Wacky Hermit offers her perspective on encouraging people to vote (without linking to my earlier post!) and likens democracy to the fair division problem (which is fascinating in its own right).
My view on the matter is colored by my experience with fair division, which was the topic of my Master's paper. In fair division, where a "cake" is divided up fairly among a bunch of players, the players are all assumed to have a "value system" (measure, for those technical math junkies out there) by which they determine the value of any given piece of cake. As part of the rules of fair division, players' value systems are not questioned or challenged. If a player says that piece of cake is 30% of the entire cake, that's what it is to that player, even if someone else thinks it's 20% and another thinks it's 50%. If you start requiring players to value a piece a certain way, it throws off the fairness of the algorithm.Except that laws don't create rights, they only recognize the rights that God (or nature, if you're a libertarian) gave us. And voting isn't a right. I've said it a million times: democracy can be a useful tool for protecting liberty, but democracy is not a requirement for liberty. Our society prevents all sorts of people from voting because we believe they would make poor decisions: children, the mentally impaired, felons, non-citizens, people in comas, and so forth. Wacky Hermit doesn't say whether or not she would support truly universal suffrage, but if voting is a right in the same way as are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" then what alternative is there? (Except perhaps for felons.)Likewise I leave each voter's measure of the candidates to their own devices. If you want to base your vote for a candidate on which is alphabetically first, on how much he pays for his haircuts, on the aspects of Venus in conjunction with Jupiter, on the basis of numerological analysis of the book of Hosea or the fact that he came to your town before the election and the other guy didn't, that's your prerogative. I can think you're stupid for doing it (that's my right), but I can't take away your right. The law says that if you are a citizen, you have a right to vote. Period.
Voting is a right, but shouldn't we require a bit of effort? these registration drives at concerts, malls, etc may get people registered--but will they vote? Next will be the call for Internet voting.
Do we really want to promote the participation of people so uninspired that they can't register, or can't remember to vote on election day? Or are so lazy they'll only vote from the comfort of their couch?
As the great sage Jon Stewart once said about a poll being conducted which asked voters to choose man's greatest achievements:
"The seven marvels that best represent man's achievements over the last 2,000 years will be determined by Internet vote... so look for Howard Stern's Private Parts to come in No. 1"
Isn't an informed electorate part and parcel of the democratic process?
TI: "Voting is a right..." you say, but offer no evidence or argument to support this assertion. I suggest you go read the earlier post.
He doesn't have to offer evidence or argument that voting is a right. We live in a democracy, where citizens generally have a right to vote. The end.
X: Rights are not location/culture-dependent.
X: If you want to get technical, we actually live in a Constitutional Republic.
Sorry about the forgotten link! I meant to link to your post, but I have three kids and one of them is sick, and I had to get the garlic planted yesterday because I only had one day without rain in which to do all my yardwork. (excuses, excuses...) anyway it's fixed now, the link is there.
The U.S. Constitution refers to voting as a right. That settles it for me.