The US system was never designed to be fair to individuals in the first place, pointing at it as a failure of democracy is IMHO pulling the actual issues under the rug.
“Gerrymandering” also has no effect on Presidential elections. And in 2024, Republicans won a larger share of the House popular vote than their share of House seats.
It can never be 0 and every country will have a minimum requirement, but the degree to which it is done in the US is far ahead of most western country.
Gerrymandering has an effect on the criteria for voter eligibility, the voting rules in the state etc. It's not direct but who's in power has a sizeable effect on who will have an easier time voting.
In the modern era, we should probably narrow the franchise, instituting civics tests and restricting voting to natural born citizens. Statistically, both of these would have hurt my party in 2024, so this isn’t self-interest speaking.
It's fascinating to look at that proposition for a country that mostly got rid of its indigenous population.
Restricting by birth right is simply an extension of the universal practice of restricting voting by citizenship. Every democracy decides who has sufficient stake in and familiarity with the society to be able to vote.
Well, yes. At this point we could as well get back to Wikipedia for at least a common interpretation of the concept:
> The disenfranchisement of voters due to age, residence, citizenship, or criminal record are among the more recent examples of ways that elections can be subverted by changing who is allowed to vote.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression
> universal practice of restricting voting by citizenship
Citizenship restriction is not universal BTW, and going from a civil status (can be acquired) to a physical one is an incredibly huge leap that is nothing simple.
The result is that "voter suppression" is no longer understood to be a bad thing. You lose the ability to drop this phrase and expect people to pick up that the implication is negative. For example, you said above:
> Democracy is not 2 parties doing voter suppression and gerrymandering as a filter to pass the result to an electoral college.
If "voter suppression" as a term now include things that are universally understood as good, like banning toddlers from voting, this sounds incoherent. Democracy very much is about doing voter suppression, and everybody agrees it to be a good thing!
If you don't like how it sounds, you need to stop including good and proper things under the "voter suppression" label. Rayiner tried to help you with that, by distinguishing between mendacious voter suppression, and good and proper setting of voter qualifications, but you rejected that.
The weight of cognitively restricted people and non-citizens in the voting process is less and less a theoretical issue, and would merit a lot more discussions IMHO.
Countries like Japan or Korea are getting into demographic phases where elderlies account for about 30% of the whole population and their voting power is tremendous, but we probably have no idea how good or bad the result is, and just cutting their voting rights as they reach some level of impairment would also be a seriously dumb move IMHO.
And on the other side as the fertility rate plummets bringing in more foreigners is an obvious option. Except these foreigners might not want to give up a stronger citizenship (e.g. an EU passport is way more valuable than a Korean one) just to get voting rights in their resident countries, and their kids will have a stronger incentive to go abroad as soon as they can if the country makes their life harder yet.
Partly in reaction to that, Korea for instance gives voting rights to foreigners mostly by virtue of residency.
We're entering very tricky situations where there's more imbalance between the ones holding decision power and the ones bringing the most to the table, and there's just no simple solutions nor any direction that is straight "good" or "bad" or unthinkable.
Banning votes from toddlers is not as clear cut a point as you make it look like.
As a thought experiment: imagine an extreme society made 15% of childless adults, 5% of young parents and 80% of toddlers.
Would it make sense/be fair if the 15% of childless adults could pass laws that remove voting rights for life from anyone that piss their pants in public whatever their age ?
You could end up in a situation where 20 years later 90% of the adults of the country have no voting rights. Finding a way (setting the 5% of parents as representatives ?) to mitigate these kind of issues is generally important, which is why there's no cut and dry "good" voter suppression, only compromises.
Your preoccupations seem to be centered on protecting the system from demagoguery and outside influences, which is a valid POV, but that can't be the only angle nor the central focus. Even if 80% of the population was provably dumb, you'll still need a system that takes their voice into account to avoid the country getting overthrown or become a dictatorship.
> universally
Honestly I don't like that word, and it removes a lot of nuance that is utterly needed for politics and ruling systems. There is almost nothing universal, especially when it comes to "good" and "bad".
Next you will tell us all how easy it is for all Americans to get drivers ids / similar licensing right?
> Statistically, both of these would have hurt my party in 2024, so this isn’t self-interest speaking.
Ah. There it is.
"""
Any persons six (6) years of age or older may apply to the Department of Public Safety for an identification card.
All applicants must provide the following:
- A completed and signed Application.
-Original Birth Certificate or any acceptable document. (No Photocopies Accepted)
- SSN Card or an official government correspondence displaying full 9 digits. (click here)
- Two proofs of Residency.
- Legal Documents are required if going by new name.
"""
These are all very standard. The only ones I could see people having trouble with is proof of residency, but the accepted forms[1] are very numerous (over 20). Anyone that isn't intentionally trying to stay off-grid should be able to provide at least two, especially because you're allowed to use proof for a parent, legal guardian, or spouse as long as you can establish your relationship to them. You can even get your roommates to attest that you live with them to use their proofs of residency.
[0] https://www.driverservicebureau.dps.ms.gov/Drivers/Identific...
Is it ? If we're talking national IDs, most EU countries have it mandatory, so there's no requirement other than officially existing as a person.
If we're talking voting registration ID, many countries auto-enroll their citizen the moment they're adult or naturalize, and procedures are only required when your info changes or you explicitly get barred from voting (I don't even know when that happens, minor offences will not trigger that)
91% of Americans have driver licenses. So apparently it's not that hard?
Would you agree that people with more money are treated differently from people with less money? Money is not exactly property or power, but would you agree that they stand more to lose than a person without either? If they stand to lose more, they automatically have more skin in the game. In fact, if we count money, we can give fairly definitive amount of skin in said game.
So, since laws and governance have a disproportionate impact on those with less money, I would say that, if anything, those with less money have more skin in the game. But I wouldn't put it like that myself - my position is that every person who lives in a country and is subject to its laws for a long enough time has, on balance, the same amount of "skin in the game". The only distinction related to the right to vote should beade based on the ability to take rational decisions (that is, while they still have just as much skin in the game, some people shouldn't be allowed to vote because they lack the ability to rationally understand the vote - but this only applies to children and to those with severe mental disabilities).
If the above is true, then your position that laws governing the country determine skin in the game is not valid, because those individuals pick, which skin they get to wear ( as in, it is not a factor at all for them ). The two positions are not compatible, which suggests that there is a facet to these factors that is not captured within the model you propose.
<< The only distinction related to the right to vote should beade based on the ability to take rational decisions
Careful now, you are dangerously close to suggesting people, who make irrational choices should not vote, which includes just about 99.9% of the voting population.
<< An increase of 50% in taxes will cost a wealthy person much more in pure monetary terms, but will have a much, much higher impact in quality of life for a poor person.
On the other hand, it costs poor person nothing to vote for themselves somebody else's money and with opportunistic enough a leader a ignorant enough a populace, the sky is literally the limit. Who has more skin in the game here, the person, who gets to lose 50% of their resources to taxes or a person, who was promised someone's taxes to trickle down to them?
Yes, I am setting you up a bit.
Remember in the early days there was almost no immigration control as well, so finding proxies for skin in the game might have been more challenging than today, when emigrating is almost impossible for the poor so they are stuck with their skin in America whether they like it or not.
The assumption that these privileges would be voted away implies an eventual equal distribution of such thing. Then all would have equal skin in the game which would justify democracy under this bizarre definition of skin in the game.
> I don't think only land owners should be able to vote, but it's worth noting worldwide having significant property is one of the most common ways for immigrants to qualify for a resident visa (other two common ways is job or business investment).
That has got nothing to do with the political franchise.
> Right or not it signifies enough skin in the game to many if not most societies to reflect reciprocated integration the community.
No. It means that they want people with means. Same basic reason why some nations may want people with advanced degrees. Or for that matter poor people who are willing to work for low wages. They want to import people who will benefit the nation state.
Until you consider getting resident visa is by far and away the most common way to franchise for immigrants, barring some exceptions like Argentina and citizenship by investment countries. It actually haze EVERYTHING to do with political franchise.
>The assumption that these privileges would be voted away implies an eventual equal distribution of such thing. Then all would have equal skin in the game which would justify democracy under this bizarre definition of skin in the game.
The implication is yours. We have had eminent domain, civil and criminal forfeiture, and fractional taking (property tax) for a long time, all of which has resulted in quite a bit of land seizure, although not significantly in the direction towards 'equal distribution' despite nearly universal franchise of citizens. Although admittedly mass-scale redistribution of land has happened some places.
>No. It means that they want people with means. Same basic reason why some nations may want people with advanced degrees. Or for that matter poor people who are willing to work for low wages. They want to import people who will benefit the nation state.
Yes of course nations choose the residency path that leads to franchise for immigrants with skin that they can put in the game.
I have lost the plot I guess? The original comment was about who got to vote way back in the day.
> The implication is yours.
Okay I thought that was your implication. Then forget it.
> Yes of course nations choose the residency path that leads to franchise for immigrants with skin that they can put in the game.
I don’t know what you are talking about any more.
The original comment. See that. I cannot understand what you mean skin in the game is with regards to deciding who (back in the day) got to vote. I know that America is a nation of immigrants. This could be simplified to just people who have lived there all their lives.
Go back and decide what is stopping you from seeing that. It is probably negatively affecting other parts of your life as well.
What do you mean?
You might be getting a little ahead of yourself. Yes, the nation state does what serves its interest, but we are not discussing what the nation state wants. We are not even discussing what the populace through small d democracy wants ( as the two are automatically aligned ). We are discussing, who is a part of the group that can want.
I was replying to someone who brought the issue up. For unknown reasons. I pointed out that that is an issue about what the nation state wants. Not about the political franchise (as in the right to vote).
Yes, it is completely irrelevant.
> We are discussing, who is a part of the group that can want.
Anyone who is not comatose.
Then we usually (us small-d democrats) might argue that all who are mature enough (like 18 years or older) should have the right to vote. Out of all those people.
I assure you French prior, dueing and after French revolution was not pinacle of great governance. More like, the low.
Hmmm... The time when most people were not able to read?