Topic: The right to vote (Read 9330 times)

reimero · « **on:** January 29, 2008, 10:59:13 AM »

I'm taking a class called The Right to Vote, which will culminate in a 15-20 page research paper (which I'm perfectly capable of writing myself.) So I'm not asking people to do my homework for me. That said, the topic of the paper is "The Right to Vote", which is incredibly broad and gives me a lot of latitude. I'm leaning heavily toward the examination of voting as right vs. voting as privilege.

As I see it, there are three basic "levels" of what we can consider rights: "natural" or "inherent" rights, that is, rights which are inherent to each of us and at which we can arrive through rational thought (or divine revelation, if you believe in Natural Law theory); "derived" rights, or rights granted by society which are an extension of (but not necessarily a part of) inherent rights; and privileges, or concessions made by a legitimate government to the populace. It is assumed that a legitimate government can infringe upon any right or privilege without being oppressive only after due process of law is followed.

Thus, "inherent" rights include things like the right to enjoy the fruits of one's labors (including property), the right to live and the right to one's thoughts and opinions. "Derived" rights include the right to freedom of expression (because it may necessarily be limited for legitimate reasons, although these limitations are frequently oppressive), and "privileges" include things like driving.

My purpose in posting this is twofold: first, I'd like to know what the general consensus is with regard to where suffrage fits in this spectrum (I have my own opinion, but I'm not going public with that just yet.) The second is that when I do make my argument, I want to make sure I have all my bases covered and have at least taken intelligent opinions with which I may not agree into account. In other words, I'm asking you to help me exercise my brain. I'm going to get very close to this material very quickly, and I have faith in ~~Vespertine~~ some of you to do a good job keeping me on my toes and forcing me to address issues I might not thought of having addressed.

I also fully anticipate that my opinions will change as I develop this, which is currently in its infancy. I'm still trying to sort out what exactly I think, but I need to be put through my paces.
Thanks.

ivan · « **Reply #1 on:** January 29, 2008, 12:03:12 PM »

Voting is neither a right or a priviledge. It is a mechanism inherent to the system of government that has prevailed in this part of the world for a couple of hundred years. When the revolution comes, and leaders are chosen by the military junta, they will laugh at your silly fantasies about inherent rights.

ivan · « **Reply #2 on:** January 29, 2008, 12:25:51 PM »

Ok, let me expand. Voting in a democracy is not a right or a priviledge, it is a necessity. It is the mechanism by means of which a democratic government fulfills its mandate to represent the interests of the people.

Voting may seem like a priviledge, because individuals can be denied a vote if they are criminals, non-citizens, younger than an arbitrary age, or, in the past, in possession of female genitalia or certain kinds of epidermal pigmentation. However, it is not a priviledge that can be revoked en masse, because in that case the democracy ceases to exist, and the question is moot.

Voting may seem like a right, because one may argue that, like breathing is to living, it is necessary to perpetuate the form of government we so fervently enjoy. However, voting is only a right if democracy itself is a right. And that, I would argue, is not the case. Democracy is not a right, but a demand. That's why it had to be fought for. The "self evident truths" bit in the Declaration was rhetoric. King George III did not see them as self-evident at all.

reimero · « **Reply #3 on:** January 29, 2008, 12:45:13 PM »

Ivan,

Very good points indeed. Can it then be inferred that the "consent of the governed" is a secondary concern when determining the legitimate authority of a government? Put another way, I think we can generally agree that many governments are where they are based on the "might makes right" principle. People are kept in line mostly based on fear, as any attempts to change things are put down rather brutally. And we generally regard this as being oppressive.

At the same time, however, one still hears claims about the "stolen" 2000 election. Without making a value judgment as to those claims, Constitutionally speaking, the state of Florida was free to use whatever method it deemed appropriate to allocate Florida's electoral college votes. This raises the fair questions: was the 2000 election "stolen", and were the rights of Florida's voters infringed? This is obviously a very narrow scope of the larger question, but relevant, I think.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #4 on:** January 29, 2008, 02:12:28 PM »

Voting is an illusion making the herd believe they are free.

Vespertine · « **Reply #5 on:** January 30, 2008, 01:14:15 PM »

I'm in a meeting at the moment, so expect more from me later. For the time being, you should also be examining the 2004 elections. Specifically, look at Ohio.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #6 on:** January 30, 2008, 02:41:28 PM »

OHIO! OHIO! STATE OF OHIO!

pbsaurus · « **Reply #7 on:** January 30, 2008, 03:49:16 PM »

Attach that donkey

Demosthenes · « **Reply #8 on:** January 30, 2008, 04:44:27 PM »

A more difficult rooster!

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #9 on:** January 30, 2008, 09:14:00 PM »

I think we may have touched on this in another thread, wherein we explored the idea of rights in general, and whether they are worth a shit in any sense beyond our own faith that they do. The consensus, if there was anything resembling one, was that rights in general are a construct, but a necessary one. Because really, otherwise, what's the point? So it would seem the right to vote, and all other so-called human rights, would fit into this, whichever side you fall on.

To answer the question, though, I would say that for any meaningful discussion, the right to vote is a derived right. It is a property of your citizenship. You might even go farther and say that it's a privilege that is granted to people who happen to have been born at the right time and under the right circumstances, and I would certainly listen to that argument. I think we would all like to believe that it is an inherent, God-given property of being human, but like the existence of God Himself, it is unprovable and I don't see how you gain much by approaching it that way.

Short version: Philosophy is nice, and interesting, but it doesn't really do much to give people a (non-violent) voice in their government.

One man's (most likely correct) opinion.

reimero · « **Reply #10 on:** January 31, 2008, 03:46:47 PM »

That's all well and good, but in this instance, philosophy also contributes directly to my grade.

As I mentioned before, discussing all this stuff out helps me go through my mental paces, especially since good scholarship requires that I examine all sorts of differing points of view on this. Right now, I'm not even convinced there's a fundamental right for self-determination of government, but this is something I really need to turn over mentally before I can form a more coherent argument.

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #11 on:** January 31, 2008, 04:45:33 PM »

You gotta start somewhere.
Even if it's only "survival of the fittest" and democracy makes a group somehow more fit. I don't think that makes it any less important.

Vespertine · « **Reply #12 on:** January 31, 2008, 05:14:12 PM »

Here's some more stuff that's leaking from my brain.

My personal (rather extreme) opinion is that I have an inherent right to do anything I want, so long as it doesn't hurt someone else. I suppose I'd call it a right to self-determination. It encompasses everything. It means that at any time I can go anywhere, do anything, make decisions that affect my life. To me, absolutely no one else has a right to have a say in those decisions. As that relates to voting...if I decide that it is important for me to have a say in government, then either I fight for that right, or I move somewhere that recognizes it.

More stream of consciousness later...

pbsaurus · « **Reply #13 on:** January 31, 2008, 05:38:25 PM »

In my view, government is an entity that eliminates rights. They coerce money (taxation), threaten rights with the might of a police force, army, etc., make laws restricting what one can and cannot do, etc.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #14 on:** January 31, 2008, 05:39:40 PM »

And in many cases governments don't even follow their own rules and laws.

That's why in my opinion it should be minimal at most.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #15 on:** January 31, 2008, 05:42:42 PM »

Hence, my statement that the right to vote is merely slick marketing to give the governed the illusion they actually have freedom.

reimero · « **Reply #16 on:** February 01, 2008, 08:16:09 AM »

Quote from: Vespertine on January 31, 2008, 05:14:12 PM

Here's some more stuff that's leaking from my brain.

My personal (rather extreme) opinion is that I have an inherent right to do anything I want, so long as it doesn't hurt someone else. I suppose I'd call it a right to self-determination. It encompasses everything. It means that at any time I can go anywhere, do anything, make decisions that affect my life. To me, absolutely no one else has a right to have a say in those decisions. As that relates to voting...if I decide that it is important for me to have a say in government, then either I fight for that right, or I move somewhere that recognizes it.

More stream of consciousness later...

That's an interesting starting point. Add in pbsaurus's reply that a government is an entity that eliminates rights, and Demosthenes's that governments ignore their own rules, and one gets a very dim view of government indeed. Furthermore, if you factor in that a right to vote generally means that a majority will win, a majority of those without will seek to deprive a minority of those with of their rights and, more importantly, their property. We see that already with the numerous social welfare this country offers.

Put another way, the right to vote is arguably as much of a hindrance to your free exercise of rights as it is a defense of the same. The difference is that instead of a "father knows best" monarchy mentality, you have a "mob knows best" so-called populist mentality, which, given the opportunity, generally tends to favour a redistribution of wealth.

reimero · « **Reply #17 on:** February 01, 2008, 08:18:32 AM »

(BTW Vespertine, I really was looking forward to your reply, and I really don't mean to say you're wrong. I just happen to know from previous discussions that you're going to give me a solid argument based on more than just OMGHURRRR, and that if I challenge your assertions, you'll respond intelligently.)

12AX7 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 01, 2008, 05:38:33 PM »

Most people on this site will respond intelligently if they are challenged intelligently.

rybo · « **Reply #19 on:** February 16, 2008, 09:05:34 PM »

Ivan, you are a smart man.

i agree with IVAN when he says that voting is a necessity in a democracy. it is, in fact, the only way that we can maintain a leader, and what sets us apart from either dictatorship, etc...

however, i believe that there comes a time when it is acceptable, if not morally obligatory, to not vote. in the present system, where the candidates are voted down until the final two, it leaves lots and lots of room for disagreements between the {your party here} and {your candidate}. if both candidates explicitly stand for things that go against your morals/values, then i believe that it is against personal ethics to vote.

this may also arise the question of whether you should not vote at all, or write in someone you think should be in office, though they may simply receive your vote.

hope y'all understand this. it's only my second post, but i'm starting to like it...

ydnamtnediserp · « **Reply #20 on:** February 16, 2008, 10:09:01 PM »

i'm writing in peter j. shepherd this election.

BizB · « **Reply #21 on:** February 17, 2008, 10:22:50 AM »

Quote

if both candidates explicitly stand for things that go against your morals/values, then i believe that it is against personal ethics to vote.

Both? In what country are you living? Here, in The United States of America, we have several candidates for the office of POTUS, not just two.

Here's a list of those who are currently running.

http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm

If you can't find someone on that list who believes in things similar to the ideals you hold, then you're a VERY unique individual. You may be more individualar than anyone I've ever meeted.

Vote for the person who believes what you believe, not the major-party candidate that you think will do the least damage. THAT is your responsibility.

Oh, and I can see that your shift key works. How about doing yourself the courtesy of using it properly? I know that the members of the site would really appreciate it. Thanks in advance.

ydnamtnediserp · « **Reply #22 on:** February 17, 2008, 01:43:51 PM »

but maybe i don't want to use my shift key properly.

sociald1077 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 17, 2008, 02:19:25 PM »

As much as people talk about voting for the president, there is a wealth of other positions and things that the people vote for in this country. Your voting is not limited to just one vote every four years for the federal government. You vote for things that impact your state and local governments as well. Governors, mayors, fire chiefs, taxes, school levies, and more. It is easy to distance yourself from voting when you only think about the big elections where 50 million other voters are also speaking their mind. But when you start thinking about the smaller scale, things that impact you more being to come into focus. I vote because there are usually things (at least at the local and state level) that affect my wallet, and therefor I see it as necessary for me to vote for the person or thing that best uses that money.

rybo · « **Reply #24 on:** February 17, 2008, 02:21:13 PM »

I'm living in AMERICA (see, the shift key DOES indeed work!)... and here, although we have many candidates running for president initially, after the primaries, many candidates drop out, and we are generally left with ONE candidate from each party. I believe, in fact, that you can see that happening now, as Romney just dropped out, leaving, I believe only John McCain and Mike Huckabee as Republican candidates.

If you will travel back a few years, you will remember the TWO (or "both" if i may) major-party candidates (apart from write in and non-main party candidates) in the final vote; Bush & Kerry. So, if you do not agree with Bush OR Kerry, or rather don't think they would make good leaders, I would say that you should not vote for Bush OR Kerry... let's get this straight - I strongly believe in voting in the primaries...

oh, and another thingfor BizB... the link you supplied lists many candidates...many of whom are NOT (shift key still works) currently running.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: The right to vote (Read 9330 times)

12AX7