Posted on 10/20/2013 7:55:00 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Tomorrow is election day here in the U.S., though it’s an off-year, so it’s mostly local elections, bond votes, and the occasional state constitutional amendment. I plan on voting, and I vote every chance I get. In fact, it’s a bit strange that I haven’t already voted because I’ve become a big fan of early voting in the last few years. (Notably, I had to bust out of the hospital to vote in the 2008 presidential primary, so I don’t like to leave things until election day.)
Voting and science fiction almost inevitably brings up Robert Heinlein’s novel “Starship Troopers.” In that novel, the voting franchise was limited to “veterans”. A “veteran” was not necessarily someone who had been a soldier, but rather someone who had volunteered for a two-year stint in “Federal Service”. Whether a soldier or not, these service jobs were apparently all fairly hazardous. Only after retiring from federal service could you vote or hold public office. The book focuses mostly on the soldiers, so both fans and critics tend to look on the rule as “only combat veterans get to vote,” even though the book made it clear there were non-military paths.
The argument for this was that the responsibility of voting should be reserved for those who have demonstrated an understanding of individual sacrifice for the greater good, i.e. voting is not about getting something for myself but about getting something for everybody else. Whether or not Heinlein himself felt that the voting franchise should be so restricted, the book makes a fairly passionate argument for it.
Critics have often equated this with fascism or military dictatorship. The 1997 movie of the same name was perhaps the greatest critique along those lines as it showed the Terran leaders as being active-duty military officers wearing remarkably Nazi-like uniforms. The movie also varied from the book in enough other ways that I don’t consider it to be a valid representation of Heinlein’s original argument on restricting the franchise to those who have already served. (The director has stated that he read only the first few chapters of the book.)
However, one thing that the movie did do was to bring up this argument again for a new generation. I was at a WorldCon in Baltimore (1998, I think), and I attended what was supposed to be a late night panel on Starship Troopers. Instead of a proper panel, it devolved into a roundtable discussion between all attendees. The arguments pro and con went round and round, complete with epitaphs of “Nazi” and “commie” and what have you.
I had not said much at all in that discussion, mostly just observing. (As a side note, I grow weary of the vitriol of many folks who are so fixed in their positions they are unwilling to entertain the notion that they might be wrong, and this discussion was filled with that kind of vitriol.) But eventually, someone turned to me and said, “You’ve been pretty quiet. What’s your take on it?”
I replied, “It seems to me that those of you arguing for the veteran-only vote are people who would be willing to make that sacrifice to earn the right to vote, while those of you arguing against it are people unwilling to make that sacrifice and just don’t want to agree with a system that would deprive you of the right you currently enjoy.”
I got two reactions. From those arguing for it, I got a chorus of “F***ing A!” From those arguing against it, silence.
I wasn’t surprised by the response from the pro-Heinlein crowd, but I was disappointed in the response from the others. I had hoped that instead of arguing against the likely results of such a system (again, the Nazi or militarism arguments) they would offer an argument for the right to vote for those unwilling to give up two years for some level of community service, that those voters deserved the right to vote or that they offered a unique and valuable voice that would not come from those who had already served.
Personally, I’m a little torn. I like to think that if I found myself in the world of Starship Troopers, I would have signed up and done my two years. However, in this world, I have never done so. I considered it strongly after high school, but pressure from my parents pushed me into college, and after that marriage, job, and kids kept me away from such a choice. I find that as the years go by, I regret that more and more. I still seriously consider making the switch to some kind of community service job in my later years, perhaps teaching. But I continue to vote now, without having made that choice.
I’ve gotten into the habit of closing these with a question, so my question to you is this: If you did have to do two years of community or military service to earn the right to vote, would you do it, and what kind of service do you think you would do? Don’t feel you have to restrict yourself to Heinlein’s choices of soldier or medical test subject. Instead, consider the many thankless jobs we have in today’s society.
I like that, because with the current regime they would add in “public employees.” Then we would be in a permanent status as serfs working for the government class.
That’s what the Founders said. Under the Franchise system, a civilian would still have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No one could deprive of earning a livelihood and holding property; not enslave or draft you. You simply couldn’t vote or hold office without meeting the conditions of the Franchise.
being a slave. servant of the fascist government master is not a “contribution” to anyone but the FGM
Presently we have more of a mob voting to steal then citizens voting for proper government. The question is more correctly “How can a nation ensure the people voting for government officials have both adequate knowledge to make informed decisions and the moral underpinning to prevent voting to steal or worse from their fellow citizens?” This question is as old as man. Our founders understood that men themselves are the problem and attempted to protect our future by ultimately adopting the constitution. With its rules and the separation of powers the hope was it would protect us from the corruption of man. Part of this barrier was a restriction on who could vote. With this restriction our nation prospered and the foundation was set for national greatness. So strong was that foundation that it has resisted continued dilution of the voter pool to the point where even the most ignorant of individuals had the franchise and felt it a duty to vote. But the combined efforts of a marxist government and a marxist propaganda press have damaged that foundation and perhaps destroyed it. So, let’s return to the original formula. You have to own property to vote. And let’s add to it. You must also have served at least two years in the armed forces. And you must also pass a citizenship test. And you must not be receiving welfare, social security or any other government transfer payment of any type. Disabled veterans excepted. And you must present identification to vote. And you will be marked indelibly after you vote. I can see long term problems with this but it would go a long way to correcting our present problems.
bump
serve the beast, and get a vote
and if those servants of the beast are the ones who vote we’d be able to control the beast how?
No vote, no taxes then?
I won’t have to pay taxes, that sounds fair
You must be willing to be sodomized by your government masters and you must say you LOVE Big Brother.... then they will let you vote.
Big Fascist Government Brother
People forget that voting in the US was a franchise, not a right.
The Founding Fathers embraced the idea that the voting franchise was extended only to landowners (and male at that). The rationale was that these had the vested interest of the country at heart.
The argument for this limited franchise was a good one, but not the only one. I submit that it was far better than the universal franchise upon majority that we now have.
I also submit that a national service requirement for the voting franchise makes more sense than the current franchise. Whether it’s the best is open to consideration.
You should be a holder of real property to vote.
That’ll never happen again unless we divide into two or more sections.
“Didn’t you pay in to Social Security and Medicare? That’s not true of TANF, SNAP, farm subsidies and the rest, at least not directly.”
I would remind all those here, FICA (social security) goes by the real name of “Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax”
Clearly, even in it’s name is the word “insurance”. It was designed and sold to the citizens an insurance... Why would anyone think one did not have a “right” to collect on your “insurance”?
It’s true that the politicians stole all the money, but that doesn’t mean it’s not owed.
The same is true of decades of promises of “free healthcare for you and your dependents” which led many a person to do 20 or more years in the service and then was welshed on.
I know that the book has been used for training purposes for military officers and that it addresses issues of esprit de corps and discipline for trainees. It delves into interesting aspects of ‘basic training’ for military recruits and it really ought to be read widely.
I think that the notion of earning certain aspects of citizenship such as holding office and voting makes a degree of sense. What we have currently is a system that is virtually guaranteed to result in destruction of the Republic as we are clearly witnessing.
“The same is true of decades of promises of “free healthcare for you and your dependents” which led many a person to do 20 or more years in the service and then was welshed on.
Very true...
I can’t say though that I was lured by healthcare. The idea of retiring at 40 almost got me though... But I made the right decision I think. I got out after my hitch and went to work for HP for the next 35 years. I can’t complain.
For the first two, no, because you paid into them. It’s not your fault the government blew your account balance on the political equivalent of hookers and blow.
Farm subsidies, no.
That was pretty simple...
In the state of our current system, it’s about a 50-50 split these days among eligible voters over who pays Federal Income taxes and who doesn’t. I’m thinking representation without taxation ain’t such a hot deal, either.
Don’t worry, we’ll never have to live under a Franchise. The net-receivers won’t allow it.
Absolutely. If it were limited to native and naturalized citizens who were net tax payers, I'd be happy with that. That's about the best we can possibly hope for these days. The founders were more restrictive.
Free, white, male, 21, and a property owner, iirc.
There may have been others who had skin in the game, but in colonial times, that pulled in most.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.