Earning the Vote

[Ahriman]

Why 25+?

Citizen service is like national service, only not restricted to just military (so could be other forms of civic work, like police, or health service, or charity work etc).

Oh okay well the citizen service thing should definitely not be implemented, it's too strict. I say it should be 25 or older because people are reasonably mature enough at that age to decide what they want from the government.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

As a criteria, how about:

a) Must be 18+
b) Must be a citizen
c) Must have graduated general education (includes IQ test and citizenship lessons to be passed)
d) Must not be in prison
e) Must have completed mandatory 1 year citizen service
f) If between 18-50, must be eligible for conscription or a registered objector

Is this unfair?

Yes, it is. All kidding aside, here's the criteria I'd use:

a) Must be 16+
b) Must live in the country in which you're casting your vote (citizenship not required)


That's it.

Boru

[FrustratedFool]

Why those criteria and not others?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Why those criteria and not others?

-Graduation is no guarantee of using your vote wisely, and IQ tests only determine how well someone takes an IQ test.

-I don't see why serving a prison term should be a bar to voting.

-I object to slavery.

Boru

[FrustratedFool]

Why those criteria and not others?

-Graduation is no guarantee of using your vote wisely, and IQ tests only determine how well someone takes an IQ test.

-I don't see why serving a prison term should be a bar to voting.

-I object to slavery.

Boru

You don't think IQ tests have any fair correlation with GI?

And you don't think some level of education increases the chance of making you better able to understand the issues you are voting upon, and less likely to be subject to manipulation?

As for seeing civic service as slavery, what if it was optional (but not service, no vote)?

Why 16? (not 18, 21, or 13 etc)

And when you say living in a nation, doesn't that possibly increase the risk of foreign interference via immigration/emigration?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Requiring politicians pass the sorts of competency tests floated for voters doesn't seem, to me, to prevent voters from also informing themselves.  It just sets up a situation where a person whose knowledge does matter, because their votes do matter, because they have votes we don't even have in the first place, must be competent.  

We don't (or at least we like to think we don't) hand cops a gun and a badge when they walk in off the street either.  We wanna make sure they really know camel.  We don't let high school grads operate on hearts.  You have to get different sorts of licenses to drive different sorts of vehicles, ffs.    

We demand more of Cletus than we demand of the people we empower to make life or death decisions.  It's ludicrous.

All that is true, but it still relies on the good will and honesty of the politician. They know they're doing wrong in many if not most cases.

I don't trust pols. I want the electorate to be educated in order to more quickly smell the skunks.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

-Graduation is no guarantee of using your vote wisely, and IQ tests only determine how well someone takes an IQ test.

-I don't see why serving a prison term should be a bar to voting.

-I object to slavery.

Boru

You don't think IQ tests have any fair correlation with GI?

And you don't think some level of education increases the chance of making you better able to understand the issues you are voting upon, and less likely to be subject to manipulation?

As for seeing civic service as slavery, what if it was optional (but not service, no vote)?

Why 16? (not 18, 21, or 13 etc)

And when you say living in a nation, doesn't that possibly increase the risk of foreign interference via immigration/emigration?

-No.

-No. Education is not the same as intelligence.

-I was referring specifically to military conscription.

-If someone is old enough to take a full-time job, drive legally, or be married, they’re old enough to vote.

-No.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

As a criteria, how about:

Lets' see 

a) Must be 18+

16 if we can trust you to have sex and drive why not vote ?

b) Must be a citizen

Agreed 

c) Must have graduated general education (includes IQ test and citizenship lessons to be passed)

Uneducated people should still be allowed to vote as should those with low IQ,s 

d) Must not be in prison

Prisoners should be allowed to vote 

e) Must have completed mandatory 1 year citizen service

Disagree citizen service should not be condition 

f) If between 18-50, must be eligible for conscription or a registered objector

Military service should not be condition and conscription shouldn't be legal frankly.

Is this unfair?

Frankly yes

[The Architect Of Fate]

You don't think IQ tests have any fair correlation with GI?

I don't think intelligence should decided ones right to vote. It's disturbingly plutocratic and has some Eugenicist undertones.

And you don't think some level of education increases the chance of making you better able to understand the issues you are voting upon, and less likely to be subject to manipulation?

The goal should be to increase education not exclude people due to a lack of it The idea uneducated and unintelligible people shouldn't be allowed to vote i think goes against the egalitarian spirit of democracy. 

As for seeing civic service as slavery, what if it was optional (but not service, no vote)?

People should have to serve the state to vote in it. 

Why 16? (not 18, 21, or 13 etc)

We seem to give a lot of other responsibilities at 16 why not the right to vote ? 

And when you say living in a nation, doesn't that possibly increase the risk of foreign interference via immigration/emigration?

On this we agree

[FrustratedFool]

You don't think IQ tests have any fair correlation with GI?

And you don't think some level of education increases the chance of making you better able to understand the issues you are voting upon, and less likely to be subject to manipulation?

As for seeing civic service as slavery, what if it was optional (but not service, no vote)?

Why 16? (not 18, 21, or 13 etc)

And when you say living in a nation, doesn't that possibly increase the risk of foreign interference via immigration/emigration?

-No.

-No. Education is not the same as intelligence.

-I was referring specifically to military conscription.

-If someone is old enough to take a full-time job, drive legally, or be married, they’re old enough to vote.

-No.

Boru

Why don't you think there's a fair correlation between IQ and GI?

Agreed.  But I think both intelligence and education are required to make reaonably considered choices.  Hence why I included a criteria for both.  Do you not think education is a requirement for sensible voting?

OK.  But with conscription I allowed for objectors.  It is not uncommon for a state to require conscription under extreme circumstances.

So, in the UK that would be 18.  I agree there should be consistency, but I'd raise the driving and marrying age not lower the voting age.  18 is still very young to understand politics, let alone 16.  I'd consider raising it all to 21.