Universal Suffering?

The present debacle we’re witnessing in California raises interesting questions. At least it does to me. Namely, that if a voter is too incompetent to vote using a simple system, what does this mean for the quality of our elections? Now for those who suffer physical disabilities of one sort or another that may prevent them from voting accurately with a particular type of machine, I cast no blame. But for those who are so intellectually lazy that they don’t pay close enough attention to where their vote is going, what does it mean for us that they are voting in the first place?

I would hope that all Americans view voting as a very solemn and weighty duty. I realize this is not the case, but it should be. Voting is not something to take lightly. I have a friend who once decided not to vote because he said that he honestly didn’t know enough about the candidates and issues to form an educated opinion. I was quite impressed by this. Of course there are few excuses for not educating one’s self, but if one does find himself in a situation where he doesn’t know enough to make an educated choice, then I at least admire his honesty to not simply cast some random vote. Indeed, our Founding Fathers saw an educated electorate as a vital element to preserving freedom.

I have to wonder if by masses of voters turning out at the polls solely at the urging of MTV’s “Rock the Vote” campaign and various other similar advisements to “Just go vote” we aren’t getting results scarcely more meaningful than if we elected on the roll of the dice? No, I’m sure this isn’t the case. With dice, we would at least get a statistically even distribution of results. I tend to think that people ignorant of the issues will, statistically, fall into one group more than another, so we will more likely get weighted results. But even so, these weighted results are no more meaningful since they are the result of people voting out of ignorance. Or worse, voting based largely upon superficial characteristics such as attractiveness, or “coolness”.

Perhaps it is because the prevailing view is that voting, in itself, is some fundamental “good” that voting from ignorance is not frowned upon? But voting is not a virtue in itself. Only voting from a position of being informed and educated regarding the issues and candidates can be considered virtuous. If someone doesn’t care enough to inform themselves of the issues, why should they care enough to dilute the informed votes of their fellow citizens?

Perhaps voting is not the real duty? Perhaps the real duty is being informed, and then, and only then, voting. Voting is the only way in which citizens may exercise their power, and it is a great power indeed. But since it is power, shouldn’t this power be exercised responsibly? We would scoff at the notion of allowing people to perform surgery without any sort of qualification, and yet we entrust the fate of our nation to people who do not even know the purpose of the Constitution, the function of Congress, and are generally lacking an awareness of the most basic aspects of our system of government.

Is it any wonder, then, that we have an abundance of elected officials who don’t know the Constitution from a roll of Charmin? Should we be surprised? Now that we agree (I hope) that there is a problem, what is the solution? I don’t pretend to have it. But many ideas have been put on the table. Let us examine some of them below:

Voter tests / Accreditation
The theory: Some have suggested that voters be given tests they must pass to demonstrate that they are sufficiently educated to make an educated choice.

The rub: Any government-mandated and standardized means of verifying someone’s aptitude can be abused and this opens up a wide range of possible ways to taint minds and/or keep one’s ideological opponents from the polls.

Poll taxes
The theory: Apparently the idea with this system is that only people willing to give something up (money) will vote. So therefore someone must feel strongly enough to forfeit a fee to be able to vote. If the individual feels this strongly, they are very likely to have educated themselves on the issues.

The rub: This system would effectively disenfranchise people who, despite their political astuteness, do not find themselves with the financial means to pay such a tax.

Earned / Elective Citizenship
The theory: The idea here is that citizenship (which entails franchise, among other rights) is either earned through something such as public service (such as service in the military) or that it must be voluntarily chosen (elective) because citizenship entails certain duties and obligations that cannot or should not be demanded of every resident.
In Earned Citizenship, the individual qualifies himself for franchise by responsibly contributing to society. In Elective Citizenship, the individual demonstrates his willingness to responsibly contribute to society while simultaneously giving consent to abide by the duties and obligations citizenship entails.

In both cases, similar to the Poll tax system, the individual must be willing to sacrifice something to gain franchise. These systems also often involve the idea that non-citizens (or residents) do not have the same duties or obligations as citizens.

The rub: In Earned Citizenship, the individual does not gain franchise until after fulfilling a duty. This duty, depending on its nature, may itself be a means by which the individual could be indoctrinated thus leading to a degree of homogeneity in the voting populace. In both systems, depending on their specifics, some people may simply be unable to do what is required to become a citizen and thereby gain franchise. For instance, handicapped individuals would be unable to serve in the military.

Landed franchise
The theory: This concept was widespread around the time of the founding of the United States and states that only land owners have franchise. The idea was, once again, to find a criterion that would yield a degree of assurance that the voter is educated.

The rub: This should be pretty obvious. Today it is difficult to fathom how such a system could be thought to be just since there are plenty of people fully capable of making educated decisions but who may not own any land. Franchise must not be tied to one’s economic or social status.

It is interesting to note that a common notion in several of the above mentioned systems is that of sacrifice. If something must be sacrificed to vote, even if it is just a minor inconvenience, then many of the less dedicated will be dissuaded from voting.

I must admit that when I started writing this article I thought the Poll Tax idea was the most absurd second only to Landed franchise. But consider it for a moment: what if you had to pay, say, a dollar to vote? How many of the “Rock the Vote” crowd could we expect to see at the polls then? Or what if the inconvenience wasn’t monetary? What if it was something simple that anyone could do but was inconvenient enough so that only those serious about their views would follow through? This thread of thought warrants further exploration.

One thing is certain, however. If voters are required to sacrifice something for the ability to vote, very few voters will be of the sort who only wants government to give them a handout. And that, I think, would be a vast improvement by itself.