Serious Discussion - What should voting requirements be?

[Tory]

- 18 years of age
- Never convicted of a felony(unless the decision is reversed)
- Must be a tax payer

When registering to vote, I think applicants should be required to pass a test on thier nation's government.

[YRABNNRM]

Citizenship, nothing more.

If you're a citizen and you take the time to register and show up, then you get to vote.

Felons, however, should not get to vote unless pardoned.  Especially violent felons.

This is my views, however I feel there should be a voting age and 18 is fine.

[Jens]

18 years and citizenship. As soon as there is groups that are eliminated, for no mather what reason, it becomes a "Limited Democracy."

[A18]

The Bill of Rights was limited democracy.

[Niles Caulder]

I always felt the only trial of voting rights should be this:

Regardless of age when it's taken, the (nationally standardized) passage of a senior high school final on civics/government,

Written or orally administered, in the language prefered by the student.

[Jens]

The Bill of Rights was limited democracy.

Yep, and so was the first 3 Danish democratic constitutions (and those preceding wasn't even democratic). The first country to have a full democracy was New Zealand in 1901.

[Jens]

I always felt the only trial of voting rights should be this:

Regardless of age when it's taken, the (nationally standardized) passage of a senior high school final on civics/government,

Written or orally administered, in the language prefered by the student.

It is my experience that such a criteria is too restricted. You don't need to know nor understand Montesquieu to have a valid opinion on how you would like your city, state or country to be run. Actually they might have the ability to see things in another perspective.

[A18]

Are you opposed to the Bill of Rights?

[Jens]

Are you opposed to the Bill of Rights?

No!

[Niles Caulder]

It is my experience that such a criteria is too restricted. You don't need to know nor understand Montesquieu to have a valid opinion on how you would like your city, state or country to be run. Actually they might have the ability to see things in another perspective.

LOL I don't think we disagree in principle...I don't know about you, but unfortunately my high school govt. class never included Montesquieu.

Basically, the test ought to be pretty forgiving:  "checks and balances," "branches of government," "federal system of govt," "how long is a senator's term of office?" "Who was the first president?" & "who has to register with selective services?"

[A18]

Are you opposed to the Bill of Rights?

No!

So what's wrong with limited democracy, then?

[Jens]

It is my experience that such a criteria is too restricted. You don't need to know nor understand Montesquieu to have a valid opinion on how you would like your city, state or country to be run. Actually they might have the ability to see things in another perspective.

LOL I don't think we disagree in principle...I don't know about you, but unfortunately my high school govt. class never included Montesquieu.

Basically, the test ought to be pretty forgiving:  "checks and balances," "branches of government," "federal system of govt," "how long is a senator's term of office?" "Who was the first president?" & "who has to register with selective services?"

We probably don't.

We did actually discuss the separation of powers in my high school class and all the other basics of Danish government (it was part of the history classes) but I had a "revalation" during my political work in high school (the youth organisation of SF) where anoother youngster, who never participated in the high flying discussions that you always have in these places , actually was very observant when it came to "real life."

I guess my point is that knowing the number of MPs or wheather or not there is a Department of for Administrative Affairs isn't a necessity when it comes to being a "good" voter

(It seems like I always end up in tecnicalities when discussing with you, Niles )

[Jens]

Are you opposed to the Bill of Rights?

No!

So what's wrong with limited democracy, then?

It's limited! I don't want anybody to decide whose in and whose out!

[A18]

But you just agreed that the Bill of Rights is limited democracy.

[Jens]

But you just agreed that the Bill of Rights is limited democracy.

And the American democracy is much more than the Bill of Rights - plus I have to say that I think that deniening ex-convicts the right to vote is something I strongly desagree with (didn't even know that happened until Florida 2000 and was quite surprised(

[A18]

Oh, I think you missed my point. The Bill of Rights itself limits democracy.

A pure democracy is incompatible with property rights.

[Jens]

Oh, I think you missed my point. The Bill of Rights itself limits democracy.

A pure democracy is incompatible with property rights.

Why should property rights conflic with democracy. A citizen can own what ever he/she want. This does not mather as long as property isnt linked with voting rights

[A18]

Because, one, condensed areas end up running the state. Two, cities like welfare states more than people with property do.

Like I said, I think the senate should be the 1/5 of an acre, and the house for everyone. That way everyone gets to participate, and most people end up owning land anyway.

For executives, they'd just have to be 24 years old.

[Jens]

I believe you are being slightly paranoid thinking that cities will run everything

Denmark used to have that constelation with a Country Diet where you had to be a landowner and have a specific sum of money to vote and a People's Diet without those requirements.

Result: two houses that couldn't agree on anything (the Country Diet being exstremely conservative and self protective) and numerous political crisis from 1866 til 1901 and again (1924) 1926-1936.

Today the cities play an important role (more that 90 % of the Danish population lives in cities) but farmers and other country dwellers are not excluded nor dominated

[A18]

Class warfare isn't really part of our culture here. Basically, it'd just make it a little harder to implement the "if it moves, tax it (and if it stops moving, tax it again)" philosophy.

[Jens]

Class warfare isn't really part of our culture here. Basically, it'd just make it a little harder to implement the "if it moves, tax it (and if it stops moving, tax it again)" philosophy.

Sorry, but I don't really see where "Class warfare" entered the discussion?

[A18]

So the houses wouldn't wage civil war, as you described

[Jens]

So the houses wouldn't wage civil war, as you described

[A18]

I win

[Jens]

I win

yeah, by the weapon of "other guy giving up because he hasn't got a clue, what you are talking about" or the Monty Python "Tuna Slammer"