[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Home]

RE: Questioning Democracy



The test for voting is that you are 18 and not a member of a disqualified group. Given that we have a test, I do not see the problem in looking at the qualifying conditions. The current condition appears arbitrary but seems to me to reflect a sorites–type paradox. We (presumably) would agree that children do not have the capacity to make the decision to vote (e.g. a 1 year-old) but the question then comes – on what day do you cease to be a child? It is evident that by the time one is 30 one is no longer a child but when exactly did it happen. In order to formulate a law, we need a specific definition of the change. Any answer to this question is going to be unacceptable to some but it should not mean that we don’t answer the question.

 

I agree that 18 is arbitrary but as soon as this question is opened up then it seems we should be looking at a more rational way of choosing rather than just age. This is going to be highly contentious as I can see a citizenship test rearing its head.

 

As for letting criminals vote, we take away their freedom and I see no problem in withdrawing other citizenship rights (such as the vote/passport) as part of the punishment/rehabilitation period. I disagree that peers and royalty should not vote – we seek to treat them as normal citizens with no special powers and so they should be allowed to vote. Do MPs get a vote? If so then by analogy, I think peers should have the vote too.

 

Alex

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com [mailto:owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com]On Behalf Of Bernie Doeser
Sent: 27 February 2006 17:51
To: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
Subject: RE: Questioning Democracy

 

Jenny,

 

The issue of who should and who should not be able to vote is an interesting one. The philosophical perspective is rather comforting on matters such as these, as we can sit on the sidelines and pull pretty much any demarcation to pieces. The line used to be drawn at 21, is now 18, and I see Gordon Brown has just come out with a proposal to change it to 16. I think 16 is becoming the default age at which you can do all the adult things e.g. drive a car, vote, smoke, marry, join the army and buy alcohol. But the point I was making, and will still defend, is that this may then be consistent, but it is still arbitrary. We require drivers to pass a test, dentists and teachers to be qualified. We even now require new citizens to pass a test, so why not make voters pass a test? If a brain damaged 30 year old can make a cross without understanding the consequences, but a bright 12 year old who does cannot, then isn't something wrong ? I realise a test would have practical problems, and a fixed age is easy to impose and is well accepted, but that doesn't make it logical ......

 

I think peers, royalty and criminals were barred from voting as they weren't true citizens. I agree this historical anomaly has probably lost its relevance, though I might keep the bar if someone belonged to more than one of the classifications.

 

 

 -----Original Message-----
From: owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com [mailto:owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com]On Behalf Of Jenny Waddle
Sent: 27 February 2006 11:58
To: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
Subject: RE: Questioning Democracy

hello

 

At the end of yor aticle you write about the age restrictons on voting, and the possiblity of having some kind of test to see whether the individual knows enough about politics and the government to be able to vote. Although I agree that the voting age should be lowered, I disagree with the idea that only people with the right knowledge should vote. There are many ignorant people in the world, there are many people who are probably wrong in their views, and there are certainly many that disagree with each other. Including the ignorant, we need to let all of these different individuals to vote, because they are the ones living in the society, and most probably living in the core of a community, i.e. not the higher classed MP's etc. The reason why people don't vote is because they thin there are not listened to anyway, that there is not point, having some test would only create a certain type of person that voted, and consequently laws would not represent the majority.

I would futher more suggest that criminals should also be able to vote. The prison system doesn't work, and criminals probaby know a lot more about crime, the prison stystem and poor living conditions, and therefore should certainly be able to express there views.

 

Please reply and tell what you think

 

cheers - Jenny Waddle