Expand the franchise

[bungo]

On a chance visit to Auntie's web site, I trip over David Horton's "Bring out your dead". He advocates increased penalties for failing to show up on Election Day, restoring voting rights for prisoners, and allowing children, unborn foetuses and the dead to have the chance to have their say.

Comments

[reverancepavane]

Interesting. I hadn't realised we had disenfranchised prisoners. It seems that in August 2004 the Howard Government restricted the right to vote to those prisoners serving three years or less (ie, those expected to be released within a term of government). Very disappointing, but not unexpected, Mr Howard.
Even more so was the fact that they attempted to totally remove the franchise in 2006 [Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Act 2006], but this decision was overturned by the High Court in August 2007 [Vicki Lee Roach v Electoral Commissioner and Commonwealth of Australia].
This is massively out of step with most civilized countries. At least, unlike the US, we don't permanently disenfranchise convicted felons.
Yet.
This, of course, excludes individuals convicted of treason, who are automatically permanently disenfranchised, or those individuals judged to be mentally unsound (defined as being unable to comprehend what they are doing).

[sambushell]

Hmm. I've long been in favour of radically lowering the voting age; it's kind of irritating to see it alongside absurd ideas like "votes for the dead".

[bungo]

Yes, I thought you'd be interested in this. It reminds me of something I saw a while back about signs on people's houses in California giving the number of household pets to be rescued in case of fire. Giving "rights" (to a rescue attempt by Firefighter-Heroes) for Fluffy the Cat seems a bit over the top to me; giving a 6-year-old voting rights (even if proxied by a parent) doesn't seem so far fetched these days. Times change: 100 years ago votes for women were a radical idea; tomorrow you will have a (half) Black president.

[Saw a claim here that either a third or a half the electorate in Germany would be/are already retirees. Votes for kids would redress that imbalance, though at the expense of childless young people.]

[sambushell]

I don't think that those signs create a legal compulsion for firefighters to rescue pets -- I've assumed that they provide information in case the opportunity arises. Perhaps they're merely feel-good value for the pet-owners -- I'd have to see what firefighters think of them.

[bungo]

I was going to be flip: "Another unfunded mandate".

I *guess* that no one can legally order a firefighter to rescue a human, never mind a pet, if it involves putting himself in personal danger. (After all, first aiders get taught the First Rule: don't become another casualty yourself.) I guess such signs and the expectation associated with them might create some sort of moral imperative to do so though.

But to keep this focussed on "rights", consider the dilemma of a two-room burning house, Fluffy in one room, darling Fred in the other. Only one can be saved. Wouldn't we always expect Fred to have the higher priority for rescue?

Applying this dilemma to the categories above, we'd probablz go for children before adults, so maybe they should be a higher priority for voting rights too.

[hnpcc]

Technically speaking he doesn't suggest allowing unborn foetuses to have the vote, just their mothers to vote on their behalf. At which point, hey, why stop at the unborn? One vote per person, with everyone under 18's votes being done by their responsible parent/guardian. That would certainly skew things, particularly wrt maternity leave.

[bungo]

You're right, of course. Do ya think this would encourage jobless under-educated 17 y.o.s to get pregnant to double their influence at the ballot box?

[hnpcc]

No, only baby bonuses and the single mother's pension would do that!!

(*eyeroll* Obviously.)

[bungo]

Watch it there. :) I have a new respect, nay, awe, for single mums. It's hard enough with two of us.