A right or a privilege? - Voting in constitutional republics

[iNow]

Take it to another thread, guys. That's not what this one is about. The OP and the intent for discussion are clear.

[Acme]

Take it to another thread, guys. That's not what this one is about. The OP and the intent for discussion are clear.

Enough with the bossiness. It's not up to you how we discuss the topic and your post just [further] derails the thread if our questions and answers were a derailment at all. If you think a post is out of line then report it. Please do not respond to this in the thread, rather if you care to respond to me then address the points I made at length beyond my seeking clarification from MigL.

[StringJunky]

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

I am of the opinion that those who have committed harm to their fellow citizens relinquish their right to have a say in the governance of their society for a period until they will cause no more harm. You should not give any power to someone who is at a high risk of wielding it with malicious or reckless intent. This seems at odds with your previously expressed desire where you want sensible, pragmatic selectivity with regards to civilians having arms, yet you appear here uncompromisingly ideological in this matter, in a manner similar to those who covet the apparently "inalienable" right to bear arms? Your position on voting rights for everyone is a noble aspiration but pragmatically very precarious for society methinks.

Edited January 3, 2015 by StringJunky

[MonDie]

I maintain David345's point, StringJunky. Just imagine that pot never becomes legal because the pot-heads cannot vote from jail! Unless their crime interfered with someone else's voting right (e.g. by killing them), they should keep their vote.

[iNow]

I am of the opinion that those who have committed harm to their fellow citizens relinquish their right to have a say in the governance of their society for a period until they will cause no more harm. You should not give any power to someone who is at a high risk of wielding it with malicious or reckless intent.

How are you defining "harm?" At what threshold should one lose their right to suffrage?

 

A reasonable case can probably be made to disallow murderers from voting, but today felons too are excluded and that is a big deal, even when their offenses and crimes rather frequently are not. For example, in Alaska it is a felony to teach a bear to wrestle. In Michigan, it is a felony to commit adultery. In Wyoming, it is a felony to cut the ear of a sheep.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-ridiculous-law-in-every-state-2014-2

 

In many states, it is also a felony to have a small amount of marijuana. There are a lot of stupid laws on the books, and as others have already noted above we should not be disenfranchising citizens based on arbitrary customs and norms that are almost certain to change in the future (here in the US, many people would disenfranchise gays if we let them, and I'm sure there are countless other similar examples to be cited).

 

We must also acknowledge the fact that people do often change, mature, and they do genuinely rehabilitate into more positive members of society, and a one-time mistake should not IMO forever silence their voice when it comes to their role in shaping the governance of their nation.

Edited January 3, 2015 by iNow

[MigL]

The right to vote for convicts is , at least for me, a conflicting issue.

While a convicted murderer may have given up the rights bestowed by society, can the same be said for petty crimes or misdemeanors ?

Obviously not.

But then where does one draw the line ? When is a crime horrific enough to have your rights taken away ?

[MonDie]

^ When a brain scan shows that you're literally incapable of caring about others???

[StringJunky]

How are you defining "harm?" At what threshold should one lose their right to suffrage?

 

A reasonable case can probably be made to disallow murderers from voting, but today felons too are excluded and that is a big deal, even when their offenses and crimes rather frequently are not. For example, in Alaska it is a felony to teach a bear to wrestle. In Michigan, it is a felony to commit adultery. In Wyoming, it is a felony to cut the ear of a sheep.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-ridiculous-law-in-every-state-2014-2

 

In many states, it is also a felony to have a small amount of marijuana. There are a lot of stupid laws on the books, and as others have already noted above we should not be disenfranchising citizens based on arbitrary customs and norms that are almost certain to change in the future (here in the US, many people would disenfranchise gays if we let them, and I'm sure there are countless other similar examples to be cited).

 

We must also acknowledge the fact that people do often change, mature, and they do genuinely rehabilitate into more positive members of society, and a one-time mistake should not IMO forever silence their voice when it comes to their role in shaping the governance of their nation.

I never defined a person in prison as a person who is necessarily causing harm to society or the fact that they are in prison denies them the right to vote. I also never said that it should be held against a person forever:

 

 

...for a period until they will cause no more harm.

 

A responsible, pragmatic and considerate panel has to define where the boundary is but I think being a convicted felon is insufficient and unjust, given some of the stupid laws one can finding oneself breaching, as you rightly said.

[iNow]

^ An eminently reasonable reply, but we're still left with the question, "If voting is indeed a right, then what specific actions warrant its removal?" After that, even harder questions manifest, such as for how long should their disenfranchisement last, and how rigid must be the burden of proof, who is given the authority and power to judge, and other similar complexities.

[michel123456]

^ An eminently reasonable reply, but we're still left with the question, "If voting is indeed a right, then what specific actions warrant its removal?" After that, even harder questions manifest, such as for how long should their disenfranchisement last, and how rigid must be the burden of proof, who is given the authority and power to judge, and other similar complexities.

I am an expatriate. I kept my nationality of birth. Both countries belong to the European Community

 

As a result I have the right to vote for Municipal elections in my new country of adoption, but not for legislatives.

I vote for legislatives in my country of birth, that I abandoned about 30 years ago. I don't follow much the changes there.

I would like very much to vote here where I live and pay my contributions.

 

Also, at each legislative in my country of birth, it is mandatory to inscribe myself each time in the catalog at my Embassy. I remember not being aware of that detail and have been refused to vote because I was not in the catalog, although i was inscribed for the previous elections. I was VERY angry at the time because I felt having been removed my rights.

 

Also to note that my "right' to vote at legislatives in my country of birth was non-existent a decade ago. The right wing party at the government suddenly noticed that there was a substantial part of citizens abroad and that this part was for a very high percentage right wing. After noticing this, they voted a new law and here I am, I got a new "right".

 

I guess there are many other examples where the right is not so evident. You don't need to be in jail.

[iNow]

I guess there are many other examples where the right is not so evident. You don't need to be in jail.

Indeed. Another valid example of voting being treated as a privilege and not a right.

 

What strikes me is how overwhelmingly contributors to this thread seem to agree that suffrage is (or very much should be) a right and how contrary that belief is to all of the various evidence and history at hand suggesting it's actually a privilege... One granted by a select few with the power to decide who can and who cannot have their voice heard and their self counted.

 

This takes me back to an earlier reply I made to swansont:

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.

[imatfaal]

On the right / privilege question clarity is required; is this an "is" or an "ought" question?

 

Is voting a right?

No - not by most definitions of right in a majority of the jurisdictions of the world. (Prerequisites need to be met, barriers can be emplaced, it can be removed by administrative action in the normal course of events, large sections of the population are routinely denied etc.)

 

Ought voting be a right?

Yes - In my opinion and seemingly most others - although the "convicted felon case" might cause some to waver.

 

To add fuel to the flames - another difficult question on the proportion of the population with suffrage; those "too young to vote". I think it is ludicrous that a 17 year old (in the UK) can drive, have sex, start a family, marry, be sentenced to life imprisonment, sign a contract, join the armed forces, pay taxes... BUT NOT VOTE.

[MonDie]

Are the rights of citizens, guaranteed on the condition of citizenship, still rights if citizenship is a non-guaranteed privilege?

[MigL]

If by 'right' we mean the ability to cast a vote without having to make any effort whatsoever, then I cannot agree.

If no ID is required, no proof of citizenship, no address, etc., than what is to prevent one person voting twice, and thereby nullifying my vote ? In effect, by guaranteeing his 'rights', you have diminished mine. Never a good situation.

 

I do think these issues have been discussed and agonized over, for centuries. And no-one has been able to eliminate all the disadvantages. All voting/political systems are compromises.

I, and obviously the lot of you, think that Western Democracies have the most equitable compromise, or else we'd be 'voting' with an airline ticket to elsewhere.

( that doesn't mean there isn't a little wiggle room for improvement )

[imatfaal]

If by 'right' we mean the ability to cast a vote without having to make any effort whatsoever, then I cannot agree.

If no ID is required, no proof of citizenship, no address, etc.

 

I have never had to provide ID, have no citizenship to prove (we're subjects not citizens), address is part and parcel of registration - but never had to prove it.

, than what is to prevent one person voting twice, and thereby nullifying my vote ? In effect, by guaranteeing his 'rights', you have diminished mine. Never a good situation.

 

When you vote the returning officer makes a note of the name and address you have given - if they get a match then there is a problem. The second person (obviously) will then be asked to provide ID; I believe both votes will be counted - but the second will not be mixed with the general ballot box. In case the margin of election is smaller than the number of dodgy votes then you can got to court to get an order to challenge them both (the votes are double-blinded - but traceable)

 

To make it clear why I worry not a jot about this - in the 2010 General Election there were 88 votes connected with noticed electoral malpractice. If it is a choice between making people jump through hoops - which is demonstrably more difficult for some groups than others, and is also demonstrably open to electoral shenanigans - or putting up with a tiny tiny amount of fraud; then the choice is clear that we go for making voting easy and hurdle free

[iNow]

If by 'right' we mean the ability to cast a vote without having to make any effort whatsoever, then I cannot agree.

If no ID is required, no proof of citizenship, no address, etc...

No. That is not what we mean by 'right.'

 

I have never had to provide ID, have no citizenship to prove (we're subjects not citizens), address is part and parcel of registration - but never had to prove it.

<...>

To make it clear why I worry not a jot about this - in the 2010 General Election there were 88 votes connected with noticed electoral malpractice. If it is a choice between making people jump through hoops - which is demonstrably more difficult for some groups than others, and is also demonstrably open to electoral shenanigans - or putting up with a tiny tiny amount of fraud; then the choice is clear that we go for making voting easy and hurdle free

In addition:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/

Ive been tracking allegations of fraud for years now, including the fraud ID laws are designed to stop. In 2008, when the Supreme Court weighed in on voter ID, I looked at every single allegation put before the Court. And since then, Ive been following reports wherever they crop up.

 

To be clear, Im not just talking about prosecutions. I track any specific, credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix.

 

So far, Ive found about 31 different incidents (some of which involve multiple ballots) since 2000, anywhere in the country. If you want to check my work, you can read a comprehensive list of the incidents below.

 

To put this in perspective, the 31 incidents below come in the context of general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014. In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion ballots were cast in that period.

So, about 31 actual fraud allegations and cases in every election type over a 14 year period. In response, voter ID laws were enacted and in just this one most recent election alone in late 2014, hundreds of thousands were turned away from the vote, de facto disenfranchised, and it affected several key close elections: http://billmoyers.com/2014/11/05/much-difference-new-voting-restrictions-make-yesterdays-close-races/

 

Whether or not voting is itself a right, these types of dodgy tactics are clearly not themselves right.

Edited January 4, 2015 by iNow

[MigL]

You have never had to provide this information because you're already on the voter list.

But how did you get on that list ?

 

Could a tourist from another country walk into a polling station and vote ?

Could a person on a work visa from another country walk in and vote ?

Could a US citizen born in another country, walk in and vote ?

 

AT some point in the above procession, that information has to be provided.

Edited January 4, 2015 by MigL

[imatfaal]

You have never had to provide this information because you're already on the voter list.

But how did you get on that list ?

 

Could a tourist from another country walk into a polling station and vote ?

Could a person on a work visa from another country walk in and vote ?

Could a US citizen born in another country, walk in and vote ?

 

AT some point in the above procession, that information has to be provided.

 

But the hurdles you imagine have changed from proof being demanded to information being provided.

 

In general you tell the local govt office which keeps the electoral roll - you have to declare your details (name addresses etc.) and sign (providing false info is a criminal offence); but there is no requirement of proof unless uncertainly exists.

 

The right to vote flows from being a subject of the crown so tourists would be committing a criminal offence - do we massively impact the freedom of the democratic mandate in order to stop tourist voting? No - it is seen to be more important to make voting simple. Moves to hamper voter registration or enforce stricter guidelines on polling day voting almost always favour the less progressive more conservative party.

 

In the UK any change in this system for purported reasons of lowering electoral fraud would be met with a clamour for a similar change in the way boundaries of constituencies are manipulated by each ruling party - the impact of which dwarfs any voting fraud. We had a Local Council - Westminster - which were rehousing people in order to gerrymander and provide an advantage to the ruling party at the next local elections; this is the area in which we need to make progress.

[iNow]

Perhaps this discussion can shift toward one of solutions. What do readers/commenters think it would take to make voting more of a right than a privilege?

 

What specific steps could be taken, in your opinion, to codify the idea that, as a citizen, suffrage is without question a right unalienable and that simple open access to the polls for every citizen to be counted and heard is a core objective of the overall process?

[MigL]

Also, how do you convince people to actually get out and vote.

Voter turnouts in Western Democracies have been in decline for years.

Is it just a question of ' things seem pretty good, why bother ' ?

Should it be seen, not just as a right, but a duty ?

 

Here in Ontario, Canada, our former Premier introduced several laws which directly affect young people after one of his friend's kids died, while intoxicated, in a motor vehicle accident.

Under 23 yrs of age, zero alcohol level in your blood, ( kids were getting vehicles impounded/fined for taking cough medication ). and no more than two youths in a vehicle after a certain time of night. Yet these same kids were being sent to Afghanistan at the age of 18.

You would think they would have gotten out to vote in droves against these discriminatory laws. They didn't.

 

People should realize that if you don't exercise your right to vote, you may end up losing it.

[imatfaal]

...

You would think they would have gotten out to vote in droves against these discriminatory laws. They didn't....

They are constantly told by the press directly and indirectly by their friends that voting makes no difference, all politicians are the same - they are only in it for the gravy train, you cannot change the system just get used to it, hey man go with the flow, you think you one vote is gonna be heard about in Westminster/Ontario...

 

So they don't. It is almost as if the media are happy with the status quo - they can auto-write stories on which x-factor star is screwing which other wannabe and not bother investing in hacks who can actually read a budget report, or have seen the inside of a courtroom when there isnt a celebrity on trial, or know which continent Guyana is on, have a clue about the difference between Sunni, Shiia, Suffi etc... But frankly it is easier to sell papers when you don't need to concern yourself with facts.

 

When I was at University the first time around the political societies were vibrant - admittedly full of opinionated t**ts, me included - but they were busy and full of kids wanting to change the world; second time around 15 years later and up till now they are deadly - adjuncts to party machines, no one there, boring and mainstream.

 

Bread and Circuses...

[MonDie]

[snip]

 

you think you one vote is gonna be heard about in Westminster/Ontario...

 

[/snip]

 

If this is a population size issue, then the vote's meagerness corresponds to the greater stakes.

[iNow]

Bread and Circuses...

Engagement of the populace has experienced a relentless series of escalating and self-reinforcing casualties from the inexhaustable weapons of mass distraction offered by our culture.

 

We click open our phones and tablets every few minutes like mindless drones seeking a quick dopamine surge. Our minds are under rested and our stress centers overtaxed amid the consistent onslaught of 24-hour fight or flight inducing fear mongering from corporate interests, propagandists, and short-term agenda blinded ambition seeking power brokers and media moguls. We live in a world where the rules being made are no longer for the benefit of the masses and where the system has been rigged to give asymmetric influence to amoral stooges and empty shirts, paper tigers instead of pride leading lions, and where the top 40 earners pull in more income than the bottom 160 million combined... Where people actually have to choose between healthcare and food, between clothes for their kids and heating for their homes.

 

Continuing that thought... Underlying these systemic cancers and dystopian trends is often a daily fight among vast swaths of people struggling for survival, for food, for shelter, for safety and all at the same time where they hope that future generations will forgive them for their failure to be good stewards and protect the world they are leaving for them to inherit. We too frequently find ourselves on the lowest rung of Malows pyramid at a time when circumstances demand for us to be self-actualized enough to respond to a world suffocating from corruption, pollution, climate change, drought, wild fires, poor education, staggering inequality, famine, war, and some post modernistic nightmare where even basic facts are derided, debated, and dismissed in support of ones own preferred worldview and political ideology.

 

Is it really any wonder why people seek to escape these harsh realities through more simplistic pleasures like a game of candy crush, a day of shopping, or a few hours binge watching a series on Netflix? Huxley was likely more correct than Orwell when suggesting that control is exerted more through easy access to toys and to technology and tools that all combine to distract us into a state of indifference and perpetual apathy, but beyond just that we're seeing that Orwell was also clearly on to something real and pervasive with his concepts of doublethink and newspeak that so flood our daily encounters and interactions today.

 

Even removing for a moment the somewhat nefarious mentions of control and insinuations of societal zombification above, there's still a more basic issue remaining at the core, and that is the implicit expectation that we... each and every one of us... be gladiators required to steadfastly and vigilantly demand changes to a system that was itself deigned by us and ultimately implemented to protect us all. Is it at all surprising that not everyone is willing and/or able to participate in the fight, the cultural battles, the war for our collective futures and present wellbeing? Is it unexpected that most people are frequently either unwilling or unable to allocate the mental resources or even the time needed to participate and include themselves in the charge forward, or that they've been so confused by the endless torrent of dissuasion and misinformation that they're not quite clear even where to begin once they have made the decision to engage?

 

Never mind. Don't answer that. It was rhetorical, and I say, YES! Yes, IT IS SURPRISING that people cannot even be bothered to vote! It's disgusting, and disheartening, and disappointing, but also understandable when you look at the losers and gomers and puppets being placed as options on the ballot, the forced choice between dumb and dumber, worse and worse-still. Problems stemming from our lack of quality choices are exacerbated by the requirement that they skip work, not pickup their kids from school, and generally not attend to all of the other countless many demands on their time all so they can show up to wait in line for several hours at a local municipal building somewhere to push a button or pull a lever in person... as if it were still the 18th century and we're riding around on horses and all living on farms and conducting important business through telegrams.

 

I digress, though. Yes, people should absolutely be more informed. Yes, there are scores of obstacles and distractions getting in the way of that and we must be both mindful in recognizing and vigilant in minimizing them Every single day. Yes, more people should absolutely be voting and in reality they should actually be doing so much more than just that. Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! I'm unsure how best to make that happen on a macro level, but maybe if we at least each start by doing it ourselves then perhaps others will join us and then others still will join after them...

 

"Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know." -Aldous Huxley

 

On another note, and in response to MigLs question to me, if we could all vote online or through an app on our phones, for example (ensuring proper security, of course) then that's at least one method by which turnout would be significantly enhanced, IMO.

[iNow]

[META] Still working to tighten up in my mind all of the many overlapping and related themes involved here. The above is too disparate and meandering for my taste. [/META]

 

I definitely think voting ought to be a right and that we must protect it, all while doing everything we can to minimize those obstacles that prevent people from exercising it consistently and in an accurately informed manner. We must also take steps to reverse this ideology that a dollar is equivalent to a vote, but all of this stems from the root idea that voting is supposed to much more than a mere privilege that can be taken away at the whim of a powerful few.

Edited January 6, 2015 by iNow

[imatfaal]

wish list

 

1. Voting accepted as an inalienable right. Accepted by the three wings of government - and by the people.

2. Voting treated as such - with full weight of government supporting the right.

3. Bodies that arrange voting (in UK it is local councils under central guidance) given funding, time allocation, and power to put in place multifaceted voting arrangements from old fashioned place your mark here (we can still tick a box on a paper here in UK) to secured online voting. This system to be identical nationwide and not varying at a local level - or as close as possible

4. Central body (independent from body in 3) with well funded local apparatus to check system, run tests and highlight flaws, inequities, and difficulties.