Would this work?

[deathbydanish]

If you've ever read the novel or watched the movie then you'll know what I'm talking about when I refer to the politics in Starship Troopers.

Should the right to vote and hold public office be reserved only to those who have served in the military?

When I ask that I am talking about taking the concept straight out of the novel/movie's world and applying it to our real world. How much of a shock would it be? How would it affect the way politics as it is now?

Sorry to sound like a textbook assignment, but I just want to be as thorough and clear in my questioning so as to facilitate a more concise discussion.

The approach I am taking to this topic is not a militaristic one, but from one where you have to earn the right to vote and hold office, where it would hold more meaning to do so because you would have to have worked hard and suffered for it, not just be born to American parents and automatically have the right.

[Ares]

before you can change voters, one has to change the government. in that movie the government is predominantly feaderal.

Limiting the specrum of voters will effectively destabilize the democracy. its the debates and parties of modern ploitics that lets this country run as it does. with voting power under those who have served in the military, the opinions and views of the voters will be heavy to one side. this means that there is little chance for change, which in turn poses a threat to democracy itself.

example. Take Nazi Germany. It was completely effective for quite some time. After the fall of the Weimar Republic, the economy grew, and the Germans escaped communism when Hitler won the seat of chancellor after Schleicher was assassinated. (things are goin good for Germany)

Then the enabling act was passed which abolished the German gov't and replaced it with Hitlers Dictatorship (its here on that things go to hell).

But the unity of germans lead to their unstopable nationalism. The mostly one-sided view of the germans did not allow for change, and ultimately the dictatorship fell. BASICALLY, a unity of politics will work for a time, but ultimatey, its the diversity of this nation that keeps it afloat. (on account of the US democracy has survived longer than any established government in history)

so no.. it probably wont work haha

[Morgann0]

I believe it would NOT work.  If military service, and in that statement I am assuming the person in question saw some action during that service, was a requirement for public office, than we might have some unfit candidates.  I mean no offence to those on this board who have served in the armed forces, but alot of people in the military are, well, stupid.  People in high school who's lives are going nowhere look to the military as a way out of their rut.  I am not saying every grunt is like this.  Just some.
Also, I dont really want some gung-ho ten-hut war inclined Vietnam flashback psycho leading my country.  A soldier and a politician are different.  Keep it that way.

I apologize if I have offended anyone in expressing my viewpoints.

Thank you.

[Ares]

i think "military" was just an example. But any means of earning the right to vote seems like a good idea. but i think it limits the diversity of votes, which hinders an accurate portrayal of what the american people want.

[deathbydanish]

i think "military" was just an example. But any means of earning the right to vote seems like a good idea. but i think it limits the diversity of votes, which hinders an accurate portrayal of what the american people want.

That's sort of how I'm feeling now, I think that even though it won't fix everything, making it so that only those who have earned the right to vote/hold office through military service or by undergoing some kind of difficult screening process.

Conversely, those who really want their vote to count would take on military service or pass that difficult screening. You'd have to work to make your vote count and you probably wouldn't be as non-chalant and some people I see today with voting.

[Ares]

thats true. for office, some kind of screening should be in place. as far as voters go.. the people who know nothing and vote based on party alone, really should not be voting.. alot of people vote to say they did. if yopu really dont care.. dont vote. if you have political knowledge and a stance and you want to back that up, then go vote plain and simple... i just think that a test or process to gain the ability to vote would discourage voting overall. there was such a thing back in the day.. it was a literacy test used to filter our blacks from voting beacuse they were all slaves back then, and most didnt know how to read or write.

[dxh]

That's sort of how I'm feeling now, I think that even though it won't fix everything, making it so that only those who have earned the right to vote/hold office through military service or by undergoing some kind of difficult screening process.

That metric would be abused in every way imaginable.  What would end up being screened for?  If its like the application for citizenship given to immigrants, I can easily say that most Americans will not pass.

I would be incredibly cautious of the creating a precedent case for something that may eventually become a litmus test for religion and political affiliation.  That, and as bassick1 mentioned, it has historically been abused to filter out the demographics that politicians creating this qualification exam don't want voting.

[deathbydanish]

That's sort of how I'm feeling now, I think that even though it won't fix everything, making it so that only those who have earned the right to vote/hold office through military service or by undergoing some kind of difficult screening process.

That metric would be abused in every way imaginable.  What would end up being screened for?  If its like the application for citizenship given to immigrants, I can easily say that most Americans will not pass.

I would be incredibly cautious of the creating a precedent case for something that may eventually become a litmus test for religion and political affiliation.  That, and as bassick1 mentioned, it has historically been abused to filter out the demographics that politicians creating this qualification exam don't want voting.

The screening process would screen out those who are not taking the electoral process seriously. How it'll do that is beyond any of us, all I know is that it should help stop the BS we see in politics right now.

[dxh]

dBd: Who's going to be the one making the decision on whether you are taking the electoral process seriously?  If you write someone in or vote for an independent or third party, does that mean that your not taking your vote seriously, because you're not voting for a candidate that has a strong chance of winning?   The politicians writing this filter out are going to use it to their advantage.  A better solution would be to pose as an exit poller and just bitch-slap anyone that says they voted by letter (R | D).

[deathbydanish]

dBd: Who's going to be the one making the decision on whether you are taking the electoral process seriously?  If you write someone in or vote for an independent or third party, does that mean that your not taking your vote seriously, because you're not voting for a candidate that has a strong chance of winning?   The politicians writing this filter out are going to use it to their advantage.  A better solution would be to pose as an exit poller and just bitch-slap anyone that says they voted by letter (R | D).

I don't think anyone today is qualified to write the qualifications, hence why I said it is beyond any of us.

[gearbox]

Meh...as it is now, you don't even have to be an American citizen to vote (Prop 200, anyone?)... :roll:

[deathbydanish]

Meh...as it is now, you don't even have to be an American citizen to vote (Prop 200, anyone?)... :roll:

You're kidding me right? If it literally means non-Americans can vote, then the potential for abuse is very high.

I think the point of a system of government like that is to prevent abuse, to prevent people from exploiting the right to vote or hold office.

[gearbox]

Meh...as it is now, you don't even have to be an American citizen to vote (Prop 200, anyone?)... :roll:

You're kidding me right? If it literally means non-Americans can vote, then the potential for abuse is very high.

I think the point of a system of government like that is to prevent abuse, to prevent people from exploiting the right to vote or hold office.

Proposition 200 was passed by Arizona voters a couple years ago, and it basically requires AZ citizens to show proof of citizenship in order to register to vote or to collect public welfare benefits (like food stamps). It also requires people to show ID at the polls when they vote.  It took forever to actually to be implemented, and was recently suspended by the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco (so much for the voice of the people :roll: ).   :cry:

[PolandsLeftTesticle]

- If military service was required to either hold office or to vote, we'd get mainly two things; people who join for such benefits, and people who join when they can't do anything else with their lives. These two groups of people will most likely be radical--the first group had enough conviction to risk service for office, and since the second group might be easily-swayed.
- Having some sort of "qualification" exam isn't a good idea, either. It'll definately be abused.

\PLT

[Ivan]

This concept has in essence already happened.  Emigrants would come right off the boat from Ireland, England, and other parts of Europe to America and be told that if they want to be a citizen that they need to fight in WW1. actually this has been in effect since the mid 1860's (civil war) . So this concept is not entirely a new one.