Should the poor be allowed to vote?

[awfulthings9]

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.

As Devil’s Advocate, I would argue that most of these individuals (not all, for sure) made selfish decisions. Selfish to the point of being criminal. And while many are incredibly bright (much more than me), concern for the common good means a blanket rule to exclude those who aren’t concerned for it.

 

[jflare29]

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). …

…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?

I haven’t read through all the posts on this, but I’ll bet you’ve incurred some ire!
In my opinion though, the Founding Fathers created the restrictions that they created for VERY good reasons:
Male, land-owning, majority-age persons were the ones who could be best expected to BOTH account for the overall needs of the nation AND be accountable for the consequences of poor decisions.

Our liberalized voting over the past century or so could be construed as sound proof of this idea. Those who don’t have money and don’t want to go through the effort of earning it the traditional way have often voted for money for themselves. Or for privileges of some sort.

I don’t advocate abolishing various amendments related to the subject, but I WILL suggest that many have approached voting with a sternly biased attitude that if they were denied the “right”, they would consider it an act of vile discrimination. Often quite hypocritically.

That doesn’t mean the “well-birthed” and land-owning have been perfect. It DOES mean though, that a populace that stands to lose little from a poor decision may not consider the needs of others in the manner they ought.

John

 

[awfulthings9]

Really, I’m very curious to hear why we shouldn’t allow 15-year-olds the “right” to vote. Add to that illegal immigrants.

I think there are good reasons for both, but I’m curious to see if there are good reasons that cannot also be applied, with some minor modification, to my earlier criteria (remembering that I’ve striken number 1).

 

[seekerz]

Every adult with a working brain has a right to vote. If I have the obligation to obey the government’s laws and pay it’s taxes, then it is obliged to respect my right to vote.

I believe that even criminals (in prison or outside) should have a say in who runs the country - they pay for their crimes in prison. Being a criminal does not relieve a man of the responsibilities of good citizenship - which are actually what we part of what we are trying to inculcate by jailing him.

Besides, just who would do the allowing or disallowing? The same government employed by “we the people”? That would be kind of like the tail wagging the dog, wouldn’t it? Isn’t it rather the people, who presently allow certain citizens to assume leadership roles?

Bad governments may interfere with the right to vote, but no government dispenses the right to vote - that is every citizen’s birthright.

P.S. The founding fathers had the right idea, but as to their imposing restrictions on voting …let’s just say they hadn’t yet come to ‘full revelation of the truth’.

 

[Mirdath]

As Devil’s Advocate, I would argue that most of these individuals (not all, for sure) made selfish decisions. Selfish to the point of being criminal. And while many are incredibly bright (much more than me), concern for the common good means a blanket rule to exclude those who aren’t concerned for it.

I can think of three major problems with your proposition regarding criminals, beyond your own admission that not all crimes are committed out of selfishness:

1. How would you make reparations to those who had been disenfranchised due to a wrongful or erroneous conviction?
2. Even some crimes which may be considered selfish are not necessarily detrimental to society, either at all or to the degree they are punished. Some may even be accidents. Would you disenfranchise those convicted of involuntary manslaughter? Of possession of a controlled substance, even for personal use?
3. Many people who would be disenfranchised if convicted are not, simply by virtue of the fact that they have not been caught or appropriately punished. Some of those people may have turned their lives around; some may have had good lawyers; others may be even more spectacular sociopaths than those currently incarcerated – and on a big-picture scale it’s hard to know which, if any, someone may be. Unless you establish psychic abilities as a prerequisite to being hired to work at a precinct, how can you properly disenfranchise someone who ‘deserves’ it but has not been convicted?

 

[awfulthings9]

I haven’t read through all the posts on this, but I’ll bet you’ve incurred some ire!

Yes. Sigh.

In my opinion though, the Founding Fathers created the restrictions that they created for VERY good reasons:
Male, land-owning, majority-age persons were the ones who could be best expected to BOTH account for the overall needs of the nation AND be accountable for the consequences of poor decisions.

Interesting … this seems to be a post going against the grain. I didn’t expect any. Someone to share the ire?

Our liberalized voting over the past century or so could be construed as sound proof of this idea. Those who don’t have money and don’t want to go through the effort of earning it the traditional way have often voted for money for themselves. Or for privileges of some sort.

I don’t advocate abolishing various amendments related to the subject, but I WILL suggest that many have approached voting with a sternly biased attitude that if they were denied the “right”, they would consider it an act of vile discrimination. Often quite hypocritically.

That doesn’t mean the “well-birthed” and land-owning have been perfect. It DOES mean though, that a populace that stands to lose little from a poor decision may not consider the needs of others in the manner they ought.

Well put. I’m excited you’ve joined the discussion. I hope all of us can start to push the personal assumptions about my OP out and have a rational discussion of such points.

 

[jflare29]

.
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?

I noticed! And so did a whole whord of academic multiculturalists! I regret there’s a chance we may ultimately be forced to declare an official language for this nation, if only to maintain even a hint of cohesive ground.

(By the way, some states have been forced to print ballots in several languages because many people living there didn’t speak English and we didn’t have a nationwide declaration of English. Gotta love liberal judges…)

I would also object to the statement above about a politician who simply wanted to help families, on grounds that this–usually–means more social welfare programs. I’ve never met anyone who’d be aided more by a government-sponsored paycheck than they would be by an expectation to sustain themselves by legal means.

Again, I’m back to the whole situation regarding the chance of selfishness of voters vs the needs of the overall nation.

John

 

[HannahLisa]

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?

They could be an informed voter if they were intelligent enough to understand the debates. My point with those who speak no English is that they would not be able to understand the debates for the sole reason that the debates are carried on in English, a language which they do not speak. So, therefore, they cannot be informed voters. A person who speaks English, yet dropped out of high school and did not get a GED, is not under the same handicap.

I do not think illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote, because they aren’t supposed to be here in the first place. One can argue that people would not immigrate illegally if the immigration process was easier and less expensive. However, if the US wants to cut down on legal immigration, they can use whatever means they wish to do so. They are not obligated to let people in.

Great topic, by the way!

 

[awfulthings9]

Every adult with a working brain has a right to vote. If I have the obligation to obey the government’s laws and pay it’s taxes, then it is obliged to respect my right to vote.

Also, while your theory is nice, where is every adult with a working brain given that “right”, out of curiosity?

I believe that even criminals (in prison or outside) should have a say in who runs the country - they pay for their crimes in prison. Being a criminal does not relieve a man of the responsibilities of good citizenship - which are actually what we part of what we are trying to inculcate by jailing him.

Is it good citizenship to make an uninformed vote? Or is that bad citizenship?

Besides, just who would do the allowing or disallowing?

I know, I know … this is hypothetical. Just go with it for me (I realize it is impractical.

Bad governments may interfere with the right to vote, but no government dispenses the right to vote - that is every citizen’s birthright.

No it isn’t. Common consensus believes it is, but the U.S. Supreme Court would disagree with you (cited earlier).

 

[awfulthings9]

I can think of three major problems with your proposition regarding criminals, beyond your own admission that not all crimes are committed out of selfishness:

1. How would you make reparations to those who had been disenfranchised due to a wrongful or erroneous conviction?

I can’t suggest that is possible anymore than we could give them back the five years of their life that they spent in prison, yet surely you aren’t suggesting we get rid of the penal system?

1. Even some crimes which may be considered selfish are not necessarily detrimental to society, either at all or to the degree they are punished. Some may even be accidents. Would you disenfranchise those convicted of involuntary manslaughter? Of possession of a controlled substance, even for personal use?

Yes. They put their own desires above respect for the law of the land. And while not all crimes are detrimental, the argument is that they point to an underlying mental state.

1. Many people who would be disenfranchised if convicted are not, simply by virtue of the fact that they have not been caught or appropriately punished. Some of those people may have turned their lives around; some may have had good lawyers; others may be even more spectacular sociopaths than those currently incarcerated – and on a big-picture scale it’s hard to know which, if any, someone may be. Unless you establish psychic abilities as a prerequisite to being hired to work at a precinct, how can you properly disenfranchise someone who ‘deserves’ it but has not been convicted?

I can’t. Remember, this is only hypothetical. I admit it would never be “practical”. Besides, there is collateral damage in even the best of our solutions as a society.

 

[seekerz]

Again, I’m back to the whole situation regarding the chance of selfishness of voters vs the needs of the overall nation.

John

Interesting concept to ponder in light of the original post. Who really is most selfish, the poor, the rich, those in the middle, those who come seeking votes? Or are we all equally guilty of the “me, mine, my time” mentality?

 

[awfulthings9]

They could be an informed voter if they were intelligent enough to understand the debates. My point with those who speak no English is that they would not be able to understand the debates for the sole reason that the debates are carried on in English, a language which they do not speak. So, therefore, they cannot be informed voters. A person who speaks English, yet dropped out of high school and did not get a GED, is not under the same handicap.

I would argue that the debates are smoke and mirrors, anyway, and that a non-English speaker could do just as well to read a voter’s guide printed in his language. The politicians are doing a good job of getting their message to the non-English community, anyway, and if it means votes, I’m sure they’ll come up with the solution. Isn’t this the same are arguing that the deaf shouldn’t vote because of the debates?

I do not think illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote, because they aren’t supposed to be here in the first place.

Nor are people supposed to make the bad choices that bandrupt them and cheat creditors out of what they are owed.

Great topic, by the way!

Someone doesn’t think so. Only one star! Thanks, though! Great post.

 

[awfulthings9]

Interesting concept to ponder in light of the original post. Who really is most selfish, the poor, the rich, those in the middle, those who come seeking votes? Or are we all equally guilty of the “me, mine, my time” mentality?

I’m not.

I’m sure many would answer similarly.

At least we wouldn’t think we were lying.

 

[awfulthings9]

Night all. Bedtime, and I promised my wife a backrub. I’ll try to catch up in the morning, though this is growing very fast.

 

[HannahLisa]

I would argue that the debates are smoke and mirrors, anyway, and that a non-English speaker could do just as well to read a voter’s guide printed in his language. The politicians are doing a good job of getting their message to the non-English community, anyway, and if it means votes, I’m sure they’ll come up with the solution. Isn’t this the same are arguing that the deaf shouldn’t vote because of the debates?

Nor are people supposed to make the bad choices that bandrupt them and cheat creditors out of what they are owed.

Someone doesn’t think so. Only one star! Thanks, though! Great post.

All right, foreign language point ceded. Though I would question how much “voter’s guides” actually tell you. Politics in general is very slippery regardless.

I’m not sure what your point is with pointing out the bad choices made by people who have to declare bankruptcy. I would like to point out, though, that some of those people who had to declare bankruptcy probably had to do so in the face of unexpected unemployment and large amounts of student loans.

Illegal immigrants are not citizens and therefore should not vote. I don’t think that has ever been questioned, aside from in this thread perhaps.

 

[Mirdath]

I can’t suggest that is possible anymore than we could give them back the five years of their life that they spent in prison, yet surely you aren’t suggesting we get rid of the penal system?

The five years (or one, or ten, or twenty, or infinite) is a personal matter. The vote of the wrongly incarcerated could conceivably change the face of the nation.

I think the penal system could use a serious overhaul. It’s a necessary part of society, but the American version is rather more vengeful than it should be. I do not think even convicts in prison should be disenfranchised: although they may have harmed society, they are still part of it.

Yes. They put their own desires above respect for the law of the land. And while not all crimes are detrimental, the argument is that they point to an underlying mental state.

Someone who commits involuntary manslaughter? That’s reaching.

As for the ‘mental state’ argument, well, best example we have here is of the person convicted for possession. It’s arguably an unjust, ridiculous law: prison time for having bits of plants that grow here naturally? Shouldn’t he or she have a chance to work for getting the law changed? Since this is a republic, there’s a very real chance of possession of personal-use amounts eventually being decriminalized once the public is properly educated and opinion shifts.

I can’t. Remember, this is only hypothetical. I admit it would never be “practical”. Besides, there is collateral damage in even the best of our solutions as a society.

Indeed – but selective disenfranchisement is far from the best solution.

 

[seekerz]

I’m not.

I’m sure many would answer similarly.

At least we wouldn’t think we were lying.

By “we”, I meant the various groups mentioned. Each of us posters would naturally fit into one of those groups but I was referring to collective, not individual characteristics.

 

[DrDave]

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

Should wisdom be a prerequisite for voting? The unwise are members members of society. If a society claims to be democratic, isnt it claiming self determination for itself, and aren’t the “unwise” part of that self?

The problem I see with this whole line of reasoning is the ease with which the “unwise” can become “anyone who doesn’t agree with me” by playing with the criteria.

The 15yo, and for that matter the developmentally challenged can be argued to be “immature” and for the the 15yo at least one can hope that their immaturity is a temporary thing.

Down here in Australia we have compulsory voting, (over 18) which while I can understand why some would object to, is secret, as such there can be no penalty for casting a deliberately invalid vote. As such it avoids the possibility of claims that the vote was skewed by those persuaded or coerced into not voting

Regards Doc

 

[SoCalRC]

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…

Well, as Catholics we are called to obey, not disagree, but that is another subject… If you take the time to actually read document, or better yet, also the footnoted materials, particularly the Second Vatican Council’s definition of the human person, I think you will find that your criticisms are based on a lack of understanding of the tenants of our faith.

The underlying principles of your position are wholly un-Christian and un-Catholic. If you want to distinguish based on income, you have failed a non-negotiabe moral obligation with regards to the development of a just economy (see the doc). If you want to distinguish on education, you have failed another non negotiable moral obligation (again see the doc)…

Chirst, our Lord and Savior, specifically and repeatedly indicated that wealth is an impediment to salvation in the Gospels. Further, he instructed us to put ourselves in service of the least among us (it is the criteria that Nations are judged on by the Son of Man (Matt25)). Taking those aspects of our faith, it would seem to make more sense to reverse your criteria, give the weakest the loudest voice in your caste based aristocracy.

But the Magesterium (again see the doc) has explained that would result in an unjust society.

From a secular point of view, your plan is also flawed. Einstein and Bill Gates would have no vote under your system, but some spectacularly clueless college interns at my office would…

 

[Maui71]

They could be an informed voter if they were intelligent enough to understand the debates. My point with those who speak no English is that they would not be able to understand the debates for the sole reason that the debates are carried on in English, a language which they do not speak. So, therefore, they cannot be informed voters. A person who speaks English, yet dropped out of high school and did not get a GED, is not under the same handicap.

I do not think illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote, because they aren’t supposed to be here in the first place. One can argue that people would not immigrate illegally if the immigration process was easier and less expensive. However, if the US wants to cut down on legal immigration, they can use whatever means they wish to do so. They are not obligated to let people in.

Great topic, by the way!

Obviously you have not heard of the first Spanish Language debates held by Univision a year or two ago in Florida. Further, the Spanish language media has more than enough resources to accurately translate the debates into Spanish. But I think the worst part of your post is the implication that no education exists outside of the United States. As if there were no Universities in say, Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil, Peru, Argentina or for that matter, in France, Italy, Greece, Spain, Japan, because if the person can’t speak English then they must be illiterate and incapable of informing themselves. The internet and all it’s resources cannot be available to a person that cannot speak English. Also, what does cannot speak English mean? Does it mean they can’t say articulate a religious belief using correct grammatical structure and verb tense or does it means all they can say is Hello and Thank you? Does it mean that because they can’t speak English that they can’t understand it or read it? Can’t is a really ambiguous term with many interpretations.

To the OP:
Someone spoke about the founding fathers and how they equated a right with a duty a concept lost today in the US. Rights are viewed as entitlements free of any corresponding debt or responsibility and borne from the desires of individuals. Yet all rights enjoyed are served with a duty to perform. The privilege to vote is left to the state to decide and is not covered by the constitution. The Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by “the People,” and who comprises “the People” has been expanded by the amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.
So what should the criteria be? It should be up to the people of the individual state.