In this oil kingdom, there is a certain push for expanding the suffrage even further. The push is for 16-years-olds to be included in the electorate. This might even lead to some 15-year-olds getting the right to vote, as today's limit of 18 years of age actually applies to the age one has at the end of the year. An election expert has even suggested a lower limit of 12 years of age.
Over at the Guardian, Jonathan Pyke argues for lowering the UK voting age to 16.
"Deogolwulf" responds excellently.
I would add a few points.
The voting age should be raised rather than lowered. Limiting the franchise further through other qualifications wouldn't be a bad idea either.
What is it with this suffrage expansion ideology? Do people seriously believe that the right to vote is the check on power? Trumphing all others in effectiveness? And that the disenfranchised are denied this very valuable protection? Hence, political equality must rule to the widest extent possible?
Please do wake up and smell the Malabar!
With the expansion of the franchise – and of democracy in general, for that matter – we have had expansion of the reach and the size of the state. The price for universal suffrage seems to have been very high indeed, for it is not far from obvious that the price is liberty itself!
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Wider Franchise?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Dear JKB :-)
In the oil kingdom, a person is taxable from the age 13, (whats taxation without representatio?), an adult in the criminal justice system from the age of 15, an adult in the healt care system from the age of 16. A 16 year old may operate some motorized vehicles. He or she might enjoy beer and wine from age 18, and booze from age 20. 18 year olds may be drafted for military service.
Young people today are ruled and regulated and treated as adults before voting age (18), without any chanse to influense theese systems.
Dear Mr. Stillingen,
Firstly, the dictum of no taxation without representation is not something I would uncritically subscribe to. I would take the tax level of Denmark-Norway over today’s tax level any day of the year. Empiricism seems to suggest that there is a certain correlation between increase in the tax level and expansion of the franchise.
Secondly, “inconsistencies” between the lower voting age and other age limits will always to some extent exist. One can eliminate “inconsistencies” between legal age limits, but it is always possible to argue that extremely intelligent 10-year-olds should have the right to, and since some 10-year-olds are intelligent enough to vote, all 10-year-olds should be allowed to vote. One can also argue that since 2-year-olds are regulated by age limit regulations, such as being denied alcohol, they should have the right to influence through the right to vote. Of course, you can say that neither 10-year-olds nor 2-year-olds are in any way legally treated as adults, so that’s irrelevant. One can limit the suffrage to those who in any way are considered “adults,” but there is nothing that suggests that all adults should have the right to vote, unless you subscribe to modern political egalitarianism, which I don’t.
Paul Gottfried has told us in his After Liberalism:
As French prime minister in the 1840s, Guizot fought doggedly against the extension of the limited franchise, the cens, from propertied taxpayers to other French citizens. He distinguished sharply in his speeches and political tracts between those civil rights suitable for all citizens, such as freedom of worship, and the vote. By means of the second, Guizot maintained, the lower class could destabilize society, radically redistributing property and bringing resourceful demagogues to power.
Such attitudes were more common in the past. They are not less valid today.
Thirdly, history and knowledge of human nature teach us much of the vices of democracy. One of them is that democracy functions relatively well at a small level, but does not scale well. Mass democracy becomes more monstrous the larger the mass is. That suggests that expanding the suffrage is not such a good idea.
Fourthly, it is not true that those who do not have the right to vote are without any chance of influence. When the electorate is expanded, the influence of the individual decreases. In the days when there were no democratic elections, one could go to the King in Copenhagen and make one’s case. Having to convince the King can be quite easy compared to having to convince the masses, with a very possible exception for demagogues. There are so many channels of influence other than through the franchise. Please do not try to tell me that those who are excluded from it have no chance of influence.
Post a Comment