Print This Post Print This Post

Dec

9

Solutions wanted: how to include children, felons, illegal, green card & visa holders in election process


I sent several thoughts to WNYC in preparation for their series on Your Billion Dollar President and how to re-design the election process from scratch. They’re most interested in how the system might be designed to take into account the interests, needs and desires of those who can’t vote: children, felons, illegal immigrants, green card & visa holders.

Any other groups you can think of?

How do you think the election system should account for them?

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:11 pm December 9th, 2007 in Elections, Government 

Comments

18 Responses to “Solutions wanted: how to include children, felons, illegal, green card & visa holders in election process”

  1. 1 Carole Cohen on December 9th, 2007 9:40 pm

    whether a candidate is well funded or rich or a fly by the seat of her/his pants newbie trying to spark interest, it’s the same issue. How do we do what’s best for all of us by doing what we need to have fewer people going to prison, providing jobs for everyone including those who have served their commitment to society and are re-entering, by educating our children well instead of writing off those in our cities…all pointing to an issues based election rather than sound byte election process, from local on up to presidential?
    Am I on the right track?

  2. 2 Jill Miller Zimon on December 9th, 2007 11:58 pm

    Thanks, Carole. Right track? What is it with people thinking that I would know? ;)

  3. 3 Jeff Hess on December 10th, 2007 10:46 am

    Shalom Jill,

    There is no need to expand the franchise until we consistently get 95-percent-plus voter turn out. And not just 95 percent of registered voters which is a bogus number used to imply mandates; I want to see 95 percent of all American citizens over the age of 18 casting a vote.

    When we get that, then I’ll be willing to talk about expanding the franchise.

    I’m all for the Australian model — voting is a requirement, not a privilege.

    I think that people who don’t vote ought to be cut out of the loop for all government services. If you don’t participate, you don’t get to benefit.

    B’shalom,

    Jeff

  4. 4 MY COMMENTS… on December 10th, 2007 10:49 am

    [...] Solutions wanted: how to include… in election process 0928 risk taking digg_url=”http://havecoffeewillwrite.com/?p=5853″; digg_skin = [...]

  5. 5 Jill Miller Zimon on December 10th, 2007 10:52 am

    I understand what you’re saying and I agree with the Australian model of mandatory participation.

    But what I want to consider is: how do we make sure that people who will never be eligible to vote – those under 18, who make up around 25% of the American population as one example – have their needs figured into the process?

  6. 6 Anon on December 10th, 2007 11:07 am

    I agree with the Australian model of mandatory participation.

    Hmmm … Why would one want to encourage the participation of unmotivated–and presumably uninformed–voters who would require the force of law to get them to the polls? Wouldn’t these be the voters to whom demagogic candidates would be most likely to appeal? What effect would mandatory participation have on the level of discourse, which isn’t all that high now?

  7. 7 Jill Miller Zimon on December 10th, 2007 11:12 am

    Anon – what makes you believe this is the case:

    “voters who would require the force of law to get them to the polls?”

    Seatbelt laws work. I’m okay with the force of law making that so.

    “Wouldn’t these be the voters to whom demagogic candidates would be most likely to appeal?”

    Please explain why you think that would be the case.

    “What effect would mandatory participation have on the level of discourse, which isn’t all that high now?”

    Well – we don’t know really, do we? Let’s look at what it does to the level of discourse in Australia, which, admittedly, I haven’t done.

  8. 8 Anon on December 10th, 2007 12:01 pm

    Anon – what makes you believe this is the case:

    “voters who would require the force of law to get them to the polls?”

    Australia imposes a sanction under law–a fine–for those who do not appear at polling places without a valid excuse. It seems apparent to me that citizens who would not voluntarily go to polling places, but do so under the threat of a fine are “voters who would require the force of law to get them to the polls.”

    “Wouldn’t these be the voters to whom demagogic candidates would be most likely to appeal?”

    Please explain why you think that would be the case.

    The sentence that preceded the above sentence in my original posting read: “Why would one want to encourage the participation of unmotivated–and presumably uninformed–voters who would require the force of law to get them to the polls?”

    I think that question makes my premises clear: many people who do not currently vote are unmotivated and presumably uninformed. If one accepts that premise, I think it’s reasonable to assume the uninformed are more susceptible to persuasion by demagogues than the better informed.

    “What effect would mandatory participation have on the level of discourse, which isn’t all that high now?”

    Well – we don’t know really, do we? Let’s look at what it does to the level of discourse in Australia, which, admittedly, I haven’t done.

    Good point. I’ll also confess that I’m ignorant of the level of discourse in Australia. I do wonder how one could run a controlled experiment to determine the effect of mandatory voting on discourse.

  9. 9 Jeff Hess on December 10th, 2007 12:15 pm

    Shalom Anon,

    I have powerful rebuttals to all of your points, but since I’ve adopted the policy of not discussing politics with people afraid to stand behind what they say by allowing others to know who they are, I’ll just have to pass.

    B’shalom,

    Jeff

  10. 10 Terry on December 10th, 2007 12:44 pm

    Don’t forget the mentally ill and formerly mentally ill, who have had their right to vote stripped by states with complicated competency standards. In 30 states having a court issue a power of attorney to remove one’s right to manage ones own financial affairs is enough to lose suffrage. Who watches out for them?

  11. 11 molly on December 10th, 2007 1:06 pm

    i like the idea of voting be a requirement for sure…and yet, we cant even get our citizens to attend jury duty, and that is against the law to skip out on (and let it be known, i always go to jury duty, but for some reason, they never want to choose the hippie social worker for the jury)

    as for children, isnt it the parents who need to be voting based on what is really good for their children (and not on the illusion of what would be good)? i think to say that children should have a say in how this country is run before they even understand the government is not an appropriate idea (and keep in mind, i never had a civics course at all, nor a good government course until college), id have to agree with carole that better education for all children will lead to not only higher voting rates, but also to more thought out parenting which will lead to voting that will positively affect children and family rights

    and isnt it interesting that they will now take people with criminal records in the military (but they still cant vote?)

    and anon, unlike hess, i will bite on some of your comments and say that a lack of motivation is not the main reaosn people dont vote- disenfranchisement and marginalization, having to work long hours then standing in long lines for voting booths, election after election of hoping for change and seeing none, maybe….but that is not a lack of motivation, its cynicism and distrust, its not uninformed, i think its being overwhelmed by false information
    (and just so you know, i vote)

  12. 12 Anon on December 10th, 2007 2:09 pm

    Molly, for the sake of discussion, let’s suppose your reasons for citizen non-participation in elections–disenfranchisement, marginalization, long waits, not getting the desired changes, cynicism and distrust, being overwhelmed by false information–are correct. Why is compulsory voting the best solution? Wouldn’t it make more sense to address some of those problems with specific solutions?

    (And just so you know, I vote and show up for jury duty, too :) .)

  13. 13 Anon on December 10th, 2007 3:43 pm

    Molly, I don’t know if this is worth saying, but I’ll say it anyway. Your and my explanations of non-participation in elections are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

    For example, you might say someone does not vote because she is cynical and distrustful. I might say that person is unmotivated. But what if the person is unmotivated to vote because she is cynical and distrustful? We’d then both be correct. Unfortunately, I’m not sure where that would lead us.

  14. 14 Anon on December 10th, 2007 3:47 pm

    Jeff wrote:

    I have powerful rebuttals to all of your points, but since I’ve adopted the policy of not discussing politics with people afraid to stand behind what they say by allowing others to know who they are, I’ll just have to pass.

    No problem. We all have our policies–one of mine being posting as “Anon.”

  15. 15 Jill Miller Zimon on December 11th, 2007 11:18 pm

    You’ll be able to hear what I said next week, 12/18. When I get more info, I’ll post it.

  16. 16 Chuck Butcher on December 11th, 2007 11:29 pm

    Jill, with no desire to be hearless or otherwise cruel, the population of illegal immigrants is so called because they have no business being here. Anything that facilitates the continuation of an underground, disenfranchised, illegal serf society is counter to the good of the nation. Pandering to or otherwise pretending to represent such a group perpetuates it and simply encourages their exploitation by the plutocracy. If you’d like, France is a fine model of such in action.

  17. 17 Jill Miller Zimon on December 11th, 2007 11:36 pm

    Hi Chuck – thanks for reading and commenting.

    My real concern in considering those who are ineligible to vote is not, how do we get their vote or choice to count. I’m thinking about it more like this:

    Those of us who can vote and do pay taxes shoulder the burden. We get to decide how those folks are dealt with – through our choices. But there’s something about how we sit here (or stand or whatever) and postulate about how to deal with these folks – I’d like to know what they’re willing to do. I’d like to think about their needs.

    Now – I agree – this includes figuring out how we separate the wheat from the chaff – which illegals if any should stay and which ones we must process out somehow.

    But also – the employers – ourselves – we participate in an economy that still relies on the use of illegal immigrants for labor.

    So – when I think about that, again, I see this inconsistency: we say that we have the say over what happens to them (heartless or not – I won’t judge – I know this issue evokes a lot of emotions, for me too) and we get all indignant about the alleged drain on society and our budget etc.

    BUT…what do we do to the corporations that employ them? Or the farms? Or the domestics? And so on?

    Do you see hypocrisy in that at all?

    So – I guess what I’m debating about is making our election system more maleable, responsive enough to take into consideration all these factors and, if necessary, force us to see our own hypocrisy so we can straighten it out.

  18. 18 Jill Miller Zimon on December 12th, 2007 2:52 pm

    Why Chuck – was that you on the radio this morning!?

  • Writes Like She Tumbls

  • Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs

  • Now on sale-WLST essay included!

  • Find Me On

  • RSS Posts About Pepper Pike City Council

  • 2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch

    Jill Miller Zimon,Blogging,WE Magazine

  • Category Specific RSS

    Pepper Pike
    Cleveland+
    Politics
    Women
    Ohio
    Elections
    Law
    Jewish
    by Tips and Tricks

  • BlogHer Guide to Political Blogging

  • Calendar

    December 2007
    S M T W T F S
    « Nov   Jan »
     1
    2345678
    9101112131415
    16171819202122
    23242526272829
    3031  

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Meta

  • Search Ohio Blogs

    BlogNetNews.com

    media_bloggers.bmp

    BlogBurst.com


    Visit The White House Project

  • Notorious Women through History


  • Our Bodies, Our Blog


  • Spam Blocked

"));