NationStates Jolt Archive

I've wondered about this for a while now, and feel like having a discussion on it. I never really gave much tought to it until a discussion we had about conscription at basic and in regards to Canada evacuating our citizens from Lebanon during the recent Israel/Lebanon conflict in which the people were evaced free of charge, whether or not they had actually lived in Canada and paid taxes for years, which many of them hadn't, having lived in Lebanon as soon as things had settled down there and even went right back as soon as that Israel/Lebanon conflict was over. I'm only brining this up now because I've been looking into a pol-sci minor and had a conversation about democracy and voters not always being knowledgable.

So, this is what I feel the rights and responsibilities of a citizen should be: First off, I think their should be two types of citizens, voting, and non-voting. Just because you were born here and even raised here doesn't mean you're eligible to vote, because quite frankly, many of the people I know shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a voting station (including individuals who happen to be voting for the same person I'd vote for) because they don't know nearly enough about any of the issues, or even have a basic understanding of our political system or the parties in question. Also, this people will often vote based simply on whether the candidate will do something that directly benefits them, regardless of what their other policies might be or what effect that candidate might have on the country if put in charge. I believe that voting should only be allowed if a person has:

A. contributed to the country or local community through national or community service (not necessarily military, though that's one option) but also by volunteering for say town events, such as Canada day, or rememberance day, or local fairs, etc. Other options would be volunteering for organizations such as the salvation army, homeless shelters, retirement homes, etc. Simply making some contribution to the country and community to show that you care, and are indeed a part of it.
B. Demonstrate a basic knowledge of politics, economics, etc. If you don't understand certain fundamental concepts, like Europe is a continent and Denmark is in that continent, and neither Denmark nor Europe are part of the United States (no joke, I actually had to educate someone as to what Europe is, and explain the concept that it's across the big body of water known as the Atlantic ocean. Oddly enough, she goes to the same university I do). This can be easily done as mandatory high school courses, with a higher passing grade needed, like say 60 or 70 as opposed to 50. We have in my province a mandatory civics class for half a semester, and while it helps, many people simply breeze through it without learning a thing.
C. Demonstrate a basic knowledge of foreign affairs, and the country's role in those affairs. This is hard to do, and probably shouldn't actually be a requirement, but I feel I should put it here simply due to the fact that I'm sick of people telling me (army reservist) that what we're doing in Iraq is horrible and that we're baby killers. We aren't in Iraq, we opposed the invasion of Iraq, and my personal feelings as to that matter are irrelevant to that facts that we have yet to deploy troops to Iraq, much less murder babies there. Again, this is difficult to do, probably impractical, and likely shouldn't actually be a requirement.

Resonsibilities: If you're a citizen of this country, you abide by the basic fundamental freedoms and rights that are a basic aspect of our civilization and way of life. Everyone has their own culture, religion, etc, you respect that, feel free to not care about it if you want, or feel free to learn and partake in it if you want. Both these options should be freely available and no one should feel pressured either way. And as for religion, we're a secular nation, yes, christian holidays are often national holidays (christmas for example), that's because the majority of us are christians, and we were originally predominately christian, so accept the fact that you get a holiday, say happy holidays if you don't want to say merry christmas, and also enjoy the fact that you get your own religious holidays off as well. Also, in regards to security issues with regards to burqas and the such (or any face covering headress) if a cop, security guard, etc asks you to remove for identification, guess what, we believe in equality, deal with it. I know these situations are for Canada, but I feel they can be applied to most countries though the dominant religion and holidays could be changed, or rendered N/A for other countries, but I figure most western nations experience similar issues.

If you come here, get your citizenship, and leave, then ten years later the country you're living turns to hell, then it's your own fault, we shouldn't have to pay to get you out only so you can head right back in a month later. We'll evac you, but you're paying for it. You say you paid taxes when you lived in Canada? Well that paid for the servics you got, such as infrastructure, education, defence, police, health-care, etc. You haven't lived in Canada, you no longer pay taxes, I shouldn't have to pay for your decision to live in a powder keg. Again, I feel that this, while mainly pertaining to Canada, could be generally applied to other western nations.

I know this isn't exactly the best written piece, and I may have gone off on a tangent here or there, but what's your opinion. What do you think the rights and responsibilities of a citizen should be?

Nice manifesto. You lost me at non-voting citizen.

Non-voting citizen, pays taxes, gets the same services etc, but isn't allowed to vote. Based solely on my experience with people who's ability to breathe amazes me, and that I seriously feel should not be allowed to partake in choosing a national government.

I agree that some people are stupid (Mickey Mouse get a couple hundred votes every year), but the alternative is worse.

After all, democracy is the worst form of government, except all others.

A. contributed to the country or local community through national or community service (not necessarily military, though that's one option) but also by volunteering for say town events, such as Canada day, or rememberance day, or local fairs, etc. Other options would be volunteering for organizations such as the salvation army, homeless shelters, retirement homes, etc. Simply making some contribution to the country and community to show that you care, and are indeed a part of it.
Why is community service a requirement for voting? You don't really need to show that you care to vote, since if you have non-compulsory voting presumably those who don't care won't bother to vote in the first place.

True, though if we ensured that everyone voting had some basic understanding of how the country works, etc, then it might improve, if only by a little. It'd still be democracy, but simply democracy by those who are qualified/have shown some interest in their country to earn it.

So basically its love your country or don't vote? Yeah...no. Its almost a paradox. A democracy where only certain people are allowed to vote. Too much room for corruption. And who would choose who got to vote?

In response to Hamilay, we all see people all the time who don't give half a damn about the country, community, or anything along those lines. They still vote sometimes, simply because there's a promise for a tax cut or something along those lines. My thinking is that if you don't care or contribute to the country, why should you be allowed to decide who runs it?

I didn't know the US ever had a qualified voting system, would you mind explaining what it was?

True, though if we ensured that everyone voting had some basic understanding of how the country works, etc, then it might improve, if only by a little. It'd still be democracy, but simply democracy by those who are qualified/have shown some interest in their country to earn it.

The last time we (US) had qualified voting, it was a rehashing of poll taxes.

Londim, you have a good point as to who would to get to choose to vote. I just figured that after providing say, a set duration of service, you'd get registered to vote. I can see how that would be easy to open up for corruption though.

Either way, I think that better education is needed so people actually understand how everything works.

In response to Hamilay, we all see people all the time who don't give half a damn about the country, community, or anything along those lines. They still vote sometimes, simply because there's a promise for a tax cut or something along those lines.

This is called "voting your interest" and is the fundamental tenant of democracy. I vote for the person who I think best serves me, and would create the nation I most want to live in.

My thinking is that if you don't care or contribute to the country, why should you be allowed to decide who runs it?

De....mo...cra...cy.

I didn't know the US ever had a qualified voting system, would you mind explaining what it was?

Poll taxes, literacy tests, things like that. Did a quite good job at assuring recently freed former slaves couldn't vote.

Voting restrictions such as these are idiotic, and fundamentally contrary to democracy.

I think that better education is needed so people actually understand how everything works.

good idea.

I just figured that after providing say, a set duration of service, you'd get registered to vote. I can see how that would be easy to open up for corruption though.

bad idea.

I have actually been thinking for about two years of the idea you mentioned of requiring people to have a base level of political knowledge before being allowed to vote, but I just can't see it ever happening. This may be a good thing but, as it would make it a hundred times easier for the government in power to regulate it in such a way that only their main demo will be the ones getting to vote, in a similar way to how electorate redistribution is sometimes done.

I want to make something clear here, I'm not saying we should all of a sudden make it so no one is allowed to vote unless they've done certain things, such as national service, it's just an idea I've been thinking of and any actual decisions regarding it should be done by people with far greater knowledge of the subject than myself and my own speculation.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the arguments you've presented against it are pretty solid. I'm still going to try to defend however, if only for the sake of argument and playing devil's advocate.

I'll throw out an example, a person has contributed nothing to their country, has not bothered to educated themselves as to any issues, etc. A party promises a tax cut, that individual votes for them and that party is elected, that individual now has some extra money because of said tax cut. Simultaneously, the education and health care systems are degrading, and environmental degradation and pollution are directly causing the suffering and deaths of thousands of individuals. The government promises a long term solution, as they don't have the money to provide for a shorter term solution. Now obviously education would be the best solution to this problem, but national service would demonstrate an individual's willingness to contribute and work towards improving their country.

I firmly believe in improved education however.

Progressica, you have a point. I didn't think about how a government would change things to boost up their demo. One possible solution would be to try to get an independent, non-partisan council handle that part, kind of like the judiciary, but I doubt that would work at all.

I've wondered about this for a while now, and feel like having a discussion on it. I never really gave much tought to it until a discussion we had about conscription at basic and in regards to Canada evacuating our citizens from Lebanon during the recent Israel/Lebanon conflict in which the people were evaced free of charge, whether or not they had actually lived in Canada and paid taxes for years, which many of them hadn't, having lived in Lebanon as soon as things had settled down there and even went right back as soon as that Israel/Lebanon conflict was over. I'm only brining this up now because I've been looking into a pol-sci minor and had a conversation about democracy and voters not always being knowledgable.

So, this is what I feel the rights and responsibilities of a citizen should be: First off, I think their should be two types of citizens, voting, and non-voting. Just because you were born here and even raised here doesn't mean you're eligible to vote, because quite frankly, many of the people I know shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a voting station (including individuals who happen to be voting for the same person I'd vote for) because they don't know nearly enough about any of the issues, or even have a basic understanding of our political system or the parties in question. Also, this people will often vote based simply on whether the candidate will do something that directly benefits them, regardless of what their other policies might be or what effect that candidate might have on the country if put in charge. I believe that voting should only be allowed if a person has:

A. contributed to the country or local community through national or community service (not necessarily military, though that's one option) but also by volunteering for say town events, such as Canada day, or rememberance day, or local fairs, etc. Other options would be volunteering for organizations such as the salvation army, homeless shelters, retirement homes, etc. Simply making some contribution to the country and community to show that you care, and are indeed a part of it.
B. Demonstrate a basic knowledge of politics, economics, etc. If you don't understand certain fundamental concepts, like Europe is a continent and Denmark is in that continent, and neither Denmark nor Europe are part of the United States (no joke, I actually had to educate someone as to what Europe is, and explain the concept that it's across the big body of water known as the Atlantic ocean. Oddly enough, she goes to the same university I do). This can be easily done as mandatory high school courses, with a higher passing grade needed, like say 60 or 70 as opposed to 50. We have in my province a mandatory civics class for half a semester, and while it helps, many people simply breeze through it without learning a thing.
C. Demonstrate a basic knowledge of foreign affairs, and the country's role in those affairs. This is hard to do, and probably shouldn't actually be a requirement, but I feel I should put it here simply due to the fact that I'm sick of people telling me (army reservist) that what we're doing in Iraq is horrible and that we're baby killers. We aren't in Iraq, we opposed the invasion of Iraq, and my personal feelings as to that matter are irrelevant to that facts that we have yet to deploy troops to Iraq, much less murder babies there. Again, this is difficult to do, probably impractical, and likely shouldn't actually be a requirement.

Resonsibilities: If you're a citizen of this country, you abide by the basic fundamental freedoms and rights that are a basic aspect of our civilization and way of life. Everyone has their own culture, religion, etc, you respect that, feel free to not care about it if you want, or feel free to learn and partake in it if you want. Both these options should be freely available and no one should feel pressured either way. And as for religion, we're a secular nation, yes, christian holidays are often national holidays (christmas for example), that's because the majority of us are christians, and we were originally predominately christian, so accept the fact that you get a holiday, say happy holidays if you don't want to say merry christmas, and also enjoy the fact that you get your own religious holidays off as well. Also, in regards to security issues with regards to burqas and the such (or any face covering headress) if a cop, security guard, etc asks you to remove for identification, guess what, we believe in equality, deal with it. I know these situations are for Canada, but I feel they can be applied to most countries though the dominant religion and holidays could be changed, or rendered N/A for other countries, but I figure most western nations experience similar issues.

If you come here, get your citizenship, and leave, then ten years later the country you're living turns to hell, then it's your own fault, we shouldn't have to pay to get you out only so you can head right back in a month later. We'll evac you, but you're paying for it. You say you paid taxes when you lived in Canada? Well that paid for the servics you got, such as infrastructure, education, defence, police, health-care, etc. You haven't lived in Canada, you no longer pay taxes, I shouldn't have to pay for your decision to live in a powder keg. Again, I feel that this, while mainly pertaining to Canada, could be generally applied to other western nations.

I know this isn't exactly the best written piece, and I may have gone off on a tangent here or there, but what's your opinion. What do you think the rights and responsibilities of a citizen should be?

Civil or military service should be a requisite to voting rights.
Citizenship should be contingent on naturalization or birth; voting should not be a right of citizenship.
Like in Starship Troopers.

Albeit, it defeats the purpose of democracy. So I hope that doesn't happen; everyone should vote, regardless. The only requirement should be age.

I'll throw out an example, a person has contributed nothing to their country, has not bothered to educated themselves as to any issues, etc. A party promises a tax cut, that individual votes for them and that party is elected, that individual now has some extra money because of said tax cut. Simultaneously, the education and health care systems are degrading, and environmental degradation and pollution are directly causing the suffering and deaths of thousands of individuals. The government promises a long term solution, as they don't have the money to provide for a shorter term solution. Now obviously education would be the best solution to this problem, but national service would demonstrate an individual's willingness to contribute and work towards improving their country.

This is absolutly nonsensical. The fundamental ideology of democracy is that you vote your interest. If your interest is a tax cut, then you vote your interest.

he voted for what he wanted. That is democracy.

Civil or military service should be a requisite to voting rights.

No it shouldn't.


Citizenship should be contingent on naturalization or birth; voting should not be a right of citizenship.

yes it should.

So a person saving a few bucks is worth the degradation of fundamental infrastructure, leading to negative long term consequences and directly leading to the suffering and possible death of large numbers of individuals because it's that person wants? If that's what democracy is about, I might just have to rethink my dedication to it. Yes, I agree you should vote your interest, at least to an extent, but I think people should consider what is best for the country as a whole, not what's best for themselves.

And why shouldn't civil or military service (mandatory service, but not necessarily in the military) be a part of citizenship? It is in many countries already, for example, one of my friends recently had to give up his korean citizenship because he won't serve in the military there. Granted, it wasn't a matter of he has to give up his citizenship, he could have kept it, but he would have been arrested next time he goes back there. This is leading away from a bit from the discussion and is touching more on conscription in general, but I feel it's related nontheless.

Mandatory service would make people more involved in their country and community, and take a more active role in their society, and would certainly contribute significantly to the country. It's improving the country, and by serving, you've earned a right to take an active role in the decision making progress. If you can't be bothered to do something for your country, why should you have a say in how its run?

So a person saving a few bucks is worth the degradation of fundamental infrastructure, leading to negative long term consequences and directly leading to the suffering and possible death of large numbers of individuals because it's that person wants? If that's what democracy is about, I might just have to rethink my dedication to it. Yes, I agree you should vote your interest, at least to an extent, but I think people should consider what is best for the country as a whole, not what's best for themselves.

And why shouldn't civil or military service (mandatory service, but not necessarily in the military) be a part of citizenship? It is in many countries already, for example, one of my friends recently had to give up his korean citizenship because he won't serve in the military there. Granted, it wasn't a matter of he has to give up his citizenship, he could have kept it, but he would have been arrested next time he goes back there. This is leading away from a bit from the discussion and is touching more on conscription in general, but I feel it's related nontheless.

Mandatory service would make people more involved in their country and community, and take a more active role in their society, and would certainly contribute significantly to the country. It's improving the country, and by serving, you've earned a right to take an active role in the decision making progress. If you can't be bothered to do something for your country, why should you have a say in how its run?

Here's your problem. "earn the right". That phrase is an oxymoron. By definition a right is. You have a right, you do not earn a right. By definition, you gain a right by the simple virtue of being.

A right need never be earned. A right that must be earned is no right at all. A right that comes with conditions, circumstances that must be met before the right is granted is not a right at all. It is a privlidge.

Your situation would not alter the right to vote. It would destroy the right to vote. It would turn voting into a privlidge.

The fundamental underpinnings of our society is the belief that government governs by the will of the people. The basic pillar of that foundation is the conception that each person gets a say in how his or her government will be run. EVERY SINGLE PERSON.

Your idea would gut that. It would destroy the basic ideology of democracy, which is the government be responsive to the will of the people. the PEOPLE. Not the privlidged. To turn voting into something that must be earned, regardless of how easy the earning would be, would destroy the fundamental ideology of democracy.

Any restrction on the right to vote, any, turns the most sacrosanct right in a democracy into a perversion.

Then maybe voting should be a privilege earned by those that demonstrated their willingness to contribute to, and improve their nation. This can be easily done by anyone, from the poorest, most down-trodden individual, to the wealthiest elite. In fact, it would help equalize things, both people would have to conduct some form of service, such as volunteering for say the red cross, or community events, or in the armed forces. Both these individuals would be doing the same thing, to accomplish the same goal, contribute to their country and earn the ability to vote. The two would be put onto a level playing field, and would interact, and both would gain a greater perspective of how the other lives and what issues they face than they otherwise would as they likely would not have met otherwise.

And for the record, rights have always been earned. The basic freedoms of western civilization were earned through centuries of warfare, political maneuverings, movements, etc. The right for black people, women, and other minorities to vote came from protests, rights movements, etc. Don't forget that not to long ago it was a 'right' for a white person to own a black person as a slave. Now that concept, once quite common and acceptable, is an abomination to everything we hold dear.

As for a restriction on voting being against everything democracy stands for, when America was created, it had plenty of restrictions. When Canada became a country, it had plenty of restrictions. And democracy isn't necessarily the great system its made out to be, it has many issues, and this would help to alleviate some. As for the fundamental ideology of democracy - don't forget, Hitler was elected, as was Hamas. I'd hardly call them champions of democracy. Hezbollah also has plenty of elected officials and some power in Lebanon. Democracy is an inherently imperfect system.

Then maybe voting should be a privilege

No it shouldn't.



And for the record, rights have always been earned. The basic freedoms of western civilization were earned through centuries of warfare, political maneuverings, movements, etc. The right for black people, women, and other minorities to vote came from protests, rights movements, etc. Don't forget that not to long ago it was a 'right' for a white person to own a black person as a slave. Now that concept, once quite common and acceptable, is an abomination to everything we hold dear.

No, they fought for the recognition and establishment of those rights. They fought against the ILLEGAL restrictions on rights. They weren't required, and never have been required, to fight to keep those rights in force.

MAJOR difference. I suggest you relearn some civics to understand that.

As for a restriction on voting being against everything democracy stands for, when America was created, it had plenty of restrictions. When Canada became a country, it had plenty of restrictions.

And those were wrong. What's your point?

And democracy isn't necessarily the great system its made out to be, it has many issues, and this would help to alleviate some. As for the fundamental ideology of democracy - don't forget, Hitler was elected, as was Hamas. I'd hardly call them champions of democracy. Hezbollah also has plenty of elected officials and some power in Lebanon. Democracy is an inherently imperfect system.

The amount of evil men put in power by democracy pails in comparison to the amount of evil men who gained power through other means.

If you are in favor of the perversion of democracy that's your right to hold that opinion, but I really feel no reason to continue discussing it with you.

A restriction on democracy isn't necessarily evil, certain individuals using that restriction to evil ends would be, but the restrictions itself are not.

Rather than simply saying I'm wrong, could you explain why the present system is so superior rather simply saying I'm perverting democracy? Saying 'no, it shouldn't' is one thing, but explaining why the present system is superior is another. I know you're capable of it, and I also don't feel that 'its a perversion of democracy' or however you want to phrase it is an acceptable argument. I know its a perversion of democracy, but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing.

A restriction on democracy isn't necessarily evil, certain individuals using that restriction to evil ends would be, but the restrictions itself are not.

Yes it is.

Rather than simply saying I'm wrong, could you explain why the present system is so superior rather simply saying I'm perverting democracy? Saying 'no, it shouldn't' is one thing, but explaining why the present system is superior is another. I know you're capable of it, and I also don't feel that 'its a perversion of democracy' or however you want to phrase it is an acceptable argument. I know its a perversion of democracy, but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing.

yes it does.

And I have no further need to explain why it is any more than you apparently have a need to explain that it isn't. You've simply made blanket statements here, it's rather disengenuous to expect differently from me.

I haven't made blanket statements, I've stated that by requiring national service, it would contribute to the country (improved volunteer service, police, fire department, teachers, military, etc). It would be a greater understanding and appreciation for the country by the individual, and it would allow only individuals who shown their willingness to contribute to vote, which would improve the electoral process as voting would be made by individuals who would more likely be concerned with the greater good of the country and its people than what will benefit them directly. Your arguments have simply been, 'no' or 'yes'.

For example, HOW is a restriction on democracy evil?

I haven't made blanket statements, I've stated that by requiring national service, it would contribute to the country (improved volunteer service, police, fire department, teachers, military, etc). It would be a greater understanding and appreciation for the country by the individual, and it would allow only individuals who shown their willingness to contribute to vote, which would improve the electoral process as voting would be made by individuals who would more likely be concerned with the greater good of the country and its people than what will benefit them directly. Your arguments have simply been, 'no' or 'yes'.

That's all you've done. Making this a requirement will make things better...apparently.

Here's a problem. What if that doesn't happen? What if people, instead, hate it? What if people are so damned against the system that they go through it JUST to make sure they vote the damned thing away in the next election so their kids don't have to deal with it?

You think short sighted voting is a problem? What the fuck do you think will happen when you put in a system that will be so universally hated that political movements will exist for the sole purpose of eliminating it.

Think that won't happen? Remember the draft?

For example, HOW is a restriction on democracy evil?

Because any system that does not allow its population ot have a say in the way government is formed is evil.

Duh.

I haven't made blanket statements, I've stated that by requiring national service, it would contribute to the country (improved volunteer service, police, fire department, teachers, military, etc). It would be a greater understanding and appreciation for the country by the individual, and it would allow only individuals who shown their willingness to contribute to vote, which would improve the electoral process as voting would be made by individuals who would more likely be concerned with the greater good of the country and its people than what will benefit them directly. Your arguments have simply been, 'no' or 'yes'.

For example, HOW is a restriction on democracy evil?

With the restrictions you outline, it would no longer be democracy. In the modern definition, democracy implies that all citizens have equal voting rights. I personally find that abhorrent, as does Arthais, it seems.

Yes, the United States did originally have restrictions on who could vote (men, with a property qualification, if I recall correctly). But we've progressed since then, and now everyone above the age of 18 may vote, barring incarcerated felons and such.

I have no problem with encouraging service to the country, not at all, but making voting a privilege dependent on fulfilling an arbitrary schedule of tasks is not the way to do it. Your chief complaint - unless I'm confusing what you said with what was said in the other, very similar thread - is that a great many people are oblivious to the issues and questions affecting the country, and yet they can march into a voting booth along with the most well-informed, involved person and cast an equal vote. Well, that does seem annoying, I suppose. One would wish one's fellow citizens were more concerned about the issues than about whether Britney Spears wears panties for a night on the town. If this is such a concern to you, then work to involve your friends and neighbors in the causes you believe in. That would be your service to the nation. Remember, as the Poet said, "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometime, you just might find, you get what you need."

The responsibilities of a citizen.

1) Educate yourself so you can vote intelligently

2) Volunteer for military service when there is armed conflict, whether you agree with the "war" or not.

3) Pay your taxes regardless of whether you agree with the way the govt spends the money.

4) Become wealthy because until you are wealthy you cannot make the world a better place because you are just part of the problem.

5) Obey the laws unless you are doing the whole civil disobedience thing

6) Do the civil disobedience thing when you believe it is necessary

7) Keep enough food and water to last you a week in case of an emergency so you dont become part of the problem (for at least the first week) if your region is affected by an emergency

8) If you are religious, say a few prayers from time to time for your country.

Sigh, not this again...

In order for democracy to work, everyone has to be able to have a say. By alienating any group you are just asking for trouble.

To make it simpler:

Make it so only those that graduate high school may vote, up the educational budget, and include more emphasis on government and history in the curriculum.

Limiting voting rights in this way could easily lead to extremists groups gaining power. Any group that has extreme beliefs would organize to gain voting rights for their members. This wouuld be from extremists across the political spectrum. Deep Ecologist and religious fundamentalist wouuld gain power at the expense of the relatively apathetic public.

Sigh, not this again...

In order for democracy to work, everyone has to be able to have a say. By alienating any group you are just asking for trouble.

I believe you mean, Aw jeez ... (http://right-thoughts.us/images/uploads/not_this_shit_again.jpg)

To make it simpler:

Make it so only those that graduate high school may vote, up the educational budget, and include more emphasis on government and history in the curriculum.

and with one fowl swoop.. you would restrict much of the nations impoverished citizens from the right to vote.. make socio economic status a pre req to voting, in turn creating a second class citizen.

However, if voting is not restricted to citizenship.. then praytell what is the benifit of being a citizen ? other then paying taxes for services you can largely collected w/o citizen status... Being a citizen, and looking to attain citizenship shows you have and are willing to make a commitment to the nation, and as such are rewarded the right to partake in the structure of that nation. Why should people unwilling to make this commitment be premited to partake ?

*wipes away a tear* You know, this whole discussion reminds me of MTAE.

*wipes away a tear* You know, this whole discussion reminds me of MTAE.

True that. Just add in eugenics and a bit more neo-con attitude and you hit it on the head.