Who should be allowed to vote?

[The Terrible Sweal]

An idea a lot of people will probably hate: If you are not contributing anything to society you shouldn't be able to vote.

I'd suggest that, rather than a means test for the ballot, that if you have no clue about the principles and institutions of our society you have no business voting.

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?

Though allocation of spending is important, elections and voting are about more than that. I suppose if you want to reconceive citizenship as shareholding, a one-dollar-one-vote method makes sense, but then you probably loose a level of commitment and participation from a substantial number of people.

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?

What about wealthy citizens who avoid tax through careful planning... presumably their votes would be stripped to, by this logic, right?

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.

Perhaps your brother thinks that kind of spending is efficient and neither wasteful or theft. To be complete, your argument requires that you support the implication that welfare and public housing are inappropriate uses for money.

[Digby]

Had a guy fishing with me last year who told me the best time he ever had was the few months he spent in jail ,told me he liked it in there .

Said the first night there they had a big party said him and a other guy smoked like 17 joints the first night in .

Thatswhat he told me honest!

Also a few years ago a local Drug dealer was hauled off to prison or so we all thought . I landed in St. John New brunswick one trip fishing ,and this local drug dealer who we all thought was in prison came down aboard my boat , he was selling stolen footwear , seems he and some friends was breaking in shoe stores while he was suppose to be in prison . Reality was they had him in a halfway house where he met many fellow crooks to run around with .

Also a few weeks ago i met another who was hauled off for drug trafficing . He said the best thing ever happend to him was getting sent to prison , while in prison he met up with other crooks who had lots of money ,when he got out of prison they set him up in crooked business and gave him lots of funds for capital , prison took him from rags to riches .

[Reverend Blair]

Who cares what lawyer they had they had a lawyer and as the saying goes don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

I care because it means that the guy who cannot afford a good lawyer goes to prison while the guy who can walks away. In the context of prisoners voting that means that the rich guy gets to vote and the poor guy doesn't. That kind of elitism may work for you, but I see it as absolute and total affront to democracy.

you had better hope to god I don't catch you stealing it in my drive way because then it is tresspasing as well and I would shoot you with out hesitation so 5 years is getting off light.

This is Canada, noelandmero, we do not kill people for stealing cars here. We actually have laws about excessive force.

ou seem to hang around with a lot of career criminals, Digby.

[Argus]

I live in Winnipeg, Bill Blaikie's riding.

The guys I worked with who had been in prison were all in Stoney...2 for drugs and one for weapons offenses. All three had previous records for stealing cars, shop-lifting, etc... They were all members of native youth gangs.  All would have likely gotten a lighter sentence if they had been able to hire their own lawyers instead of having an over-worked, under-experienced lawyer appointed for them.

They had all been through the system as kids. They had all lived on-reserve and in Winnipeg.  None of them finished high school before they got into trouble.  All were at least partially politically motivated even while in the youth gangs.   

All three have straightened themselves out, mostly by quitting the cocaine.  All find politics interesting. 

I really think that taking their votes away while in prison would be an assault on democracy.

Hell, why not let dogs vote? It sounds like these clowns of yours would cast their votes with about as much intelligence as your average poodle.

If you're too lazy or stupid or too much of a misfit to even get your high school diploma you shouldn't be allowed to vote. If you're a druggie, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. If you're in prison you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

One of the major problems with this country and the pathetic excuse for politicians who keep getting elected is we have too many fools and idiots voting. Too many morons who know little or nothing about what's happening being allowed to vote. This country would be far better off if we limited voting rights to those who show the neccesary willingness to become productive citizens. The right to vote means nothing to so many people because it's too easy to get. People take it for granted. If you had to actually pass some kind of litmus test maybe people would take a little pride in being "voters", and put some effort into learning what's going on.

[Argus]

An idea a lot of people will probably hate: If you are not contributing anything to society you shouldn't be able to vote.

I'd suggest that, rather than a means test for the ballot, that if you have no clue about the principles and institutions of our society you have no business voting.

And what is the principle underlying our democracy? What is the point of democracy? To have representative government which provides honest, capable governance in accord with the will of the people? Okay, so uh, how's that working out?

Most of our reps are lawyers. As a group they are neither honest nor capable, and don't much care what people think except at election time. They tend to be venal, grasping, self serving people who, in fact, work for the party, not their constituents.

Maybe if we improved the quality of voters we'd improve the quality of those who get elected. People put so little effort, have so little respect for their vote that if you simply required they go through the same sort of motions they need to do to get a drivers licence 60%-70% of the electorate wouldn't bother. IMO that would be a good thing. Skimming off all those people who pay little or no attention to politics, who don't follow the news, who don't much care, or put little thought or effort into their vote - well, we can do without them.

And, frankly, if you never bothered to get a high school diploma, I don't think you contribute much in the way of knowledge power to selecting our representatives. Yeah, sure, there are always stories of high school dropouts who turned out to be geniuses. But let's face facts, most are idiots or losers. The overall IQ of the electorate would rise if we skimmed them out, too.

We don't let children vote because they're considered insufficiently knowledgeable and sophisticated to render a proper judgement. I don't see why we can't apply the same standard to adults.

[noelandmero]

And, frankly, if you never bothered to get a high school diploma, I don't think you contribute much in the way of knowledge power to selecting our representatives. Yeah, sure, there are always stories of high school dropouts who turned out to be geniuses. But let's face facts, most are idiots or losers. The overall IQ of the electorate would rise if we skimmed them out, too.

This is a great idea and then we can have a whole new class of people that liberals can make excuses for. As lord nows if you are in jail it's not because you commited crime it is because youre parents abused you, youre teachers hated you and whatever BS excuse you can up with to not except responsibility for youre own actions.

[Reverend Blair]

You guys aren't real clear on the concept of democracy are you?

[idealisttotheend]

Let the man who would deny another man the vote stand up and say that he is wise enough to decide who does and does not make a valuable contribution to society. And then let him live in fear that another man will stand up and say that he too is wise enough to decide the value of his fellow men, and find the first man wanting.

[Argus]

Let the man who would deny another man the vote stand up and say that he is wise enough to decide who does and does not make a valuable contribution to society. And then let him live in fear that another man will stand up and say that he too is wise enough to decide the value of his fellow men, and find the first man wanting.

The majority is never right. Never, I tell you! That's one of these lies in society that no free and intelligent man can help rebelling against. Who are the people that make up the biggest proportion of the population -- the intelligent ones or the fools? I think we can agree it's the fools, no matter where you go in this world, it's the fools that form the overwhelming majority."

-- Henrik Ibsen

[Charles Anthony]

Why should you get a vote if you pay no taxes?

You are putting a price on voting -- which is fair. Elections are not free.

If I squeak by and pay only $0.01 in taxes, does that earn me the right to vote?

Would you let me sell my vote to the highest bidder and let him vote twice?

If instead you actually consume taxes because you're a prisoner,

Prisoners voting: why not??

Are you afraid that they will elect "criminals" to public office?

If the numbers of criminals ever becomes so great that they can swing an election or a riding, we have a lot more to fear than a skewed election and democratic reform will be at the bottom of our priority list.

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?

You can resent it as long as you are willing to give the guy who pays $50,000 in taxes the right to vote twice.

This raises such a fascinating question. Consider this: In stead of getting one vote, we get 100. We can then give those 100 votes to various parties as we see fit. 80 to the Liberals, 20 to the NDP. Or, 40 to the Greens, 40 to the NDP and 20 to the Conservatives.

IOW, we could express, in part, the relative degree of feelings we have for different political parties.

I am curious: are there any jurisdictions of the world that tried this?

It would be interesting to see if voters actually tended to split their voting power or whether they tended to just give all 100 votes to one party anyway.

What is the real value of a currency trader who does nothing but trade one currency for another and get 150K for it?

Precious little, but he does contribute a considerable sum of money towards the state's treasure chest, and so it's only right and proper he have some say in how it's spent.

Are you two kidding????

If there is no "real value" to trading currency, have you ever tried doing it yourself???

What does everybody feel about the US system were prisoners do not only not get to vote if you have been convicted of a felony you never get to vote again. One part of me says that's fair another part of me says some people do get out of prison and become productive taxpayers should they not have a say in hoe there money is spent. What does everybody else think.

I do not think it matters.

Legal aid is there to pretend the poor have equal rights. In reality, legal aid lawyers are enormously overworked, and don't have nearly the resources needed to properly represent their clients. If you go up against a private lawyer, who has the time and resources, you're probably going to lose.

And, of course, only the poorest qualify for legal aid. The middle class get nothing. They are required to find the thousand, or tens of thousands of dollars themselves.

I agree completely on your assessment of justice and legal aid. They deserve an exclusive thread.

If somebody has been forced to choose jail because they could not pay a fine, why would they not be allowed to vote when, if they could have paid the fine, they would be allowed to vote?

If that truly is the case, we have already put a price on the value of a vote.

Something else to consider. If your right to have a say in how your life is managed is removed, then what recourse is left to you if the situation is unbearable? That recourse, as history is shown, is hopelessness, and hopelessness is where chaos and lawlessness live.

Call me a nihilist but I believe you are attributing too much grandeur to democracy and the right to vote.

Let the man who would deny another man the vote stand up and say that he is wise enough to decide who does and does not make a valuable contribution to society. And then let him live in fear that another man will stand up and say that he too is wise enough to decide the value of his fellow men, and find the first man wanting.

blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda

After election day, we are all divided up into two camps: winners and losers.

Let the man who would stand up and with his vote say that he is wise enough -- and owns the right -- to decide how his fellow man should be ruled live in fear that a second man will stand up and find a more direct way to impose his will upon that first man.

[Higgly]

I haven't read all of the posts in this thread because I am inflexible on this point. If you are a citizen of Canada, then you are allowed to vote.

There may indeed be terrible people in our society, but they have been declared terrible by our society, and that in itself makes them a part of the voting public. They have been dealt with by society and they are entitled to their say, however small it may be. This is outside of the lawyers, the crown attourneys and the judges who convicted them. If it ever grows to be a large number, then maybe the problem is with society. Perhaps this can be part of a democratic safeguard. God knows we have precious few in our system right now. Where is a guy like Ignatieff when we really need him?

There is some question as to what jurisdiction they should vote in, but I say it should be whatever riding they were living in at the time. If they were of no fixed address, then their vote should be randomly assigned to a valid riding.

All citizens should be allowed to vote and citizenship should be irrevocable unless voluntary.

[Argus]

Let the man who would deny another man the vote stand up and say that he is wise enough to decide who does and does not make a valuable contribution to society. And then let him live in fear that another man will stand up and say that he too is wise enough to decide the value of his fellow men, and find the first man wanting.

Sure. I don't have a problem with that. I'm pretty sure I can put up an argument. Can someone in prison? Or someone who's been on welfare for ten years?

[Higgly]

Let the man who would deny another man the vote stand up and say that he is wise enough to decide who does and does not make a valuable contribution to society. And then let him live in fear that another man will stand up and say that he too is wise enough to decide the value of his fellow men, and find the first man wanting.

Sure. I don't have a problem with that. I'm pretty sure I can put up an argument. Can someone in prison? Or someone who's been on welfare for ten years?

As far as I am concerned, if you can produce proof of citizenship, you should be allowed to vote. How about you Argus? Are you a citizen?

[Argus]

You guys aren't real clear on the concept of democracy are you?

I don't have any great, emotional attachment to democracy. If a monarchy worked better I'd be perfectly willing to go with that. It's not like I have any more personal say in what happens now as a voter than I would in a monarchy anyway.

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.

For example, take local politics. We just had a municipal election here. Of 17 councilors running for re-election - exactly -0- were defeated. This despite the common perception and the common media reporting, which indicates our city council is screwed up, filled with idiots, and hasn't been able to keep tax increases under double the rate of inflation for a decade. This is democracy at work? No, this is niche voting at work. This is a lot of voting from people who really don't know much about what's going on.

[Higgly]

You guys aren't real clear on the concept of democracy are you?

I don't have any great, emotional attachment to democracy.

Welcome to Myanmar, Argus.

[Who's Doing What?]

Isn't it obvious that only people with a post secondary education, and the wealthy elite should be allowed to vote.

Come on, if we were to let the common people vote, think of the foolishness that would ensue. These people are better served by remaining serfs to those who have the comprehensive skills to decide what is best for them. Even though the educated elite themselves, may have never been exposed to the trials and tribulations of the unfortunate.

Who needs gun control when you can simply hire body guards?

Who needs healthcare when you can build your own hospital?

Who needs social assistance when you can just sell one of your many properties?

Who needs daycare when you can import a nanny from over seas?

If we let the average slob cast a ballot in any election the country would decay into chaos. Just think, they could vote someone into power who would put a stop to big business exploiting workers or even, heaven forbid, take some taxes off of the wealthy.

Yup limiting the vote to the educated and elite is the only way to go. Next thing, you will want women to vote. Good god man, it will bring the country down around our ears.

[Renegade]

How about if we have two separate governing bodies and separate out social issues from fiscal ones? Issues such as the legalization of abortion, the criminalization of drugs, etc can be decided by the "social" governing body. Anything requiring financial intervention would be decided by the "fiscal" governing body.

Every legal resident would get equal votes to elect the "social" governing body. Votes for the fiscal governing body would be allocated according to tax contribution.

Yes, yes, I know that most times that social issues are dependant upon financial support. But then isn't that justification that says that you shouldn't pass any legislation unless the financial issues are considered?

[normanchateau]

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.

[watching&waiting]

To me it is real simple once a person reaches the age of majority, they have one vote that is no greater or lesser then anyone else's vote. It does not matter their present situation of being in jail or on welfare. They all still have one vote for each person. To do any less is to spit in the face of what democracy really means.

[Higgly]

How about if we have two separate governing bodies and separate out social issues from fiscal ones? Issues such as the legalization of abortion, the criminalization of drugs, etc can be decided by the "social" governing body. Anything requiring financial intervention would be decided by the "fiscal" governing body.

Every legal resident would get equal votes to elect the "social" governing body. Votes for the fiscal governing body would be allocated according to tax contribution.

On the other hand, we could just give each of them their own army. Which do you think would have the most success at recruitment, the poor or the rich?

Come to think of it, maybe we should have a jurisdiction called the Disenfranchised. People who were once citizens and have become disenfranchised. Give them their own MP.

Yeah, I like that a lot. In fact, I think this might be a way to protect democracy from guys like the idiots who are running Myanmar right now...

[normanchateau]

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

Well this would certainly take selfishness to new heights.

[Higgly]

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

Well this would certainly take selfishness to new heights.

Let's all take a moment to reflect on countries that have a system that works like this....

Personally, I felt a real warm glow of relief when I saw the news about Augusto Pinochet yesterday. A terrible thing to say, but some times Alzheimers can be a good thing. Thinking of the Iron Maiden here... oops, the Iron Lady...

Screw you Maggie. Rot in Hell.

[geoffrey]

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

Well this would certainly take selfishness to new heights.

Let's all take a moment to reflect on countries that have a system that works like this....

Personally, I felt a real warm glow of relief when I saw the news about Augusto Pinochet yesterday. A terrible thing to say, but some times Alzheimers can be a good thing. Thinking of the Iron Maiden here... oops, the Iron Lady...

Screw you Maggie. Rot in Hell.

What are you off on about now?

[Renegade]

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

Well this would certainly take selfishness to new heights.

How unreasonable to want to a say proportional to what one contributes!!! Wait a min, isn't that how many public companies work?

The real selfishness exist in those who want a say in spending other people's hard-earned money. Some don't contribute anything at all.

[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.