Who Shouldn't Have a Say?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 671 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Who Shouldn't Have a Say?

Post #1

Post by Purple Knight »

Who, if anyone, should have no say (no vote, for example) in the policies or representatives of a society?

Convicted felons already lose their vote and I'm not sure this is defensible. The idea (or a less strawman idea, if you can think of one) that murderers will ever be significant enough of a block to somehow vote murder legal... is ludicrous. In my mind, it is more likely that some crime, which not everybody thinks should even be a crime, will distort a fair vote and create an unfair one because you already criminalised everyone who did it and stopped them from having their say.

There is a benefit from the idea that everyone gets a say, but to actually realise that benefit, no one may be excluded. We must simply accept that the say of some is worthless or perhaps even worse than worthless, and let them have their say anyway, even if it causes some harm, to realise the benefit that by excluding no one whatsoever, no matter what, discrimination and chicanery at that level will never happen.

I do tend to see that refusing to allow non-citizens vote can, if the barriers to citizenship are high, rise to the level of discrimination. However, the idea that the population of China, that lives in China, should be able to vote in American elections would of course be ruinous, and that would be what would actually be required to never ever discriminate in who gets a say and who doesn't. I also use this to demonstrate that no, no matter who you are, no matter how liberal you think you are, you probably don't really believe in excluding absolutely nobody at all.

One idea that plagues me considers stupid people. I recognise how immoral it is to suggest there be an IQ prerequisite to vote, but at the same time, does anyone think the mentally handicapped should vote? You could of course say, well, there shouldn't be an intelligence prerequisite, but people with down syndrome shouldn't vote. You can do that, but you well know that the issue is not that they have some disease but the deficiency of mental faculty caused by the disease, and you also understand that if a person was affected but still had normal intelligence there would not be a good reason to prevent them from having their say. And don't you also realise that below-average or even average people keep getting deceived and voting in evil politicians that only take advantage of them? (This is something the Left and Right seem to both see, oddly enough; they just disagree on who exactly is evil.)

And do people not understand that we already exclude children? Presumably they will grow into adults so no discrimination then because they simply must wait and their say will be had. But not always. We have not discriminated against those with down syndrome, but we have discriminated against those with progeria.

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3380
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 263 times
Been thanked: 939 times

Re: Who Shouldn't Have a Say?

Post #2

Post by Miles »

.


Purple Knight wrote:I do tend to see that refusing to allow non-citizens vote can, if the barriers to citizenship are high, rise to the level of discrimination.
Of course it would. Keep in mind that not all discrimination is bad.

And as an FYI, according to USAGov, an official website of the United States government, those who can't vote in U.S. elections are:

Non-citizens, including permanent legal residents

Some people with felony convictions. Rules vary by state.

Some people who are mentally incapacitated. Rules vary by state.

For president in the general election: U.S. citizens residing in U.S. territories
source

One idea that plagues me considers stupid people. I recognise how immoral it is to suggest there be an IQ prerequisite to vote, but at the same time, does anyone think the mentally handicapped should vote?
Yes, those whose mental handicaps don't affect their thinking capabilities and judgement.

But in main I feel much the same way about juries composed of my peers. If faced with a jury trial the last thing I want are jury members that may not know up from down; retired ma and pa who just sold their corner grocery and have nothing better to do. Which is why I've always advocated for paid professional jury members who graduated from college with some sort of a degree in Jury Membership. People educated in criminal and court procedure, psychology, logic, deductive reasoning, lawyer "maneuvers," and so forth.



.

Post Reply