Voting should be restricted to only people within that group?
Another issue, war, why would anyone who has never been in war vote on the issue? "Should we go to war", we should make a vote and only people who are able to / would be invited should be able to vote, not the women, politicians, old people, religious ministers ESO.
The idea of voting on issues within a society stems from the realization that public policy concerning a specific “group” almost always impacts another “group” even if that impact is implicit.
I’d like to start my portion of the debate by defining for you what the purpose of the government is, what the purpose of voting is, and why open societal involvement is necessary and pragmatically efficient. But before I do that, I will provide some refutation from my opponents material.
First of all, we get no real explanation of my opponents model. What I mean by that is that we get no real solid definition of what “group” ought to mean, or what “within” that group means either. Both of these are very important to understand what my opponent is even talking about. My opponent gives the example of abortion and claims that men who are not actively a parent of a specific child should not have determination over the status of the legality of abortion. But we get no criteria as to why abortion is necessarily a “women’s” issue. Why isn’t it an independent issue? And therefore by your own argument the only people who should vote are those who are actively pregnant and therefore want an abortion. This is true for all of my opponents examples because there is a complete lack of clarification for what “within” should mean, so my opponent needs to do a lot more work before it becomes more than simply bare assertions.
We also get this strange argument about war, in that only those who could potentially be conscripted should vote on wars. This is a horrible idea for three reasons: First, there is no reason why we should accept those who could “potentially” be recruited as “within” and not just those who are already actively recruited. Second it is impossible to determine “potential” conscription because if we enter a war in which we don’t have to enlist everyone who we potentially could, then we are allowing those “outside” of the group going to war to vote on an issue which would contradict the restriction. Thirdly, your understanding of impact is completely unfounded. On an issue as large scale as war every single citizen could be impacted because it could lead to retaliation in which everyone could be harmed. When countries go to war, they don’t just bomb the people that voted for the war or the people that could “potentially” be conscripted, everyone is affected by war.
Now I will get into some constructive material of my own about why restriction on voting to specific groups is harmful.
1.Undermines democracy: As seen by my opponents arguments, there is no clear definition of what “within” and “groups” is, and this is because every policy has a ripple affect on almost all of society, so direct impact and degrees of impact are almost impossible to determine. Policy decisions don’t exist within a vacuum. What this means is that as soon as we politicize “within” we essentially create a political struggle which seeks to cut out specific groups of people that we know won’t agree with a specific issue by arguing that they aren’t “within” the group because they aren’t directly affected by the policy, they just are secondarily. This means that voting now becomes a political tool to exclude democratic power and skew policy.
2. Allows the rich to dominate economics and oppress the poor: Let’s say that we go for the “direct impact” criteria of “within”. Assuming that this is the case, those who are “directly” impacted by things like financial regulation are banks. Therefore, the only people who would debating taxes for corporations and corporate regulations are those who would be regulated. This means that we would allow corporations and banks to regulate their own practices which is harmful because they have a financial incentive to deregulate themselves and ensure that they can continue exploiting the poor and leading to more recessions.
3. Restricts Social Progress and Change: A policy like the one that Pro is proposing allows majority groups to exclude other groups from voting against their own oppression. Say, for example, that we are voting on school in a country of segregation. Because in this time schools are only accessible to white students, the only people that can make any decisions concerning reform are white students. This remains the same for any minority group that is excluded form a social institution. Because the only people that can vote on policies are people who are “within” the group that the policy concerns, there is no hope for social progress.
Society does not exist in a vacuum. Every policy has a rippling effect that concerns all citizens, especially questions of morality or ethics.
By what I'm proposing, it doesn't undermine the democracy, it increases it. politicians are placed there to represent us, and they are doing a terrible job at that, they serve the corporations and they make decisions against the people who they are trying to represent, in many situations that is true, and if they want to make a very controversial law and referendum is out in place, they make sure they bomb people with many propaganda and messages that serve their cause only, this behavior is recorded in my situations, not only in America, but the entire world.
If you want a definition on who qualifies to vote, here it is, just 2 examples :
- Abortion, only females should be able to vote on the subject, nobody else, also females that vote should provide some knowledge what abolition is, why is it done, answer some biological knowledge about fetus, also a personal non religious reason why abortion is x, x being the side they are voting for. Females that do not quality lose the right to vote, simple.
- War, a ballad for voting would be given to those people who were preselected to be called in case of war, people currently in war and people who have war experience longer then 1 year. Only people who are effected should be able to vote, family wise, it is within a family to have an agreement what their vote would be for the effected person.
I think i was clear enough, now to answer your reason back.
1.Undermines Democracy :It wouldn't give politicians more power when they wouldn't have anything to say about that, they are not within a group, there fore they have no right to say anything about that,they wouldn't be able to change anything because they are not in that group, so it would be useless as a tool in political game. Democracy wouldn't be undermined, it would be strengthen , it would be pure democracy before the corruption from the politicians, which couldn't influence it.
2.Allows the rich to dominate economics and oppress the poor : HAHA, and hat, corporations aren't running anything now? Wake up sir. Also everyone pays taxes, why would anyone be excluded from that voting , well, only non-tax paying
organizations, like "General electrics company" main employees like lawyers, CEO.s and those heads who run the company since GE didn't pay any taxes that one year and religious organizations and their ministers.
3.Restricts Social Progress and Change . about your example about segregation, i'm not very good with history, are you saying that black people eventually got the right to vote on that issue, or was that decision made by a bunch of white people? Also think about the scientific progress, only people who would have the right to vote on climate change, global warming, evolution, vaccines would be scientists, and then ONLY EDUCATED PEOPLE (those who prove they have the knowledge))) would be able to vote should something be done about that subject, almost a flawless system
I know everything creates a ripple effect, we can't help that, but something has to be done about this injustice, AND ALSO, if anything creates a ripple effect, why don't politicians bother them self about that, they just vote on the laws and they don't care, really look at that a bit, is it fair, OR PERHAPS there isn't as much ripple effect as you say there is
I thank my opponent for their compliments and extend my own, thank you.
As Con, I fully recognize the limits and problems that are created within the status quo. I do not have to defend those limitations; rather I find that Pro’s policy will uniquely make these problems worse and even present new problems into our current political system.
I will do some rebuilding of my case and offer some additional constructive material, but first some refutation.
“only females should be able to vote on the subject, nobody else, also females that vote should provide some knowledge what abolition is, why is it done, answer some biological knowledge about fetus, also a personal non religious reason why abortion is x, x being the side they are voting for.”
Furthermore, we get no consideration as to who will be deciding these definitions. If it is the entire population then this undermines your whole case because the entire population will just grant themselves the right to vote anyway. If it is only the same “groups” that you have already defined than this is circular and impossible because in order for this group to vote on what counts as a group they must already be defined as a group. If it is simply the current system then we run into all of the problems with current politicians that you cited in your last post. This is a second quagmire that you must address or your case fails to hold.
Voting Restrictions: The specific knowledge tests and other criteria that you offer are extremely harmful. First of all, they lie on the assumption that moral and ethical decisions must be made on a purely secular basis. This is harmful because it is 1: an unfounded presupposition. And 2. Most individuals who are religious make their ethical and moral decisions based on those principles and 3. It assumes that secular is not a specific worldview which is also unfounded. In fact, in countries like the Netherlands secularism is considered it’s own worldview and is not given preferential treatment because regardless of where an individual derives their principles, they are ultimately founded in a personal belief. This is why we have a democracy in the first place.
Even more harmful is the fact that these tests are based on predetermined “knowledge” of a specific topic. This is problematic because similar to your definitional analysis, who is going to decide what is “true” knowledge? Especially concerning extremely contentious issues like abortion when the entire issue about the question of what is “true”. Furthermore, it re-entrenches institutional disadvantages created by racism and classism which leads me into my new point of constructive material.
This Policy reinforces systemic racism and classism: We’ve have policies like this before under Jim Crow, when blacks were forced to either take an educational test or even pay a poll tax. The Supreme Court found these tests to be unconstitutional because they exclude entire groups of people that have been socioeconomically disenfranchised from systemic oppression. The average years of schooling and test scores show a dramatic disparity between whites and blacks. By creating a poll test, we allow the majority to legitimately exclude black and other minority communities because systemic oppression has limited educational and political opportunities for these minorities. In the end, minorities are unable to vote for policies that could make them better off or even free them from some of the system oppressions because they will undoubtedly be more likely to be found “too dumb” to vote on these issues.
This Policy Undermines Women’s movements: This concerns the topic of cross-sectionity which basically deals with the idea of different concepts of women’s rights that vary from one racial group to another. A black woman’s idea and concepts of what it means to be a woman are often different from that of an affluent white woman. By excluding minorities from voting (see my first argument) you effectively undermine cross sectionality in women’s movements because now there is only a single monolithic understanding of what it is to be a woman and have a woman’s rights: that of the educated and affluent whites. This undermines feminism because it doesn’t allow for a fuller understanding of what it is to be a woman. Furthermore, it allows feminism to become another tool of racial oppression because affluent white women are using their privileged positions to vote into policy their own conceptions of womanhood which excludes minority conceptions.
1: Undermines Democracy: I never said that I gives politicians more power. I said that now voting becomes a political football which is used to silence minority voices by trying to define them away by saying they aren’t “within” a specific “group”. These definitions will inevitably come down to political and rhetorical whims. Because you fail to address this point, my argument still stands.
2. Allows the rich to dominate economics and oppress the poor: I’m well aware this happens in the status quo. However, at least in the status quo there is some way for voters to create regulations and restrictions on financial institutions (see Dodd-Frank Act and Glass-Steagall Act). My argument is that your model uniquely allows companies to regulate themselves by defining themselves as the only ones “within” the “group” be affected by the legislation. My uniqueness still stands, therefore my argument still stands.
3. Restricts Social Progress and Change: The idea is that blacks and other minorities are unable to vote for reform because if they are excluded from a certain institution, they cannot vote themselves access to that institution because under your definition they are not “within” that “group”. Take the example of gay marriage. Under your policy, there would be rights mobility for gays to get access to marriage because current definitions exclude gays from the institution of marriage. Therefore reforms on marriage laws can only be voted by those who are “within” the “group” which can get married i.e. straight people. Gays would be excluded from voting themselves the right to be within the group of people who can get married. Your point about scientific progress also gets turned because if only scientists can vote on climate change then we will see a massive increase in the employment of “scientists” by political parties in order to push their political agendas through. This actually corrupts scientific investigation because now corrupt political interests will be seeking to pay off scientists to conduct phony research and skew their results in favor for a specific political position.
Democracy and voting should be available for all citizens within a society. The ripple affect is indeed true and I don’t have to defend the fact that current politicians are corrupt. We can fix the system without having to exclude the portion of society that is most disenfranchised.
Because all of my arguments still stand, and because we ought to stand against elitist exclusion, I demand that you vote Con.
Lifemetall forfeited this round.
This is indeed unfortunate. My opponent has neglected to post an argument for this round. Extend all of my arguments. Vote Con.
Lifemetall forfeited this round.
campbellp10 forfeited this round.