Proper Restrictions on Voting

[Matt Faherty]

In a proper state, what are the valid restrictions on voting?

I think the topic is generally considered archaic today in the West with such wide suffrage, but perhaps voting restrictions hold the key to staving off potential "public choice" problems. Off the top of my head, a few potential criteria include:

- Age

- Mental Health

- Criminal or ex-criminal status

- Wealth

- Education

- Knowlege (ie. civic tests)

- Citizenship/residency

- Civic participation (taxes or membership in state functions)

I honestly have not thought too deeply about the topic, but I have a few ideas. There should be a minimum age requirement and residency for a certain time period. Criminals of a certain degree should be prohibited from voting (would have to think more about specifics). I would like to see some for of simple civics test. I might also consider voting power being tied to wealth in some capacity.

[dldelancey]

Are you talking about federal, state, or local elections or all of the above? Also, please explain your rationale for voting power being tied to wealth.

[syrakusos]

The problem with wealth is measuring it. In Ayn Rand's capitalist utopia, no one pays taxes. The founders of our republic insisted in paying taxes and therefore asked for something other than land ownership as proof. Land was (and is) real estate. A million bales of cotton or a law degree were (and are) not. But the founders created the "poll tax" as way to enfranchise merchants, tradesmen, mechanics, and others.

Overall, rather than looking for ways to restrict voting, does it make sense to find standard to enfranchise voters? A 15-year old who supports herself, lives independently, etc., certainly should be granted a voice in her government.

As for "criminals" perhaps someone convicted of election fraud or impeached from office should be restricted, perhaps banned for life, but maybe not. However, once you have served your sentence, you have "repaid your debt to society." Should you not then be reintegrated? If anything, it seems to me that voting would be an indication of that reintegration into the community. Moreover, in terms of strict individualism, no "debt to society" exists. If you rob a store, say, are caught, and convicted, you repay the victim all damages and losses, and then the record is balanced. Justice is established. What does voting have to do with that?

In The Secret of the League: The Story of a Social War by Ernest Bramah (1907) - suggested as a precursor to Atlas Shrugged - after the capitalists regain society from the labor party, they organize the state like a joint-stock company with voting share at 500 pounds. Buy as many as you want.

Corporations can own stock in corporations, so can they own voting shares in the government? My favorite example cited often is Valentina: Soul on Sapphire by Joseph Delaney and Mark Stiegler in which a self-aware computer program electronically files incorporation papers for herself to win her independence. Should she vote in government elections?

What about literacy? I think that a basic citizenship test should be mandatory, but such tests were part of the power structure of white rule in the South where white people got easy questions and non-white people got hard ones. Just sayin'... should it be like the SATs, multiple guess with an essay component?

In Heinlein's Starship Troopers, the point is made that only veterans should vote because when you vote, you call upon the full destructive power of the state to do your bidding and no one should wield that weapon who does not understand what it means.

And Deanna's point is interesting, also. Does the jurisdiction level make a difference?

[Matt Faherty]

Are you talking about federal, state, or local elections or all of the above? Also, please explain your rationale for voting power being tied to wealth.

All of the above.

As for wealth voting, I will change my position to say it shouldn't exist in a proper state with voluntary funding, but in a state with involuntary taxation I can see its use. If people can vote to control the wealth of others, then those with wealth should have a disproportionately large say in how that money is used.

[syrakusos]

Well, yes, but you said "proper state" so we all assumed...

But if you want to discuss here and now, then I agree that restricting the franchise is the proper discussion. No one currently employed by the government should vote for the same reasons that those who do not pay taxes should not vote. However, jurisdiction is a factor and with technology - even paper - we could restrict city employees from voting in city elections, though allowing them to vote in federal elections.

This is the opposite of taxpayer. You conflated them, "Civic participation (taxes or membership in state functions)." But how do you decide? I mean if you are appointed Attorney General, then, ok, you lose your voting privileges. But I was appointed to serve on a White House Conference for Libraries and Information Services. I mean, reallly, I lose my voting privileges because I want to see the Library of Congress go online? I did not get paid, of course... but what does that matter. The government has in the past had a slew of powerful "dollar a year men" making policy. I am just asking: how do you decide? What is your standard?

You wanted to limit voting to the mentally competent. You said "mental health" actually. So, how would you establish that? It speaks to a significant probllem In the old USSR, dissidents were put in mental institutions on the theory that only someone insane would oppose the perfect society. You see the problem. In your (our) perfect laissez faire capitalist utopia, anyone who attended religious services might be considered mentally incompetent. Then, we would have Election Police peeping in on the homes of suscpected Jews and others who might be praying in private to hide their mental illness.

Downies (Trisomy 21) are commonly regarded as "retarded" but some (perhaps many) actually hold jobs, etc., etc., and any taxpayer should vote, right?

[dennislmay]

Well, yes, but you said "proper state" so we all assumed...

But if you want to discuss here and now, then I agree that restricting the franchise is the proper discussion. No one currently employed by the government should vote for the same reasons that those who do not pay taxes should not vote. However, jurisdiction is a factor and with technology - even paper - we could restrict city employees from voting in city elections, though allowing them to vote in federal elections.

This is the opposite of taxpayer. You conflated them, "Civic participation (taxes or membership in state functions)." But how do you decide? I mean if you are appointed Attorney General, then, ok, you lose your voting privileges. But I was appointed to serve on a White House Conference for Libraries and Information Services. I mean, reallly, I lose my voting privileges because I want to see the Library of Congress go online? I did not get paid, of course... but what does that matter. The government has in the past had a slew of powerful "dollar a year men" making policy. I am just asking: how do you decide? What is your standard?

You wanted to limit voting to the mentally competent. You said "mental health" actually. So, how would you establish that? It speaks to a significant probllem In the old USSR, dissidents were put in mental institutions on the theory that only someone insane would oppose the perfect society. You see the problem. In your (our) perfect laissez faire capitalist utopia, anyone who attended religious services might be considered mentally incompetent. Then, we would have Election Police peeping in on the homes of suscpected Jews and others who might be praying in private to hide their mental illness.

Downies (Trisomy 21) are commonly regarded as "retarded" but some (perhaps many) actually hold jobs, etc., etc., and any taxpayer should vote, right?

I knew a Downs Sydrome kid about 20 who was from a large family where most of the kids and the father had genius IQ's. He held a job and was completely fluent on all current events - more than your average adult for sure. How to measure mental competency in that case would be interesting.

In the ideal case of anarcho-capitalism the point is moot. Within limited government the ideal of who votes and what that vote counts for would be situation dependent. With the direct democratic election of Senators the balance in the Constitution was destroyed - the States no longer had a vote breaking the triad of individual, state, and federal power in favor of federal power from which we may never recover.

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

urrent events - more than your average adult for sure. How to measure mental competency in that case would be interesting.

In the ideal case of anarcho-capitalism the point is moot. Within limited government the ideal of who votes and what that vote counts for would be situation dependent. With the direct democratic election of Senators the balance in the Constitution was destroyed - the States no longer had a vote breaking the triad of individual, state, and federal power in favor of federal power from which we may never recover.

Dennis

The 17 th amendment demoted the States from sovereign entities to something like the Departments of France.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Matt Faherty]

Well, yes, but you said "proper state" so we all assumed...

But if you want to discuss here and now, then I agree that restricting the franchise is the proper discussion. No one currently employed by the government should vote for the same reasons that those who do not pay taxes should not vote. However, jurisdiction is a factor and with technology - even paper - we could restrict city employees from voting in city elections, though allowing them to vote in federal elections.

This is the opposite of taxpayer. You conflated them, "Civic participation (taxes or membership in state functions)." But how do you decide? I mean if you are appointed Attorney General, then, ok, you lose your voting privileges. But I was appointed to serve on a White House Conference for Libraries and Information Services. I mean, reallly, I lose my voting privileges because I want to see the Library of Congress go online? I did not get paid, of course... but what does that matter. The government has in the past had a slew of powerful "dollar a year men" making policy. I am just asking: how do you decide? What is your standard?

You wanted to limit voting to the mentally competent. You said "mental health" actually. So, how would you establish that? It speaks to a significant probllem In the old USSR, dissidents were put in mental institutions on the theory that only someone insane would oppose the perfect society. You see the problem. In your (our) perfect laissez faire capitalist utopia, anyone who attended religious services might be considered mentally incompetent. Then, we would have Election Police peeping in on the homes of suscpected Jews and others who might be praying in private to hide their mental illness.

Downies (Trisomy 21) are commonly regarded as "retarded" but some (perhaps many) actually hold jobs, etc., etc., and any taxpayer should vote, right?

The ideas I laid out were all "potential" forms of voting restrictions. I do not have my mind made up on the topic. But I do really like the idea of restricting voting for paid government employees.

[BaalChatzaf]

Downies (Trisomy 21) are commonly regarded as "retarded" but some (perhaps many) actually hold jobs, etc., etc., and any taxpayer should vote, right?

The ideas I laid out were all "potential" forms of voting restrictions. I do not have my mind made up on the topic. But I do really like the idea of restricting voting for paid government employees.

I agree. No employee of the government should have the right to vote for anyone in the branch of government he is working for. The temptation to vote for folks who will give the employee a raise can be quite strong.

In the long run democracies are doomed. As soon as voters discover they can vote for someone who will loot the treasury and share some of the spoils with them, the game is up sooner or later. I think we are in the end portion of that process right now.

Ba'al Chatzaf