This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Should there be more requirements for voting?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
ElhonnaDS
This one should spark some debate. Do you think there should be more requirements for voting? At various points in history, democratic countries have always had SOME requirements to vote. In many places, some of those requirements were tied to the prejudices of the time, excluding women and minorities. In others, education was considered necessary, so that they knew that the voters were making an informed decision. In nearly every place, there is an age requirement because they want voters to make informed decisions that require a certain level of mental development. Many places also either temporarily or permanently exclude felons.
Here are some criteria that are not used today, or are currently under debate, in the US:
- Identification- being able to prove who you are. There is a debate about whether requiting someone to prove who they are would keep people without ID's but who have a legitimate right to vote from being able to. The flip side, is that without an ID, it would be very easy for people to go to different polls, using the names of other people, and cast multiple ballots, and possibly costing people their own vote if they are slower to the polls. Is it important to make sure that people who vote are who they say they are, even if a few individuals on the fringe don't want to have to get an ID?
- Education- currently, elected officials have to make a lot of decisions about legislating technology, economics, foreign policy, etc. There are people voting in elections based on the promises made on these issues who couldn't point out the Middle East on a Map, who don't understand basic principles of supply and demand, and who have no idea how important the internet is and what SOPA could have done to it. Should voters be required to have some level of education about the issues before allowing them to vote?
- Mental competency- I'm not sure about this one, but I don't think there are laws that keep people who are significantly mentally ill from voting. If someone has delusions, hallucinations, or the functional capacity of a child, should they still be allowed to vote?
- Felon- This is one that is currently in effect, but is debated. Should felons- especially violent felons, or ones who are involved in organized crime or large scale fraud- be allowed to vote? Should they still get a say in how decisions are made for society, when they have shown that they prey upon society?
- Financial contributions- There is a significant portion of the population who doesn't pay any taxes. They put no money into the government budget, but are allowed to cast votes on how much they will spend and on what. Does this allow people to push for things we can't afford, knowing that they won't have to pay for it? Should they be required to contribute something- even if it's a small percentage- in order to have a say in how the resources are used?
So is voting a right, a responsibility, or both? Does someone have the right to make decisions for the group, regardless of how little they know about the decisions, whether they are much less impacted by the decisions than others, or have shown that they will injure, kill or steal from other people with no regard for their rights? Does your right to vote hinge on you having the responsibility to practice that right in an informed manner, and to contribute to the group that you want to make decisions for? Everyone has the right to make whatever decisions for themselves that they want, but if you are making decisions that affect other people, should there be a higher standard by which you qualify to do that?
Post by
Squishalot
I never understood the issue of ID. What person has the legitimate right to vote but doesn't have legitimate ID? In Australia, where it's compulsory to vote, ID is used to ensure that you don't get fined for
not
voting as much as to ensure that you get your say in the way the country should be run.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Rystrave
I typed this earlier and got sidetracked. Stupid work:
When I voted the other day, I had to provide a driver's license and a piece of mail with my name and updated address on it, since it differed from the one on my license. Maybe it differs from state to state, but I would think any form of ID
should
be required.
I'd also say the majority of people who do vote DO understand the importance of underlined measures and what they can do for the state and the country, can figure out on their own who may be the best candidate by what the said candidate says they are going to do. The people can only get as educated as the candidates allow us to get. There's so much omitted in the first place.
As for mental capacity, I would hope someone who is disabled is actually in care and their care giver will not allow them to vote. My oldest sister is mentally challenged, and although she is incredibly bright, can live on her own, has a full time job, she cannot understand how x-candidate differs from y-candidate. If I had told her, "Fill in this circle, this circle, this circle" she would have, but would not have understood what she actually doing it for. I understand it is their right as an American, but it's also some people’s civil duty to make sure, like you said, that only the educated vote.
Now for felonies, I just looked this up. According to
this
, there are only two states that have no restrictions on allowing felons to vote, and they are Vermont and Maine. All other states have some sort of restriction. I would have to agree with North Dakota's law, that only after a felon as served it's time should he or she be allowed to vote, and hopefully by the time they get outta jail their either too old to move or already dead.
As for the last half, I'm not sure. How would they track if so-n-so paid their taxes that year or not? I suppose if they run their names in the computer for registration, that would work. I don't really have an opinion on that part, sorry.
Post by
Dragalthor
In the UK every voter gets issued a voting card which you need to take to the polling station with you when you go to vote. Whilst it cannot completely combat voter fraud, I'm not sure any system can do that as given enough time anything can be forged, but it helps to minimise it. Plus the card gets sent to everyone on the electoral role for whichever area the election is taking place in if it isn't a general election.
Whilst a lot is made of the whole vote fraud situation I'm personally unsure as to just how big a problem this actually is. Unless you take it to the Russian levels and have hundreds of bus-loads of people being driven around to different polling stations a few individuals voting in multiple places just wouldn't do the trick. I refer to Boronidze's statement earlier about putting on fake moustaches and multiple voting for his candidate which I would have thought even the most dim-witted polling station worker would see through fairly quickly and if the disguise is made more elaborate there is no way you could cast more than a dozen fraudulent votes during the course of the station being open.
Education - Where do you set your limit? Only those that have high school, or equivalent, qualifications are allowed to vote? Or maybe they're not clever enough so lets make it college educated shall we? Actually, some of them still aren't that bright we'll just make it university graduates (or local equivalent). It becomes a slippery slope far too fast as there are people who may be very intelligent and don't go past secondary (high) school due to something extraordinary coming up. The reason I make it about those completeing secondary (high) school and not going further is that in most western countries the minimum age to vote is 18.
Mental health - Again another slippery slope and where do you draw the line for exclusion? Who gets to define who is mentally incompetent to vote?
Felons - I don't think should be allowed to vote full stop. I think that once you have been tried and convicted of commiting a crime you should be disenfranchised until you have served your sentence and have been returned to the community.
Financial contribution - My answer to this is in two parts. Firstly, those who don't earn enough to have to pay taxes should still be allowed to vote. I don't think that in any country they amount to a large enough percentage that they can influence government policy to the extent of pushing for things we can't afford. If a financial contribution were required then you'd have to disenfranchise stay at home mums and dads as well as those who choose to live life on government handouts. Secondly, those who find ways in which to circumvent the tax laws of the country and who don't pay their fair share of he tax bill should be imprisoned for doing so and thus lose their right to vote. Slightly biased on the first part here because as a Merchant Seafarer, if I spend more than half the year out of the country on a ship I am entitled to a 100% tax rebate for that financial year
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Drag- In the USA, about 46% of the population pays no income tax. Legally.
Post by
Squishalot
Removing the right to vote for those who don't pay tax is based on the same argument that the people who pay the most tax should have a greater voting weight. I don't think that the argument stacks up.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I am mostly trying to play devil's advocate here, though I do think that when over 40% of the voting base has no stakes in raising taxes or increasing government spending, you get some dangerously unsustainable policies trying to gain voter favor. However, my fix for this is more having almost everyone paying something in- even if it isn't a lot- so that they have a personal stake in the decisions.
I'm just trying to get a discussion going, really.
Post by
Dragalthor
@Drag- In the USA, about 46% of the population pays no income tax. Legally.
Just doing a bit of googling and I found this
website
in which the majority of the 46% are either pensioners or those who don't earn enough to pay federal taxes but who do still pay federal payroll and excise taxes as well as state and local income, sales, and property taxes.
As this is a subject for which I know less than my current, woefully little, knowledge of the tax laws in the UK, I shall refrain from commenting further.
edited to add this quote from the source above. 'In 2011, 47% of Americans paid no federal income taxes. Within that group, two-thirds still pay payroll taxes. The rest are almost all either (a) old and retired folks collecting Social Security or (b) households earning less than $20,000. Overall, four out of five households not owing federal income tax earn less than $30,000, according to the Tax Policy Center.'
Post by
ElhonnaDS
My payroll tax, per my last pay stub, is about $2.50 per month. It's not really a meaningful amount of money.
Post by
Dragalthor
But it is still tax though Elhonna, whilst you are not contributing much you are still contributing overall. As I said I really do not understand the US tax system so can't go down into the nuts and bolts of it.
Here in the UK the major tax revenue is generated through income tax so technically those that earn more, pay more. working on a sliding scale from those that earn below the tax threshold paying no tax to those who earn over circa 44k paying 40% of those monies as tax. The money earned between the initial tax threshold and the higher tax threshold is is taxed at a flat 22%.
There is a current further threshold of 50% for anyone earning over 100k and various parties want to introduce that permanently for anyone earning over 1million. Though I did hear a good quote on the radio from a prominent UK economist pointing out that the top 5% of earners in the UK pay 25% of the tax bill.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I totally agree that those who earn more should pay more. I just think that if everyone is paying something (in terms of federal tax, vs. payroll tax which is used for 1-2 very specific things and is not increased by most increases in government spending), then people will be more likely to weigh the pros and cons of various programs and ask the government to spend more cautiously. Maybe not even everyone should be paying, but certainly more that 54% of households.
Post by
Dragalthor
I think it depends on what the other taxes are for. Over here we have National Insurance (NI) which has a lower threshold than income tax but is mainly used to fund the national health service/state pension. So even those who are not paying any income tax will still be liable for NI contributions.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think it depends on what the other taxes are for. Over here we have National Insurance (NI) which has a lower threshold than income tax but is mainly used to fund the national health service/state pension. So even those who are not paying any income tax will still be liable for NI contributions.
I would agree with that- that there would be separate taxes for certain services (similar to payroll tax), and that low income households might be exempt from paying for general taxes (which would fund general government operations, military spending, financial programs for various environmental and business initiatives, etc.), but might still have to pay something into health care, education and social services that they are specifically using. I actually think that would be a good compromise, which would make it so that they would have a stake in both the cost and the benefit of changes to these budgets, but not over-burden people with low income with taxes for more general government spending. I think that's a good system.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
ID:
Yes. There will always be a handful of exceptions, but nearly ANYONE in the US can get some form of ID with little, or in most cases, no cost. If a person is physically capable of getting to the polls to vote, then they should be capable of getting an ID. Without ID, there is potential for serious voter fraud. Many, many more illegitimate votes can be cast without ID, than will be lost to the few voters that do not have, and cannot get, proper ID. So, at the very least, this should be a "lesser of 2 evils" situation. 1 person that cannot vote due to no ID, or 1 person that could easily cast 50 votes illegally by traveling from poll to poll. Extrapolate the numbers and this should be an easy decision.
Education:
Education is too subjective to be a requirement. I know plenty of people with college degrees that know nothing about politics, and I know high school dropouts that could write a Poli-Sci textbook. I would however be in favor of raising the minimum age to vote to 25, or somewhere around that point. I think that is about the age where a person has fully matured, and their decisions are more informed. By that time, most people have actually started "real life"....school is over, maybe families have started, and they have had the time necessary to develop an informed opinion on how they want society, and government, to operate. Besides, I don't think an 18-24 year old should
have
to be concerned with politics. This is a time in life where you should be focused on education, career development, and just having some fun. Give kids more time to be kids, and leave the stress of politics to adults.
Mental health:
This would depend on the individual, and really, is a decision that should only be made by a doctor. I would support a mental health professional being able to revoke voting rights of some people, if their illness were serious enough.
Felon:
While incarcerated, No. After release, yes. Once you have served your time, I believe you deserve to have every right reinstated. I very strongly believe that once you have served your sentence, you deserve all your constitutional rights, until (if) you violate the law again. Tagging a felon for life via background checks, and lifetime removal of rights is a travesty of justice in my opinion.
Financial contribution:
I believe that anyone receiving government assistance should forfeit the right to vote. The exception would be Social Security, as that is a benefit that was earned by working. Government assistance has become a way for one candidate to "buy" votes with government money. Whoever promises the most hand-outs will get the vote of those with their hands out. It has nothing to do with those people being second-class citizens, as I realize that many people on some for of Welfare are there for reasons beyond their control, but it is too easy to manipulate these people's vote with promises of assistance, or threats that it will be taken away from them by the other candidate.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Dragalthor
To add to Elhonna's initial post (and I hope she won't mind), do you think that voting should be compulsory like it is in Australia and New Zealand? Do you think forcing the population to vote would have a negative or positive impact on the government that is elected and do you think it would help to solve vote fraud?
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.