Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 13th, 2012, 02:52 PM   #21

annelouise17's Avatar
Colonial Savage
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: Hanover In
Posts: 4,226
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil View Post
I don't think it would be wrong to consider suspending voting rights for people who go on public welfare programs. When they get back on their feet again they would get their voting rights back. That way no one would be able to vote for public charity for themselves. That may be unworkable, and perhaps I am being thoughtless but hey, what is more cruel than national bankruptcy?
How about a drug test? No person on drugs can vote.
annelouise17 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 13th, 2012, 03:12 PM   #22
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: USA
Posts: 4,015

Quote:
Originally Posted by annelouise17 View Post
How about a drug test? No person on drugs can vote.
I can see that one. I guess the problem that would arise in any of this is obvious the more you dig into it. Who chooses? There really is no way to make it fair I think.
Virgil is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 03:15 PM   #23

gregorian's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,047

Once again, drugs... what percentage of people are you cutting out?
Are you happy to PAY for mass drug tests of an entire adult population all in one, already busy, day?
Are you happy to cut out the wealthy voters who have had a bit of a castor sugar sniff?
gregorian is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 10:28 PM   #24
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Denmark
Posts: 1,582

Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil View Post
I don't think it would be wrong to consider suspending voting rights for people who go on public welfare programs. When they get back on their feet again they would get their voting rights back. That way no one would be able to vote for public charity for themselves. That may be unworkable, and perhaps I am being thoughtless but hey, what is more cruel than national bankruptcy?
Either everybody has Universal Suffrage or virtually nobody has.

To discriminate a group of citizens from voting because they are permanently physically or mentally unable to work (it needs to be defined, I know) or because of Old Age, is what it is: Discrimination.

They will never be as large a group that they can alter the policies. Even if they make up 30 maybe 40 percent (which is a very high number by the way!), there is still 60 percent who CAN work and maybe vote in the other direction.

Also people who go on unemployment benefits will be discriminated. What if you lose your job just a month before the election? Is that just "tough luck"?

I don't like discrimination.

Last edited by philosopher; November 13th, 2012 at 10:35 PM.
philosopher is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 11:06 PM   #25

Pacific_Victory's Avatar
SEMISOMNVS
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: MARE PACIFICVM
Posts: 4,850

Well if we are going for a semi-democratic government with efficiency, how about a democratically Elected Monarch?
2 year terms and the only rule limiting their power is that they cannot under any circumstances modify or eliminate term lengths. After 2 years their authority expires and a new election takes place and they must be re-elected to stay in power. Other than that they have total power over the budget, the military and the rest of the government. Now that's efficient
Pacific_Victory is online now  
Old November 13th, 2012, 11:38 PM   #26
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Northern part of European lowland
Posts: 1,084

At least for immigrants there is restrictions in most if not all countries.
Fantasus is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 11:39 PM   #27

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 4,928

Click the image to open in full size.

So, did you count the votes yourself?
Ancientgeezer is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 11:42 PM   #28

Foxglove's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 444

Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil View Post
I don't think it would be wrong to consider suspending voting rights for people who go on public welfare programs. When they get back on their feet again they would get their voting rights back. That way no one would be able to vote for public charity for themselves. That may be unworkable, and perhaps I am being thoughtless but hey, what is more cruel than national bankruptcy?
That is, we're going to punish the victims of an economic collapse? Maybe we should punish those who caused it--in Ireland's case, the politicians, bankers, speculators and construction companies.
Foxglove is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 01:13 AM   #29

Naomasa298's Avatar
Bog of the Year
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 20,926

Quote:
Originally Posted by annelouise17 View Post
How about a drug test? No person on drugs can vote.
What about people on medication that causes them to be unable to think clearly? Should they be deprived of the vote too?
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 01:39 AM   #30

The Cell's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: Following the breeze
Posts: 1,379

Quote:
Originally Posted by philosopher View Post
The economic crisis in Europe has shown that the ordinary working people, the workers/laborers are getting angry at those who recieve money from the government due to unemployment, disability and old age.

In Britain, the vast majority of extreme law proposals (such as re-instating the death penalty) comes from the Lower House/House of Commoners, and are being rejected by the House of Lords.
I read about it some time ago, unfortunatly I don't have the article right now.

These two examples are my basis of questioning the Universal Suffrage.
Ordinary people have no insight in political decision making or the society as a whole.

In all places where the ordinary working people have taken the power, we have seen the extremes of dictatorship - Russia, Spain, Italy, Germany, Cuba, China, I could go on and on.

Just look at the French Revolution of 1789.

They have caused mass-slaughter and chaos and after that, it caused brutal dictatorship, because the masses can't lead itself. It needs a leader.

That's why I suggest something in-between: Parliamentary Nobility. It should be elected only by the most influential members of society. Which includes the royal family (if there exists such a thing in the particular country) and various other people who have lots of experience in state & government. Other electors could be people who have such a good private economy that they don't really need to work to provide for themselves.

That would exclude more than 95 % of the entire population in a particular country from voting. Just to get it in place: I'd certainly lose my right to vote too, so I'm not trying to impose such a change just to get power.

Of course the people should be able to vote on issues not involving the economy, or to vote on priority on how to distribute a certain amount of money which the Noble Parliament has chosen. In both cases, universal suffrage should be in place, but not in regards on how to run the country as a whole.


HOWEVER I am willing to change my opinion on this subject IF you can present me with decent counter-arguments.
The problem here is exactly as has been pointed out, nothing can stop those new "voting elite" from serving their own interests and not concerning themselves with the rest of the countries population...
The Cell is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
limited, vote


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why was the right to vote limited for so long? philosopher European History 13 April 8th, 2011 02:24 AM
Freedom of limited information corrocamino Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 0 August 16th, 2010 06:36 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.