Responsible Voter Experiments
by Howard Levine
May 15, 2003
One factor more than any that encourages irresponsible government is letting people vote without having to do anything to prove that they are responsible citizens who have a stake in the future of the community. The only significant requirement for a citizen to vote is being at least 18 years old. People who have not demonstrated any sense of responsibility in their lives are not likely to make the best civic minded voters with a long-term view.
There are some constitutional issues regarding restricting voting rights. States cannot restrict voting based on age (if 18 or older), race, sex, or payment of taxes. The only restrictions that are constitutionally legitimate without any affect on a state's seats in the House of Representatives is preventing felons from voting. Any other restrictions may be constitutional, but would result in the state having its population reduced by the number of voters who were made ineligible to vote for purposes of determining representation in the House of Representatives.
Of course, states with only 3 electoral votes have nothing to lose! They are fertile ground for experiments with restricting voting to people who demonstrate their responsibility and/or ability for being concerned with the long-term health of their community.
Here are some interesting ideas that could be tried without violating the US Constitution.
Only allow owners of real estate to vote. People who own property in a community clearly have a long-term interest in the health of that community. Their wealth is tied to the health of the community because they cannot move real estate to another location. People who do not own real estate (renters and dependents), would not be allowed to vote because they do not have their wealth tied to where they live.
Perhaps only allowing people who have successfully served 2 years of active military service or 6 years actively participating in the Military Reserve or National Guard to vote would be interesting. All of these people have demonstrated that they are willing to put their lives on the line in defense of the country. Even though most will not face any serious risks during their military service, they have no way of knowing that in advance. By volunteering and serving successfully, they have demonstated a solid commitment to their country. People who have not served in the military may be very decent people, but they will not have proven their commitment as military veterans will have.
Requiring voters to pass a test on the US Constitution and their state constitution would ensure that voters actually understand how the government is supposed to work. This test would not have to be terribly difficult; it could be administered like the written portion of drivers license exams. The purpose would be to ensure a basic working knowledge of government just as driver tests only ensure basic knowledge of traffic laws. If you are either unwilling or unable to grasp the very basics of how the government is supposed to work, why should you be voting for people to run that government?
The last idea is to allow only married couples who have a child that they either conceived or adopted together to vote. After the last of their children have lived as their children for 18 years (this covers adopted children so we avoid a cottage industry of 17 year olds being "adopted" just to qualify the adopting parents to vote a year later), they retain their right to vote for the rest of their lives as long as they stay married. If the marriage ends because of death, the widow or widower will retain voting rights as if the marriage continued. This gives people with the most important stake in the future, their children, the right to vote. In addition, the couple must prove their loyalty, worthiness, and good judgment by staying married. These voters will, on average, be very responsible compared to the general population because they are having at least one child in a responsible way and are demonstrating a commitment to family values that are likely to produce a reasonably well raised next generation.
Of course, some combination of these qualifications could be used.
It would be interesting to see how states with 3 electoral votes would change if they adopted any of these rules. Perhaps states with more than 3 electoral votes would find the benefits high enough to adopt some of these rules even at the cost of House of Representative seats.
by Howard Levine
May 15, 2003
One factor more than any that encourages irresponsible government is letting people vote without having to do anything to prove that they are responsible citizens who have a stake in the future of the community. The only significant requirement for a citizen to vote is being at least 18 years old. People who have not demonstrated any sense of responsibility in their lives are not likely to make the best civic minded voters with a long-term view.
There are some constitutional issues regarding restricting voting rights. States cannot restrict voting based on age (if 18 or older), race, sex, or payment of taxes. The only restrictions that are constitutionally legitimate without any affect on a state's seats in the House of Representatives is preventing felons from voting. Any other restrictions may be constitutional, but would result in the state having its population reduced by the number of voters who were made ineligible to vote for purposes of determining representation in the House of Representatives.
Of course, states with only 3 electoral votes have nothing to lose! They are fertile ground for experiments with restricting voting to people who demonstrate their responsibility and/or ability for being concerned with the long-term health of their community.
Here are some interesting ideas that could be tried without violating the US Constitution.
Only allow owners of real estate to vote. People who own property in a community clearly have a long-term interest in the health of that community. Their wealth is tied to the health of the community because they cannot move real estate to another location. People who do not own real estate (renters and dependents), would not be allowed to vote because they do not have their wealth tied to where they live.
Perhaps only allowing people who have successfully served 2 years of active military service or 6 years actively participating in the Military Reserve or National Guard to vote would be interesting. All of these people have demonstrated that they are willing to put their lives on the line in defense of the country. Even though most will not face any serious risks during their military service, they have no way of knowing that in advance. By volunteering and serving successfully, they have demonstated a solid commitment to their country. People who have not served in the military may be very decent people, but they will not have proven their commitment as military veterans will have.
Requiring voters to pass a test on the US Constitution and their state constitution would ensure that voters actually understand how the government is supposed to work. This test would not have to be terribly difficult; it could be administered like the written portion of drivers license exams. The purpose would be to ensure a basic working knowledge of government just as driver tests only ensure basic knowledge of traffic laws. If you are either unwilling or unable to grasp the very basics of how the government is supposed to work, why should you be voting for people to run that government?
The last idea is to allow only married couples who have a child that they either conceived or adopted together to vote. After the last of their children have lived as their children for 18 years (this covers adopted children so we avoid a cottage industry of 17 year olds being "adopted" just to qualify the adopting parents to vote a year later), they retain their right to vote for the rest of their lives as long as they stay married. If the marriage ends because of death, the widow or widower will retain voting rights as if the marriage continued. This gives people with the most important stake in the future, their children, the right to vote. In addition, the couple must prove their loyalty, worthiness, and good judgment by staying married. These voters will, on average, be very responsible compared to the general population because they are having at least one child in a responsible way and are demonstrating a commitment to family values that are likely to produce a reasonably well raised next generation.
Of course, some combination of these qualifications could be used.
It would be interesting to see how states with 3 electoral votes would change if they adopted any of these rules. Perhaps states with more than 3 electoral votes would find the benefits high enough to adopt some of these rules even at the cost of House of Representative seats.