As long as people are suggesting qualifying conditions, why not:
“People who have made student loans from the government are not entitled to vote until they’ve paid off their debt (otherwise they’ll be tempted to vote for politicians who promise to waive their student debts).”
This differs from a home mortgage because very few mortgage lenders are likely to ever waive that kind of debt.
Another way to qualify the franchise would be to make the exercise of the franchise illegal while employed by government at any level (other than enlisted military) or in receipt of government transfer payments which exceed other income…
It’s based on the principle that those who feed at the public trough shouldn’t have a role in deciding what the rules are or how big a bite government takes from the productive.
We eliminated the spoils system in favor of ostensibly disinterested public servants, make them live by it and prohibit all political activity and voting by government employees. Similarly, go Coolidge and eliminate all public employee unions.
As to transfer payments, it’s the same point…those dependent on government should not be involved in making the rules.
[NB - I would prohibit military officers from voting but not enlisted members. Historically, regular officers avoided partisan politics and, in most cases, did not vote because they served the government regardless of the party in power, and should be neutral.]
He’s a con man working for Trump. Has a recent book saying the opposite of what he’s saying on the trail now. Only criticizes DeSantis, never Trump. He’s running for a cabinet slot or VP.
These proposals ultimately act as a proxy for maturity. Other classic proxies for having skin in the game are property ownership and marriage/family. If the concern is that today's youth are having problems adulting, and only adults should vote, add those to the mix. You want to avoid adult responsibilities your whole life? Fine, but no franchise for you.
drop the test, but allow 18-25 who are married (and not divorced!) to vote. included the widowed if (a) not responsible for the demise of the spouse and (b) such person is a parent.
Moving the Overton Window is the important point here. The reasoned argument in support of a higher voting age operates to blunt the lack of reasoned argument for a lower voting age, and helps expose the latter as outside of the range of acceptability. So: "Keep on draggin!"
I turned 20 in 1971 and was therefore affected by the process. I also was in college and felt that I would delay my right to vote as long as my peers also couldn’t vote because I knew them. They were, for the most part, immature thinkers and poor decision makers. Just being on campus an a Friday night was all the knowledge that was needed to insure withholding the vote. By the time I was 25 I was married, had a child and spent many nights in the ER, hopefully saving lives. The time between 20 and 25 was a very maturing time. I didn’t support the amendment and would support the change now.
It’s easy to say as a veteran, but I’m increasingly convinced Heinlein was right: only military service - the willingness to fight for the society - is an appropriate qualification for the franchise.
Other historical limits on service - property qualifications and educational qualifications particularly - don’t seem to be meaningful anymore.
Being a veteran isn’t meaningful any longer, I’m afraid. Some mope that’s pushed paper in a warehouse gets a vote and non-veterans don’t, just because she’s worn a uniform?
The US military has long since ceased to defend our Constitution.
Well, yes. The ‘mope’ (your term) signed up, gave a few years when she (your choice) could have been out making more/having fun, and managed to serve without dishonor. You non-veteran could have served, but chose not to.
I hear you about the military not being the bulwark it once was, but it‘s about skin in the game.
Gave what? She was compensated at the rate she agreed to. Fed, clothed, housed in some cases. Had plenty of time to party from what I remember. Combat arms folks, maybe. But then you’ll get clowns like LBJ jumping on a bomber to claim credit for combat duty.
Every game can and will be played.
We’re arguing angels on pinheads here anyway. There’s no chance of limiting the franchise.
I agree with the age 25 with the military and first responder exemption. Although we need to hold firm on not expanding the definition to public service. It's not perfect ad there are still too many clueless 25 year olds but at least by then most people have full-time jobs and are outside the academic bubble.
Although there is part of me that would say that the individual must be out of school for at least 3 years. But that would be too hard to enforce. But it might cause some interesting discussions about bubbles.
Ironically, lowering the voting age (and also allowing parents to cast their children's ballots) would achieve all the same goals as raising the voting age, but better, more effectively, and it's more likely to actually get enough votes to become reality than restricting the voting age: https://nonviolence.substack.com/p/ramaswamy-proposes-restricting-voting
We are seeing the manifestation of the children self-esteem movement started in the 90s. Yet another failed theory introduced into our society by deluded, utopianist boomers (not blaming all boomers). Or maybe it was on purpose as part of a neo-marxist agenda, to quote one boomer, "What difference does it make now?"
Yes, voting is different in nature from driving or drinking. I see no offense to requiring more of a voter than reaching a mere number of years. However, the pols will fight this forever. It's easy to manipulate the young.
Neville Shute had a similar proposal in his novel "In the Wet" written in the 1950s. He extended it by allowing some citizens more than one vote in return for civic action .
As long as people are suggesting qualifying conditions, why not:
“People who have made student loans from the government are not entitled to vote until they’ve paid off their debt (otherwise they’ll be tempted to vote for politicians who promise to waive their student debts).”
This differs from a home mortgage because very few mortgage lenders are likely to ever waive that kind of debt.
Another way to qualify the franchise would be to make the exercise of the franchise illegal while employed by government at any level (other than enlisted military) or in receipt of government transfer payments which exceed other income…
It’s based on the principle that those who feed at the public trough shouldn’t have a role in deciding what the rules are or how big a bite government takes from the productive.
We eliminated the spoils system in favor of ostensibly disinterested public servants, make them live by it and prohibit all political activity and voting by government employees. Similarly, go Coolidge and eliminate all public employee unions.
As to transfer payments, it’s the same point…those dependent on government should not be involved in making the rules.
[NB - I would prohibit military officers from voting but not enlisted members. Historically, regular officers avoided partisan politics and, in most cases, did not vote because they served the government regardless of the party in power, and should be neutral.]
I'm beginning to like the cut of Ramaswamy's jib.
He’s a con man working for Trump. Has a recent book saying the opposite of what he’s saying on the trail now. Only criticizes DeSantis, never Trump. He’s running for a cabinet slot or VP.
These proposals ultimately act as a proxy for maturity. Other classic proxies for having skin in the game are property ownership and marriage/family. If the concern is that today's youth are having problems adulting, and only adults should vote, add those to the mix. You want to avoid adult responsibilities your whole life? Fine, but no franchise for you.
drop the test, but allow 18-25 who are married (and not divorced!) to vote. included the widowed if (a) not responsible for the demise of the spouse and (b) such person is a parent.
Moving the Overton Window is the important point here. The reasoned argument in support of a higher voting age operates to blunt the lack of reasoned argument for a lower voting age, and helps expose the latter as outside of the range of acceptability. So: "Keep on draggin!"
I turned 20 in 1971 and was therefore affected by the process. I also was in college and felt that I would delay my right to vote as long as my peers also couldn’t vote because I knew them. They were, for the most part, immature thinkers and poor decision makers. Just being on campus an a Friday night was all the knowledge that was needed to insure withholding the vote. By the time I was 25 I was married, had a child and spent many nights in the ER, hopefully saving lives. The time between 20 and 25 was a very maturing time. I didn’t support the amendment and would support the change now.
I disagree with any exceptions, but I might be convinced on military. But after a period of service, like 2 years.
hell, I have days when I think 30 is too young.
It’s easy to say as a veteran, but I’m increasingly convinced Heinlein was right: only military service - the willingness to fight for the society - is an appropriate qualification for the franchise.
Other historical limits on service - property qualifications and educational qualifications particularly - don’t seem to be meaningful anymore.
Being a veteran isn’t meaningful any longer, I’m afraid. Some mope that’s pushed paper in a warehouse gets a vote and non-veterans don’t, just because she’s worn a uniform?
The US military has long since ceased to defend our Constitution.
Well, yes. The ‘mope’ (your term) signed up, gave a few years when she (your choice) could have been out making more/having fun, and managed to serve without dishonor. You non-veteran could have served, but chose not to.
I hear you about the military not being the bulwark it once was, but it‘s about skin in the game.
Gave what? She was compensated at the rate she agreed to. Fed, clothed, housed in some cases. Had plenty of time to party from what I remember. Combat arms folks, maybe. But then you’ll get clowns like LBJ jumping on a bomber to claim credit for combat duty.
Every game can and will be played.
We’re arguing angels on pinheads here anyway. There’s no chance of limiting the franchise.
Yes. And I am not a veteran.
What about the bifurcation between voting age, and the age of legal consent for contracts?
I agree with the age 25 with the military and first responder exemption. Although we need to hold firm on not expanding the definition to public service. It's not perfect ad there are still too many clueless 25 year olds but at least by then most people have full-time jobs and are outside the academic bubble.
Although there is part of me that would say that the individual must be out of school for at least 3 years. But that would be too hard to enforce. But it might cause some interesting discussions about bubbles.
Ironically, lowering the voting age (and also allowing parents to cast their children's ballots) would achieve all the same goals as raising the voting age, but better, more effectively, and it's more likely to actually get enough votes to become reality than restricting the voting age: https://nonviolence.substack.com/p/ramaswamy-proposes-restricting-voting
We are seeing the manifestation of the children self-esteem movement started in the 90s. Yet another failed theory introduced into our society by deluded, utopianist boomers (not blaming all boomers). Or maybe it was on purpose as part of a neo-marxist agenda, to quote one boomer, "What difference does it make now?"
Yes, voting is different in nature from driving or drinking. I see no offense to requiring more of a voter than reaching a mere number of years. However, the pols will fight this forever. It's easy to manipulate the young.
Neville Shute had a similar proposal in his novel "In the Wet" written in the 1950s. He extended it by allowing some citizens more than one vote in return for civic action .