This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
In my opinion, we should be limiting the franchise, not expanding it. Expanding it does not lead to improved outcomes, it only dilutes the votes of people who would make good judgements on which politicians we should be electing. Criminals, especially felons, have notoriously bad judgement. Why should we want their input on governing our society?
This seems to be based on an assumption that voter's judgement has a significant impact on the politicians the US winds up electing, which strikes me as unproven and not at all obviously true, considering the extreme filtering effect of money, inside baseball in the nominating parties, and primaries. There's an alternative model which I find more plausible to represent reality, which is that quality of candidates is almost entirely determined by these other processes, and the final voting only serves to shift the incentive gradient that the politicians who get into positions of power either way will have to follow. That is to say, to a coarse approximation, letting the smartest 10% vote would result in the same politicians getting into power, but they now would only have to make the smartest 10% happy; conversely, expanding the franchise to felons would result in the same politicians getting into power, but now they would also have to consider making felons happy to the same extent as they do for the average mediocre and uninfluential free citizen. It does not seem to me that the bad judgement of felons is a relevant counterargument in the latter scenario.
More options
Context Copy link
How would you feel about a politician who agreed with you in principal but was able to enact legislation that included you among the disenfranchised? I don't know your personal history but one could presumably construct some sort of schema whereby it's presumed that your judgment would be worse than those who are given the franchise.
I'm Latino. I'd support a politician that wanted to take away the Hispanic franchise, because my fellow Latinos tend to vote for socialism at a much higher rate than Anglos.
More options
Context Copy link
I feel like any legislation that disenfranchises me at this point in my life is not in line with my principles.
But, in principle, if I were to fall into a category of drains on society, yeah, my opinion should be disregarded.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm young and probably not a net contributor to taxes yet. I would gladly have my franchise taken away if it meant that people like me (who overwhelmingly vote the opposite way I do) could not vote anymore. Based on those characteristics, it is perfectly correct to presume that my judgement would be worse than, say, net taxpayers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, I already acknowledged this as an argument for restricting the franchise but my point here is that you should also justify the increased bureaucracy costs. Do you think it's worthwhile?
One thing I didn't touch upon is that it seems like a good policy to let ex-felons vote at least as a way to encourage them to be part of civil society again. Disenfranchising them seems like it would encourage them to just check out completely.
What increased bureaucratic costs? We already know who is married, who has kids, who own property, who pays more taxes than they accept in government aid.
More options
Context Copy link
Wouldn’t you need to balance that out with cheaper elections (since there are less votes)? Also perhaps GOTV apparatuses would be smaller if the vote was held by a smaller percentage of the population. If people behind gotv could do something productive, that would be a net win.
Running elections seems to come with high fixed costs and low marginal costs, so it doesn't seem likely that additional votes would materially increase costs. Throwing additional votes into the tabulation machinery seems way cheaper than having real life bureaucrats carefully scrutinizing individual registrations as I outlined in my examples.
The cost of running elections is negligible... how many $10 million miles of highway would we need to give up? Not many.
More options
Context Copy link
Campaigning though isn’t low marginal costs.
It is if the marginal campaign dollar is going on paid media (which, in America, it probably is)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not sure exactly why you think it would be so expensive to restrict the franchise. Why can't you just give voter IDs out like driver's licenses to those who tick the correct boxes. The less people allowed to vote, the cheaper that is.
Felons are not anywhere near as civic-minded as you think they are.
I wrote my reasons in detail, did you miss that above?
Sometimes there are difficult cases. How many of them are there and how expensive are they? "Voting can be hard to figure out for some felons, if they're banned" is probably true, but how many felons aren't bothering to try and register in the first place? If felons are allowed to vote, how much is spent on getting them registered and tabulating their votes?
The more people you can cut with general rules (e.g. only landowning married men can vote), the less expensive dealing with edge cases becomes.
If Florida is any indication, about 10% of the adult population has a felony record and unable to vote and few (~100k?) have bothered to register to vote. This tends to be true in most states that have post-release disenfranchisement, unless restoration is automatic, few people bother trying. Running elections seems to come with high fixed costs and low marginal costs, so it doesn't seem likely that additional votes would materially increase costs.
I would agree there's likely a "reverse Laffer curve" where increasingly high disenfranchisement gets progressively cheaper, but I don't see your argument for where we are currently on the curve. If cost was your only concern then you could justify getting rid of voting entirely.
Cost is a minor concern overall, but I was arguing that more people voting in general is more expensive, not the other way around.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Poor judgment about crime doesn’t have to mean poor judgment about people. Drunk drivers are a blight upon society. They also haven’t proven anything about their grasp of macroeconomics or foreign policy.
Either way, the most valuable boon of democracy is not wisdom of the crowds, but consent of the governed. The pressure release valve of getting to go vote rather than go pogrom. Why is it a good idea to take more away from those who allegedly have paid their debts to society?
Right, but we get consent of the governed who matter by including them in the electorate. Broadly, the electorate should reflect people with some influence and good judgement.
More options
Context Copy link
There is a hypothesis called Multiple Intelligences Hypothesis, which postulates the existence of several orthogonal kinds of intellect. A competing one claims there exists a "G Factor" aka "Everything is Correlated" with remaining PC's being negligable. One could, by analogy, establish two hypotheses of judgement.
Laws of a country apply to everyone on its teritorry, but only adult citizen are usually permitted to vote. So being "governed" doesn't require one to "consent" (which you define as voting).
If they are still banned from voting, society has apparently deemed the debt to not yet been repaid in full.
I don’t really buy into multiple intelligences, as g seems to do pretty well, but that’s not necessary. Making the correct assessment on “What’s the risk-benefit on selling drugs/embezzling/assault?” is just poorly correlated with being right about “is voting X good for the country/community/me?” Partly because political strategy is a hard problem for anyone, and I don’t think non-felons do a great job either. Partly because of the layers of insulation between a voter and any policy.
Currently, “citizen” has a pretty expansive definition, and those who are governed without it are the exception rather than the rule. Children are the biggest one, restricted under the same strict scrutiny that we apply to all the other ways we don’t let them consent. Immigrants are the other big contingent; I don’t really have a problem with requiring their submission to government. I consider it another prerequisite to actually naturalizing and getting the full rights.
Is this a reasonable expectation? It strikes me as perverse to have “...and permanent suspension of your voting rights” silently tacked on to all sentences in states with such laws. When sentencing guidelines are set, I don’t think voting rights get much consideration compared to the deprivation of physical liberty. In that sense, completing the prison time would be reasonably interpreted as paying the debt.
I would prefer to have slightly longer sentences in exchange for removing this afterthought of an indefinite punishment.
Maine and Vermont let people vote from prison. Do you have any evidence that this leads to bad policies being implemented?
Maine and Vermont have certain other characteristics that result in them being pleasant places.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Murderers wouldn't vote to make murder legal, because they know very well that they could be the victim of murder by someone else. (They might vote to make murder legal only if done by themselves and not by anyone else, but laws like that aren't on the table.) And if a crime is victimless, I'd be fine with letting criminals vote to legalize it. There may be edge cases (a vagrant who doesn't own property may want to make sleeping on someone's property legal) but I doubt that such things would be seriously proposed as laws anyway.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Because it's their right. I believe everyone has a fundamental right to get input into how society is run, regardless of how poor their judgement is. Frankly, I don't trust a felon's judgement much less than that of the American electorate in general, which is incredibly poor. But I think the general public (poor as their judgement is) still deserves their right to vote, and so too do convicted criminals.
And from a standpoint of outcomes, I think you also need to consider the consequentialist argument for liberalism in general. When you abridge the rights of anyone, it makes it easier (and more likely) to abridge the rights of everyone. Therefore you have to very narrowly tailor how and when you abridge rights. I'm not convinced that keeping criminals from voting actually gives us a better outcome.
This statement implies children should be allowed to vote
More options
Context Copy link
Why?
More options
Context Copy link
Do you support minimum voting age? If so, it's easy enough to get from there to restricting the rights of mentally challenged, criminals, welfare recipients, women, etc.
Mentally-challenged, I'll grant you. You're going to have a harder time selling on welfare recipients and women.
We accept disenfranchisement of children because they are dependents. They are not responsible for making any decisions governing their own lives, so it seems natural they wouldn't make any decisions about their government.
The reason it's reasonable for dependents to not make decisions is because they don't pay the cost for those decisions. They will therefore err on the side of too much cost. It's not that they just don't have money or whatever, they actually just have no idea what cost is, whether monetary or through work.
Children - not responsible for themselves in any capacity
Mentally challenged - same
Welfare recipients - same, arguably they are responsible for feeding/housing/clothing themselves within a budget, but they get the money for those things for free. See no benefit if the government spends less.
Women - same, but a bit different. While some ladies are independent heads of households, overall they are ultimately not responsible for maintaining civilization and as such would not be held responsible if SHTF. If men stop going to work, huge problem. Ladies mad. If women stop going to work, small problem for a short period of time, nobody mad.
A) 46.6% of the workforce is women, so it's not "some ladies are independent heads of households" it's "women are independent heads of households at almost the same rate as men."
B) "Not responsible for maintaining civilization" is a vague assertion. Who isn't holding them responsible? You? Because that means nothing.
C) "If men stop going to work, huge problem. Ladies mad." It would be a huge problem. I'm not sure why "ladies", in particular, would be angrier about the situation than any other group.
D) "If women stop going to work, small problem..." - No. It would not be a small problem. If 46.6% of your workforce decides not to work, that is not a small problem. If it's also ~75% of your healthcare workers, that is an absolutely enormous problem.
E) "...nobody mad." Of the people I know, none of them would be angry if a large group of people stopped working. They would be concerned. If they were angry, they would be no less angry about women leaving the workforce than men.
Every part of that statement was wrong in a number of different ways.
A) Having a job is not the same as being independent or the head of the household. About a third of dual income couples have the woman making more. According to that article the most common cases are where the husband is a bartender, barber, kindergarten teacher or waiter. My hunch is that most of these cases are women out-earning their partners by a small amount, given that this arrangement is way likely to end in divorce. So while it is true that a sizeable fraction of women are breadwinners, it is not nearly the same rate as men and they are way more likely to get divorced (i.e. are unhappy). I should mention single moms here as well, but what percentage of the independent ones (i.e. not on child support, welfare) are happy with their arrangement and not seeking a man who makes more than them?
B) It is vague but it does mean something in a couple ways. Most simply, women are holding them responsible. Sort of like how a bachelor's house and a married couple's house looks way different, a large amount of civilizing pressure comes from women. There's also the situation on the ground. Ladies are heavily concentrated in some industries, but there aren't many that I would call staples of "civilization". Between resource extraction, the energy, utilities, manufacturing, shipping, agriculture, none have a sizeable fraction of women handling any core responsibilities. Finally, there is the historical precedent. Through antiquity, if the men of a tribe grew weaker than another tribe, they would be killed. The women would be absorbed into the stronger tribe.
C) If a man just stops going to work, his lady would be very mad in pretty much all cases. The reverse is not true nearly as often. Generalize this and women are upset on a level that men just aren't.
D) Like B, the workforce is concentrated in less essential areas. Again there is historical precedent. Before WWII about 20% of women were working, mostly young ones and in low level jobs. This seemed to work fine. Same to say those jobs could be absorbed by men if they had to.
E) The rates of depression and general malaise among ladies along with plummeting fertility rates makes me think that the current arrangement isn't all it's cracked up to be. Women are in a prisoner's dilemma. Each individual is usually worse off if they don't work, but collectively they are worse off all working. If they all quit, SSRI use would drop in a hurry.
Women make less in general, I agree. But you're excluding single women, single moms, lesbians and basically anyone who isn't in a traditional nuclear family, then adding the requirement that they be happy, have no outside income (no disability, welfare or child support), and... not be looking for a relationship?
I don't any hard numbers on how many men fail the "independence" requirements that you've laid out here, but I would guess it's a lot. I've met a lot of men who are in unhappy marriages, a lot of men who are single and looking for a relationship, and an enormous number of men that are on disability.
Yeah, maybe we should take a poll. Because I've never met a woman that "held men responsible for civilization." I would guess this is something unique to your social circle. So basically, no offense- but I don't believe you.
Again, I just don't believe you. I'm 35 years old. I've lived in a lot of different places and met a lot of different people- if a person is in a relationship and their significant other decides to quit with no discussion, then the non-quitting partner would almost universally be angry. If they quit with discussion, then the anger would depend on the reasons.
If you want to argue that men leaving the workforce would be worse than women leaving the workforce, then I would agree. But originally, you stated that it would be a "small problem". By any measure, 75% of your healthcare workers quitting would be an enormous problem. The education system is dominated, top to bottom, by women. Banks are run by women. This isn't pre-WWII anymore, and there are lots of jobs that aren't agricultural or construction-related that we need workers in.
Speculation, and also (as with the happiness requirement in A) beside the point.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Improved outcomes for whom? Politics is about competing interests; there are very few issues on which there is a single "common good," and even fewer where that common good is knowable. Saying that "group X should not be allowed to vote" is saying that group X's interests do not matter. And, although as a person who is both more highly educated and better read than the average person, I might know a lot more about a lot of things than most people, but I almost certainly know less than they do about what their interests are.
I'm comfortable saying as a matter of policy that serious enough crimes have you constructively banished from society. Since we lack the capability to actually cast people out into the wilderness or deport them to the unsettled frontier, we do this by declaring their interests to not matter to the rest of society. They are free to remove themselves if they don't like it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Whom do you think worthy of the vote and how do you propose we find these people?
Net taxpayers. You must pay more than $X in tax more than you receive via government subsidy.
More options
Context Copy link
Most of the world, historically, limited the franchise to landowning men- that is, heads of established households. And that’s probably a pretty good filter for not being a total train wreck.
I would suggest that ‘no criminal record, over 21, employed or married’ would fill a similar function today.
I keep toying with the idea of having to post a bond of some substantial value that is forfeit if the voter leaves their legislative district before some term of years. Potentially allowing for rolling it election to election instead of continually posting a new one each term unless someone wanted the flexibility. Maybe making the bond cost progressive. The whole having skin in the game effect since people seem so allergic to restricting the franchise to landowners.
That would restrict voting to the rich, since poor people couldn't afford the risk. That would also mean that the government could hurt people and they wouldn't be able to leave to escape without paying the government off.
Poor people already significantly do not vote compared to rich. Although realistically there should be some nontrivial cost floor. Paul voting whether or not Peter should be robbed to pay for Paul has some issues. The franchise being conditioned on the bond does not stop poor people from leaving, only those who voted for that same government in the first place who cannot bear the cost. And a progressive cost on the bond would mean that it would be proportionally costly for rich and poor.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Most of the world, historically, limited the franchise to the aristocracy if they had voting at all. I'm not sure what "established" household means but prior to the Reform Acts in the mid 19th century the franchise in Britain was extremely limited - far more so than just married, non-lumpen men.
Western societies historically had some means of franchise available for (adult, male)full members. Rome and Greece famously spent a lot of time as republics, the ancient germanics allowed landowning men to sit in the thing, etc.
The ancien regime in France was the exception, not the rule. Most western societies had legislative bodies elected by commoners(although often with property requirements).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What metric do you consider to determine whether your voting filter is a good idea? The fact that a system was used historically doesn't tell us about its merits.
More options
Context Copy link
To clarify, men only or women as well?
Men and women- it fills the same function as previous laws restricting voting to established persons who contribute to society.
One more question, if you don't mind. How strict are we talking for no criminal record? Squeaky clean down to zero moving or parking violations or do we allow a certain amount of flexibility for misdemeanors? I'm not poking at you, I'm just genuinely curious about your ideas on this.
To be clear this entire exercise is just spitballing ideas to mirror a historical ‘full membership’ requirement, but I’d imagine ‘nothing other than minor violations/period of years since last violation’ both make sense here.
More options
Context Copy link
Citations should be fine (eg speeding, parking ticket, etc). Misdemeanor maybe ten year window? Felon forever.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link