Who should be allowed to vote?

[Remiel]

Why should rich people who inherited their money and don't actually do any work get to vote? How are you going to determine which rich people don't actually contribute their own effort to society?

[Argus]

There is an assumption that democracy works better in that the overall electorate supervises the politicians, and to that extent it does work better. If the politicians screw up too badly the voters can turf them. But you don't need ten million voters to accomplish that goal. One million will do it just as well. And if that one million tended to be better educated, more knowledgeable and thoughtful - well - so much the better. It might even work better.

I'm rather sympathetic to the sentiments expressed above. A case can be made for the importance of education and knowledge-based information on decision-making and attitude formation. The following paper was presented at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association:

http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2006/Bittner.pdf

Here's a nonrandom sample of the research findings in this study:

Informed women are more likely to support same sex marriage than are uninformed women.

Informed atheists are more likely to support same sex marriage than are uninformed atheists.

Uninformed women were more likely to vote Conservative than informed women.

Informed women were more likely to support easier access to abortion than uninformed women.

Uninformed atheists are no more or less likely to support the Conservative Party than are individuals affiliated with a religion.

Informed atheists are 24% less likely to support the Conservative Party than are uninformed atheists.

Information may make individuals from rural areas more socially progressive.

So perhaps there is merit to the suggestion implied by Argus that electoral decisions be made by those who are "...better educated, more knowledgeable...". Alas I suspect that this suggestion would meet with some resistance from CPC electoral strategists.

Well, to start with, I have to point out that my definition of "informed" clearly varies with that of the report's author. My definition of "educated" also differs. I would rarely, for example, consider a social science graduate to be educated in the classical sense. People take Sociology when they can't think of anything to do with their lives, and because it seems easy, and they have a general, mushy sort of desire to be helpful to the world in a vague, uncertain way. As to "informed", the author defines that as someone who can remember who the leaders of the political parties are. I would consider informed to be someone who understands how national economies work, the basics of law, something of history, especially political history. Knowing what a given party promises is not, to my mind, nearly as important as the recognition, for example, that the same political party had promised the same thing in each of the last five elections without making any effort at living up to those promises. Knowing something about the manoeuvrings of politics is informed. Sitting there like a sponge and simply absorbing the advertising of political parties does not make one informed.

[Argus]

Votes for the fiscal governing body would be allocated according to tax contribution.

Well this would certainly take selfishness to new heights.

The real selfishness exist in those who want a say in spending other people's hard-earned money.

I take it you view greed as merely a hypothetical construct.

And you seem to believe your generosity is a moral please even when you're being generous with the money earned by smarter people who work harder than you.

[normanchateau]

Votes for the fiscal governing body would be allocated according to tax contribution.

Well this would certainly take selfishness to new heights.

The real selfishness exist in those who want a say in spending other people's hard-earned money.

I take it you view greed as merely a hypothetical construct.

And you seem to believe your generosity is a moral please even when you're being generous with the money earned by smarter people who work harder than you.

I know this will shock you but I'm a moral relativist who still clings to the quaint notion that generosity trumps greed. I gather libertarians feel otherwise. But if you do have a problem with society being generous with other people's money, I'd be willing to make exemptions for those smarter than you. The exempted people could decide how the money will be spent.

[normanchateau]

Well, to start with, I have to point out that my definition of "informed" clearly varies with that of the report's author. My definition of "educated" also differs. I would rarely, for example, consider a social science graduate to be educated in the classical sense. People take Sociology when they can't think of anything to do with their lives, and because it seems easy, and they have a general, mushy sort of desire to be helpful to the world in a vague, uncertain way. As to "informed", the author defines that as someone who can remember who the leaders of the political parties are. I would consider informed to be someone who understands how national economies work, the basics of law, something of history, especially political history. Knowing what a given party promises is not, to my mind, nearly as important as the recognition, for example, that the same political party had promised the same thing in each of the last five elections without making any effort at living up to those promises. Knowing something about the manoeuvrings of politics is informed. Sitting there like a sponge and simply absorbing the advertising of political parties does not make one informed.

Yes, I agree. The author's definition of informed is indeed a fatal flaw. However, I believe an expanded definition of the terms "informed" and "educated" would yield similar conclusions. Alas, I have no direct evidence for that belief.

[Renegade]

Votes for the fiscal governing body would be allocated according to tax contribution.

Well this would certainly take selfishness to new heights.

The real selfishness exist in those who want a say in spending other people's hard-earned money.

I take it you view greed as merely a hypothetical construct.

Not at all, it is very real and even necessary. Without greed, there would be no motivation in our system.

[Renegade]

Why should rich people who inherited their money and don't actually do any work get to vote? How are you going to determine which rich people don't actually contribute their own effort to society?

If you speak of my proposal, rich people who don't work, don't vote on fiscal issues unless the contribute taxes to the system. IMV it is perfectly valid that they have a say in the system relative to their contribution, regardless of how the came about those funds, whether earned or inherited.

I didn't say that voting depending upon effort contributed, I proposed that it depended upon fiscal contribution which is very measurable.

[Renegade]

I know this will shock you but I'm a moral relativist who still clings to the quaint notion that generosity trumps greed. I gather libertarians feel otherwise. But if you do have a problem with society being generous with other people's money, I'd be willing to make exemptions for those smarter than you. The exempted people could decide how the money will be spent.

Libertarians will say that you are free to make your deteminations that generosity trumps greed when you are talking about your generosity and your greed. Others shoudl be free to make their own determinations as well. You shouldn't be free to make those determinations on behalf of others.

[normanchateau]

You shouldn't be free to make those determinations on behalf of others.

How about society? Should society be free to make those determinations on behalf of others?

[Charles Anthony]

How about society? Should society be free to make those determinations on behalf of others?

Oh, please! Who is "society" anyway???

Personifying "society" is what we do when we want to avoid responsibility or when we want to hide our actions.

[normanchateau]

How about society? Should society be free to make those determinations on behalf of others?

Oh, please! Who is "society" anyway???

I gather you prefer anarchy.

[Charles Anthony]

I also see respecting eachother's freedom as a virtue.

I gather you prefer the comfort of hiding behind "society" when it is convenient.

[Renegade]

How about society? Should society be free to make those determinations on behalf of others?

Oh, please! Who is "society" anyway???

I gather you prefer anarchy.

I see you didnt' answer Charles' question. So let's ask again. Who is society?

[Remiel]

Since inheritance is really just another kind of welfare, there is no argument that can be made than includes rich inheritors in the rolls of eligible voters and excludes people on welfare.

Renegade, we tried your system once, of rule by people with the most money. It was called the Middle Ages. Last time I checked, most people are glad that period is over.

[geoffrey]

Since inheritance is really just another kind of welfare, there is no argument that can be made than includes rich inheritors in the rolls of eligible voters and excludes people on welfare.

Wrong, inheritance doesn't cost me a dime. Plus they contribute greatly to society through the investment of their funds. Look at the bigger picture.

[Remiel]

There is a bigger picture that you are not considering. If we want the money to be well spent, wouldn't we be better off forcing business owners to leave their estates to the people that run their businesses rather than their children? I mean, presumably they trust the people who run their businesses to spend their money more competently than their children, or else their children would be running their businesses.

Why should the 18 yr old son of a billionaire get more votes than the 18 year old son of someone on welfare? By the dollars, there will be the illusion that the son of the billionaire is contributing more, but the relative contribution of the poor 18 year old may in fact be greater, as in they are producing more with the resources available to them.

One person, one vote is the least subjective system of determine votes that there is. That is why we use it, and that is why we will continue to use it. It's not perfect, it's just the best there is.

[Renegade]

Since inheritance is really just another kind of welfare, there is no argument that can be made than includes rich inheritors in the rolls of eligible voters and excludes people on welfare.

Inheritance is welfare? Why? Unlike welfare, the wealth which make up an inheritance is earned and willingly passed from one individual to another.

Renegade, we tried your system once, of rule by people with the most money. It was called the Middle Ages. Last time I checked, most people are glad that period is over.

No actually we didn't. In the middle ages, the fedual system the serfs were the biggest contributors to the taxes being collected. If they did back then as I proposed, the serfs would have had the largest say in who ran the system of government. Unfortunatly the middle ages relied on blood lines and physical power to determine who controled the government.

[Renegade]

There is a bigger picture that you are not considering. If we want the money to be well spent, wouldn't we be better off forcing business owners to leave their estates to the people that run their businesses rather than their children? I mean, presumably they trust the people who run their businesses to spend their money more competently than their children, or else their children would be running their businesses.

No, it wouldn't accomplish anything. It would just create an incentive to sell of a business before the owners death or the business would be run into the ground since the owner has no incentive to see that it remains viable. The only incentive we can count on for an owner is the desire to preserve wealth by passing it on to his heirs.

Why should the 18 yr old son of a billionaire get more votes than the 18 year old son of someone on welfare? By the dollars, there will be the illusion that the son of the billionaire is contributing more, but the relative contribution of the poor 18 year old may in fact be greater, as in they are producing more with the resources available to them.

The relative contibution is irrelevant. The absolute contribution is what is important. It does not matter that the poor 18 year old son of a welfare parent "trys hard" but contributes very little financially, or that the 18 YO wealthy heir expends little effort but contributes a lot financially. Society benefits a lot more from the larger financial contribution because it proportionately funds more services and so the larger contributor deserves more votes.

One person, one vote is the least subjective system of determine votes that there is. That is why we use it, and that is why we will continue to use it. It's not perfect, it's just the best there is.

No we use it because it is simple, not because it is the "least subjective". The count of absolute dollars contributed is not subjective either.

BTW, you are naive to think that we have a one person-one vote system. It is only superficially so. An Toronto voter's vote has a lot less weight than a PEI voters vote.

[blueblood]

BTW, you are naive to think that we have a one person-one vote system. It is only superficially so. An Toronto voter's vote has a lot less weight than a PEI voters vote.

Yah but does Toronto have more pull on Federal matters than an entire province????

[Remiel]

You have yet to show how being wealthy makes you more fit to be a voter than someone who is not.

All your talk about giving votes by " financial contribution " is a recipe for a new communist revolution.

[Charles Anthony]

All your talk about giving votes by " financial contribution " is a recipe for a new communist revolution.

What is going to happen?

The minority of voters are going to revolt against the majority apathetic non-voting class?

[cybercoma]

An idea a lot of people will probably hate: If you are not contributing anything to society you shouldn't be able to vote. An election is basically a vote on how tax money is to be spent. Why should you get a vote if you pay no taxes? If instead you actually consume taxes because you're a prisoner, or because you've been on welfare for ten years, why should you be able to help decide how the money others contribute is going to be spent?

Example. Say I pay $25,000 in taxes every year. My brother who is chain smoking, alcoholic bum on welfare, has never contributed anything. I get one vote. He gets one vote. I will vote for the party I consider will make the most efficient use of my money without waste or theft. He will vote for whoever promises to give him more welfare money, and improve conditions in his public housing unit.

Should I not resent that?

When do we start giving 'corporations' a vote?

They pay way more in taxes than you ever will and companies don't have a say in who is elected. That's your point, is it not? I mean, you cover over it by saying taxpayers are "contributing to society" through funding our government; therefore, business contribute more to society than any person ever will.

I know this was originally posted in June, but I just read it now and it stuns me that Argus of all people would suggest that those who can afford more should have more say in a democracy. Not that the following is a solution, but consider what I'm about to suggest: perhaps those who can't afford to contribute are the ones who should have more say in our democracy. Maybe our country is only as strong as the weakest members of our society and by giving them more say in elections we will clean up a lot of messes. Poverty is linked to many terrible things that affect our society and by allowing those who can't afford to contribute to our tax system a bigger voice, we will be doing a great service in moving towards eliminating those terrible things.

Obviously this suggestion is so far in the opposite direction that it's worth considering about as much as giving those who pay more taxes either more votes, or taking voting away from those who don't pay as much -- that is to say that it's not worth considering.

The system is fine the way it is; if it's not broke, don't fix it.

[Renegade]

You have yet to show how being wealthy makes you more fit to be a voter than someone who is not.

Their financial contribution in itself is proof of fitness.

When a diner goes to a resturant, do we need evidence that they are fit to be a diner, or is the only requirement that they pay the bill?

When an investor buys stock in a company, do we need evidence that they are fit to be a shareholder, or is it only necessary that they pay the going price of the stock?

Ultimately those that pay are the most fit, because they have a financial interest in in ensuring that the government is properly run. Ultimately for financial issues, they will be the ones paying the price if if it not.

What more justification do you need?

All your talk about giving votes by " financial contribution " is a recipe for a new communist revolution.

Why? I'm not following your logic. Who exactly is it you think would revolt and why?

[Renegade]

When do we start giving 'corporations' a vote?

We should.

They pay way more in taxes than you ever will and companies don't have a say in who is elected.

Not true, at least collectively. Most of the tax revenue is contributed from individuals not corporations.

Not that the following is a solution, but consider what I'm about to suggest: perhaps those who can't afford to contribute are the ones who should have more say in our democracy.

Seems to me that what you are suggesting is akin to inmates running the asylum. Those who likely have had no success accumulating wealth are suddenly responsible for making choices which affects the wealth of those who have been successful? Sounds like madness to me.

Maybe our country is only as strong as the weakest members of our society and by giving them more say in elections we will clean up a lot of messes. Poverty is linked to many terrible things that affect our society and by allowing those who can't afford to contribute to our tax system a bigger voice, we will be doing a great service in moving towards eliminating those terrible things.

I'm curious on how you guage how "strong" a country is. Is it militarily, economically, or morally, or some other measure?

The system is fine the way it is; if it's not broke, don't fix it.

It is broke. It needs fixing. Proof that it is broke is that it wouldnt have accumulated mountains of debt in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s. While we are recovering, we still live with the hangover.

[Renegade]

BTW, you are naive to think that we have a one person-one vote system. It is only superficially so. An Toronto voter's vote has a lot less weight than a PEI voters vote.

Yah but does Toronto have more pull on Federal matters than an entire province????

A province has far more power than is ever accorded a city, no matter how big the city, now matter how small the province.

Proportionate to its population Toronto has a lot less pull than PEI.