Voting age!

[Philistine]

Should soldiers of foreign powers fighting as our allies then be granted the right to vote in US elections?

Or, even more so--should foreign nationals in the US armed services (about 38,000 of them) be allowed to vote in US elections? Currently, they are not.

--Philistine

[jBirch]

Should soldiers of foreign powers fighting as our allies then be granted the right to vote in US elections?

No but they should be able to vote for their own leadership, who, in turn, decide whether to ally with the US or not. In terms of foreign nationals serving in regular US units, the same logic applies in my view, though I'm not sure how foreign nationals are defined in this context. If they are attached in from allied countries (British, Canadian, German, French, etc...) then they should be allowed to vote for their own political leadership which, in turn, determine whether such things happen or not.

If they are somehow US soldiers but not US citizens then by all means they should be able to vote.

Army, you mentioned that it makes no sense for 17-25 non military to not be able to vote because they are extremely interested and influenced by local politics. However, I agree with Lochinvar that in that age bracket, the vote is more likely abused then responsibly used and so should be denied. 17-25 military has determined that they, at least on some level, care about the state and so have made the first indications that their vote will be responsibly wielded.

Hope this clarifies what I'm trying to say.

Take it easy.

[Philistine]

{snip}
If they are somehow US soldiers but not US citizens then by all means they should be able to vote.
{snip}

Yes, there are approximately 38,000 US soldiers (and sailors, flyers, etc.) who are not US citizens. They are not allowed to vote in US elections.

--Philistine

[lochinvar]

Well, unless we adopt yet another of Bob Heinlein's ideas, joining the military does not ipso facto make you a citizen. If you are not a citizen, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote, serving or not.

This is another case of going into it with eyes wide open: non-citizens in the military chose to join despite knowing full well that they cannot vote. By doing so they forfeit the right to complain about it later.

The alternative is to make US citizenship a prerequisite for joining the US militery service, and in fact I'm surprised that such a requirement doesn't already exist.

[Inquartata]

No but they should be able to vote for their own leadership, who, in turn, decide whether to ally with the US or not.

Why not? You said

I simply believe that there is no point in allowing someone to serve and die and not to vote. It is dishonourable on the state's part.

How then is it more honorable to let them do so at the behest of someone else? If they are serving our interests why should they be relegated to voting only by proxy? Isn't it a bit like saying that US citizens should be able to vote for Congressmen but not President? That they can elect leaders who will then in turn get to choose the real decision-makers?

And what of allies whose citizens either do not have an effective vote for their own political leaders ( i.e. most of the nonindustrialized world ) or else no vote at all? Are we to reject the assistance of, say, China or Cuba or Syria on that basis alone, even in a just cause? How about in a
UN-sanctioned military action?

[Inquartata]

This is another case of going into it with eyes wide open: non-citizens in the military chose to join despite knowing full well that they cannot vote. By doing so they forfeit the right to complain about it later.

Exactly. There are many things in the social contract upon which we do not get to vote. Military service is no different in that respect. It does however have at least this advantage: individuals get to choose whether or not they will participate. If they accept a duty in return for the congeries of rewards, they have done so knowingly and without coercion and have no grounds for complaint after the fact that they should be given another reward in addition...

[Joan of Ark]

over 21.... any less than that and you should have to pass an IQ test.... I dont want a bunch of horny imature stupid fools deciding on my futer... especailly since I can't do a thing about it

[KShan5[PrFC]]

IQ has nothign to do with it. First of all what is the cut off? I have a high IQ, but I wouldn't think that because I'm 8 with a high IQ I shoudl be able to vote. Furthermore, its about being infromed not about how smart you are. I think/hope you were jsut trying to get a rise from people because that was an attrocious suggestion.

[mrbiggs]

over 21.... any less than that and you should have to pass an IQ test.... I dont want a bunch of horny imature stupid fools deciding on my futer... especailly since I can't do a thing about it

True, it's not good if stupid people are deciding your future. But if people have the right to vote, then that's too bad for you.

IQ or literacy tests sound like a good idea, but they're not. For example, during the 1860's-1960's there was a literacy test in southern states to prevent blacks from voting. I'm pretty sure there's a law against it now for that reason.

Not all 16-21 year olds are immature or stupid. Especially those who pay taxes. Or go to war. Some are. Maybe even the majority. But those aren't the ones voting.

Also, on issues like Social Security, it'd be really nice if we had an option between You're Screwed and You're F*****. Our opinions and future needs are just being ignored, and it's frustrating.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Absolutely, but there shoudl be a question, can you name the two candidates and their running mates. But there isn't, if someone wishes to exercise their right to vote and they are uniformed thats's too bad for the people who are informed. It's their right and they should be able to exercise it as they wish; even if they're f***ng morons

[mrbiggs]

Absolutely, but there shoudl be a question, can you name the two candidates and their running mates. But there isn't, if someone wishes to exercise their right to vote and they are uniformed thats's too bad for the people who are informed. It's their right and they should be able to exercise it as they wish; even if they're f***ng morons

Why? What if I know that Republicans always represent my interests? One doesn't need to know the names of the candidates to know who represents their interests best.

[Soldier]

horny imature stupid fools deciding on my futer... especailly since I can't do a thing about it

Don't want a bunch of imature fools deciding your futer, hmm?

[mrbiggs]

Don't want a bunch of imature fools deciding your futer, hmm?

Hey, at least I had the maturity to not point that out, even when I spelled it correctly in my post.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Why? What if I know that Republicans always represent my interests? One doesn't need to know the names of the candidates to know who represents their interests best.

Because you shoudl vote on the candidate not the party.

[jBirch]

Why not? You said



How then is it more honorable to let them do so at the behest of someone else? If they are serving our interests why should they be relegated to voting only by proxy? Isn't it a bit like saying that US citizens should be able to vote for Congressmen but not President? That they can elect leaders who will then in turn get to choose the real decision-makers?

And what of allies whose citizens either do not have an effective vote for their own political leaders ( i.e. most of the nonindustrialized world ) or else no vote at all? Are we to reject the assistance of, say, China or Cuba or Syria on that basis alone, even in a just cause? How about in a
UN-sanctioned military action?

Are you trying to propose that I'm saying that foreign nationals should vote in US elections simply because their leadership (whom they voted for) has decided to ally with the US? That's ridiculous.

I'm saying that, for foreign nationals that are attached in to US units and serving with them, it is up to their leadership to decide whether they should be there in the first place. Part of that decision, in countries that vote, should be influenced by the people who actually have to do the serving. So, in those countries that elect leaders, any one who serves should also be able to vote.

To clarify the situation of a sacrifice made by a Canadian soldier, for example, serving with a US unit. A Canadian soldier, killed while fighting alongside a US serviceman, is in the service to Canada. Not the US. That their work has positive benefits to the US is immaterial. That they died on a mission who's sole purpose was in the interests of the US is immaterial. They are Canadian, serving Canadian interests, one of which is to play nice and helpful with the US. Because they are sworn to Canada, it is asinine to suggest that they should get to vote in US elections, regardless of their sacrifice for the US. That sacrifice is in the interest of Canada first, the US second.

And the US has the ability to reject any offer of alliance if they choose to. If they base that decision on whether the country is a democracy or not, so be it.

Hope this helps.

[mrbiggs]

Because you shoudl vote on the candidate not the party.

True....sometimes. But there ARE some people who will ALWAYS vote republican. And if they recognize that, and don't bother to learn much about the election, it's not right for you to deny them representation.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Agreed, thats why I said, 'But there isn't, if someone wishes to exercise their right to vote and they are uniformed thats's too bad for the people who are informed. It's their right and they should be able to exercise it as they wish; even if they're f***ng morons" I wish there was a way to get people informed, but I don't think they should be denied their rights if they are.

[Inquartata]

Are you trying to propose that I'm saying that foreign nationals should vote in US elections simply because their leadership (whom they voted for) has decided to ally with the US?

No, I'm asking why you aren't. It follows logically from your position that those who serve militarily the interests of the US ought to be able to "have a say" in picking its leadership. Why is that "right" to be restricted only to members of the US military, whether citizens or not?

That their work has positive benefits to the US is immaterial. That they died on a mission who's sole purpose was in the interests of the US is immaterial.

No, it's central to your position as you stated it. Let me repeat it for you again, as you seem to have forgotten your own words:

I simply believe that there is no point in allowing someone to serve and die and not to vote. It is dishonourable on the state's part.

That's "someone", you will note, not "some citizen" or "some resident of the US" or even "some direct member of the US military".

Your attempt to make a distinction without a difference solely on the basis of nationality makes no sense in the context of your original position statement. It's not very different from saying that when a local police agency helps the FBI in an operation the members of the former should not be able to vote for the national political leaders who appoint the Director who sets the FBI's agenda....

[jBirch]

No, I'm asking why you aren't. It follows logically from your position that those who serve militarily the interests of the US ought to be able to "have a say" in picking its leadership. Why is that "right" to be restricted only to members of the US military, whether citizens or not?

It does not follow logically at all. Just because I said that some military people should vote for the US Presidency does not mean that all military people should. Just because some men beat their wives, does not mean that all men beat their wives. There is the implicit definition American before the mlitary appelation. All American military members should be able to vote in all American elections as they qualify for them as members of the community that is doing the electing. Further, I never said that it should be restricted that group that is doing the serving, merely that it should not be excluded from that group.

No, it's central to your position as you stated it. Let me repeat it for you again, as you seem to have forgotten your own words:

That's "someone", you will note, not "some citizen" or "some resident of the US" or even "some direct member of the US military".

This was implicit in the context of the discussion. In fact, if you had bothered to cite in context, you would have seen that this was in response to Lochinvar saying:

You make it sound as if all those who serve in the military have been forced into service, and so should have a vote. Such is not the case. As stated before, many have chosen to serve with full knowledge that they cannot vote. Such a free choice is, in my opinion, forfeits the right to object to it later.

...which was in response to...

My position is just that you should not be able to do one without also being able to do the other. Choosing to serve puts you, by definition, in a more civic minded position then choosing not to serve.

...which was, in turn, in response to...

This is a great sound-bite slogan, but nonsense, because the requisite qualifications needed in a good soldier are not the same qualification desired in a responsible voter.

The army likes them young (17-18, 19 at the most) because recruits in that age range are EASIER TO MOLD into the Army Way of Thinking. Psychologically, they respond better to peer pressure and adapt easier to blind obedience to orders, unlike their somewhat older counterparts, say 22-24 age range. (This difference was pointed up sharply during the Vietnam conflict, where a lot of draftees were college drop-outs, flunk-outs, or graduates who were no longer able to justify a student deferrment.)

I don't know about you, but I don't consider those qualities optimum for informed choice.

...which was in response to...

If you can serve, you can vote, drink, read porn and smoke. 17 for all.

...which is entirely consistent with the quoted...

Then I miscommunicated. I simply believe that there is no point in allowing someone to serve and die and not to vote. It is dishonourable on the state's part.

...and entirely consistent with the posted...

I'm saying that, for foreign nationals that are attached in to US units and serving with them, it is up to their leadership to decide whether they should be there in the first place. Part of that decision, in countries that vote, should be influenced by the people who actually have to do the serving. So, in those countries that elect leaders, any one who serves should also be able to vote.

To clarify the situation of a sacrifice made by a Canadian soldier, for example, serving with a US unit. A Canadian soldier, killed while fighting alongside a US serviceman, is in the service to Canada. Not the US. That their work has positive benefits to the US is immaterial. That they died on a mission who's sole purpose was in the interests of the US is immaterial. They are Canadian, serving Canadian interests, one of which is to play nice and helpful with the US. Because they are sworn to Canada, it is asinine to suggest that they should get to vote in US elections, regardless of their sacrifice for the US. That sacrifice is in the interest of Canada first, the US second.

You would have been able to see that the requirement of single nationality was implicit in the conversation from the start, though not even stated in the original poll. My central position, since it seems to be unclear, is as follows:

A citizen, serving in the armed force for the community of which they are a citizen, should have the right to vote in elections for that community.

To answer the why you asked before, it is because the expectation would be that members of the service community are working for the state's goals. Those goals may be congruent with another state (an ally) but do not HAVE to be so. If they were to clash then it would be expected that the one time ally is now an enemy.

Your attempt to make a distinction without a difference solely on the basis of nationality makes no sense in the context of your original position statement.

What are you saying here? Nationality is an implicit trait that drastically changes the argument, and you know that. It makes no sense for people outside the community to vote for leaders within that community. If you serve in a National Armed Force then you should be able to vote for your national leaders. Seems simple to me. If a Canadian is serving in an American unit, the Canadian should be able to vote for Canadian leaders and the American for American ones. That the Canadian's service to Canada is also helping America is nice, but not a requirement. It is most definitely a requirement that the Canadian's service to Canada is perforce helping Canada. And it is this requirement of service that makes these members deserving of being able to vote.

It's not very different from saying that when a local police agency helps the FBI in an operation the members of the former should not be able to vote for the national political leaders who appoint the Director who sets the FBI's agenda....

Your supposition is also irrelevent. What I have been saying is very different from what you propose. To be more accurate in your supposition and my argument, it's like saying that, because the KGB helps the FBI in an investigation that they should not, in turn, be able to vote in US elections, which would be accurate. It is the non-citizen implicit in the definition of the KGB that matters, not the fact that they helped the FBI which is what I was trying to clarify. To return your supposition correctly to the original argument, a Canadian soldier that helps an American soldier to fight a battle, SHOULD NOT be able to vote in American elections but SHOULD be allowed to vote in Canadian ones.

Really Inq, I don't know how to make it more clear then that. Are you trying to add any ideas to the conversation or just be a general nuisance?

Take it easy.

[Inquartata]

That's the problem with "implicit" assumptions, isn't it? It's why the principle of Audiatur et Altera Pars exists: if one states ALL of one's premises one is less likely to be misunderstood, and ones thesis less susceptible to attack on the basis of unstated assumptions.