The following exchange is from Dialogue Group 15, Thread 8.

19. New Rules
Fri, Feb 5, 1999 - 10:05 PM/EST
ArtP2

Wouldn't it be nice if we could recall Senators and Representatives?

20. recall
Fri, Feb 5, 1999 - 11:50 PM/EST
dugwould

We can - by voting them out of office. It just takes longer.

21. recall
Sat, Feb 6, 1999 - 4:40 AM/EST
trolltime

Well, if we had internet voting, we could
speed that process up.

hehee, heeee, heeee (snicker, snicker) ;)

22. Internet Voting
Sat, Feb 6, 1999 - 10:15 AM/EST
MAYORBOB2

Haven't we already made it as easy as falling out of bed to register and to vote? The results of all of the loosening of residency restrictions and sign up procedures have gained us exactly what? An apathetic electorate who turn out in ever diminishing numbers to exercise their right to either keep the bastards in office or throw them out.

Now I don't want to get off on a rant here (sorry Dennis), but it is my belief that people prize more highly that which they have to invest a little blood, sweat, and tears. Throughout the latter half of this century we have seen campaign after campaign to make it easier for people to vote. The result is that fewer than 50% of those that are eligible cast a ballot.

A lot of this can be laid at the foot of the less than stellar cast of characters who make up the candidates who run, the cynical nature of elections and political fund raising, and the reliance upon our "leaders" to "follow" the results of polls in order to figure out how to "lead" us.

But bottomline, the onus is on folks like us, that are given forums like Reality Check to register those issues that matter most to us as frequently and as vociferously as possible. This means learning more about the political views and character of those who would claim to represent us. This means attending School Board hearings and City and County Council meetings. This means offering our volunteer services to those candidates with whom we identify and who we support.

The notion that we can just somehow overcome all this apathy by making it easier to cast uninformed votes seems to be naive to me. By merely juicing up the technology and making it easier for Joe Blow to click a mouse or press a button and vote does not go to the question of how do we ensure that a representative Democracy remains representative.

Perhaps if we had more actual participation in the political process and fewer, "easier" ways of casting votes, we would have higher turnouts on election days. That's just my opinion, I could be wrong (and my wife tells me I frequently am).

23. Getting "UNinvolved"
Tue, Feb 9, 1999 - 9:58 PM/EST
Suzanne

As a former precinct worker, I think I can agree the MayorBob2 about apathy. Every election for 14 years I could depend on the same faces to show up to vote. However, about 5 years ago I realized most of these folks, weren't even bothering to read issues before they voted. They just brought in the our local paper with the suggested votes and marked their ballots accordingly.

Why vote if you can't be bothered to understand(if possible) the issue. I say, if possible, because some of the language in the descriptions is so misleading that you can be voting against an issue--------When you really support it. As a person who couldn't register to vote (I was out of the country) for years, I took my rights very seriously, read, discussed and often cancelled my husbands vote. But, in the last few years I noticed that the Demrepublic or the Republicdems that we placed in office, pretty much ignored our choices and did the power thing. It doesn't seem to matter what happens as long as Their party is on top.

Incidentally, Should a representative or senator vote their conscience or the will of their constituency? This was the discussion this week-end in my own little reality check, my son, daughter and husband. I finally have decided to withdraw from working the polls, stop going to board meetings and just watch from the side lines.

24. Voter Qualifications
Wed, Feb 10, 1999 - 1:04 AM/EST
ArtP2

Suppose we had the following arrangement:
Before you could vote on any issue or for any candidate, you had to take a qualification test. This test would be the same throughout any electroral district, so it couldn't be slanted toward on segment of the voting population or another.
If the only thing a potential voter knew about the issues was the local newspaper's recommendations, he would be turned away. If a person had some minimal knowledge of what he or she was voting for (say, at the 5th grade level), their vote would be counted.
Yes, the "voter turnout" would be smaller, but it would be a whole lot better informed. And the reasoned votes of those who took time to research the issues wouldn't be wholly diluted by those who were too lazy to do more than "vote their party" or "vote their local TV demagogue".
This would involve absolutely no denial of rights: anyone who is willing to actually think about an issue would be allowed to vote. Those who were not willing to invest even this minimal effort would have freely chosen to not vote.
...ArtP2

25. Voters Qualifications
Wed, Feb 10, 1999 - 10:43 AM/EST
Suzanne

ArtP2, I think the concept is fine. But, don't you have to be able to read and write to qualify? I during my years at the polls, I can't tell you the number of people who could not read or write.They brought family members to help. The last few years in California ballots are printed in several languages for voters convenience. I have been told more then once the voter can't read the ballot in their native language, let alone English. I can see the law suits now, if they tried to make intelligence a prerequisite
for voting. After all its not required for the candidates :D!

26.
Wed, Feb 10, 1999 - 12:25 PM/EST
Kanne

You can't restrict voting. That's why we're called a democracy. The poor, the stupid, the ugly, the racist -- everyone in this country has a constitutional right to vote.

Of course it's never going to happen, but to make voting rights contingent on some sort of qualification is inane. That's how black people were kept from voting in the deep south before civil rights. Who decides who's qualified enough? What if you don't have the time to "research" the issues? And there isn't anything wrong with voting the party line. Republicans tend to vote for one type of thing, Democrats for another. If your greatest wish in life is to have your taxes lowered, vote Republican. If you want welfare, vote Democrat. Of course these types of things aren't always true, but party affiliation is far from meaningless.

Typically, of course, any attempt to impose qualifications upon voting in the past has resulted in less democrat votes, not less republican votes. After all, the poor, the disenfranchised, the beaten down -- the groups that always end up getting disqualified -- all these groups vote for Democrats. Hmmm. Wonder why. Perhaps it's because the Democrats care more about them?

The Democrats and the Republicans alike are a mess. But the funny thing is, I'm an informed voter, in fact a WELL informed voter, and yet I have never voted Republican.

The attitude that some of us are more deserving to vote than others is elitist and utterly, totally, reprehensible. What makes any of you more qualified to vote than anyone else? Because you are "informed"? You guys should get over yourselves. Our country was founded on the principle that all people, regardless of motivation or participation, have the right to participate in government.

27. No literacy tests please
Wed, Feb 10, 1999 - 7:14 PM/EST
MAYORBOB2

Please do not misunderstand my post regarding how easy it is to vote and sharing my misgivings about making it easier...I did not intend that to read make it harder. I agree with Kanne, the idea of having some sort of test be administered before we allow people to vote is an ugly thought. However, Kanne, I am a well informed voter and I vote for whoever makes the most sense regardless of party affiliation.

28. Elitist?
Wed, Feb 10, 1999 - 9:37 PM/EST
ArtP2

Kanne:
If someone is telling me how to run my life, I want that person to at least know how to read and write and to be aware of the ramifications of his directive.
Is someone who doesn't have the foggiest notion of what the issues are about just as qualified to tell others what to do as someone who has taken the time, effort and intellectual effort to really understand the proposed regulation?
Sorry... I want someone who knows what he is doing!

29.
Thu, Feb 11, 1999 - 10:28 AM/EST
Kanne

Mayorbob:

As you should, regarding the "regardless of party affiliation." I don't vote Democrat because I'm a robot, but because I have yet to find a Republican more palatable. My response was directed at Art and Suzanne (to some extent) more than you, because there is something to be said for WHAT exactly is making voters disenfranchised.

Art:
Who is telling you what to do? How other people vote does not provide you with any direction what so ever, unless you're running for office. In fact, voting by its very nature is an act of the majority -- the will of the majority will persevere.

What you are essentially saying is that you are somehow more qualified to vote than some recent (legal) immigrant who can't read. You argue that those "unqualified" people should not have the right of representation -- only smart, educated, interested people.

Universal sufferage was something new in 1776, and even in our country, it wasn't entirely universal until women and blacks were given the same rights. Historically, many countries have had sufferage dependant on land ownership. Citizenship in the early colonies -- before the Constitution was ratified -- was similary frequently dependant upon some sort of financial status. The writers of the Constitution thought that everyone should have representation, for which reason we have no appointed, rather than elected, legislative body.

I'm sure you would prefer an informed electorate -- wouldn't we all. The problem is, no one has the right to decide what is informed and what isn't. You could potentially argue that anyone who's ideas don't match your own isn't informed because gee, if they REALLY understood the issue, they would surely see the light.

The point, which you seem to be missing, is that it is dangerous (and yes, elitist) to propose to eliminate the uneducated or "uninformed" from the constituency. That would essentially mean that no one would be responsible to these people, that no elected official would feel the need to reach out to the disenfranchised.

We don't live in thirteenth century England, and I don't want to live in thirteenth century England. I want the homeless guy on the street to be able to vote. I want the NRA card member bearing, white supremicist, red neck jerk to be able to vote. And the beauty of our system is that (providing the homeless guy can come up with an address of some sort) they can.

31. I confess: I'm missing something important!
Thu, Feb 11, 1999 - 9:23 PM/EST
ArtP2

Kanne:
I'm trying to follow your reasoning, but am having a lot of trouble filling in the lacunae... Maybe you could lead me through it.

You argue that those "unqualified" people should not have the right of representation -- only smart, educated, interested people." I guess I wasn't at all clear in what I meant. Of course we all deserve representation. What I'm arguing about is who gets the decision-making power. There is a real difference here; please bear with me while I try another of my famous "childish analogies". I think we can all agree that the rights of a three year old deserve to be protected, and, indeed, both the State and many private groups will represent that child in court and before various government agencies. But should the child have decision-making power? I think not; he's too inexperienced and uninformed (not unintelligent) even to comprehend the idea of long-term consequences, much less to pick and choose among various possible scenarios.

So adequate and effective representation does not imply the right to make the decisions.

One final point: no, I don't "know" what I am doing, and, indeed, am just stumbling along like the rest of us, BUT if I take my car to a mechanic, I'll bet he won't stumble as often or as seriously as someone who had never opened the hood of a car. And if I take my body to a surgeon, I'll bet he won't stumble as much as the choirmaster of our local church would if he tried some open-heart surgery. Sure, we all make mistakes, but let's shade the odds toward fewer mistakes.
...ArtP2