Should the poor be allowed to vote?

[HannahLisa]

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.

No, I had not heard of any debates held in Spanish by US presidential candidates.

I definitely did not mean to imply that there was no education outside the United States; indeed, I know that the opposite is true, and I’m sorry my post seemed to imply otherwise. I am very aware that there are well-educated people who do not speak English. When I posted I did not think of the fact that there will definitely be coverage of US political campaigns in the newspapers of other countries. However, I’m not sure how much of that coverage would be available to people living in the US who do not speak English (aside from online of course).

There are varying levels of language fluency. Someone who can only say “hello” and “thank you” would definitely be defined as not being able to speak a language. If they can’t understand the language, they can’t speak it. However, being able to articulate something without necessarily using the correct grammatical structure is speaking the language, though not perhaps very well. I’m not sure how one would not be able to speak the language if they could read it, though with some languages (like French) I suppose it would be possible.

 

[Maui71]

Hi Hanna,

I apologize if I sound harsh, I have a cold and I am not feeling well. You are correct not the Presidential Debates they were for either the house or senate or governor (can’t remember) but I have a feeling there will be a Spanish sponsored debate when the final candidates are known.

You would be surprised as to how many people can read English but not speak it. Now, I don’t mean that they will understand every word but be able to gather the main message of what they are reading. Example my father, he for the most part, can’t speak English. He can communicate basically get a thought a cross but can’t have a full conversation. He can read extremely well in English and he follows the Marlins, Red Sox and Yankees, through the English news papers. He also follows the Dolphins, New England Patriots (Brady specially), the Hurricanes and Tim Tebow by reading the Miami Herald in English (By the way the Miami Herald as a full Spanish newspaper that covers the debates).

The funny thing is when the Revolution came around the country was full of Dutch, French, and Germans aside from the Englishman and that is why no official language was written in at that time. If you read a biography of Franklin you will see how he had a tuff time with the Dutch clergy.

Any way I am off topic.

 

[goofyjim]

There should unequivocally be no restrictions on a lawabiding adult citizen’s right to vote. After all, what are people afraid of? That they might vote in favor of increased public assistance?

 

[goofyjim]

Let’s do as the OP suggested himself. Let this stupid thread die of lack of interest. Anyone who would take away someone else’s right to vote based on economic status is not interested in a democracy but in a government by the elite.

 

[didymus]

Who says it’s the poor or uneducated who vote selfishly? The better informed a voter, the more rationally he can assess his self-interest and vote for it. Until you can invent a test to measure potential voters’ Altruism Quotient you have to leave things up to the individual.

A better approach would be to put an upper limit on the franchise, say age 60 (I’m 50, btw). With the aging of the population seniors will soon be the largest, wealthiest, most powerful voting bloc. Why would they vote for money for education when their kids have already graduated? And of course they are in favor of ever-increasing Medicaid benefits. Note that taking away their vote won’t stop them from donating to campaigns which may be more important.

 

[BlaineTog]

The point of democracy is that the many are wrong less often than the few. The point is egalitarianism, that everyone’s voice matters. Once you start defining who can and cannot vote, you start defining the voice and defeat the purpose of the whole system.

Voting is a right. It’s a right I personally choose not to exercise, but I’d be annoyed with the presumption of anyone who told me I couldn’t.

(Oh, and your list of requirements leaves out college students. It’s not like they vote anyway, but still.)

 

[ribozyme]

Who says it’s the poor or uneducated who vote selfishly? The better informed a voter, the more rationally he can assess his self-interest and vote for it. Until you can invent a test to measure potential voters’ Altruism Quotient you have to leave things up to the individual.

A better approach would be to put an upper limit on the franchise, say age 60 (I’m 50, btw). With the aging of the population seniors will soon be the largest, wealthiest, most powerful voting bloc. Why would they vote for money for education when their kids have already graduated? And of course they are in favor of ever-increasing Medicaid benefits. Note that taking away their vote won’t stop them from donating to campaigns which may be more important.

It’s Medicare though.

 

[awfulthings9]

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.

Perhaps, in their mind, they are illegal because the system is too complex for them to get citizenship. In which case, we are denying them a chance to change and become tax payers.

 

[awfulthings9]

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.

Then let’s let them run for office while still in prison. Is there a difference?

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.

And some would argue that, by voting, they have the ability to harm on a greater level.

Someone who commits involuntary manslaughter? That’s reaching.

Not at all. The involuntary manslaughter charge applies to those who were negligent or committing illegal acts that happened to result in death. The negligent or illegal acts in themselves would be reason enough.

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.

You are showing your cards here by saying that it is illegal because we are not yet “properly educated”. Those of us who favor the illegalization of drugs (at least myself) would see your post as exactly the reason to keep criminals from voting.

 

[awfulthings9]

Should wisdom be a prerequisite for voting?

Yes. The question is how to legislate it. In all actuallity, I know this is impossible, but for theories sake, yes.

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?

Our society doesn’t claim to be democratic. It is in none of our founding documents, but only the product of modern politics. The problem with democracy is that if you have five wolves and a sheep, eventually they are going to vote on what to have for supper.

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.

I agree. See the slippery slope comment in my earlier post.

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.

I would argue that most criminals (not all) are socially immature (and at a less than temporary level as they have reached adulthood). Some would argue (in fact, I think one poster does) for putting age caps on the upper end because of senility. But this is the slippery slope argument.

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

I didn’t know that. Thanks.

 

[goofyjim]

Yes. The question is how to legislate it. In all actuallity, I know this is impossible, but for theories sake, yes.

Our society doesn’t claim to be democratic. It is in none of our founding documents, but only the product of modern politics. The problem with democracy is that if you have five wolves and a sheep, eventually they are going to vote on what to have for supper.

I agree. See the slippery slope comment in my earlier post.

I would argue that most criminals (not all) are socially immature (and at a less than temporary level as they have reached adulthood). Some would argue (in fact, I think one poster does) for putting age caps on the upper end because of senility. But this is the slippery slope argument.

I didn’t know that. Thanks.

If we require wisdom to vote none of us would be eligible. This htread is senseless in itself. Any law abiding adult citizen has the right and duty to vote. You nor anyone else can take that away. Let’s bury this thread.

 

[awfulthings9]

Well, as Catholics we are called to obey, not disagree, but that is another subject…

Not totally. When the US bishops come out and urge us to support minimum wage, I disobey whole-heartedly and have no problem doing so. It is not a matter by which we are bound. On the other hand, I give time and money very frequently to charity, so I am fulfilling my obligation to the poor.

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.

You are assuming that my restriction of voting is meant to be designed as a way to cut the poor out of the benefits of society. Actually, it is the other way around. As an earlier poster pointed out, those who, by and large, have made poor decisions will continue to do so at the voting booth because they will seek short-term gain that will cause long-term damage for themselves. My premise (which I’ve held off from stating until now) is that those who have achieved some level of success know the basic principles for lasting prosperity that can be put into practice in the booth. On that note, would anyone in here be in favor of putting a restriction on those in the top tax bracket? Would this be a way of making sure the poor are more attended to in our society. No thoughts from me - just curious of your reaction.

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)…

If you’ve read the posts, you’ll see that I nixed the education requirement. And my position is wholly un-Christian and un-Catholic assumes that my proposal (which is just a hypothetical for discussion - not a real proposition) is intended to hurt the poor and develop society away from them, when in actuality, it is meant to help them by putting the vote in the hands of the “shrinking” middle class (which is why I proposed putting a limit on the rich, as well, in a later post - which you wouldn’t have read by posting this, in all fairness).

Chirst, our Lord and Savior, specifically and repeatedly indicated that wealth is an impediment to salvation in the Gospels.

Attachment to wealth. Not not a head for wise decisions, which usually manifest themselve (though not always) in worldly success.

Besides, I don’t think arguments based on salvation would hold up if we were debating this as a society (which we never would). We are not a theocracy.

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.

We can be at service in many ways, as the documents pointed out.

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…

Einstien wouldn’t under our current system. He never revoked his Swiss citizenship, even after moving to the US. Which of my criteria (except number one, which I’ve clearly ceded) would exclude Bill Gates?

 

[awfulthings9]

There should unequivocally be no restrictions on a lawabiding adult citizen’s right to vote. After all, what are people afraid of? That they might vote in favor of increased public assistance?

Where is this “right” given. Nobody has answered that yet, except the US Supreme Court, which says it doesn’t exist.

 

[awfulthings9]

Let’s do as the OP suggested himself. Let this stupid thread die of lack of interest. Anyone who would take away someone else’s right to vote based on economic status is not interested in a democracy but in a government by the elite.

“Right” to vote?

I’m not interested in a democracy. The Church isn’t a democracy and neither is the US (unless you are on the campaign trail, where it sounds nice).

 

[awfulthings9]

Who says it’s the poor or uneducated who vote selfishly? The better informed a voter, the more rationally he can assess his self-interest and vote for it. Until you can invent a test to measure potential voters’ Altruism Quotient you have to leave things up to the individual.

As an earlier poster pointed out - look where that’s gotten us.

A better approach would be to put an upper limit on the franchise, say age 60 (I’m 50, btw). With the aging of the population seniors will soon be the largest, wealthiest, most powerful voting bloc. Why would they vote for money for education when their kids have already graduated? And of course they are in favor of ever-increasing Medicaid benefits. Note that taking away their vote won’t stop them from donating to campaigns which may be more important.

Great point. Any takers?

 

[awfulthings9]

The point of democracy is that the many are wrong less often than the few. The point is egalitarianism, that everyone’s voice matters. Once you start defining who can and cannot vote, you start defining the voice and defeat the purpose of the whole system.

We aren’t a democracy. I thought that was made clear when Bush beat Gore.

Voting is a right. It’s a right I personally choose not to exercise, but I’d be annoyed with the presumption of anyone who told me I couldn’t.

It’s not a right, as pointed out (and not refuted). Out of curiosity, why do you choose not to exercise your priviledge to vote?

(Oh, and your list of requirements leaves out college students. It’s not like they vote anyway, but still.)

I ceded this point. And agree on both counts.

 

[awfulthings9]

If we require wisdom to vote none of us would be eligible.

I wouldn’t. But that’s a good thing.

This thread is senseless in itself.

So are sports, but we still enjoy them. People seem to be enjoying this one, hense its promotion to four stars. We can have fun and intellectual exercise on senseless things once in a while. Reading through the posts, there are many profound points that haven’t come out in, say, the 356 threads on evolution. I think it is good to think outside the box once in a while. Remember, this is not my personal opinion, but a way to help us get to the underlying principles for our beliefs and practices. I’ve argued with points I actually agree quite fully with, just to push the discussion further.

Any law abiding adult citizen has the right and duty to vote. You nor anyone else can take that away. Let’s bury this thread.

We don’t have the “right”. And to keep posting arguments and saying “let’s bury the thread” is like my daughter, who keeps telling her brother “I’m ignoring you” or “I can’t hear you” each time he speaks. Not trying to be cute (I enjoy your contributions), but pointing out that we shouldn’t mandate ignoring a thread anymore than you would argue we should mandate who votes. If people don’t like it, it will die naturally. If they do (and you don’t), just stop reading the newest post. If everyone thinks it is senseless, it’ll be gone by the end of the day. I’ll bet that won’t happen, though.

 

[iamrefreshed]

No, the poor should not be allowed to vote.

In fact, we shouldn’t even allow them to eat!

 

[Mirdath]

Then let’s let them run for office while still in prison. Is there a difference?

Nope. I hadn’t even thought about allowing office runs from prison – great idea!

And some would argue that, by voting, they have the ability to harm on a greater level.

Very few criminals are James Bond villains. And why shouldn’t Snidely Whiplash be represented in our government? After all, he is a citizen.

Not at all. The involuntary manslaughter charge applies to those who were negligent or committing illegal acts that happened to result in death. The negligent or illegal acts in themselves would be reason enough.

Involuntary manslaughter is stuff like hunting accidents. Perfectly legal activity resulting in someone’s death. Will you disenfranchise hunters who accidentally shoot someone else?

You are showing your cards here by saying that it is illegal because we are not yet “properly educated”. Those of us who favor the illegalization of drugs (at least myself) would see your post as exactly the reason to keep criminals from voting.

You’re just not properly educated I don’t want to turn this into a decriminalization debate, so let’s consider the broader picture: citizens are arrested for disobeying laws they consider unjust. Should they not be able to speak up, to vote for change in the laws?

 

[awfulthings9]

No, the poor should not be allowed to vote.

In fact, we shouldn’t even allow them to eat!

Hey, that’s not nice. I’ll take it you haven’t read all the threads?