Should the poor be allowed to vote?

[awfulthings9]

On another thread (perhaps the one on salary caps for CEO’s), someone suggested another poster start this thread, adding the comment that nobody on this forum would argue that the poor, indeed, should be restricted from voting.

So … here it is!

Actually, I’m going to refine the question a bit and ask, should there be cultural restrictions on who should be allowed to vote. Early on in our nation’s history, one had to be white and male, of course, but also a property owner (I’m sure we could all agree there were some problems there). Now, one must be over 18 (and, perhaps, not a felon, though I don’t know the specifics of that).

MTV’s Rock the Vote, as well as other programs, push the agenda that everyone who is legally able should get out and make their voice heard.

But should everyone’s voice be heard? A woman on some news channel or the other commented that she voted for Edwards in the primary because she “likes his hair”.

Starting with the premise that no “right” to vote exists (or does it?), and it is merely a privilege, are there restrictions which would, over all, make for a more thoughtful vote by the public at large?

I’m sure this post sounds incredibly insensitive, but as with my last thread on the Civil War and abortion, I’m trying to act as Devil’s Advocate to explore an idea of Catholic social teachings. Does our obligation to look after the poor and less fortunate of our society mandate that we also allow a political voice to those same groups?

So, for starters, how about these qualifiers:

To vote, one must:

1. have a college degree or own a house
2. not have declared bankruptcy
3. have no criminal record (beyond minor misdemeanors)
4. be gainfully employed (unless diagnosed with a physical disability)
5. be male

Remember, I’m being Devil’s Advocate (and fully acknowledging that there are intelligent, well-reasoned people who would fail the above litmus test) by suggesting that the common good would be served best by restricting the privilege of voting. This is not (necessarily) my opinion.

Putting political correctness aside, any takers?

ps. kidding on number 5

 

[goofyjim]

You’ve got to be kidding on this whole thing. Voting based on whether or not one is financially secure? The only restriction I would even remotely consider is criminal record. Otherwise EVERYONE has the right to vote.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

You’ve got to be kidding on this whole thing. Voting based on whether or not one is financially secure? The only restriction I would even remotely consider is criminal record. Otherwise EVERYONE has the right to vote.

Same here, and even the criminal record should have an ending time once the debt to society is paid off (e.g. end of probation).

 

[awfulthings9]

You’ve got to be kidding on this whole thing. Voting based on whether or not one is financially secure? The only restriction I would even remotely consider is criminal record. Otherwise EVERYONE has the right to vote.

The right?

Given where?

And, by everyone, do you include 16-year-olds? Why or why not?

And why would you consider a restriction on criminal record? My brother is a smart guy, but got arrested for dealing drugs. I’ve also made mistakes, but not criminal ones. Why should there be a restriction on him?

 

[awfulthings9]

Same here, and even the criminal record should have an ending time once the debt to society is paid off (e.g. end of probation).

Does one’s intelligence and insightfulness increase or decrease based upon a man-appointed probation?

And does this suggest that restrictions for voting should be used as a punishment?

Wouldn’t this mean that a man who had to steal to feed his family, but was none-the-less convicted, would be unable to vote for a politician who wanted to do something for the poor?

 

[goofyjim]

The right?

Given where?

And, by everyone, do you include 16-year-olds? Why or why not?

And why would you consider a restriction on criminal record? My brother is a smart guy, but got arrested for dealing drugs. I’ve also made mistakes, but not criminal ones. Why should there be a restriction on him?

It is not only a right for anyone 18 and older under the Constitution but a civic duty. Take away my right to vote and I’ll overthrow any government the rest of you impose on me.

 

[HannahLisa]

There is absolutely no reason to restrict voting rights because of someone’s financial status. Nor do I think you should have to have a college degree, because a college degree is not nearly as necessary as people like to say it is. (Example: Bill Gates.)

I do think that voting should be only in English, if it isn’t already. That is because English is the language of the US.

Also, I believe the states have the right to determine whether felons are allowed to vote or not.

 

[awfulthings9]

It is not only a right for anyone 18 and older under the Constitution but a civic duty. Take away my right to vote and I’ll overthrow any government the rest of you impose on me.

Actually, in its 2000 ruling in the Alexander vs. Mineta case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Constitution “does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” Part of that ruling is that state legislatures would decide the qualifications. So … my question still stands.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Does one’s intelligence and insightfulness increase or decrease based upon a man-appointed probation?

And does this suggest that restrictions for voting should be used as a punishment?

Wouldn’t this mean that a man who had to steal to feed his family, but was none-the-less convicted, would be unable to vote for a politician who wanted to do something for the poor?

No it does not, personally I think they should be allowed to vote in jail, either with a polling location or via absentee ballot. Yet many states have it that if you either get a felony or spend time in jail you loose the right to vote for life, even if you get released later and have paid your debt to society. Most of those states tend to be in the south.

 

[awfulthings9]

There is absolutely no reason to restrict voting rights because of someone’s financial status.

Sure there are reasons. Good reasons? I don’t know. But, actually, I don’t have a criteria that rules anyone out because of financial status, necessarily. Financial status might be a cause, but nowhere is it listed as a qualifier. Bankruptsy and unemployment can happen to the very wealthy, college degrees can happen to the very poor.

Nor do I think you should have to have a college degree, because a college degree is not nearly as necessary as people like to say it is. (Example: Bill Gates.)

I agree. But Bill Gates owns a house, so criteria one wouldn’t rule him out.

I do think that voting should be only in English, if it isn’t already. That is because English is the language of the US.

No it isn’t. There is no official language in the US. So, is there another reason you wouldn’t let a Spanish-speaker vote for a man who wanted to help out his poor immigrant family?

Also, I believe the states have the right to determine whether felons are allowed to vote or not.

You may be right. I’m still trying to find that.

 

[awfulthings9]

No it does not, personally I think they should be allowed to vote in jail, either with a polling location or via absentee ballot. Yet many states have it that if you either get a felony or spend time in jail you loose the right to vote for life, even if you get released later and have paid your debt to society. Most of those states tend to be in the south.

Like I said, I’m just looking for the underlying principals for what we believe (not really stating my personal beliefs), so would you be willing to explain why a man sentenced for tax evasion or double-homicide should vote, or why you think those states are in error. I’m assuming that the fact that they are in the South isn’t your explanation.

 

[janw]

I agree, you got to be kidding. I grew up very poor but care very much about my country and have voted my entire life. I guess this should be answered with a wwjd. The people you would live out are his loved ones I think. The poor, the uneducated, the prodical sons. all persons are of equal value to God and should be to all christians. I think sometimes God knows that felons deserve alot more mercy than the person that grew up in a great home with loving parents and a christian upbringing. Excuse my spelling, I do not have a college degree. When I vote, I alway try to vote for whats best for the ones in our country having the hardest life, not just to better my own life. I guess when you’ve been there, its easier to feel for people who have had a hard life and made mistakes. So I feel maybe I’ve really been blessed. Excuse me if I came across as angry or offended.

 

[HannahLisa]

I’m sure there are people who live in apartments, work hard, and are intelligent enough to vote. What if someone owns a condo and doesn’t have a college degree? Does that mean that, hypothetically, they can’t vote? Houses or college degrees are not necessary for someone to be a well-adjusted, intelligent addition to society.

I think that the US should have an official language, and that it should be English. Perhaps this is prejudiced of me, though I don’t see it that way.

Though, since all the presidential debates are held in English (to my knowledge), nearly all of the news coverage is in English, etc., one could argue that someone who cannot speak any English at all cannot be an informed voter and should therefore not be allowed to vote. I have never voted, so I don’t know how much English one would have to know to complete just the voting process itself.

 

[SoCalRC]

From the Vatican:

"It is commendable that in today’s democratic societies, in a climate of true freedom, everyone is made a participant in directing the body politic.[4] Such societies call for new and fuller forms of participation in public life by Christian and non-Christian citizens alike. Indeed, all can contribute, by voting in elections for lawmakers and government officials, and in other ways as well, to the development of political solutions and legislative choices which, in their opinion, will benefit the common good.[5] The life of a democracy could not be productive without the active, responsible and generous involvement of everyone, «albeit in a diversity and complementarity of forms, levels, tasks, and responsibilities».[6] "

Further:

“The Church recognizes that while democracy is the best expression of the direct participation of citizens in political choices, it succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the human person.[17] Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle, for otherwise the witness of the Christian faith in the world, as well as the unity and interior coherence of the faithful, would be non-existent. The democratic structures on which the modern state is based would be quite fragile were its foundation not the centrality of the human person. It is respect for the person that makes democratic participation possible. As the Second Vatican Council teaches, the protection of «the rights of the person is, indeed, a necessary condition for citizens, individually and collectively, to play an active part in public life and administration».[18]”

Full text here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

This is also elaborated on in the Bishop’s guide to social teachings. A Democracy that is representative on the condition of socio economic status has no legitimacy in the eyes of the Church. Based on the full text it appears that Catholics should not even vote for politicians/parties who try to disenfranchise voters.

 

[awfulthings9]

I agree, you got to be kidding.

If you think I’m kidding, I would hope you would ignore the thread and let it die. I’m posing this for serious discussion.

I grew up very poor but care very much about my country and have voted my entire life.

Does “caring” about the country make for a wise vote? If so, should patriotic 15-year-olds be able to vote?

I guess this should be answered with a wwjd. The people you would live out are his loved ones I think. The poor, the uneducated, the prodical sons. all persons are of equal value to God and should be to all christians.

We don’t know what Jesus would do. There was no discussion of voting in Biblical times. After all, restricting one’s ability to vote does not preclude (as my OP pointed out) our obligation to feed, clothe, and shelter the poor, which is what Jesus would ask of us.

I think sometimes God knows that felons deserve alot more mercy than the person that grew up in a great home with loving parents and a christian upbringing.

Are we confusing the priviledge to vote with mercy? Why are they one in the same?

Excuse my spelling, I do not have a college degree.

Did you spell something wrong?

When I vote, I alway try to vote for whats best for the ones in our country having the hardest life, not just to better my own life.

I’m glad you try to do this. I do, too.

I guess when you’ve been there, its easier to feel for people who have had a hard life and made mistakes. So I feel maybe I’ve really been blessed. Excuse me if I came across as angry or offended.

I have been there. My childhood was miserable - we were dirt poor. I feel blessed, too. And … I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I think you assume that I do.

 

[andy120]

Yes, as Christians we must listen to those who are less fortunate than ourselves, and one way we do that is through a democratic-republic where all adult citizens have the right to vote.

If someone does not have a college degree and happens to live in an apartment, are they any less of a citizen? Perhaps said person actually earned their money without a college degree. Would it make a difference to you if that apartment was in a part of a big city where rent was unbelievably expensive? If so, they essentially you are asking that only the wealthy or upper middle class be allowed to vote.

Jesus came for the poor. When He was born, the first asked to see Him were the poor shepherds.

He has filled the hungry with good things and sent the rich away empty.

If this country is to have a democratic-republic, it is imperative that the right to vote be not denied on the basis of wealth.

Our right to freedom and liberty is given to us by God. Part of the way this right is exercised by individuals is the right to vote.

I do not have a college degree nor do I own a house. However, I feel that I am quite qualified and informed to vote in these upcoming elections.

Start putting limits on who can vote and you go down a slippery slope. Soon people will suggest that perhaps you should make $300,000+ a year before you can vote. $500k? More? And those who vote each time will get smaller and smaller; richer and richer.

The gap between the rich and poor grows since the poor cannot vote for change.

As much as we would like to think the rich will take care of everyone, we all know that will not happen. Look at countries in the past. From a purely secular view, this system would not work because it inevitably leads to revolution. You can only oppress the poor for so long.

We should be grateful that we can vote, but we should not go and take the right away from others.

Rich does not mean successful. Rich does not mean ‘better.’ Rich just means you can make money.

And one final point. Under your ‘solution’ many religious brothers and sisters would not be allowed to vote unless they had their college degree. And how easy would it be for the government to then remove that loophole and close off voting to all Catholic religious. Do you see the problem? I hope so.

In Christ,

…Andy…

 

[awfulthings9]

I’m sure there are people who live in apartments, work hard, and are intelligent enough to vote. What if someone owns a condo and doesn’t have a college degree? Does that mean that, hypothetically, they can’t vote? Houses or college degrees are not necessary for someone to be a well-adjusted, intelligent addition to society.

I’ll concede the point.

I think that the US should have an official language, and that it should be English. Perhaps this is prejudiced of me, though I don’t see it that way.

I don’t think it is prejudiced of you, but we would need a different thread to explain why.

Though, since all the presidential debates are held in English (to my knowledge), nearly all of the news coverage is in English, etc., one could argue that someone who cannot speak any English at all cannot be an informed voter and should therefore not be allowed to vote. I have never voted, so I don’t know how much English one would have to know to complete just the voting process itself.

We would be making an assumption, though. So would it be fair to assume that someone who dropped out of high school and failed to get a G.E.D. is not capable of being an informed voter?

 

[awfulthings9]

From the Vatican:

Further:

Full text here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

This is also elaborated on in the Bishop’s guide to social teachings. A Democracy that is representative on the condition of socio economic status has no legitimacy in the eyes of the Church. Based on the full text it appears that Catholics should not even vote for politicians/parties who try to disenfranchise voters.

I will disagree for a variety of reasons. First of all, the passages indicate that it is commendable, but not a mandate. In addition, the emphasis is on voting for all, but I’m sure everyone here would agree that there are some restrictions (such as age) - in fact many have mentioned them (even some I didn’t think of, such as language mastery). In addition, there a great number of orthodox Catholics in these forums who agree that the Church often just misses the mark when getting into political or economic analysis. These aren’t, after all, the areas that God asked the Church to guide, nor the areas in which his grace offers assurance of reliability. The passages emphasize our concern for the well-being of all. It there something inherent that exists in the group which remains after my proposed restrictions that would bring to its vote a disregard for the less-fortunate?

That would be an interesting theory, and one I’d love to see added to the discussion.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Like I said, I’m just looking for the underlying principals for what we believe (not really stating my personal beliefs), so would you be willing to explain why a man sentenced for tax evasion or double-homicide should vote, or why you think those states are in error. I’m assuming that the fact that they are in the South isn’t your explanation.

Easy, just because you did something wrong does not mean you are incapable of fulfilling your Constitutional right to vote. You are no less worthy of those who are allowed to vote. If you are a US Citizen, you should have that right no matter what. The nature of the crime does not matter. You can still get the relevant information or have it provided to you behind bars in helping to decide who to vote for.

 

[awfulthings9]

Yes, as Christians we must listen to those who are less fortunate than ourselves, and one way we do that is through a democratic-republic where all adult citizens have the right to vote.

Where are we obligated to “listen” to the less fortunate? I’m obligated to help them to live in a comfortable way (but most importantly to help them to salvation), but is “listening” to them a requirement for this?

If someone does not have a college degree and happens to live in an apartment, are they any less of a citizen?

I just conceded the property clause, but let me ask why you restrict voting to citizens? Aren’t the less fortunate to whom we must listen among those who are illegal residents in our country? Should we open up voting to them, as well?

Perhaps said person actually earned their money without a college degree. Would it make a difference to you if that apartment was in a part of a big city where rent was unbelievably expensive? If so, they essentially you are asking that only the wealthy or upper middle class be allowed to vote.

I agree. That criteria is officially tossed.

Jesus came for the poor. When He was born, the first asked to see Him were the poor shepherds.

Again, I’m not sure why everyone is equating the ability to vote as a provision for the poor.

If this country is to have a democratic-republic, it is imperative that the right to vote be not denied on the basis of wealth.

Why?

Our right to freedom and liberty is given to us by God.
Part of the way this right is exercised by individuals is the right to vote.

Is it? Didn’t Paul seem content with the slavery of the times? And, you are making assumptions here, unless you can demonstrate how you know that the right to vote is God-ordained.

I do not have a college degree nor do I own a house. However, I feel that I am quite qualified and informed to vote in these upcoming elections.

Agreed (see above).

Start putting limits on who can vote and you go down a slippery slope. Soon people will suggest that perhaps you should make $300,000+ a year before you can vote. $500k? More? And those who vote each time will get smaller and smaller; richer and richer.

Let’s argue each proposition on its own merits. You can see I reasonable accept good points. After all, as Catholics we’re tired of hearing the “slippery slope” response, which comes at us every time we want to ban homosexual marriages (next you’ll want to outlaw contraception!)

The gap between the rich and poor grows since the poor cannot vote for change.

Here’s some good refutation of that.

As much as we would like to think the rich will take care of everyone, we all know that will not happen.

I don’t think I ever said it would.

Look at countries in the past. From a purely secular view, this system would not work because it inevitably leads to revolution. You can only oppress the poor for so long.

As the Devil’s Advocate, I made some provisions for those who were poor through no fault of their own (such as exclusions for those with disabilities. My proposal (which is only an experiment in thought - not my own philosophy) isn’t intending to exclude the poor - just those who have made poor decisions.

We should be grateful that we can vote, but we should not go and take the right away from others.

It’s not a right, though. See above posts.

Rich does not mean successful. Rich does not mean ‘better.’ Rich just means you can make money.

Amen!

And one final point. Under your ‘solution’ many religious brothers and sisters would not be allowed to vote unless they had their college degree. And how easy would it be for the government to then remove that loophole and close off voting to all Catholic religious. Do you see the problem? I hope so.

I do! That’s why I conceded that point earlier. Great post, Andy!