Yes, there should. The purpose of voting is to make a decision on what course of action the government should take.
The proper purpose of elections in a political system is to act as a check of last-resort against violations of the Constitution. The Constitution specifies the powers of government, and the job of politicians is to apply the Constitution, not follow public opinion. This is why the U.S. Constitution originally provided for direct election of the House of Representatives alone, and in most states, only wealthy landowners could vote. As our government corrupted into a democracy, politicians began appealing directly to the people, beginning with Andrew Jackson’s presidency - though some would argue it started with Jefferson.
The courts will “just throw it out,” you say? Well that solves that problem. Or does it? What if voters, out of ignorance or opportunism, elect politicians who appoint judges who “find” Constitutional grounds for gun control, censorship, drug prohibition, business regulation, etc – even when such grounds are non-existent?
One doesn’t have to study U.S. history very long to see that voting majorities have been easily and repeatedly bribed with welfare schemes by politicians, who in turn fill judicial benches with those inclined to interpret the Constitution as loosely and pragmatically as possible.
True enough; the only solution to that is constant education on the part of philosophers and other leaders so that voters are not so ignorant.
So in a population of 1,000,000 citizens, 1,000,000 votes will be required to prohibit the immigration of Maxists, and 1,000,000 votes will be required to allow the immigration of Marxists? So, if Proposition A (to allow Marxists) has 600,000 votes, and Proposition B (to disallow Marxists) has 400,000 votes, do Marxists get to come in or not? After all, neither proposition is unanimously endorsed.
Only the constitution, and amendments to the constitution, needs unanimity. If the constitution says that immigration laws can be passed with the approval of 80% of the citizens, then a proposition to disallow Marxists will require 800,000 votes to pass. (And that which is not disallowed is allowed, of course.)
Reason. If the premises are correct, applying logic will yield only one (and the correct answer).
Sorry, but reason cannot decide. That has to be done by a mind, which uses reason to make the decision. In addition, the premises may not be “correct” (certainly true), but it may be necessary to make a decision based on unproven premises.
“Mr. Ford, where are you going to find even 10 people who agree on every detail about what a car should look like?”
Well, but people almost never like every single detail about a car; they just buy the car that comes closest to their ideal. Plus, different people in the same area can pick different cars, which is not the case with government. For your model to work, there would have to be thousands of tiny countries from which to choose, and even then a lot of people might not find one that suits them exactly.
I do think the proper means of establishing a government is a bit of a problem for Objectivism. Ayn Rand supported the idea that “governments … [derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (Declaration of Independence, as quoted in TVOS p. 110) But how many of the governed? A simple majority, or every single one, as CF seems to want? What if 45% want a proper Objectivist government, but 55% want the current welfare state? Morally it would seem that the minority has the right to use force to establish the correct government, but that contradicts the idea of “the consent of the governed.” But majority rule is not a legitimate principle. What then? Ayn Rand seemed to just assume that at some point everyone would choose the correct type of government, and live happily ever after. What if they don’t (as is, of course, the case today.)?
For your model to work, there would have to be thousands of tiny countries from which to choose, and even then a lot of people might not find one that suits them exactly.
There will only have to be ONE country that is 100% capitalist. It will suit rational people perfectly!
Under my proposed form of government, immigration and naturalization–and consequently, voting–would be restricted according to rules unanimously agreed upon by the people who are already citizens. This means that, yes, they could agree to rule out Marxists, Islamists, etc.
What do immigration and naturalization rules have to do with capitalism? I tend to think a capitalist country should have open immigration except for known criminals. Maybe not, though …
Now, as I told you on the government property thread, I believe that a truly legitimate government is one based on the unanimous consent of all citizens–so that, in effect, the citizens own the government much like stockholders own a corporation. This gives the citizens the right to limit the vote in whatever ways they agree to limit it.
No government can get unanimous consent, it is practically impossible.
Voting should be done by those who are competent to make such decisions; namely, those who can make rational and well-informed judgments. Children do not qualify because they are not sufficiently well-informed yet.
The first of these sentences already cuts out a percentage of the population who are adults and vote, but could really care less about the outcome and would even vote “mickey mouse” if it were on the ballot. I guess what originally got me to start this comment was to clarify what your concept of a child is and how long that lasts. I defend this because I am in one of those in between stages where I’m still restricted from voting, but at the same time, I’m more informed and and compelled to be informed and and involved than many adults I know. I won’t say that I deserve the right to vote right now nor would I try to change the voting age, but still, there are some extremely intellegent, informed, and mature people I’ve met as young as 14. I think the problem really lies in the fact that these “exceptions” would only open the door for so many other mindless brutes of the same age who would vote for the “wrong” candidate as a form of joke. I don’t disagree with the voting age, yet I do beleive some of the “exceptions” I speak about would at least be given the slightest concideration and not disregarded as we mostly are. At 11 I had the same mentality of most 18 year olds I knew, and now I can’t even figure out what the age of my conscience and maturity is anymore, I guess it can only be judged through my overall character. I’d still appreciate being heard, because unlinke most of today’s youth, I have upheld my standards of morality and virtue and have defended them throughout my life. Doesn’t that mean anything to adults anymore?
Actually I think this is kinda baseless statement. First of all, not all adults can take all factors into consideration and make a rational and well-informed decisions. And these days 14-16 year olds are not ignorant of what is happening around the world.
At any rate, I think the voting age should be lowered. 18 is a bit too much.
I agree with everything you said except for your final choice. I would appreciate the right to vote, but I beleive it might be more harmful if the voting age is lowered, because like I said, it opens up the door for all the other teens who never thought through their decision or the reasons to support their choice.
As for voting age, I tend to think there should be some sort of a test rather than an age limit. Even a simple multiple-choice test on the basic structure and function of government would weed out a lot of clueless people.
Wow! I never thought of that, but I strongly agree. Not in the sense of some FCAT- type exam where the fiction storyteller in the school gets a lower grade than the careless suck-up, but something like an IQ test or something that could determine how informed you are and wether or not your views are legitimate and supported by fact, not whim.
wow…No! I hate that. Not the comment, just the principle it implies. It actually applies to an aspect of my personal life which I wouldn’t generally mention here but, it’s relevant.
A few years ago my family structured itself into a small form of government. It isn’t legitimate, but it functions in the basic ways. We have cabinet positions, the movement of money(collecting, saving, investing). There is voting and laws, and it was all -ut together so that my current family of 28 people that see each other every 2 weeks, wouldn’t fall apart as it expands.
Well the point is that when all of this was first established, the adults were trying to settle a voting age. Many of my aunts and uncles wanted to set the voting age near the low teens so that I could vote back then. The problem was that my sister who is a year older and with a mental disability would not have the rational capability of understanding the decisions being made or how to choose therefore my father wanted to have a right to my sister’s vote. I threw an outrage (well within myself), because my dad is the balck sheep in the family and only looks to manipulate minds. In this sense, it’s very eveil to think that just because they’re your children they’re going to have the same opinions as yourself. With me, it’s mostly been the opposition. I’ve g2g. I’ve leave it on that note.
As for voting age, I tend to think there should be some sort of a test rather than an age limit. Even a simple multiple-choice test on the basic structure and function of government would weed out a lot of clueless people.
Wow! I never thought of that, but I strongly agree. Not in the sense of some FCAT- type exam where the fiction storyteller in the school gets a lower grade than the careless suck-up, but something like an IQ test or something that could determine how informed you are and wether or not your views are legitimate and supported by fact, not whim.
I don’t think you can test whether someone’s views are “legitimate.” I was thinking more about simple stuff like the 3 branches of government, the powers and functions of each, the main points of the Constitution, etc; basic high school civics stuff.
By the way, please try to use the quote function to reduce confusion about who said what. You need to click the REPLY button, not the QUOTE button.
… I like the idea of granting teenagers around 16 years old a “quarter vote.” I think it would get people involved in thinking about the political process,…
I guess my highschool experience was very different from your’s. In my school all of the 14-16 year old guys were interested in video games, pot, and “getting laid”, not world issues and politics. The girls weren’t much better. Frankly I’d rather not have people in middle school deciding the fate of the nation.
I agree with you for the most part, because that’s how it is in general at my school but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a select few who are informed and do care about the fate of the nation.