Restrict voting rights

This isn't having a dig at members here and tend to think that everyone on the whole has the same goals, but where it differs is on how we get there. Of course there are issues that clash violently but at least there is a hell of a lot of discussion and debating despite there being little agreement on various issues.

I tend to think that our country is in danger of going down the gurglar if people vote blindly and purely based on emotion. Well maybe there are a couple who get a bit emotional on here about some topics and fail to see reality because emotions set in before the brain has an opportunity to reason. For some once emotions set in the brain doesn't have the capacity to settle into any system of reasoning. Basically no resilience due to lack of certain capacities. In saying that, it is not saying that the individual doesn't have a capacity to think but rather struggles with harnessing their emotions.....lol. Yeah, okay we can all tend to fall in this trap but some more than others
Hey look, not everyone who has had little education from an educational institute be deemed uneducated. I personally know of a number of farmers who had less than a form 3 education and are quite successful business people with a pretty well rounded view of their world and have raised intellectual children. Yeah, maybe a little bit on the "I did it" side of things though!

I suppose there are a few questions that can be initially asked like: Should all people be allowed to vote? If not, should people who are deemed to have had a certain level of education be allowed to vote? Say if someone who can demonstrate at least a Year 12 level of education or something that shows a level of capacity to think.

The government has a USI system of logging completed nationally recognised training of all individuals in Australia and can possibly be used for eligibility purposes.

Does this sound extreme?

If you are going to help make decisions for our nations you need to demonstrate that you have a capacity to think. No I don't care what side of politics they decide to sit on but do care that you can make an informed decision, which essentially impacts on everyone.

Keen to know thoughts! Please hammer me with your disgust if you like lol. It's just a thought at this stage.

 

Sorry TV but, even knowing that there are people out there with unrealistic views of the universe (i.e. Trump ahd Hansen supporters ) I still think voting HAS to be all or nothing. If we restrict it for some then where do we put the boundaries?

 

The purpose of democracy is not to find the "right government" by an average of votes, it is to keep everyone satisfied that they have had a say in empowering the government of the day. This helps keep civil order.

If you disenfranchise people you had better make certain you have them otherwise under control.

 

Non restrospective educational standards???

 

Okay, thanks Latherty. I'd never really looked at it from that perspective. I was thinking that people wouldn't have to be disenfranchised if a set standard that is achievable was applied. Your angle is thought provoking.

 

Not respective of education because if we did we would disenfranchise a lot of indigenous people

 

In countries where voting really matters, people are generally more educated about politics than in countries where it's really not a life or death issue.

I remember in South Africa just before I moved to Australia I was a student temporarily working for a company during the holiday. After work many of us with vehicles would give the black co-workers who did not have transportation a lift so they can get home quicker.

One of my passengers were a young black man, maybe 16-18 years and we were discussing politics, in a much more civil manner than on this board btw He knew everything, the names of the entire cabinet and their portfolios, the opposition, the ANC (who at that point were not officially a political party yet), important events and how they relate and effect current issues etc etc.

You can imagine my shock after moving to Australia where many people just do not care enough to become informed, I do understand why though, they don't honestly believe it will make any difference.

 

I support universal suffrage but how about a year of defined service in a range of approved fields before your allowed to vote.
1 year full time Armed Services, Specified Environmental, Service or Community groups either domestic or international.
2 years part time service in CFA, SES, Army Reserve, Life Saving

Showe that you want to put into the community before you decide how it is run...

 

How many indigenous people actually vote? I can certainly see issues regarding all people who feel marginalised and how that may compound issues further though.

If the process is simply about people having a right to vote then electing the best government possible then my question is a non issue!

 

Issues are quite profound and no doubt people are yearning to make a difference and consequently causes the population to become more informed.

Just my opinion, but I don't think people think it will not make a difference, I think it is more a case of she'll be right until emotive issues like work choices and carbon pricing comes along!

 

Yeah, I wasn't talking about total disenfranchisement but having or doing something that suggest you are equipped to make an informed decision. What you are suggesting is a massive undertaking that might sit completely outside personal aspirations. I think working full stop is contributing to our society, even though it is mostly for individual reasons.
I was an informal voter for years because I couldn't care less. I was raised a conservative based on old religious ground and therefore couldn't vote labor but didn't want to vote conservative on numerous occasions. I no longer have that weight on my shoulder by the way. Anyway, I wouldn't have bothered voting but didn't want to cop a fine for not standing in the queue for a couple of minutes

 

It is a pretty good 'angle' on the whole thing. The point about democracy isn't that it is some sort of magic method for producing good governments. It isn't & it never has been, though taken broadly democratic governments crap all over comparable dictatorships. Part of the reason for that is that everyone has a 'buy in' to the system if they want it. it is a right, not a privilege. That can just be by voting or by doing more.

Angry people are less inclined to pick up guns than to get organised in such a system. Never underestimate the value of a relatively peaceful civil society. We have done remarkably well in Australia.

Your point about 'emotional' voters (others focus on 'selfish' voters, who are always others, of course) has been a recurrent fear among elites who imagine themselves 'rational'. It is one of the reasons for some of the features of the US system - so the 'power of the mob' or 'emotion' wouldn't corrupt the system. The truth is that emotion and rationality co-exist in most people, and the extent to which they appear to drive others is often highly subjective.

I've not seen evidence that restricted franchises produce better governments than universal ones.

 

Another idea is for people to be able to buy a second vote. This will raise money and ensure that the people who are interested in the subject have more power.

 

Yeah we know

I keep saying this - but if it were not for mandatory voting no bugger would turn up!!

Mandatory voting has made us a nation of swinging voters who are not truly polarised politically - one of my fascinations with American politics is the fact that it has become polarised to the point of almost religious fervour

Sorry but I cannot truly see that happening here.

That I think, is because we tend to worry less about party and more about issues in general.

 

Meh No!!
Because then you open the door for the "vested interests" to BUY that vote The only monetary advantage in voting should be the cheap sausages at the local school fete!

 

I admit that there has been a time or two myself when I was tempted to deface my ballot with a drawing such as one below



But have never bothered really. But I am a believer in "if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem" so have gritted my teeth sworn under my breath closed my eyes and stuck a pin in the ballot paper

Real truth - although you may not know who to vote for you usually know who to vote against so start there.

I think Brexit and the US Election though has us all rattled. Brexit was people emotional enough about the issue to vote whilst those who thought it was a non-starter stayed at home whilst Trump got in on "the other one was worse"

 

Within the rules of brain storming you never discount anything but on this one I don't think it would reach the next stage Robot! It would take buying votes to a whole new level! Obviously if you could reason this one through I'd be all ears!

 

Hillary bought $1.4 billion dollars worth ... how'd that pan out? You're trying to re-invent the wheel. Dems perpetually pander "entitlements" ... tatamount to open bribery, every election cycle, yet continue to lose ground. Thankfully our republic has yet to sink so low as to allow one to buy the presidency.

 

Hilary Clinton was not running for a parliamentary seat in Australia

 

Oh. Please excuse my ignorance, I didn't realize AU parlimentary positions were a publicly traded commodity.

 

So how would you go about setting the standard for voting education?

You could start in schools, with perhaps a test for everyone every ten years. Abolish no voting fines, those who don't write the test get fined, those who don't pass don't get to vote. The material they need to know is the policies of all the parties. I would put a very low probability on anything like this every happening lol.

Besides it still won't account for common sense.

 

It's a silly idea in so many ways, a lot of which have been covered

 

Yeah, it could coincide with school tests of sorts. Completing the HSC, SC, VCE or Cert III level VET course as a minimum. All very achievable for most people. I believe a Cert III of any kind matches school certificate equivalency.

Political studies has died in schools as far as I know, possibly discussed in Geography classes as a brief unit and possibly reason why our kids are graduating without an inkling of knowledge about the political process.

The Donkey vote is probably how you find most of our clueless young people voting or inadvertent informal voted.

 

I Understand what you are saying but would people be more likely to grab a gun or get educated with such requirements? With rights there is responsibility is my thinking.

Yeah but could we improve our democratic process? Voting rights would obviously be via citizenship and a second requirement through educational standards. Education in Australia is free for the most part and depending of social economic standards it can be free post school is my understanding.
No one is restricted per se because the opportunity is available to attain the right, which is essentially the responsibility.

Voters can be selfish but there are many of us who want a clean environment for our children and grand children and fellow citizens. We want universal health care for all citizens. We want opportunities and fairness for all.

 

OK, I really strongly disagree with your entire premise. Top to bottom. I think it is both misguided and potentially dangerous. Restricted franchises are a marker of unequal and unfair societies. I also see them as fundamentally undermining democracy. What follows isn't 'having a go', but a measure of my feelings on the subject.

I realise that you mean well, but this whole discussion smacks of the worst sort of elitism. The universal franchise was fought for over generations. To throw it away because some of us think our education makes us so much better than others that they should be excluded from our democracy is short sighted and more than a bit arrogant.

I say this as someone who has 3 Tertiary qualifications and was accepted for a PhD. I think my opinions are well founded & thought out, but I don't think that means others should lose their right to vote because they think something different.

First, why assume people are going to sit down and make a decision that straight forward? The reasons people might not reach a certain level of education are various. My Dad had to go out and work at age 14, but he was more astute than most people on this board. Neither of his parents got past year 10, but one of them fought for his nation & the other was active in the ALP for longer than most people here have been alive. My other grandfather was no better educated, but he ran one of the best known businesses in his country town for almost 60 years. So, four 'uneducated' people whose opinions I would have any day.

Having decided to disenfranchise a class of people you then run the risk of creating social division and exclusion. People may not find themselves in this situation because they want to be or because they have carefully thought it out, but having got there it may be difficult to get out. It may also be easy to feel resentful. I don't see any upside to creating such people. None at all.

As for 'responsibilities', people pay taxes, they are bound by laws and they are compelled to vote. Nobody gets a 'free ride' in this society, so implying that somehow people you have decided are 'stupid' (and that is what this is about) are skating is really a bit arrogant.

I've already dealt with most of this. It is fundamentally misguided. I simply don't buy the assumed link between education & civic worth. In fact, I don't see the link between any such arbitrary standard and civic worth. Other than some limited & temporary exclusions - such as imprisonment - I don't see how anyone can decide that any other mentally competent Australian is unworthy of a say in who governs them.

If you want to improve democratic processes the answer is not to exclude people from democracy. The answer is to increase participation, not decrease it. How about Citizen Juries, where ordinary people are given the opportunity to impact public policy? How about giving people paid time off their jobs to participate in some sort of political/democratic activity? How about some lateral thinking about getting more of us involved rather than deciding that the problem is that people some of us deem 'stupid' have the same say as the rest of us.

I want all of those things, but do you not see the contradiction here? You want governments who think broadly about the interests of society, but you want to achieve this by excluding some of those who would benefit most from those policies. I'm not sure you have thought this through very carefully. Most people who want to restrict the franchise want to do so precisely because people who want those things might actually vote for them. I want the poorest in our society to have a say in these things. I want them to have a way to influence these decisions. I think that excluding them will make those goals less likely, not more.

One of the things I like most about our political system is that everyone votes. Political parties don't have the ability to selectively disenfranchise classes of people as has happened & is happening again in the US. I think we should be finding ways to broaden that participation as much as we can, not narrow it to a self appointed 'clever' class.