It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The right to vote automatically?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Just because someone has managed to see 18th birthdays, does this give them the automatic right to vote?

The ability to vote should be a right that is earned not just given because you have reached a certain age.

So how do we determine what a citizen has to do to earn the right to vote or is just turning 18 and good enough right?




posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 07:39 AM
link   
I know what you're saying and to be honest I kind of like what your thinking but at the moment if we required a higher qualification that having the gumption to get off your backside and down to the polling station once every couple of years I fear that most elections could be carried out by a show of hands in a small village hall somewhere.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by timeless test]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 07:46 AM
link   
I recommend the thread General Ideological Topics » The Politics of Federal Service by me of course
its had a few good replies but I've not had chance to build a decent reply to them as of yet, the thread concerns the political ideal that the novel Starship Trooper (by Robert A. Heinlein) is based around.

Still, I agree with the principle of "you get yours rights when you do your responsibilities", nothing in life is free and its that way for a reason.

But its a slippery slope, when do you stop and who gets the vote can lead to anywhere, and potentially places we should never wish to go to.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   
It's a very dangerous road to go down. It would create a second class of citizen of whom many would be a victim of circumstance. Would a University scholar earn the right to vote because they are educated, even though they may never have done a days work in their lives and their post-graduate research is dubious? Or would a manual worker have more right because they pay steady taxes over a period of time, but may not have the mental capacity to be educated to a high level?

I would agree that the morality of some long-term unemployed should be questioned, and also drug addicts recieving state aid to wean them off their habit. They choose to feed off the hard-working, so must forfeit their right until they can contribute back to society.

I'm not for national service to earn the right to vote, though. So there goes the rumours about me voting BNP.


It's a very interesting subject.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Thanks for the thread link, UK Wizard.

I got to say it has been a few years since I last read Starship Troopers. (The film, some good SFX. All the blast them up action from the book and none of the substance of the book)

And Yes, Starship Troopers did in some part influence the choice on thread. But the video from his thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

really got me thinking.

From memory and UK Wizard's thread, the concept in Starship Troopers is that people can have the rights and obligations of being a citizen if they are prepared to do Federal service

(UK Wizard, feel free to correct me)

In the book, the defination of Federal Services was service in the military. I certainly do not advocate service in the military as a defination for being able to vote. Especially in today's world.

Some kind of test - Maybe but what would be test. Britishness. Norman Tebbitt suggested the cricket supporter test and look at the storm that raised.

Service for the good of the nation. Again, what is the defination of for the good of the nation.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
From memory and UK Wizard's thread, the concept in Starship Troopers is that people can have the rights and obligations of being a citizen if they are prepared to do Federal service


Thats it in one, do Federal Service and after you can vote or stand for a political position, but only after you have completed it.


Originally posted by Freedom ERP
In the book, the defination of Federal Services was service in the military. I certainly do not advocate service in the military as a defination for being able to vote. Especially in today's world.


Military service is potentially one "posting" of Federal Service, but it ranges massively, they have to find something that you can do, for example they couldn't make a blind person a soldier so they'd have to find a field of Federal Service within their abilities, same applies to everyone, as long as the Federal Service is within your abilities (at a push, meaning they'll push you to hell and back) they have to accept you to undertake the Federal Service.

But thats for the other thread, must stick with the British angle



Originally posted by Freedom ERP
Some kind of test - Maybe but what would be test. Britishness. Norman Tebbitt suggested the cricket supporter test and look at the storm that raised.

Service for the good of the nation. Again, what is the defination of for the good of the nation.


Exactly, how do you define a nation that continously changes due to both an influx of different cultures and from internal change, I'm sure the BNP have a very different view on Britishness from myself.

I think a one off test is out of the question, only something long term would be viable but then we're in danger of creating a two tier soceity, nationals and partial-nationals.

As I said before its a very slippery slope which could lead somewhere good but it could also lead somewhere very, very bad.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by UK Wizard]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
As I said before its a very slippery slope which could lead somewhere good but it could also lead somewhere very, very bad.


And whenever human beings are involved, it's usually the latter.

I dislike the idea of requiring some form of qualification to vote (whether it's an examination, or national service and so forth). You're treading on a very thin line between democracy and outright dictatorship by limiting the number of people who can actually have a say... the government can simply limit this more and more until only loyal party members get any kind of vote and then... hey presto, welcome to dictatorship. The secret police will be with you shortly.

It's not an effective or safe way to ensure that democratic values are perpetuated, because those involved become more and more apathetic as they are kept further and further away from citizenship and the right to vote. You could argue "Well, what about a constitution?". Without a universal voter base to back these up, they're not worth the paper they were written on. Take, for example, the United States - it has a constitution which guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of the press and so on. To back it up, it has (as of the last Presidential election in 2004) 202,746,417 people eligible to vote (that's not including those imprisoned etc.) and many of these people are armed. The government simply cannot destroy the Constitution without being overthrown.

For our second example, we'll take the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union's constitution also guaranteed freedom of speech, freedom of the press and so forth. Did the average person in the Soviet Union enjoy these freedoms? Anyone with even a basic grasp of history will know that they most certainly did not. Governments who don't have universal suffrage can quietly destroy their constitution until they become nothing more than words on paper when there's no citizenry to stop them. Hence, to be effective a constitution needs something behind it to ensure it is upheld and adhered to - governments can't be trusted to do this, so it must be the people.

No, the system isn't perfect. I'm not saying it is - but this wouldn't improve it.

Besides this danger, I also think it's pretty much impossible to successfully implement in virtually all modern democracies who each have their own traditions and methods. Do you seriously think any party who put this on their manifesto would win the next election? The answer is no. Want evidence? www.bnp.org.uk...

I say no more.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by Ste2652]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   
So the current system of just being capable of surviving 18 birthdays is a good enough reason to enable some one to vote. Just that. Being 18!!!

I like the idea of "Federal Service", doing something to help your community, making it a better place to live in.

Surely we can define some requirements that anyone can achieve (if they are so minded) to enable them to vote.

Some examples:

Helping less advantaged people in your community
Joining the Military
Being part of the emergency services
Looking after the environment locally



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Hmmmmm, IIRC we as a nation decided long ago that a system with as little as possible discrimination was best and we have been extending the franchise ever since.
'Democracy might be the worst form of government - except for all the others' and all that.

Whatever flaws and problems some might claim are to be seen (with the scale of said flaws and problems etc highly arguable) it is IMO incontestable that for the vast bulk of our people now is as good as it ever has been.

I do not accept that our imperfect system is so badly flawed that the answer is that we need to start placing hoops in front of the 18+ yr olds before they can vote.

The trouble with all discriminatory systems is invariably those proposing or supporting them always imagine themselves from the POV of those 'in' and seldom from the POV of those 'out' and the repercussions of that state of affairs.

Allied this to those who will inevitably try to use such self indulgent notions to whisper seductive trash like 'you might be the next commissar/leader etc etc' it's a disaster waiting to happen.

The whole point of our system is you (or I) don't get to 'vet' people on their political ideas or (legal) life choices.

Tough and all but there it is.......and thank God for that.

But if you really want to insist on a discriminatory system with the experienced, educated and conscientious voting then OK, how's this -
1) only those over 40,
2) educated to degree level with a 2:1 or a 1st,
3) who come from a family with military service going back (and provable) for 4 generations and
4) who have themselves served the state (in one capacity or another) for a minimum of 10yrs can vote.

S'funny, I didn't think so.


BTW 'Starship Troopers' came from a book with a fascist view of our future and the movie was one long p*ss-take over the fascist ideas and inclinations contained within the book.
Perhaps you missed that?

[edit on 26-1-2007 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 05:21 AM
link   
I agree with Ste2652 and sminkey (darn) that we should not change the current system of voting within the UK, but I'm sure you'll all agree that there are problems with our system, but then again we can solve them much easier than by changing the entire system, for example limiting financial contributions to political party’s (which has already been proposed – but then opposed
) would help remove the element of political party’s been directed by business rather than people.



Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
BTW 'Starship Troopers' came from a book with a fascist view of our future and the movie was one long p*ss-take over the fascist ideas and inclinations contained within the book.
Perhaps you missed that?


What? I'm not letting that slide, the book details:


  • Freedom of Speech
  • Freedom of the Press
  • Freedom of Conscience
  • Democratically elected politicians
  • Multiracial society (with multi-racial relationships considered perfectly normal)
  • Multi-religious society
  • Multi-ethnic society
  • The main character (Juan Rico) is Filipino.
  • Paul Verhoeven's film differs hugely from the book, many of the script writers for the film didn't even know of the book until the scripts were finished.



[edit on 27-1-2007 by UK Wizard]



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey


But if you really want to insist on a discriminatory system with the experienced, educated and conscientious voting then OK, how's this -
1) only those over 40,
2) educated to degree level with a 2:1 or a 1st,
3) who come from a family with military service going back (and provable) for 4 generations and
4) who have themselves served the state (in one capacity or another) for a minimum of 10yrs can vote.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by sminkeypinkey]


And thanks for giving me the vote, sminkeypinkey.

!!ONLY JOKING!!

And I agree the film was poor and missed the ideas of the book. Starships Troopers is on my must read list (A thread for BTS, I know)



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 08:00 AM
link   


Helping less advantaged people in your community
Joining the Military
Being part of the emergency services
Looking after the environment locally


We as a nation pay people to do military service and to be part of the emergency services (in most cases). We also pay the local government to arrange for the environmental concerns to be addressed. Carers are also in full-time employment throughout the country.

They are all just jobs. I don't agree that the people who do these are more noble or have a higher moral standard than the guy who is employed to service vending machines or put up billboards or install telecomms, and as such I don't think they deserve the right to vote any more than the Joe Average.

Sure, military personnel and emergency services have risks involved. But it is a calculated risk they decide to take in reward for money from the people. Would they do their jobs unpaid?

No.

It leads me to think that a more appropriate question (and i'm not knocking the original question) is to ask who shouldn't have the right to vote.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 09:52 AM
link   

What? I'm not letting that slide, the book details:


  • Freedom of Speech
  • Freedom of the Press
  • Freedom of Conscience
  • Democratically elected politicians
  • Multiracial society (with multi-racial relationships considered perfectly normal)
  • Multi-religious society
  • Multi-ethnic society
  • The main character (Juan Rico) is Filipino.
  • Paul Verhoeven's film differs hugely from the book, many of the script writers for the film didn't even know of the book until the scripts were finished.


- Well Wizard, I never said it doesn't talk about those "details", but that is nothing like the same thing, so did Hitler (on the record) it doesn't make him any less fascist.

I'm not going to hijack the thread but the critiques of this book and it's obvious fascist themes are numerous.


Starship Troopers is a political essay as well as a novel.

Large portions of the book take place in classrooms, with Rico and other characters engaged in debates with their History and Moral Philosophy teachers, who are often thought to be speaking in Heinlein's voice.

The overall theme of the book is that social responsibility requires individual sacrifice. Heinlein's Terran Federation is a limited democracy with aspects of a meritocracy based on willingness to sacrifice in the common interest.

Suffrage belongs only to those willing to serve their society by two years of volunteer Federal Service (there is no draft)—"the franchise is today limited to discharged veterans," (ch. XII), instead of anyone ("...who is 18 years old and has a body temperature near 37 °C."[13]).

en.wikipedia.org...


The incoherent film version of Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" lacks the courage of the book's fascist conclusions.

www.salon.com...


Director Paul Verhooven, a Dutch expatriate whose oeuvre includes the sci-fi films Robocop and Total Recall (as well as the "soft-porn" films Basic Instinct and Showgirls), insists that the movie's Nazi perspective is entirely faithful to its source novel. "The philosophy of Heinlein is certainly in the movie. Whether I adhere to that society myself is something else, but it is the philosophy of the world he described, and we took that from his book. We are stating it continuously throughout the movie, but we don't offer an opinion about it."

A similar point is made by entertainment writer David Hunter in a puff piece about the film. Hunter dismisses Heinlein's novel as "more of a controversial blueprint for a fascist utopia than an epic war story. Blatantly inflammatory at the time of its release, Troopers reads today like a deadly boring primer for reactionary militias and spare-the-rod types."

www.thenewamerican.com...

- You will find several commentaries along these lines, you'll also find dispute (even within the sources I've posted).
But the idea that the book (like the movie) is loaded with fascistic themes ought not to come as a shock.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I feel uncomfortable with the idea of having to earn your right to vote, in my opinion it should be an automatic privelidge, by that I mean that only by certain actions on the part of the individual could they lose that privelidge either permanently or for a period of time, eg perpetrators of certain types of crime who are imprisoned.

I feel much the same way about the 'right' to have a child so this probably makes me some kind of neo fascist.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
Just because someone has managed to see 18th birthdays, does this give them the automatic right to vote?

The ability to vote should be a right that is earned not just given because you have reached a certain age.

So how do we determine what a citizen has to do to earn the right to vote or is just turning 18 and good enough right?


This is an interesting question. In the United States, there is no affirmative right to vote, the franchise is managed by the Fifteenth and Fourteenth Amendments of our Constitution, which says that you cannot deny the right to vote on the basis of race.

The judiciary has then imposed other criteria for a fair voting system, such as barring voter dilution. Voter dilution is where you dilute the minority vote by splitting it up inside of majority-white districts.

How does it work in the UK? Is there an automatic right to vote? I am looking for a basic overview.

[edit on 1/27/2007 by Togetic]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Well, to give my honest opinion, makinf someone ear the right to
vote is immoral and plain wrong.

As it is I honestly believe that the voting age, and the adult age in
general should be dropped down to 16.


Having only people who have done a task that gives them the abi-
lity to vote is not democratic, everyone, regardless of anything,
that are atleast the legal voting age is how a democracy works.


In my opinion, any other system is undemocratic and wrong.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Togetic, this link gives a good overview of how elections work in the UK, who can vote etc.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   
It was very illuminating, thank you.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by boyg2004

It leads me to think that a more appropriate question (and i'm not knocking the original question) is to ask who shouldn't have the right to vote.


What a great idea for a thread boyg. Start it and I will post.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   
DELTED. I just realized this was in a UK Politics forum ... thought I had clicked on the US folder. Sorry for the distraction.


[edit on 1/28/2007 by SmallMindsBigIdeas]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join