Philosophy Discussion Forums

This topic is about the October 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches by John N. (Jake) Ferris



Since this month's philosophical BOTM is related to 'women gaining right to vote', I thought of discussing the pros and cons of every citizen of a country having the right to vote.

Most of the third world countries were ruled by some of the ancient empires including Great Britain. Although, as I personally believe, these countries were simply robbed by those powerful countries, there are some valuable aspects that they gained from the empires as well. One such thing is the systemized voting system.

But when they gave the right to vote for the locals of these third-world countries, they gave it only to the people of high social status. Later only the right to vote was given to every citizen of these countries, actually by the local rulers and not by the foreign rulers.

The empires may have had different reasons for their actions. But when thinking about how people vote in elections nowadays in these countries, many people just vote without any political literacy. And the politicians simply cheat the poor, less educated, less privileged people and rob their votes.

IMO, this would not have happened if people were filtered when giving the right to vote. What do you think?

Sushan wrote: ↑October 7th, 2022, 4:16 am IMO, this would not have happened if people were filtered when giving the right to vote. What do you think?

An idea that isn't compatible with democracy, so it depends whether one is pro or con democracy.

Sushan wrote: ↑October 7th, 2022, 4:16 am When thinking about how people vote in elections nowadays in these [third-world] countries, many people just vote without any political literacy. And the politicians simply cheat the poor, less educated, less privileged people and rob their votes.

IMO, this would not have happened if people were filtered when giving the right to vote. What do you think?

You make 2 initial points:

1. That people cast their votes "without any political literacy".
2. That (elected) politicians "cheat the poor, less educated, less privileged people".

Only point 1 concerns your question. Corrupt politicians are relatively unaffected by who has the right to vote. I assume that the background to your question is a democratic political system, where a government is elected by vote.

Your question seems to say that people may vote unwisely, perhaps because of limited political understanding, and that this is a good reason why they should be denied a vote. I disagree.

All of us are responsible for our own actions. In the same way, but turned around: those who do the work, and bear the consequences, are entitled to their say — a vote. That's my argument, so I see no need to write more for now.

Was it Plato who identified the one foreseeable problem with democracy: that anyone could become a politician.
He suggested, I think, to restrict the position of politician to philosophers.
Not sure how that would work. Apply to the general public for preselection? Pass an exam? Divulge IQ? A spread of all 73 gender identities - except males?
Then again, isn’t everyone a philosopher?

Tommo wrote: ↑October 7th, 2022, 8:47 pm Was it Plato who identified the one foreseeable problem with democracy: that anyone could become a politician.
He suggested, I think, to restrict the position of politician to philosophers.
Not sure how that would work. Apply to the general public for preselection? Pass an exam? Divulge IQ? A spread of all 73 gender identities - except males?
Then again, isn’t everyone a philosopher?

I'd settle for electors proving that they know the different functions of different levels of government. Not in detail, just to have some semblance of an idea to demonstrate that they can make at least a somewhat informed vote.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 8th, 2022, 2:14 am

Tommo wrote: ↑October 7th, 2022, 8:47 pm Was it Plato who identified the one foreseeable problem with democracy: that anyone could become a politician.
He suggested, I think, to restrict the position of politician to philosophers.
Not sure how that would work. Apply to the general public for preselection? Pass an exam? Divulge IQ? A spread of all 73 gender identities - except males?
Then again, isn’t everyone a philosopher?

I'd settle for electors proving that they know the different functions of different levels of government. Not in detail, just to have some semblance of an idea to demonstrate that they can make at least a somewhat informed vote.

Hi Sy.
It is taught in schools in some place. Even I was paying attention that day.
The next step might be to educate generally in the ways of thinking rationally.
My great grand daughter aged 12 is very aware of the basics of philosophy without calling it that. She learned that from her school. We don’t discuss philosophy; we discuss ways of dealing with life in general. Hopefully she’ll grow into an adult with reason.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 8th, 2022, 2:14 am

Tommo wrote: ↑October 7th, 2022, 8:47 pm Was it Plato who identified the one foreseeable problem with democracy: that anyone could become a politician.
He suggested, I think, to restrict the position of politician to philosophers.
Not sure how that would work. Apply to the general public for preselection? Pass an exam? Divulge IQ? A spread of all 73 gender identities - except males?
Then again, isn’t everyone a philosopher?

I'd settle for electors proving that they know the different functions of different levels of government. Not in detail, just to have some semblance of an idea to demonstrate that they can make at least a somewhat informed vote.

Per the US Constitution as originally written the qualifications for voting for federal offices was left entirely to the States, with voters having the same "qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature." (Article I). The 15th Amendment (1870) prohibited states from denying anyone the right to vote on account of race, and the 19th Amendment (1920) prohibited them from denying the vote based on sex. In addition, the 14th Amendment (1869) prohibited the States from denying anyone within its jurisdiction "equal protection of the law." The Supreme Court has held that Amendment to prohibit States from requiring payment of a poll tax in order to vote, or requiring property ownership, or imposing lengthy residency requirements.

Apart from those restrictions the States are still free to decide who is qualified to vote. Nothing in the Constitution or subsequent Court rulings prevents a State from denying the vote on grounds of ignorance. Indeed, in the poll tax case (Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 1966), the Court said, "wealth, like race, creed, or color is not germane to one’s ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process."

So, presumably, the States remain free to determine who has the "ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process."

The problem of voter ignorance has been long lamented and debated in the poli sci literature. One journal to which I subscribed for several years devoted 2 years' of quarterly issues to that subject. Perhaps the most widely favored solution is requiring all would-be voters to pass the same "Citizenship Qualification Test" currently required of immigrants applying for US citizenship.

In Australia it is mandatory for all people over the age of 18 to vote at all government elections, right down to council elections.

This may seem a bit harsh to some. We find it more of an inconvenience. Having to cue for our democratic responsibility can be tedious.
We don’t assume anyone is that ignorant they couldn’t identify a mug in a crowd.
So far we haven’t had the likes of Trump taking over. Australians are pretty good at identifying a bogan.

In a democracy, voters get the government they deserve. Easily duped voters get corrupt governments. Sophisticated voters get governments that cater to the voters. Thus in order for democracy to represent the voter's interest, the population must have some education. So in the absence of strong public education it is an open question whether the population is better served, statistically by elected officials or whether a benign oligarchy ends up serving the population better.

Tommo wrote: ↑October 8th, 2022, 9:36 pm In Australia it is mandatory for all people over the age of 18 to vote at all government elections, right down to council elections.

What is the penalty for not voting? How diligently is it enforced?

LuckyR wrote: ↑October 9th, 2022, 4:02 am In a democracy, voters get the government they deserve. Easily duped voters get corrupt governments. Sophisticated voters get governments that cater to the voters. Thus in order for democracy to represent the voter's interest, the population must have some education. So in the absence of strong public education it is an open question whether the population is better served, statistically by elected officials or whether a benign oligarchy ends up serving the population better.

Why "public" (government-run) education?

There is also the fact that some people are not educable, at least in those matters relevant to voting competence, for either intellectual or temperamental reasons.

GE Morton wrote: ↑October 9th, 2022, 10:53 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑October 9th, 2022, 4:02 am In a democracy, voters get the government they deserve. Easily duped voters get corrupt governments. Sophisticated voters get governments that cater to the voters. Thus in order for democracy to represent the voter's interest, the population must have some education. So in the absence of strong public education it is an open question whether the population is better served, statistically by elected officials or whether a benign oligarchy ends up serving the population better.

Why "public" (government-run) education?

There is also the fact that some people are not educable, at least in those matters relevant to voting competence, for either intellectual or temperamental reasons.

Fair questions, here's the answers. Private education always caters to small numbers of the upper classes, ie those who actually "need" the specific value of education the least, therefore it makes the least impact on the society. Public education is consumed by far greater total numbers quantitatively and cannot refuse the unwilling, the underprepared and the disadvantaged (like private schools do) qualitatively. Thus high quality public education has a far greater potential to improve understanding in the population.

Of course some are uneducable, everyone knows that. If you think about it though, that group is heavily weighted towards nonvoters, so it's not really statistically important for the topic of this thread.

LuckyR wrote: ↑October 10th, 2022, 1:51 am
Fair questions, here's the answers. Private education always caters to small numbers of the upper classes, ie those who actually "need" the specific value of education the least, therefore it makes the least impact on the society.

The alternative is some sort of voucher system, in which the State pays the tuition (up to a certain limit) at any school the parents choose, public or private. So far about half the states have some such program. Recent Supreme Court decisions have struck down provisions in state laws which prohibit state education funds to be used at religious schools. The average cost (national) per pupil for public schools is $15,205; of private schools $11,645.

https://www.yahoo.com/now/42-states-whe ... 07815.html

GE Morton wrote: ↑October 10th, 2022, 12:27 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑October 10th, 2022, 1:51 am
Fair questions, here's the answers. Private education always caters to small numbers of the upper classes, ie those who actually "need" the specific value of education the least, therefore it makes the least impact on the society.

The alternative is some sort of voucher system, in which the State pays the tuition (up to a certain limit) at any school the parents choose, public or private. So far about half the states have some such program. Recent Supreme Court decisions have struck down provisions in state laws which prohibit state education funds to be used at religious schools. The average cost (national) per pupil for public schools is $15,205; of private schools $11,645.

https://www.yahoo.com/now/42-states-whe ... 07815.html

If you want to go there, then let's go there.

First, while private school students outperform public school students, if you control for parental education level and income, there is no difference in performance. Second, since private schools don't require teaching certification and the teachers aren't unionized (their benefits are way lower) and private schools don't have the expense of special education, of course their costs are lower. Not a surprise. However, since their tuition is in addition to paying taxes, they do tend to draw from the higher economic groups (as stated). As to vouchers, there isn't a large unused capacity of high quality private school to provide space for a huge influx of voucher students. As an aside, in states that have voucher programs the performance of voucher students to nonvoucher private students is sub-par. This is expected by the previously mentioned fact that performance is related to parental education level and economic status on average.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 8th, 2022, 2:14 am I'd settle for electors proving that they know the different functions of different levels of government. Not in detail, just to have some semblance of an idea to demonstrate that they can make at least a somewhat informed vote.

Every contributor — i.e. every adult citizen — has a right to a vote. I see no reason to compel, or try to, an "informed" vote. Yes, the desirability of an informed vote is clear, but as a necessary qualification? Too restrictive. Anyone who contributes gets their say, I think.