Earning the Vote

[FrustratedFool]

So you do accept some criteria.

What is the rationale for age (what age specifically?) and citizenship?

You seem to have misinterpreted (quite fairly if I'm to be honest) my emphatic NO as a refutation of all criteria, where I was simply refuting your proposed additional criteria.

Citizenship (or, recognized permanent residency) seems fairly obvious to me. The citizens of a country/state/county/municipality should be the ones deciding the laws/lawmakers for that country/state/county/municipality.

Age is more a line in the sand, but an already established one that most find reasonable. With age comes understanding. No one believes a 4-year old can make an informed decision about political matters, nor does anyone think most 30+ are unable. 18 is the acceptable age here, and I have no problem with it. What I would take issue with, is politicians arbitrarily changing it and disenfranchising millions of a right they already hold.

I tend to think of rights the way I think of plumbing. The more complicated you make the pipes, the more likely you'll plug up the works.

So, by agreeing to an age criteria, we agree that someone needs to be able to make reasonable choices and not be swayed unduly by manipulative tactics in order to make voting a fair and sensible process that won't do more harm than good.

Our only disagreement is over what checks and balances are best employed to ensure this.

I tend towards thinking that in the highly complex modern world, globalised political and economic issues are such, and the ability to manipulate through post-AI mass-media such, that simply being 18+ is not enough of an obvious measure or safeguard anymore.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

1)  Why?  It seems that you don't think intelligence matters in terms of voting or protection from manipulation.

2) That's a weird take.  I'm advocating for well constructed citizenship lessons in schools.  How you read that as something as sinister sounding as a re-education camp is bizarre to me.  

3) Lol.

4a) I don't follow your argument here.
4b) Do you not think that if everyone was even more heartless, stupid, immature, and ignorant, then voting would be even worse?

It seems to me that you think that maturity, intelligence, empathy, education, and maturity don't affect people's ability to make informed and sensible voting choices whatsoever, nor to protect themselves against manipulation.  Is that your position?

1) Correct. It’s precisely because I don’t think - based on election results - that intelligence matters all that much in terms of Voting that I wouldn’t set any kind of intelligence bar for voting. But your question was what would I choose over IQ tests as a measure of general intelligence.

2) ‘…a course designed specifically to make good voters’ is fascist code for ‘…teaching people to vote the right way’. I saw you palm that card.

3) *no response needed*

4a) It’s perfectly simple. How can you possibly quantify ‘good’ voters? 
4b)  No.

It seems to me that you think that maturity, intelligence, empathy, education, and maturity don't affect people's ability to make informed and sensible voting choices whatsoever, nor to protect themselves against manipulation.  Is that your position?

Pretty much. To refute it, you’d had to demonstrate that voters with the listed qualities make informed and sensible voting choices and are subject to manipulation. Given the weight of evidence, I don’t fancy your chances.

Boru

[Ravenshire]

You seem to have misinterpreted (quite fairly if I'm to be honest) my emphatic NO as a refutation of all criteria, where I was simply refuting your proposed additional criteria.

Citizenship (or, recognized permanent residency) seems fairly obvious to me. The citizens of a country/state/county/municipality should be the ones deciding the laws/lawmakers for that country/state/county/municipality.

Age is more a line in the sand, but an already established one that most find reasonable. With age comes understanding. No one believes a 4-year old can make an informed decision about political matters, nor does anyone think most 30+ are unable. 18 is the acceptable age here, and I have no problem with it. What I would take issue with, is politicians arbitrarily changing it and disenfranchising millions of a right they already hold.

I tend to think of rights the way I think of plumbing. The more complicated you make the pipes, the more likely you'll plug up the works.

So, by agreeing to an age criteria, we agree that someone needs to be able to make reasonable choices and not be swayed unduly by manipulative tactics in order to make voting a fair and sensible process that won't do more harm than good.

Our only disagreement is over what checks and balances are best employed to ensure this.

I tend towards thinking that in the highly complex modern world, globalised political and economic issues are such, and the ability to manipulate through post-AI mass-media such, that simply being 18+ is not enough of an obvious measure or safeguard anymore.

My dad was born before Hitler invaded Poland. He's badly manipulated by political rhetoric in every election cycle. Age is no deterrent to poor decisions.

Our disagreement seems to be over how draconian our solutions would be. You would divest millions of the right to vote. That, to me, is a terrible thing.

Education and perceived intelligence (but especially education) is no magical preventative to making poor decisions. I know university graduates who voted Trump. No one is immune to political manipulation so trying to limit participation by that criteria, which is what education and intelligence testing really is, is a fool's game. It also provides a smaller pool for the powers that be to manipulate.

[FrustratedFool]

@Boru
1) But how do you deduce from voting results that intelligence doesn't matter? Do you filter out from all the votes cast all those made by high IQ people and see if they all tally or something?

2) Why would you think that? That seems ridiculous to me. Surely teaching people things like rhetorical devices, media literacy, economic basics, political processes, critical thinking, are things that protect against facism? I may as well interpret your desire to not educate children correctly as a fascistic desire to have an easily manipulate populous. Whatever card you think I'm palming is purely in your own mind.

4a) I would classify a good voter probably in the same way as you would: someone who votes with a sensible, educated, informed, empathic, intelligent, mature, mind with minimal manipulation. After all, you want an age criteria, yes?

4b) So why do you not allow 4 year olds to vote, if being immature doesn't matter?

5) You don't think I can show that on average a 30 year old will likely make less manipulated voting choices than a 3 year old? That's an odd position to take.

[FrustratedFool]

So, by agreeing to an age criteria, we agree that someone needs to be able to make reasonable choices and not be swayed unduly by manipulative tactics in order to make voting a fair and sensible process that won't do more harm than good.

Our only disagreement is over what checks and balances are best employed to ensure this.

I tend towards thinking that in the highly complex modern world, globalised political and economic issues are such, and the ability to manipulate through post-AI mass-media such, that simply being 18+ is not enough of an obvious measure or safeguard anymore.

My dad was born before Hitler invaded Poland. He's badly manipulated by political rhetoric in every election cycle. Age is no deterrent to poor decisions.

Our disagreement seems to be over how draconian our solutions would be. You would divest millions of the right to vote. That, to me, is a terrible thing.

Education and perceived intelligence (but especially education) is no magical preventative to making poor decisions. I know university graduates who voted Trump. No one is immune to political manipulation so trying to limit participation by that criteria, which is what education and intelligence testing really is, is a fool's game. It also provides a smaller pool for the powers that be to manipulate.

1)  Of course age is relevant.  It's not a sure thing, of course.  But a 30 year old is obviously less easily manipulated than a 3 year old.  That's why we both agree on an age criteria, yes?

2)  I don't know how many would fail to meet the criteria, since the details haven't been set.  Not sure how you work that out either.  But, let's agree that I would stop millions voting.  By setting the age at 18 rather than 16 you do the same.  It seems irrelevant, especially if voting can be harmful as well as good.  The point is that voting isn't neutral.  As your dad found out.  If stopping millions voting prevents great harm then surely that's the best thing to do?

3) Of course there's no simple obvious way to prevent bad choices and manipulation.  But surely we seek to reduce and limit it, yes?  Do we want children and lunatics to vote?  No.  There's no principle disagreement between us, merely a methodological one.  Which method best protects democracy whilst also limiting harm.

[Ravenshire]

My dad was born before Hitler invaded Poland. He's badly manipulated by political rhetoric in every election cycle. Age is no deterrent to poor decisions.

Our disagreement seems to be over how draconian our solutions would be. You would divest millions of the right to vote. That, to me, is a terrible thing.

Education and perceived intelligence (but especially education) is no magical preventative to making poor decisions. I know university graduates who voted Trump. No one is immune to political manipulation so trying to limit participation by that criteria, which is what education and intelligence testing really is, is a fool's game. It also provides a smaller pool for the powers that be to manipulate.

1)  Of course age is relevant.  It's not a sure thing, of course.  But a 30 year old is obviously less easily manipulated than a 3 year old.  That's why we both agree on an age criteria, yes?

2)  I don't know how many would fail to meet the criteria, since the details haven't been set.  Not sure how you work that out either.  But, let's agree that I would stop millions voting.  By setting the age at 18 rather than 16 you do the same.  It seems irrelevant, especially if voting can be harmful as well as good.  The point is that voting isn't neutral.  As your dad found out.  If stopping millions voting prevents great harm then surely that's the best thing to do?

3) Of course there's no simple obvious way to prevent bad choices and manipulation.  But surely we seek to reduce and limit it, yes?  Do we want children and lunatics to vote?  No.  There's no principle disagreement between us, merely a methodological one.  Which method best protects democracy whilst also limiting harm.

To limit or abrogate the right of one for fear it will be abused by another is a fools game. You obviously disagree and to continue past this point would be an exercise in futility. If you wish the last word on the subject, it's yours for the taking.

[The Architect Of Fate]

1)  Of course age is relevant.  It's not a sure thing, of course.  But a 30 year old is obviously less easily manipulated than a 3 year old.  That's why we both agree on an age criteria, yes?

Consider the demographic of Trump and Brexit voters i'm going to have to question the idea 30 year olds aren't easily manipulated.

2)  I don't know how many would fail to meet the criteria, since the details haven't been set.  Not sure how you work that out either.  But, let's agree that I would stop millions voting.  By setting the age at 18 rather than 16 you do the same.  It seems irrelevant, especially if voting can be harmful as well as good.  The point is that voting isn't neutral.  As your dad found out.  If stopping millions voting prevents great harm then surely that's the best thing to do?

It's very relevant when those millions don't get a say but have to live with the results 

3) Of course there's no simple obvious way to prevent bad choices and manipulation.  But surely we seek to reduce and limit it, yes?  Do we want children and lunatics to vote?  No.  There's no principle disagreement between us, merely a methodological one.  Which method best protects democracy whilst also limiting harm.

Your whole premise is that older people make wise choices and are not easily manipulated while young people are this simply doesn't reflect reality

[The Architect Of Fate]

1) But how do you deduce from voting results that intelligence doesn't matter? Do you filter out from all the votes cast all those made by high IQ people and see if they all tally or something?

Rights are not based on intelligence 

2) Why would you think that? That seems ridiculous to me. Surely teaching people things like rhetorical devices, media literacy, economic basics, political processes, critical thinking, are things that protect against facism? I may as well interpret your desire to not educate children correctly as a fascistic desire to have an easily manipulate populous. Whatever card you think I'm palming is purely in your own mind.

Again it doesn't matter how educated someone is they should have the right to vote 

4a) I would classify a good voter probably in the same way as you would: someone who votes with a sensible, educated, informed, empathic, intelligent, mature, mind with minimal manipulation. After all, you want an age criteria, yes?

There are no good voters there are simply voters 

4b) So why do you not allow 4 year olds to vote, if being immature doesn't matter?

Now your are just being silly 

5) You don't think I can show that on average a 30 year old will likely make less manipulated voting choices than a 3 year old? That's an odd position to take.

You can't but i can show clear demographic data that they can be

[The Architect Of Fate]

So, by agreeing to an age criteria, we agree that someone needs to be able to make reasonable choices and not be swayed unduly by manipulative tactics in order to make voting a fair and sensible process that won't do more harm than good.

Older people are no less capable of being manipulated then young people especially now. 

Our only disagreement is over what checks and balances are best employed to ensure this.

Now it seems on the whole premise of needlesly limiting voting 

I tend towards thinking that in the highly complex modern world, globalised political and economic issues are such, and the ability to manipulate through post-AI mass-media such, that simply being 18+ is not enough of an obvious measure or safeguard anymore.

Well that's an opinion

[The Architect Of Fate]

1)  Is there a better measure for GI?

Intelligence should have nothing to do with ones ability to vote 

2)  Surely that depends upon the content of the formal education?

Education should have nothing to do with ones ability to vote 

3)  Prison for being an objector wasn't part of the statement. But I'm happy enough to remove this as a criteria for earning the vote if the other more important things can be agreed upon.

Good because it's bad criteria 

4)  Correct.  Which is not only why I prefer an older age (21 is far more likely to be mature than 16), but also why I have the combination of age + IQ + education + civic service + not in prison.  That seems a fair combination of wide factors that can increase the likelihood of someone being a mature, smart, educated,

None of these factors should limit voting 

empathic person.  This is in contrast to removing all criteria and making the age as low as reasonably possible which seems to massively increase the likelihood of many voters being immature, uneducated, and easily manipulated.

This statement is simply false.