On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:35:00 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>>> BTW I think that the talk in this thread (not you) where some people
>>> discuss just how intelligent/wise you should be before you should be
>>> allowed to vote, is marching to the sound of the Goose step.
>>
>> I don't think that's a "Godwin"-worthy comment to make.
> 
> I do.

Obviously, or you wouldn't have invoked it. ;)

>> and a measure of competence and understanding of the issues being voted
>> on would seem to be a reasonable expectation to set.
>>
>>
> Obviously it does to people who believe that.
> I see it as, if you are a person who is capable of deciding to vote then
> you should get a vote. If not where do you draw the line?
> If you deny the vote to people who are not competent then someone might
> decide that if you don’t want to vote for the “right” party then ipso
> facto you are not competent and have the right to vote removed.
> It is a slippery slope etc.

I don't always buy the "slippery slope" argument, but I see what you're 
saying.

It isn't about voting for the "right" party, though - inasmuch as a party 
doesn't put belief and ideology before demonstrable facts.  IOW, if 
there's a party that declares that the world is flat, people voting for 
those candidates are very clearly voting for someone who doesn't support 
reality as it is.

We expect our doctors to be competent when they provide us care.

We expect people driving cars on the road to demonstrate competence in 
manouvering several thousand pounds of mechanical equipment at high 
speeds.

We /should/ expect our politicans to have at least a rudimentary 
understanding of the things they're tasked with creating laws around.

And we /should/ expect those who vote for those politicians to understand 
that that minimally rudimentary understanding aren't denying the facts of 
the world around us.  That evolution is real, for example.  That climate 
change is happening.  That these things aren't "from the devil" but are 
in fact the way the world works, and that we have to actually /deal/ with 
those issues.

I agree that it should start with better vetting of candidates and 
weeding out those who deny reality in favor of some utopian idea based on 
an idea of what the '50s was like, when everything was perfect and 
sensible and no conflict existed anywhere (or some other rose coloured 
view of their past or childhood).

Reality sometimes sucks, and denying reality doesn't make it suck any 
less.  Sticking your head in the sand and saying "climate change isn't 
real" or mumbling some nonsense about 'hockey-stick graphs' as the reason 
for denying that the world is getting warmer and we /can/ do something 
about it if we /put our minds to it/ doesn't actually get the problems 
fixed, and that sometimes doing nothing is amongst the worst things you 
can do.

> I often wonder if picking politicians at random would be any worse than
> picking one who put themselves forward.

I'm with you on that.  Maybe something closer to the way the Greeks did 
it - election by lottery - would be a better solution.  At least then it 
wouldn't be a career path (which I think is one of the biggest problems 
in the US political system).

>> We require demonstrated competence for driving a motor vehicle and for
>> many other things we do in our daily lives.  If providing proof of
>> citizenship is such a high priority, certainly it seems that providing
>> reasonable proof of competence also should be a high priority.
> 
> Have you read any Robert Heinlein and do you agree with his views?

I've read a little bit, but I understand some of his views.  There's a 
part of me that agrees with (for example) doing some sort of federal 
service as a precondition to voting.  Not entirely behind that, though, 
but it does seem that giving something to the country - some form of 
sacrifice - does make for better/more informed voters.  For example, many 
who see combat in the military are unlikely to send others into combat 
unless it's the last resort.  Those who haven't served don't always 
understand what it is they're asking of young soldiers going into combat.

That's not always the case, but those who have been in that situation are 
more likely to make a better-informed decision.

Which is not to say that military service is/should be the only path to 
eligibility to vote.

Jim

Post a reply to this message