Earning the Vote

[arewethereyet]

I don't think education should be used as a requirement....beyond being able to read the ballots.

Husband was abandoned by his parents at 16 and left to fend for himself. In order to do that he quit school and went to work. He is not what is considered educated but he's not stupid either. There are reasons why some people do not have a traditional education including those who are better suited to the trades than to English Lit.

[The Architect Of Fate]

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

I don't think that should matter. Low IQ people should be allowed to vote. 

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?

Reasonably considered choices aren't the point of democracy. People should be allowed to vote for any reason. The solution is education not exclusion. 

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

If people won't fight for a government by choice then that government has lost the support of the people and it's legitimacy.  

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.

Again understanding isn't the point.

[The Grand Nudger]

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

Cant be trusted with  beer, can die for your country or vote on issues that will effects millions for decades.  I'm not sure if that's supremely weird or exactly right.  Embrace the power of and, I guess.  

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.

I'm not interested in trusting the good will and honesty of a politician any more than I'm interested in trusting the good will and honesty of a bank teller.  If a bank teller knowingly makes materially false statements about my account we don't say "well, that's just banking".  No...no.  Only in politics can you be rewarded for what would cost you a minimum wage job.

If this is the best we can do and anything else is pie in the sky fantasy - then any suggestions we may have about improving it are polishing brass on the titanic. The improved version will be a shinier example of the same turd. We the people are not the problem. We don't vote for these assholes and haven't in decades. They are in power because, over those decades, they engineered minority control which they seek to seal in the short term. They do not have policies or ideas for solving the problems we have and this is why they could not allow competence on any such thing to be a requirement - either official or just by norms™. They are all het up about some better civics education, themselves, as it allows them to shift the focus and the blame from their own malfeasance or incompetence onto people who will then bicker amongst themselves. Not that they would deliver it. They would reliably deliver reich wing revisionism and call it civics - which is especially absurd in the context of american history, as you don't really have to engage in revisionism to offer reich wing civics......

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

-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.

-Several reasons, including (but not limited to) the inherent cultural bias of IQ tests.

-No, I don’t think that. Many people leave school just as ignorant as they entered it. Suppose Joe, with little or no formal education, follows several news sources, makes it his business to learn as much as possible about the candidates and issues on the ballot, and weighs the pros and cons of his vote for each. Jim, on the other hand, graduated high school at the top of his class and holds two university degrees, but votes the straight Tory ticket because that’s what his father did. Who’s the better voter?

-Simply because conscription is common does mean it isn’t slavery (or at least indentured servitude). And there’s no evidence whatsoever that either military service or civilian volunteerism makes people more responsible voters.

-That’s only the case in half the UK - in Scotland and NI you can still get married at 16. And the voting age in Scotland is 16.

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm not interested in trusting the good will and honesty of a politician any more than I'm interested in trusting the good will and honesty of a bank teller.  If a bank teller knowingly makes materially false statements about my account we don't say "well, that's just banking".  No...no.  Only in politics can you be rewarded for what would cost you a minimum wage job.

If this is the best we can do and anything else is pie in the sky fantasy - then any suggestions we may have about improving it are polishing brass on the titanic.  The improved version will be a shinier example of the same turd.  We the people are not the problem.  We don't vote for these assholes and haven't in decades.  They are in power because, over those decades, they engineered minority control which they seek to seal in the short term.  They do not have policies or ideas for solving the problems we have and this is why they could not allow competence on any such thing to be a requirement - either official or just by norms™.  They are all het up about some better civics education, themselves, as it allows them to shift the focus and the blame from their own malfeasance or incompetence onto people who will then bicker amongst themselves.  Not that they would deliver it.  They would reliably deliver reich wing revisionism and call it civics - which is especially absurd in the context of american history, as you don't really have to engage in revisionism to offer reich wing civics......

Yet you argue that they're should be educated in our civics, as if that will fix their ethical shortfalls. You're trying to hammer nails with a fish taco. They're not trying to do the right thing. It follows that the voters need to practice oversight.

Otherwise, your political nihilism looks like abject surrender.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think the main benefit (of tying service to benefits, at least) would be a reasonable belief that people who serve are more responsible voters - though that is nice to imagine.

One benefit, though, would be to lock in government benefits for that segment of the population. So, if you needed benefits and couldn't get those benefits outside of any other program (because they don't exist or the other guys wont let you) then you serve. To deprive The Wrong People™ of government assistance the nuts would then need to prevent people from getting into the programs that do exist, prevent new programs from coming into existence, and also prevent The Wrong People from joining the civil or military service.

If we're going to erect barriers, they shouldn't be between people and voting, but between the government and maladministration.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yet you argue that they're should be educated in our civics, as if that will fix their ethical shortfalls. You're trying to hammer nails with a fish taco. They're not trying to do the right thing. It follows that the voters need to practice oversight.

Otherwise, your political nihilism looks like abject surrender.

Yes, my well known political nihilism.  Stating the fact that my vote literally does not and cannot matter is not nihilism - and obviously I think that's a problem..that it matters.  I keep trying to hammer home the idea that voting cannot be a solution to anything until the votes really do matter.

I don't care about their ethical shortfalls as a matter of their possessing them any more than I care whether or not some terrible person is my bank teller. I think that politicians ought to be accountable at least as much as a minimum wage joe is at any of their jobs. It's not because banks are filled with only decent people that bank tellers don't routinely steal my money. It;s because there are rules, systems of accountability. It's actually supposed to be that way, it's not even a change to our system. My fantasy, if that's what it is, is simply that we follow our own damned laws that already exist.

If we're willing to even flirt with the idea that we simply cannot expect this much of politicians.....then we're back to furiously polishing that brass, aren't we.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yet you argue that they're should be educated in our civics, as if that will fix their ethical shortfalls. You're trying to hammer nails with a fish taco. They're not trying to do the right thing. It follows that the voters need to practice oversight.

Otherwise, your political nihilism looks like abject surrender.

Yes, my well known political nihilism.  Stating the fact that my vote literally does not and cannot matter is not nihilism - and obviously I think that's a problem..that it matters.  I keep trying to hammer home the idea that voting cannot be a solution to anything until the votes really do matter.

I don't care about their ethical shortfalls as a matter of their possessing them any more than I care whether or not some terrible person is my bank teller.  I think that politicians ought to be accountable at least as much as a minimum wage joe is at any of their jobs.  It's not because banks are filled with only decent people that bank tellers don't routinely steal my money.  It;s because there are rules, systems of accountability.  It's actually supposed to be that way, it's not even a change to our system.  My fantasy, if that's what it is, is simply that we follow our own damned laws that already exist.

If we're willing to even flirt with the idea that we simply cannot expect this much of politicians.....then we're back to furiously polishing that brass, aren't we.

Yep, surrender.

[Angrboda]

Yet you argue that they're should be educated in our civics, as if that will fix their ethical shortfalls. You're trying to hammer nails with a fish taco. They're not trying to do the right thing. It follows that the voters need to practice oversight.

Otherwise, your political nihilism looks like abject surrender.

Yes, my well known political nihilism.  Stating the fact that my vote literally does not and cannot matter is not nihilism - and obviously I think that's a problem..that it matters.  I keep trying to hammer home the idea that voting cannot be a solution to anything until the votes really do matter.

[Mister Agenda]

Yet you argue that they're should be educated in our civics, as if that will fix their ethical shortfalls. You're trying to hammer nails with a fish taco. They're not trying to do the right thing. It follows that the voters need to practice oversight.

Otherwise, your political nihilism looks like abject surrender.

Yes, my well known political nihilism.  Stating the fact that my vote literally does not and cannot matter is not nihilism - and obviously I think that's a problem..that it matters.  I keep trying to hammer home the idea that voting cannot be a solution to anything until the votes really do matter.

I don't care about their ethical shortfalls as a matter of their possessing them any more than I care whether or not some terrible person is my bank teller.  I think that politicians ought to be accountable at least as much as a minimum wage joe is at any of their jobs.  It's not because banks are filled with only decent people that bank tellers don't routinely steal my money.  It;s because there are rules, systems of accountability.  It's actually supposed to be that way, it's not even a change to our system.  My fantasy, if that's what it is, is simply that we follow our own damned laws that already exist.

If we're willing to even flirt with the idea that we simply cannot expect this much of politicians.....then we're back to furiously polishing that brass, aren't we.

Seems like voting mattered in several recent elections. A lot more was accomplished than polishing brass, lives were saved.