Wednesday, May 17, 2006

AMERICAN FOUNDATION CRITIQUED

               AMERICAN FOUNDATION CRITIQUED

     I am sure that I’m running the risk of really upsetting the American patriots who see the “American Way” as the epitome of infallible logic and justice.  If you are one of those whom I have just described, you should probably move onto another blog, for what I am about to say will likely wreak havoc with your deeply entrenched belief system.  Not that my purpose is to inflame, but I do hope to bestir an attitude of deep reflection in those who are willing to hear me out with an open mind.  Often I have thought about how arbitrarily the foundations of the American system have been established, but until now, I have not voiced my opinion—at least not my full argument.  The underlying principle of a democratic system of government is that the citizens of a given nation should have a say in the leaders who preside over that nation.  It is also generally believed that all citizens who are eligible to vote should vote.  Indeed, voting is considered a duty that every responsible citizen should undertake.  These beliefs are underpinnings of the American philosophy of government, and I have no real beef with them, other than I believe the criteria for voting should be based upon ones understanding of the issues and candidates, as well as on ones contributions to society, rather than on age and the number of years that one has resided within this country.  The very idea that the leaders of this country, as well as the citizens who support them, have come to the conclusion that an intelligent boy, say of 15 years old, who is well-informed of the issues and of the candidates’ positions on those issues cannot voice an opinion in that election is preposterous in my eyes.  It seems even more absurd when one considers that there are multitudes of people who are of “legal voting age” who know little or nothing about what is at stake, and yet go out to vote simply because they feel it is their sacred duty.  Similarly, when it comes to immigrants, the American system does not allow them the right to participate in government decisions until they have lived here for some arbitrarily determined number of years—I believe seven.  This hardly seems fair to me, since I know many immigrants to our country who are extremely knowledgeable about key political issues and who have made significant contributions to the country’s welfare, despite not having lived here for a long period of time.  On the other hand, I will venture to say that far too many natural born Americans go to the polls who spend a large majority of their time in a drunken or drug-induced stupor and believe they are good, loyal Americans simply because they make it a habit to vote at elections.  In essence, the foundation of the American government allows for the possibility that our leaders could be elected at the hands of totally ignorant and lazy individuals.  Now how can this problem be averted?  Well, how about screening people—not by some stupid criteria like minimum age or minimum time spent living in this country—but by their level of competence?  Is this not a brilliant idea?  Yeh, yeh, I know, many of you are thinking what a high-brow I’m being, but come on, be serious here.  If you are a business owner and you want your business to run as smoothly as possible, you are obviously going to seek out the best-qualified employees.  Likewise, our nation should be built and run by people who possess at least a minimum of awareness of their responsibilities and who have proven that they have an ability and willingness to contribute.  Am I suggesting that every eligible voter should hold a BA or PhD in political science or some related discipline?  Certainly not, but I am suggesting that the arbitrary criteria that are now in place be dropped in favor of criteria that require at least some degree of competence. If voting is truly such a great responsibility, then we surely do not want this responsibility placed in the hands of total fools; certainly, we want to do our utmost to relinquish even the possibility of such a catastrophe.  That is just common sense in my opinion (or if it is not common sense, I hope it becomes so!)  See you at the polls!  

8 Comments:

Blogger Steven Imparl said...

Hey Todd,

I have a lot to say about this entry, but my time this morning is limited by the demands of paying work. Hehe.

Initially, let me comment briefly about "competence." Competence is very difficult to define and, as a criterion of eligibility to vote, it has atremendous potential for abuse.

There used to be literacy tests in the South that disenfranchised untold thousands, if not millions, of African-American voters. Please know that I understand that's not what you're proposing here. However, given the severe disparities in educational opportunities that still exist in the USA--disparities that largely follow "racial" lines--I think the potential still exists realistically for leaving a large segment of our population out of the electoral process.

As far as one's "contributions" to the society, that, too, is a potentially troubling notion. For example, we could make military service a prerequisite for voting, but not all people who want to serve will be found fit for service, for all sorts of reasons beyond the control of the persons who are denied the opportunity to serve.

We could make registration with the Selective Service System a criterion for voting, but that immediately eliminate about half of the electorate, namely, women.

Demonstration of an awareness of the candidates and the issues is, perhaps, the most "fair" possible idea as a criterion for voting eligibility. However, even that is fraught with problems.

During my first two years of college, I was a political science major. I was really into it. I followed all the news I could absorb about as many candidates and issues as I could. Even in that situation, I still could not know every issue and the positions of every candidate from every party on those issues. That was the case even with my spending huge amounts of time following the issues. The majority of people simply don't have that kind of time available to them, and if I couldn't do it, they might not be able to do it either.

Your comments here are mentally stimulating. However, I have no idea how one could begin to implement some of these suggestions.

Just my $0.02. :-)

Keep up the good posting!

8:41 AM  
Blogger Todd Reinhard said...

Hey there Steve. Thank you for the post, for you are the critical voice that I wholly expected. But hear me out here. I am definitely NOT suggesting that very stringent demands be set forth. I am merely suggesting that the criteria for voting be based upon SOMETHING substantial. Certainly age is a ridiculous criterion. I know 12 year olds who know more about critical issues and candidates than I do. (To be honest, that is not saying much, as I regrettably do not follow politics very closely, and therefore, I rarely vote or complain about the outcomes) Why should these informed young people not be allowed to voice their opinion? My point is essentially that we DO have criterion established for voting and that those criterion are arbitrary and ludicrous. A similar argument could be made for driving. If somebody does not exhibit the BASIC skills to drive, he or she should definitely NOT be on the road (again, keep in mind that I do not feel competent as a driver, and therefore, I do not drive!). Am I suggesting that everybody who drives should possess the skills and cat-like reflexes of a highly-trained Nascar driver? Absolutely not. But there should be SOME criterion that exists that determines ones competence on the road, and indeed, by the sheer genius of humankind, there is. Look, I simply cannot believe that it would be impossible to have a simple test set up at the booths to determine, say, that a person understands which presidential nominee represents the Republican party and which one represents the Democratic party. If a potential voter can not aspire to learn basic fundamentals like this, they have absolutely no business casting a vote. It really doesn't matter in the slightest what background they come from or how you define "competence"--if a person cannot answer some very simple questions, they are potentially dangerous at the voting booth. They may as well be flipping a coin, and frankly, a monkey could be trained to do that. If we are to argue that voting is such a supreme responsibility, it only follows that the voter should prove him or herself capable of an informed decision. Otherwise, the entire basis for voting in the first place is a sham--and that is my argument. If we are going to encourage one to vote, we need to encourage she know what she is voting for. If, as you suggest, this is not in any way possible, then we should at least do away with the "age" and "years of residence" criteria. Let EVERYBODY vote. That may even prompt young people to become more informed, since they would be having as much of a say in the proceedings as everybody else. As for people not having an opportunity to learn, well, perhaps that is another topic altogether, but I disagree with that sentiment--for the most part. The opportunity is there. Libraries are free, the internet is essentially free. TV and radio and newspapers and magazines and cell phones are all over the place--even (maybe especially) in the most poverty stricken, drug and crime ridden neighborhoods in the nation. If one WANTS to learn something useful, opportunities abound. It is not dependent upon some complex or elite "educational system". The problem is that many people choose to learn the wrong things--things that hamper their abilities to come to fruition. Of course this is an argument that favors free will, and I know that can be rationally disputed, but I do believe that people do, by and large, create their own destinies and are therefore responsible for them. But hey, that's just me. Well heck, I should have made this a whole new entry! Maybe I will! Thanks again AS for the feedback. Always appreciated! Metta.

11:28 AM  
Blogger Todd Reinhard said...

Well, here I am back again. Hard to believe, but I actually missed a point I wanted to touch upon in my last comment. That point was simply that I definitely would NOT advocate a literacy test as a criterion for voting. The reason is very simply that the ability to render an informed decision has absolutely nothing to do with ones ability to read or write. In my opinion, that would be as absurd a criterion as the age criterion that exists right now. The criteria that exists should be specific to the required task, and that required task is specifically to vote with some minimal degree of understanding ones own opinion. I do not believe those standards are excessive by any means, nor do I believe it impossible to implement a system that requires such standards. That is not to say, however, that I truly believe that such a system is likely to emerge any time soon! It would most likely be rendered a plan that would favor elitists and undermine the spirit of "democracy". Of course I believe this argument is extremely superficial, but many superficial arguments predominate in our day to day lives...and I must admit, albeit reluctantly, that it is probably best that way...at least at times. The Train keeps rolling. Metta.

12:21 PM  
Blogger Steven Imparl said...

Ah, where to begin with all of this. [sigh]

1. I think it would be very hard to develop workable standards by which we could measure a prospective voter's confidence before allowing him or her to vote. How much knowledge does someone have to have? If there is an election with a lot of third-party candidates, should the voter have to be able to know something about the candidates for each of the following parties, even if the voter isn't going to vote vote for those candidates?

--Libertarian Party

--Communist Party

--Socialist Workers Party

--Green Party

2. There is probably a very broad range of opinions about the facts with which one should be able familiar in order to be a competent voter. For some people, a knowledge of the candidates and the platforms of the two dominant political parties in the USA would be essential. For others, especially those who believe in increasing the strength of third parties, such knowledge might be a lot less important.

There are many other questions that we might be able to ask. For instance, should a voter be able to explain that it is really the states (through their electors) that elect the President of the United States rather than individual voters through a direct popular vote? Should voters have to answer questions in English, rather than their native language?

2. While part of me wants to believe that the rags-to-riches story is really attainable for all people, my observations tell me otherwise. In a country where about half of a group of people ages 18 to 24 were surveyed and could not find the Mississippi river on a map, I wonder what kind of educational systems we have?

3. I don't think that age is an unreasonable qualification for voting.

2:34 PM  
Blogger Todd Reinhard said...

Steve, of course your points are valid, but again, you are suggesting that since the possible "solution" is too complicated (I don't agree here. There is no need to make it any more complex than zillions of other "competence" issues that abound in our society; only a couple of which have I noted), we should pretend that the alternative (ie the one that is in place now) is acceptable and rational. How in the world is age a proper criterion? What does age per se have to do with ones ability to vote? That is utter nonsense (PLEASE don't take that as a personal slam against you! It is not!) There is no doubt in my mind that I was a much more politically informed individual when I was 16 than I am now, and I know for a fact that there are countless others who were as well, whether they admit to it or not. The point here is that we have a government that sends very mixed messages. On the one hand, it says that voting is a great responsibility. On the other hand, it says (or allows) that completely irresponsible people have the right to help determine the fate of the nation. I don't buy it. If a person is to be put in a place of power (ie responsibility), he or she must bring SOMETHING to the table. Again, I reiterate, I am not suggesting that what he or she must bring be anything overwhelming. Just very basic knowledge. If he or she does not possess that, somebody needs to GIVE them that. Right there, on the spot, at the polls, before they cast a vote if necessary. If that is not feasible, I vote that my dog Virgil has as much right to vote as anybody else. I mean, why not? He's got to abide by the laws enforced by society too. Why shouldn't he have his say? In sum, like it or not, responsibility and competence cannot be divorced from one another. Where one exists, the other must also. The greater the responsibility, normally, the expectation is the greater the level of competence that must be displayed. My assertion is that this is simply not the case when it comes to voting restrictions and qualifications. On that, I rest my case. Closing arguments are all yours my friend! Then let the jury cast its vote. I only hope the jury has been properly qualified, assessed, and selected. Metta.

3:33 PM  
Blogger Steven Imparl said...

Hey Todd,

It has taken a while to reply; you know how it is, I've been trying to develop some sort of competence in this crazy world.

I still don't agree that age is an unreasonable criterion for voting. (No worries, I did not take personally your rather strongly-worded asseessment of this propopsition as "utter nonsense." There's no need to dig out those boxing gloves...yet! Hah!)

Any measurement of competence we hav for voting must satisfy several criteria. I don't claim to list all those criteria here, but it would seem to need at least the following attributes.

1. It must be reasonably related to an assessment of competence (otherwise, we're wasting our time using it).

2. It has to be reasonably attainable by all prospective voters.

3. It must not discriminate against any person on the basis of any criterion by which the law prohibits discrimination including, but not limited to, the following:

A. race;

B. sex;

C. sexual orientation;

D. national origin;

E. religion;

F. age (I'm thinking upper bounds of age here);

G. employment status;

H. literacy (yeah, this one is tricky but it caused a lot of problems in the pre-Civil Rights era South);

I. ancestry (no "grandfather" laws);

J. housing status;

K. membership in a political party or other organization; or

L. any other legally prohibited criterion for discrimination.

4. It must not pose an undue burden on any person against whom discrimination is prohibited under number 3 above.

5. It must not be so costly to attain that it would disenfranchise potential voters who belong to a protected class as enumerated in number 3 above.

6. It must be cost-effective and efficient to measure for each voter. (Elections are already expensive

7. It must be a reliable, objective measurement that leaves no discretion for subjective judgment that could wrongfully disenfranchise an otherwise qualified voter. (Here, the ability to repeat the result is crucial. If someone took an exam to demonstrate competence, the scoring of that exam should yield the same results no matter who the scoring examiner is and whether the exam is scored in Arkansas or Alaska. Even with so-called "objective" exams such as multiple-choice or true-and-false tests, various kinds of cultural biases have ways of sneaking into such tests and raising concerns about the validity of their results. For an example of this, consider the seemingly never-ending controversy over alleged cultural biases in the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT).)

8. It must be uniform from state to state. (Otherwise, we will run into problems with the guideline of "one person, one vote.")

Anyway, just some thoughts for you. We can wrestle with the details further, if you like. Or not.

11:33 AM  
Blogger Todd Reinhard said...

Word up Steve. Long time no speak. Truthfully, I did not expect to comment further on this particular blog, but as it has been such a long delay, I figure, why not revisit. Steve, you have stated that you do not agree that age is an unreasonable criterion for voting privileges, but you have not stated precisely why that is. I have provided my reasons for my stance that age is an arbitrary and ridiculous criterion, so I will not tarry on that here. I simply ask, in light of my argument that I provided, why it is that you feel age is a warranted criterion. In other words, defend your words (dang it!)! Also, you yourself have even stated that age should not be discriminated against. Why is it only the "upper end" that is relevant? Should a 100 year old who is barely able to recall his or her breakfast be permitted to vote? If so, why not a 16 year old who is sharp and well-read on many of the issues? Anyway, I do not wish to rehash my former arguments. Your comments seem not to address the problems and the inconsistent logic and mixed messages that I have pointed out. Like I said, if it truly is too "complex" to develop a criterion for "competence", then my solution, for the sake of consistency, is to let everybody vote--PERIOD. Yes, that sounds absurd, and the reason it sounds absurd is that it sets up the possibility that people who have NO IDEA what they are talking about can have a major influence on the direction of the country. Which of course, brings me back full-circle to my main point--that being that THAT is exactly how our government IS fundamentally anchored. If it is not possible to create basic competency tests for voting, how is it possible to create basic competency tests for other responsibilities? That is my primary question. Is voting a responsibility or isn't it? If it is, it seems to follow that one requires a degree of competence. And that implies that some means of assessing that competence should logically be installed. If it is not, well, let us just come out and say that and agree that no competence is required. Either way, frankly, is okay with me. It is the MIXED MESSAGES that nettle me so! Alright Brother Steve. I have once again vented. Please pardon the mixed messages I sent--for I said last time that closing arguments are yours. Now I find myself jabbing back! Take care Ace. And keep in touch. All the best!

Todd R.

3:38 PM  
Blogger Steven Imparl said...

Hey Todd!

Well, I am not surprised you're jabbing back. I can't imagine you'd let me land an unanswered punch!

While age is not a perfect criterion, in our society, age does, in most cases, indicate that a person has completed the compulsory part of his or her education and has demonstrated some basic competence in understanding our system of government. (Again, it's not perfect, but this ain't a perfect world.)

Additionally, age indicates a certain minimal level of maturity and readiness to participate in adult society, along with the responsibilities that appertain thereto. There will always be some exceptions to the general rules, but it quickly becomes very difficult and costly to govern by exceptions. In this respect, we have minimum ages for getting married, driving motor vehicles, serving in the armed forces, practicing certain professions, consuming alcoholic beverages, serving in various elected offices, so why is the age requirement for voting so onerous?

There is also considerable value in having an age requirement that helps ensure the voter can make his or her own choices about the candidates without undue influence from others. If we let "everyone" vote, we would likely see a system that very quickly degenerated into abuse. How are 4-year-old children going to vote? Yes, there may be that one-in-ten-million child who began university studies when he was 2 years old and is ready to vote, but again, to try to govern by such exceptions will be difficult and costly.

As far as the whole issue of competence goes, I am perfectly happy to say that we don't need any sort of competence for voting. That would still not make an age requirement any more unreasonable than the age requirements we have in place for driving a car, consuming alcohol, and so forth. :-)

12:48 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home