Getting Better Government requires better Voters!

[a_majoor]

Here is a link to a series of discussions from my favorite "Paleo-Conservative", Jerry Pournelle (he also writes some decent Military SF, for those who are turned off by politics). http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail369.html#voting

Essentially, he is of the opinion that literacy tests and poll taxes should be required in order to vote, the first to provide a filter to screen out those who cannot (or will not) understand the issues, and the second (set to the cost of a "carton of cigarettes and a bottle or whiskey") to ensure people really DO value their right to vote.

Now we can argue about the various types and historical examples of such measures (and I am sure we will), but I want to look deeper in the sense of should we "filter" voters through various mechanisms? This was done through most of recorded history (Sitting in the Eklessia often required you were wealthy enough to afford the bronze armour of the Hoplite; only those people who could effectively defend thier property and the state were entitled to sit in assembly and cast a vote).

Is this a good idea? Should it be implimented in Canada? How would we go about it?

 

[Wayne Coady]

I be careful not to drag this voter party thing out, but what makes a better voter ? I must ask how far is this form willing to go in discussing your post? Can I raise my concerns in this form as I see them or is it open for debate?

 

[Reccesoldier]

Essentially, he is of the opinion that literacy tests and poll taxes should be required in order to vote, the first to provide a filter to screen out those who cannot (or will not) understand the issues, and the second (set to the cost of a "carton of cigarettes and a bottle or whiskey") to ensure people really DO value their right to vote.
<SNIP>
Is this a good idea? Should it be implemented in Canada? How would we go about it?

How very elitist of Mr. Pournelle.

I'll tackle point number 2 first. I dare say that if you were to try to limit the franchise you would find out very quickly how much people value their right to vote. Indeed, some of them may never have cast one but that won't matter.

As for the subject of a poll tax, who do you think will be hurt the most by such a tax? Will it be the fellow elitists? No. It will be the poor, those that already are trying to scrape by working in some god awful McJob just to put bread on the table.

As for the second are you talking about literacy or intelligence? There are many people who are able to read and write but who cannot fathom the issues in most campaigns. If on the other hand you are taliking about intelligence, who sets the baseline? Am I catching a whiff of the Philosopher king in the air? Either way it reeks to high heaven

Exclusion is a bad thing for Democracy. The Western world hasn't been fighting since 1832 for a universal franchise just to replace the exclusion of birth and property with one of intellect and money.

Education is a key that can be applied to the problem of better voters. Compulsary Civics courses for example.

 

[Slim]

"The best arguement against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter"

Sir Winston Churchill

I love that quote!

Personally I am of the Robert HeinLein school of thought where people who want to vote must first prove that they have earned the right.

Do it either with Federal service of some (or any type) or positions like police officer, fire fighter or some other set of criteria that can be available for the average citizen to earn.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The amount of poll tax Jerry proposes is negligible.  The resulting discussion on his web sight highlights the basic problem with universal suffrage: people who vote to receive privileges at the expense of others, and people who cater to the aforementioned.

 

[Wayne Coady]

The amount of poll tax Jerry proposes is negligible.   The resulting discussion on his web sight highlights the basic problem with universal suffrage: people who vote to receive privileges at the expense of others, and people who cater to the aforementioned.

Brad good post, I only hope it sinks in. The key words are "vote to receive privileges at the expense of others".

We sure have an audience tonight, even 7 guest 

 

[a_majoor]

The amount of poll tax Jerry proposes is negligible.  The resulting discussion on his web sight highlights the basic problem with universal suffrage: people who vote to receive privileges at the expense of others, and people who cater to the aforementioned.

This explains why private organizations with democratic constitutions are fairly switched on (for example the Shriners); the people who join are already self motivated, and are voting for issues which they have a personal stake in. Various societies in the past used this principle to limit the franchise, generally presupposing that property owners had a real stake in the outcomes of government, hence only they could vote.

The mechanics of a "literacy test" would be quite outlandish I think (but then again I am an illiterate PBI  ), one could picture "cramming sessions" at party headquarters to prepare the faithful membership for voting.

The idea of a poll tax does begin to tie in the idea there is a "personal stake" in the various issues of the election, although this is still quite nebulous if you simply pay "a carton of cigarettes and a bottle of whiskey" to receive your ballot. A lot of the problem is most voters DO NOT see or believe there is a personal stake in the issues involved in the election, a quite incredible state of affairs when you consider that taxes are the largest single expense in most Canadian house holds now.

 

[jmacleod]

British author Neville Shute Norway (Neville Shute, "On The Beach, No Highway in the Sky" etc)
aeronautical engineer and well known author came to the same conclusion about qualifications
for voters. At one time in Nova Scotia, voters were restricted to persons who paid a "Poll Tax"
-this eliminated, for one thing, all Black citizens (I know, they are now referred to as "Visable
Minorities" except among themselves) - for the purposes of a truly democratic process, the vote
must be extended to every citizen, with as few restrictions as possible, but I can readily see why
the "quality of voters" is something which should be explored. There is an interesting side perspective
to this - University students are usually focused on an anti-government stance, for whatever reasons
-but voting statistics prove that most, in fact, do not vote - can't change governments by not
voting - Politics 101  MacLeod

 

[paracowboy]

"The best arguement against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter"

Sir Winston Churchill

I love that quote!

Personally I am of the Robert HeinLein school of thought where people who want to vote must first prove that they have earned the right.

Do it either with Federal service of some (or any type) or positions like police officer, fire fighter or some other set of criteria that can be available for the average citizen to earn.

Starship Troopers, best book ever written, worst movie ever made. While I agree with Heinlein's theories with most of the book, I am adamantly against a voter franchise. I say, we make dangerous public service mandatory in order to run for office, eg, Military, LEO, firefighter, paramedic, etc. These men/women have proven that they place the welfare of their fellows above their own, so they will probably place the welfare of the State above their own, as well. Further, by not drawing from strictly the military, we ensure that there will be at least a modicum of viewpoints, from all over the political strata.

 

[Reccesoldier]

I say, we make dangerous public service mandatory in order to run for office, eg, Military, LEO, firefighter, paramedic, etc. These men/women have proven that they place the welfare of their fellows above their own, so they will probably place the welfare of the State above their own, as well.

Is that really true? I mean come on, each and every one of us in here has met lots of people in the service who we would definitely NOT say that about. This is a generality that might, and I mean might ring true in a case where a nation is at war and has not instituted a draft of some sort but as a rule are we all that altruistic, or are we just people who enjoy the job?

Also don't forget that in Heinlein's world ANYONE who could draw a breath was entitled to be in the national service, this abrogates the whole "dangerous public service" theory, after all they could be working in an office licking stamps if that was all they had the mental capacity to do.

With regard to the voter and a "stake" in the vote as represented by the poll tax it is in the nature of our plural democracy for there to be slack in the system. Some people may never vote until they are drawn to some issue that affects them personally. I honestly do not believe that that would change because people are required to pay for the privilege of voting.

Those that do vote now have already shown that they believe they have a stake in the politics of the land and most understand that their vote does matter. Is this a solution in search of a problem then?

 

[a_majoor]

Consider the dysfunctional nature of Government today, and the very low voter turnout.

If more people considered they really had a stake in the outcomes of government, then perhaps more would vote, and perhaps they would shift the balance of power in Parliament. While I might not personally enjoy a NDP majority Government, at least it would be a possibility if enough people really thought about the issues and voted, rather than passive/aggressively spoiled their ballots or said "these guys are all the same".

I think as well, parties might be much more willing to differentiate themselves to encompass the views and wishes of larger blocks of voters. The American Democratic party is narrowing its voter base (and ability to win elections) by encompassing a very narrow range of views to please what they see as the voter base. The Canadian Liberal Party isn't that far from the NDP or Conservative party in terms of actual policies (although getting them to implement these policies is an entirely different subject). Given the lack of differences in stated positions, voters either go with past preferences (Dad always voted for Bob Stanfield...) or need a very sophisticated understanding of the issues, hence the literacy test idea.

Parties will probably not change on their own, hence the need to drive changes from the voter end.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Is this a solution in search of a problem then?

Yes.  The problem is not that underinformed, misinformed, or merely contrarian or selfish voters exist.  The problem is the power they wield.  The source of political instability lies in the inherent philosophical grounding of the body of constitutional law: does the constitution define rights granted to people by government, or does it expressly limit the power of government over the people?

I believe that if there is universal franchise and no significant limits on powers which may be assumed by government, the resulting society must be inherently unstable in the long term.  One of the predictable side effects should be that as government can and does assume greater power and involvement in the lives of people, the importance of gaining and retaining power should dominate political activity and there should be an increasing polarization of political factions.

A constitution designed to limit the power of government is a solution, but not a perfect one if the people are willing to subvert it.

I believe that in Canada, we have a weak constitution.  I believe that in the US, they are in the process of subverting theirs.