Should the military have a say in politics?

[2952-0-0]

In some countries the military gets to appoint seats in legislatures. In Chile they get to appoint 1/5 of the Senators, for example. Should it be so in the US?

[Democratic Hawk]

Certainly not

Dave

[A18]

Well, I think they should be able to vote in their home states, but nothing specifically for the military, no.

[J. J.]

Certainly not

Dave

I'll note that it is traditional for very senior officers to serve in the House of Lords, so that the in some was, a military view is represented.

[The Dowager Mod]

Hell no!

[dazzleman]

Not as an institution, but military people should be able to vote and run for office just like anybody else.

[Emsworth]

Individual members of the armed forces should be able to vote, but the military, as such, should not have any special representation.

I'll note that it is traditional for very senior officers to serve in the House of Lords, so that the in some was, a military view is represented.

Of course, as you know, the HoL does not matter that much anyway

[Jake]

Of course, if only we had a third house that represented different groups, the military could elect members to that house, but baring that, only in a few cases. Maybe put the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in the line of succession, but that's it.

[The Dowager Mod]

If you allow military influence in politics you get the preatorians again.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, unless you want the US to become Burma.

[J. J.]

Individual members of the armed forces should be able to vote, but the military, as such, should not have any special representation.

I'll note that it is traditional for very senior officers to serve in the House of Lords, so that the in some was, a military view is represented.

Of course, as you know, the HoL does not matter that much anyway

Yes, but it does a chance for the professional soldier's viewpoint to aired in a very public forum.

I liked Sir Harold Wilson's plan for the Lords, BTW.

[opebo]

In america the defense contractors influence government, not the military itself.

[Ebowed]

To answer the poll question: no.

[Richard]

Yes.  I believe that if you are in the military, or if you have ever been in the military, that you should get an extra vote.

[John Dibble]

Yes and no. First, I don't think the question at all implys excluding members of the military from regular voting if you answer no, so I don't know why it's even brought up. Next, I don't think they should have any direct votes in Congress or anything of that sort, but when Congress is voting on what equipment and whatnot to give the military, military experts should be consulted - you don't want Congress giving our troops gear that they don't like using when there are better options.

[J. J.]

Yes and no. First, I don't think the question at all implys excluding members of the military from regular voting if you answer no, so I don't know why it's even brought up. Next, I don't think they should have any direct votes in Congress or anything of that sort, but when Congress is voting on what equipment and whatnot to give the military, military experts should be consulted - you don't want Congress giving our troops gear that they don't like using when there are better options.

How about entering into debate?

[Democratic Hawk]

Certainly not

Dave

I'll note that it is traditional for very senior officers to serve in the House of Lords, so that the in some was, a military view is represented.

I'd have thought that they would only actually sit in the House of Lords having retired from the military. I don't have a problem with that

As far as serving military personal go, they have the right to vote as citizens or subjects. I see no reason why they couldn't run for political office - but upon election, they'd quit the military

I don't agree with military government as in the case of the South American 'juntas' or Burmese Security Council

Dave

[John Dibble]

Yes and no. First, I don't think the question at all implys excluding members of the military from regular voting if you answer no, so I don't know why it's even brought up. Next, I don't think they should have any direct votes in Congress or anything of that sort, but when Congress is voting on what equipment and whatnot to give the military, military experts should be consulted - you don't want Congress giving our troops gear that they don't like using when there are better options.

How about entering into debate?

Only if the debate has something to do with the military, like what equipment to purchase. An expert could say in the debate "Our troops prefer gun X over gun Y, because gun Y has a tendency to jam". But the military should have nothing to do with domestic policy, and as I said they don't need to have votes on any matters.

[angus]

No!

nor should NARAL, the NRA, the AMA or the rest.

people should be making laws, not institutions.  I think you managed to nail down the major problem in US politics today.

[opebo]

No!

nor should NARAL, the NRA, the AMA or the rest.

people should be making laws, not institutions.  I think you managed to nail down the major problem in US politics today.

NARAL, the NRA, AMA, etc., are just groups of individuals who's views and interests coincide.  What are you going to do, ban freedom of association?

[angus]

point taken.  still, I found that the Naderian spiel about interest groups having too great a sway over congresspersons not being in our best interest does "resonate" with me.  On the other hand, no I do not agree with the McCain-Feingold solution, since it amounts to banning free speech.  Free association is a noble concept, but obviously one down side is pressure on legislators.  I offer no solutions or alternatives.  I'm just bitching.  It occurs to me that the military, at least in some capacity, acts like these groups as well, pressuring legislators.  I strongly support the government going its of our way to make sure fighting men and women can vote freely, and, moreover, I think folks who have ordered men to their deaths make fine presidents, as their experiences make them much less likely to start wars for the wrong reasons than folks who have never had that experience, but I don't think the military ought to have any special prestige as an interest group.