. This gives them the ability to continue only working and voting in their local community, something which should be encouraged if this is their wish. It allows for different structural communities to be set up, and allows people to live where they want to under their chosen system. Also, you're not going to find many celebrities running for the local water board. Not to mention, it strengthens the system as a whole by encouraging people to be involved in the smaller parts first. Understanding politics on a local level is far more important than the national and state elections we have. That's the best way to get people used to and knowledgable about the voting process and how it empowers people to be active in their democracy.

I also agree tenetaively with the mandatory service program, but think it should be expanded from what already currently exists. Allow people to join the military, firefighting, environmental corps and peace corps. Create new avenues to get these young people to be active in their communities, and not just national service. I say make it two tier - a year or two in community service, and a year or two in national service.

I don't like the idea of raising the voting age to 25: While everyone matures at about the same time, some people are naturally gifted leaders and intelligent go-getters who we shouldn't be hindered. They'd be turned off by the process (you encourage the Alphas to be involved their own way). It doesn't make sense to slow these people down by five years. Their gifts should be encouraged. For that reason alone, I'm weary of raising the voting age. Yes, most young people are drunken/stoned idiots who not only don't know about the duties of their citizenship, most don't care. That's why mandatory service is a good idea. But it shouldn't be limited. For those who want to work on social justice, peace and environmental issues, let them. For those who want to serve their nation, let them. But remind them that the nation would be nothing without the health of their communities. This seems important as we move from such an energy-dependent world into one where transportation of people and goods will decrease and localization becomes a major contender for people's political and economic activities, not to mention the massive changes in infrastructure that will be needed to accomplish this transition.

[Fasces]

My only major disagreement is the idea of giving those who do not serve even half a vote. Voting is, and should be, a privileged awarded to dutiful citizens. Residents who refuse to serve their nation, and their fellows, do not deserve the honor of voting for a representative. Why? Because they are generally misinformed, and do not fully appreciate what their vote means. If democracy is to work, it needs limitations, and I am confident that with proper limitations it will work.

This is easiest accomplished by removing the idea of naturalized citizenship. This assumes you have the right to belong to the nation. You do not. Rather, the nation bestows upon the individual the privilege of citizenship. Rather than limiting the right to vote among citizens, give all citizens unlimited suffrage - but limit citizenship to those who serve. The science fiction story, Starship Troopers eloquently illustrates this idea.

[Dave]

The idea of not granting the franchise until some form of national service has been completed is an appealing one, but as the service is mandatory (unless I misunderstood) this seems to make little difference, unless you think that national service will accomplish what 12 years of public school brainwashing cannot. I would agree with the sentiments in this thread that the voting age should be raised to at least 25, and maybe 30 would be a good idea. A civics exam is a good idea, but one must be very careful with who exactly writes the test. Lastly, I think you should explore limiting the franchise in other manners, by exploring what kind of conditions tend to make people more responsible, realistic, as well as compassionate.

[NYYS]

The voting age should absolutely be raised. Younger people are more liberal, if we can cut them out of the process entirely that would be fantastic.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Yes, restricting the franchise to eliminate one's political opponents is a wonderful idea.

[Shayn]

Notice how the right-wingers cannot comment on the proposals by Demosthenes and myself - just, let's make it harder to vote.

[Fasces]

Your proposal on allowing youth participation is also flawed, as it also awards the privilege of the vote simply for being a alive enough years. My proposal would be as follows.

All voters must:

1) Be employed.
2) Have completed a voluntary term of service of no less than one year, similar to the concept outlined by Demosthenes in an earlier post.
3) Pass a citizenship exam, on basic civics lessons and show an understanding of the way the government works, as well as an understanding of the constitution of the state.

There is no limitation on age here, as a youth who accomplished both conditions deserve the ability to vote, as they have completed their contributions, and it erases an uninformed electorate. The likely result of your scenario is not that youth educate themselves through participation in local elections, but that they simply wait a few more years before voting. The uninformed electorate remains, and no problem is solved.

[Shayn]

The likely result of your scenario is not that youth educate themselves through participation in local elections, but that they simply wait a few more years before voting. The uninformed electorate remains, and no problem is solved.

What the hell? How is it possible that getting people involved in local elections would make them uninformed? I proposed to do this during a term of community service, which obviously would include civic lessons. Hell, civics should be a mandatory part of education from as soon as people are capable of being aware of it. We shouldn't even have to be discussing this - it's a tragedy that we are.

All voters must:

1) Be employed.

I think voters doing mandatory service, if they choose community service, should be allowed to vote in community elections. It puts the emphasis on community politics and government, which I think is a good idea.

But I don't think the same thing about universal employment as being a necessary requirement. That doesn't make sense. Are you going to exclude students? The people going to school for 6-8 years to become doctors and lawyers should be excluded if they don't have a job? Those who are going to school and not working are the rich - are you telling me your proposal is to get more poor people to vote (because they're forced to be working) than the wealthy? I don't think you've thought this through.

What about stay at home parents? Are they forced to leave their children in the hands of others just to be able to vote? What about seniors? Are you telling me that you'd deny retired people the vote? What about business owners? If I decided to create an executive board and run my company that way, installing a CEO and relinquishing that position, I'd be technically unemployed unless we created some made-up description of "consultant," which would make my board seat seem jeopardized. So am I not allowed to vote in that case? What about the sick, the disabled, the laid-off? If the government fucked up the economy, there'd be little whose lives have been destroyed by bad economic management that they could do. Millions laid-off? Good, call an election so we can breeze back to power before anyone can figure out what's happening.

On second thought, maybe you have thought this out.

[Fasces]

Your proposal merely removed the right of the young to participate in high-level elections, implying that as they age, they will be permitted to participate. It is stupid to pretend that the youth would not simply wait until they can participate in high level elections, and would actually use the time to educate themselves on local politics and the political process. Short of requiring an exam before being given the vote, I do not see this as any actual solution, and I myself advocate an exam.

The unemployed should not vote, simply because such a large aspect of government is economic policy. Having unemployed persons vote, even students, opens the system to abuse. That being said, should a student hold a job as they study, they would be eligible to vote like any other person. This simply prevents persons from mooching off the system, voting to give themselves increased welfare, or grants, and sucking the system dry. I do not believe mothers should remain in the home - they should work like any other. Daycare centers and other educational facilities can then be extended, so that parents are at home when youth are. It is the duty of the state to care for its young.

Of course, we are making the flawed argument that the liberal democratic system is worth preserving. While conducting such electoral reform, it would be best to move into a syndicated democracy, but that is obviously a separate issue. You do me a disservice by equating me to a tyrant because of the perceived "right-wing ness" of my views.

[Korimyr the Rat]

I do not believe mothers should remain in the home - they should work like any other.

Raising children is work, and it is more important work than the vast majority of paying jobs-- and regardless of any duty that the State has to the youth, children belong at home with their parents.

[Fasces]

What need does a housewife have for a vote, then? She is not taxed. Her job is not in danger by government policies.

[Dave]

On the other hand, her family is in danger by government policies--why do you think there are so few housewives compared to before? None the less, I agree that women should not have the right to vote.

Notice how the right-wingers cannot comment on the proposals by Demosthenes and myself - just, let's make it harder to vote.

Just FYI I didn't read any of your proposals

Nothing personal, I probably will later and will respond later

But yeah I just get a raging hard on from restricting the franchise

[NYYS]

Notice how the right-wingers cannot comment on the proposals by Demosthenes and myself - just, let's make it harder to vote.

I also didn't read anything else, I just oppose giving stupid people a vote. I really like the idea of requiring employment. You should also not have received any form of welfare in the last few years, and being convicted of a misdemeanor should prevent you from voting in the next election.

But what the hell, I've got a few minutes.

As discussed in the entry on Mandatory National Service a pre-citizen would not enjoy full voting rights, nor would they enjoy any of the other benefits society has to offer them until such time as they complete their term of service.

I strongly, strongly disagree with a mandatory national service of any kind, so I just oppose this one outright. From both a moral perspective (I don't fucking want to do that) and an efficiency one (you're taking valuable people out of the workforce so they waste a couple years following whatever pet project the current government likes).

Care will be taken so that minorities are not intentionally or unintentionally left out of this system. If an individual fails to pass his/her civics exams they will be given the opportunity to retest at their leisure until such time as they can pass the exam. Until then, their votes shall count as 1/2 a vote, as stated above, whether or not they have finished their term of service.

I think you know, from how you worded this, that a disproportionately high number of minorities are not going to pass this civic exam, and will therefore be only getting 1/2 a vote. This is politically impossible since any black person counting as a fraction of a person is going to kick the civil-rights beehive. No way this will ever happen.

For the record, I do agree with having to pass a civic exam to vote.

One might be asking: "Why the insistance on such a seemingly drastic measure?" Simply put, this is an effort to weed out what I see as "celebrity voting patterns". Current US voters (strictly anecdotally speaking) seem to put the most emphasis on which candidates current celebrity status rates higher than the other. A simple, common sense look at, say: The last five elections can give us some insight into this voting pattern:

I'm not sure why you would want this, Demo. This is going to result in a serious shift to the right, as the "hip" celebrity candidates (who are almost always liberal and tend to receive votes from youth and minorities) will lose a significant percentage of their voting base.

Not to mention the first candidate who promises to eliminate Mandatory National Service will win in a landslide.