A right or a privilege? - Voting in constitutional republics

[iNow]

This was raised in another thread. Want to explore it here.

 

As for your opinion on voter restrictions, what is your political affiliation ?

You see voting as a right, others see it as a privilege and want proof of entitlement, such as ID, residence, etc.

I'm asking specifically about whether voting is best considered a right or a privilege within a representative democracy or constitutional republic such as the system implemented and operating in the US.

 

Assume this is a forced choice and wishy-washer middle of the road answers are not allowed. A right? A privilege? An inherent requirement? What say you?

[swansont]

It should be a right, but in practice it's not. A right should be something that can't arbitrarily be taken away.

[david345]

It should be treated as a right. This actually can be settled with a simple mathematical argument. In many States felons are not allowed to vote. 51% of the total population could vote the other 49% to be felons. Those 49% would no longer be allowed to vote. 2% of the total population could change their mind a year later. This would mean that 51% now say those people are not felons. History has shown that people change their minds like this all the time. If the 49% are not allowed to vote then the difference would be much different. The election would say 96% percent support keeping them felons even though 51% of the total population disagreed.

[imatfaal]

It should be a responsibility.

 

This would also entail that the access to voting was an unalienable right.

[david345]

It should be a responsibility.

 

I live in America. Realistically I must choose between d and r. Both are in a tough battle to get a few percentage points over 50. Voting for neither or not voting at all could send a message that if you want my vote then you better support my policies. The gov\media shoves two plates in your face. You can say "I want neither". That statement is NOT antidemocratic in spit of what they may say.

[imatfaal]

I live in America. Realistically I must choose between d and r. Both are in a tough battle to get a few percentage points over 50. Voting for neither or not voting at all could send a message that if you want my vote then you better support my policies. The gov\media shoves two plates in your face. You can say "I want neither". That statement is NOT antidemocratic in spit of what they may say.

 

As an American you can already vote for write-in candidates, I presume the mechanism exists for spoiling your ballot, and I would welcome the addition of a "none-of-the-above"; there are doubtless other methods of voting but not casting a vote for D or R that I don't know about.

 

Saying "I want neither" is not anti-democratic - but not saying anything is certainly ademocratic and possibly anti-democratic

 

1. Once something is mandatory - not merely a privilege or a right - then the entire machine of the state must ensure that everyone has the opportunity. Nasty pernicious voting laws, id-requirements, stays on postal voting etc. would be swept away and everyone would get to vote.

 

2. We could start to claim that we live in representative democracies (delete terminology as applicable). Barely a third of voters eligible actually cast a vote in the recent midterms.

[david345]

As an American you can already vote for write-in candidates,

If you are a felon then you can not vote. The public schools brainwash their students with the religious idea of free will. If you believe someone is at fault for their actions then I will be awaiting your proof.

[imatfaal]

If you are a felon then you can not vote...

 

Following my comment with that seems like a howling non sequitur to me. I have already made it clear that I think the right to vote should be inalienable - therefore I believe convicted felons should have the vote.

 

The public schools brainwash their students with the religious idea of free will.

 

I remain a little unconvinced of the universality of that statement. But even if it were true then: firstly, they shouldn't as it is clearly unconstitutional; secondly, this has nothing to do with the status of the franchise; and finally, ceteris paribus, it would still be better to have more people voting than fewer. To recap - I think that statement is wrong and even if correct it does not affect my argument

If you believe someone is at fault for their actions then I will be awaiting your proof.

 

This looks as if it is an attempt to disestablish the entire concept of responsibility and law within society - it's offtopic and the idea that the entire nation is so bereft of free-will and self-agency as to be free from any fault is not a concept that I can hold in my mind without removing my tinfoil helmet.

[Willie71]

The issue I have with democracy, is that there is no responsibility to be informed on the issues. People vote because they like someone's smile, for example. It's no way to run a country. Secondly, the candidates rarely have people's best interests at heart, and rarely follow through on their promises.

[iNow]

It should be a right, but in practice it's not. A right should be something that can't arbitrarily be taken away.

Agreed, yet (in addition to the mention of felons above) it very much HAS been arbitrarily taken away (see also: humans with lady parts and/or higher melanin content in the dermal layer, for example).

 

I have to wonder if perhaps you and I view our system a bit too idealistically and actually maintain fundamental misunderstandings of it?

 

Not that tradition alone is any reason for a status quo to advance unchanged, but history sure seems to lean heavily toward the privilege side of this particular dichotomy.

.

 

It should be a responsibility.

Beyond this, I think it should be compulsory and that we should also be able to choose our top 3 candidates ranked in descending order of preference (as opposed to our all or nothing / first past the post system of today), but those issues probably only find relevance AFTER the more fundamental question of whether or not it's a right or privilege is satisfactorily answered.

.

 

The issue I have with democracy, is that there is no responsibility to be informed on the issues. People vote because they like someone's smile, for example. It's no way to run a country.

I agree that an informed populace is required for a successful society, and that we are very much lacking in that space today.

 

However, I do suspect that if voting rates were higher (as would implicitly happen were voting made compulsory) then much of this ignorance effect would wash out as noise, though I could very well be mistaken. Again though, that too is a bit tangential to the core thread topic I'd hoped to explore here.

.

 

 

Does the answer about whether it's a right or a privilege change if we view the system as a constitutional republic versus a representative democracy? If focusing on the former, I suspect the answer would be, "It depends on what that constitution says and how it's written," but perhaps that may not inherently be the case in a representative democracy...?

 

Apologies if this isn't relevant or distracts from the discussion. It's just something that occurred to me while sipping coffee.

[MonDie]

I can't vote outside my state. I can't sit down in congress and vote on environmental policies.

 

 

The issue I have with democracy, is that there is no responsibility to be informed on the issues.

[snip]

 

Informed voting sounds ideal, but you'll need an unbiased measure of understanding.

The current mandate seems to be equal voting, with politicians being the exception.

[imatfaal]

..Does the answer about whether it's a right or a privilege change if we view the system as a constitutional republic versus a representative democracy? If focusing on the former, I suspect the answer would be, "It depends on what that constitution says and how it's written," but perhaps that may not inherently be the case in a representative democracy...?

 

Apologies if this isn't relevant or distracts from the discussion. It's just something that occurred to me while sipping coffee.

 

The name of something is always important and how a country views itself is often part and parcel of how it chooses to describe its form of government. Clearly rule by the few or by the rich could rightly claim the title republic (in historical terms if nothing else) - whereas a democracy seems to be misnamed if there is no popular mandate (although all the places I can think of on the spur of the moment that call themselves democratic are clearly quite the opposite).

 

Power rests in the people of a state so I am not sure how a constitution of the people (res publica) can deny the people - other than by dehumanizing those that are denied and by maintaining this inequity by force of arms; not that this hasn't / isn't done.

 

I cannot see a good argument for - once democracy has been embraced - for not using the power of the state to guarantee the ability to vote to all - ie as a right, and to ensure the highest possible turnout in every election - ie as compulsory.

[Willie71]

I just read Arthur C. clarkes Songs from a Distant Earth, and in this fictional world, presidents were reluctantly sworn in after they won the lottery, as they found anyone wanting the position corrupted easily. Everyone voted without representatives through their computer, but everyone was mandatorily educated on the issues. If only......

 

I really struggle with this. To me there is so much ground between the dichotomy of liberal and conservative, and the party system seems so Us vs. Them. People polarize to maintain group loyalty, and the world isn't black and white.

 

To the original OP question, I think it should be a right. I think criminals should be able to vote. I really think passing a skill test on the issues, like a drivers licence basic competency needs to be figured out though. Logistically its a nightmare though. There has to be a way to account for expertise and ignorance. People voting against environmental policies because of a mythical magic man just see,s so inappropriate in a modern world.

[imatfaal]

I can't vote outside my state.

 

Surely you can vote in elections that affect your government - from local parish council -- state -- legislative - presidential ? That you cannot vote in local elections in areas for which you are not resident makes sense.

 

I can't sit down in congress and vote on environmental policies.

 

That would be a participatory not a representative democracy - whilst this would be great in an ideal and small community it is a non-starter in a modern state. We do have tastes of participatory democracy in plebicites, referendums, and additional ballot questions

To the original OP question, I think it should be a right. I think criminals should be able to vote. I really think passing a skill test on the issues, like a drivers licence basic competency needs to be figured out though. Logistically its a nightmare though. There has to be a way to account for expertise and ignorance. People voting against environmental policies because of a mythical magic man just see,s so inappropriate in a modern world.

 

All we can do (in order to avoid becoming a bit too Aldous Huxley rather than Arthur C Clarke) is make sure that every citizen has easy and ample opportunity to research issues - tests for voting would be disastrous.

[MonDie]

[snip]

 

Power rests in the people of a state so I am not sure how a constitution of the people (res publica) can deny the people - other than by dehumanizing those that are denied and by maintaining this inequity by force of arms; not that this hasn't / isn't done.

 

I cannot see a good argument for - once democracy has been embraced - for not using the power of the state to guarantee the ability to vote to all - ie as a right, and to ensure the highest possible turnout in every election - ie as compulsory.

 

I agree that the opportunity to vote is a right, but should voting be guaranteed? Can't we place obligations on the voter?

Understanding-based voting may cause unrest, but what's power without understanding?

[MigL]

I think everyone agrees that ideally, it should be a right.

Realistically, however, I consider myself privileged to be able to vote.

One only has to look around the world to see how easily the 'right' to vote can be taken away.

And even in Western democracies, how hard the battles were for some groups, to obtain the 'privilege' to vote.

[michel123456]

A right? A privilege? An inherent requirement? What say you?

These are not mutually exclusive.

IMHO it is a right and a privilege.

[MonDie]

 

All we can do (in order to avoid becoming a bit too Aldous Huxley rather than Arthur C Clarke) is make sure that every citizen has easy and ample opportunity to research issues - tests for voting would be disastrous.

 

The voter's obligation needn't be passing a test, but testing needn't introduce inequality.

We could instead directly vote on whatever issues we can demonstrate understanding of, with there being a cap on number of votes per person.

[iNow]

I agree that the opportunity to vote is a right, but should voting be guaranteed? Can't we place obligations on the voter?

Of course obligations can be placed on the voter, and they often already are. One cannot be a felon, one must have ID. One must live in a specific county on a specific street and often have a specific house number within that street. What this does, however, is to transfer power OUT of the hands of the individual citizen and instead into the hands of a select few who manage to secure decision making authority to set those obligations, define those thresholds, and make those rules.

 

I appreciate the desire to have a more informed populace. I lament frequently myself how frequently people seem more informed about what's happening with one of the Kardashian sisters or Justin Bieber or what their FB friend ate for dinner last night than they are about our interactions with other nations in the world, issues in the Middle East or Africa, poverty and the economy, our healthcare, our ailing infrastructure, our worsening education, warming climate, and all manner of other things. That's not at all the point, though.

 

The point is that there must be an underlying equality and power guaranteed for each citizen to decide what happens with their future, how their nation functions, and how their taxes are spent.

 

Mind you, I won't disagree one bit that we fundamentally lack this equality today, especially given how dollars now equal votes and how the SCOTUS has repeatedly reinforced this in ways that make us more of a plutocracy or oligarchy... A democracy in name only... But that IMO needs to be our guiding principle. Equality... Guaranteed access, regardless of educational attainment, wealth, or any other arbitrary characteristic.

 

Unfortunately, when you give that power to decide who gets to vote and what qualifications must be met to any body then you fundamentally take power away from one group of people and transfer it to another.

 

Why should any person get to decide how high one must score on any IQ test or how well they must perform in a civics class before being allowed to vote? It's only arbitrarily different from deciding that one must have white skin or a Y-chromosome or be attracted to members of the opposite sex to be allowed to vote, and worse yet... It's really no different at all than the literacy tests implemented in the south in 1882 which disenfranchised nearly 60% of the entire black population until they were overturned by the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Same wolf, different clothing.

 

tl;dr? - Understandable desire, but awful idea in practice.

.

 

 

IMHO it is a right and a privilege.

If it is indeed, as you say, a right, then how come it is so frequently and so often taken away from so many?

[fiveworlds]

If it is indeed, as you say, a right, then how come it is so frequently and so often taken away from so many?

 

The country cannot afford to put voting offices in every village. Mine has no voting office the nearest is 20 miles away too far to walk if it is cold and there is no public transport running from my village. Many people cannot afford their own mode of transport.

[StringJunky]

...If it is indeed, as you say, a right, then how come it is so frequently and so often taken away from so many?

Does a right have to be absolute i.e. no conditions attached?

[Acme]

 

As for your opinion on voter restrictions, what is your political affiliation ?

You see voting as a right, others see it as a privilege and want proof of entitlement, such as ID, residence, etc.

This was raised in another thread. Want to explore it here.

 

First, calling for someone to declare a political affiliation as MigL does is out of line. If someone wants to declare it fine, but setting it as some kind of test smacks of the very issue of some sort of test for voting. Something of a no true Scotsman fallacy in that if you belong to affiliation x you can be judged to not be a 'true' patriot or some such a matter.

 

I'm asking specifically about whether voting is best considered a right or a privilege within a representative democracy or constitutional republic such as the system implemented and operating in the US.

 

Assume this is a forced choice and wishy-washer middle of the road answers are not allowed. A right? A privilege? An inherent requirement? What say you?

Again with the force. Oy vey. But I get it; no hedging. So, voting is a right as I see it. Period.

 

What got this going was the business I brought up about the photo ID. The thing here is not about a voter being able to identify themselves, it's about trying to put an unreasonable restriction on what kind of ID. Just how does a photo ID trump a birth certificate? Let alone, what kind of identification is required to get a photo ID. Give me a break.

The whole thing is no more or less than an attempt to limit voting by a class of people on the idea they won't vote the way the law promoters wish. It's a political dirty trick and one which I don't think will work. These laws have been challenged in court and also concerned groups have organized to get photo ID's for those who don't have them where these laws are applied.

 

So too with the gerrymandering; political dirty tricks.

 

As to felons, in many places they can have their voting rights restored after release. That is the case in my state of Washington, though I'm sure it varies.

 

Making voters take a test about the issues is ridiculous, as is requiring people to vote. Where I am we vote by mail and a voter pamphlet with detailed information is mailed to every address. For refeerendums this includes detailed wording as well as arguments for and against the law. We also have a relatively new law for primaries wherein the top 2 vote-getters go on the ballot regardless of party. (I'm unsure still how well this will work to break the 2-party stagnation; too early to tell.)

 

For the system to work the way it was intended, every effort should be made to have as many people as possible exercise their right to vote.

[MigL]

The question I asked about political affiliation was rhetorical.

I was implying that he had a political affiliation and tended to see things in that light.

Nothing else.

[iNow]

Does a right have to be absolute i.e. no conditions attached?

IMO, we become diminished as a just society, tarnished as a moral people, and weakened as an advanced civilization when we arbitrarily deny rights to some groups that we have in parallel granted to others, especially when the right in question is suffrage itself.

 

Suffrage is the pivotal right." - Susan B. Anthony

Edited January 3, 2015 by iNow

[Acme]

The question I asked about political affiliation was rhetorical.

I was implying that he had a political affiliation and tended to see things in that light.

Nothing else.

OK. But isn't that just stating the obvious? I mean, doesn't everyone have a political affiliation, or leaning if you will?