This essay was published today and is excerpted from Mr. Hasen’s forthcoming book “A Right to Vote: How a Constitutional Amendment Can Safeguard American Democracy.”
This essay was published today and is excerpted from Mr. Hasen’s forthcoming book “A Right to Vote: How a Constitutional Amendment Can Safeguard American Democracy.”
FAKE NEWS. DO NOT READ
New York Times means this is not credible.
Professor Hasen is absolutely right. Every state has a right to vote provision in its state constitution. There is no reason why the US Constitution shouldn’t also have a right to vote provision.
Mr. Singer ,
I disagree. I think he’s completely wrong. Far too many people are given voting rights. The guardrails that limited such rights at the time the constitution was written were very important, and there for very good reason.
Doing away with them over time has led to increasingly negative consequences which work hand in hand with the gradual elimination of other limitations on the power of government at all levels over individuals, and of the federal and international monstrosities over state and local governments.
I don’t know how much time you might be willing to devote to a discussion of why we hold our differing views, but I’m willing to discuss that if you are.
The same offer is extended to anyone else here who shares your view, except for AZ, who has repeatedly proven absolutely zero interest in rational discussion of different ideas.
Sorry, I meant Winger, not Singer. I either made a typo or Google once again “corrected” me.
Richard Winger supports illegals voting. Does Hasen too?
If you would like to have this discussion, Mr. Winger, please start by answering a question I’ve been meaning to ask you. My apologies if I already did.
I’ve read something by or about you that says you are a libertarian, which I understand to be a proponent of minimal government, a bare bones nightwatchman state, and strong property rights. Yet others here frequently say you are a communist, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen you say they are wrong.
I understand communism to advocate for a very maximal state, totalitarian government, and very extremely limited to nonexistent property rights. Theoretically, this leads to a utopia with no government, still no property rights, but peace and prosperity for everyone. In reality, it works out very differently, I think because communists fundamentally misunderstand or misrepresent human nature.
Given that I don’t actually know, which of these belief systems do you identify with, if either one, or some other? I apologize if you’d rather not answer, I just want to understand where you’re coming from on this. Have your views changed over time, and if so, when and why, in brief overview?
I ask, in part out of mere curiosity, and in part because my read of history is that the professor’s suggestion of expanded voting rights has lead to outcomes which I would think would generally be considered favorable by communists, and unfavorable by libertarians.
I can explain why I think expanded voting rights tend to have such outcomes, but only if there’s interest from you or others interested in such a discussion. Perhaps, if you would please begin by answering my initial question for the purpose of clarity, if it’s not something you feel uncomfortable discussing?
If your detractors are wrong, and you are in fact a libertarian, please explain why either my understanding of what libertarians believe is completely wrong, or why you think expanding voting rights leads to outcomes that are generally favorable from the standpoint of libertarian goals.
People who are not Richard Winger:
1) please let him answer for himself. I’d like to understand what he believes and why, not have words put in his mouth. If you feel the need to say what he believes anyway, please reference exactly where he said something you claim he said, so that anyone reading can easily check whether your claim is accurate.
But if at all possible, please refrain from saying what you think or claim his beliefs are, and give him a chance to say what they are himself, if he’s willing.
2) please explain what you would categorise your views as, very briefly, and how you think expanding or limiting voting rights helps achieve those goals.
3) I would say broadly speaking I’m conservative with libertarian leanings. My end goal is a nightwatchman state and a largely voluntary traditional social order with very limited, primarily local government.
I can get into my explanation of why limited voting rights serve this purpose far better than universal voting rights. But, I’ll hold off on any such explanation until I see that there’s some interest in having such discourse.
Simply spouting off my personal views and assuming anyone cares isn’t the purpose of this. I’d like to understand why other people believe what they do. Maybe I’m the one who’s wrong. Maybe not. But if we can’t learn from each other, what’s the purpose of these comments?
If nobody wants such a discussion, there’s no point in me having it with myself. I already know what I believe and why, and I’m not so arrogant as to believe that merely stating my views and insulting those who disagree could ever convince anyone, or even that I’m necessarily right, although I’m fairly certain of it – perhaps someone could show me why and how I’m wrong.
I have other outlets for anger and aggression, so that’s not the purpose of these discussions for me. I’d like to learn something, and I find dialogue to be the best way generally, so long as it’s not a shouting and insult match, which is easy enough to find elsewhere.
So, let’s see if there is any interest, and I won’t ask any questions I’m unwilling to answer myself.
In November 2023 I went on a one-week trip to Cuba, sponsored by The Nation Magazine. The experience strongly confirmed my anti-communist view. When Fidel Castro took power, he nationalized all property. He made it illegal for anyone to run or own a business. He made it illegal for anyone to hire anyone else to do any work, other than a relative. Cuba only survived because the Soviet Union subsidized Cuba by paying Cuba 4 times the world market price for Cuba. When the Soviet Union ceased to exist, those subsidies stopped coming, so Fidel was forced to ease up slightly. He then made it legal for people to have a restaurant or a bed-and-breakfast. Some time later he stepped down and his brother Raul too over, and made it legal for people to have any business except one on a new prohibited-business list. That was somewhat helpful but far from enough. Cuba is very poor. US economic sanctions, and US insistence on keeping Cuba on the list of countries that sponsor terorism, makes things far worse, but much of the problem is with the Cuban system itself. Only the Communist Party can run candidates for the national assembly. The national assembly mostly debates in secret. The younger generation has fled to such an extent tha Cuba has the western hemisphere’s oldest population. Cuba now must import sugar, because it doesn’t have enough money to buy power to run its sugar refineries. Also the refineries are broken down and Cuba can’t fix them without parts from abroad. If only Ayn Rand had lived long eough to view the whole Cuban experience, she could have written a wonderful novel based on what Cuba shows. As to my libertarianism, I became a libertarian after reading Rose Wilder Lane’s “The Discovery of Freedom”, which shows persuasively that free market economics brings about wealth.
Ok, thank you for clearing that up. The remaining question is why you believe your libertarian free market economic goals are helped rather than hurt by expanding the base of eligible voters.
It seems pretty obvious to me that historically it has had the opposite effect, with the move away from a free market economy accelerating as the electorate expanded, with the newly added groups (non property owners, nonWhites, people incapable of paying poll taxes, women, 18-20 year olds, etc) voting disproportionately for higher taxes, more regulations, and everything else that has resulted in a less free market.
If you disagree, please explain why I’m wrong, and how your chosen means of universal voting rights help rather than hinder our mutual goal of a free market economy. If you’re willing to admit the possibility that the two are at cross purposes, which one is more important to you?
The Declaration of Independence says that “governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” No one can be expected to obey laws if that individual, as an adult, is not permitted to help determine the laws.
ELECTORS = RIGHT TO VOTE
1-2-1
14-2 AM
15 AM
17 AM
19 AM
24 AM
26 AM
—
4-4 RFG NOT ENFORCED
—
PROF CAN NOT READ THE USA CONST ???
REALLY, Richard? That book is half-craptacular, and Rose was behind much of the non-truthy mythmaking of the Little House series. Thought you would know better.
https://www.grunge.com/303371/the-true-story-behind-little-house-on-the-prairie/
https://apnews.com/article/democracy-europe-populist-far-right-dutch-poland-a16e22da1f62ca6940bab4749fae7ee6
JUNE 2024 EU PARL ELECTION — LEFT V RIGHT — PR
Mr. Winger,
So, immigrants who are not naturalized citizens should not be expected to obey the laws? How about visitors who are in the country temporarily? Illegal aliens?
I suppose you want to allow all of them to vote too, while at the same time lifting all restrictions on immigration?
Or, perhaps your logic would allow for crime tourism – foreign criminal organizations could organize trips to the USA, the country where foreigners are allowed to commit crimes at will because they don’t vote there? The organised tour could include group activity stops for murder, rape, bank robbery, etc.
And the Declaration of Independence textual reference says nothing of adults. Juveniles are clearly governed, and just as clearly capable of committing crimes. At what age precisely should this “consent of the governed” logic kick in?
I don’t see any scenario under which that doesn’t lead to absurd outcomes.
On the one hand, you would have to deport every noncitizen in the country, from the millions of illegals to the millions of resident aliens who have been here for decades to tourists, exchange students, temporary contract workers, and everyone in between, immediately and permanently make all immigration and temporary entry into the country illegal and enforce those laws extremely strictly, and lock up all juveniles. As tempting as that sounds, I’ll venture you’d probably be against that set of policies. Some of them are too extreme even for me.
Or, on the other hand, you might have a country with millions of people walking, driving, and otherwise getting around with a literal license to kill, rob, rape, and commit any other crime they want at any time, because they are foreign visitors, immigrants, or juveniles. That sounds rather dystopian as well, and hardly conducive to a robust market economy.
A third alternative might be to allow foreigners and juveniles to vote in US elections. This could lead to US political parties to work with foreign partners to bring in large numbers of election day voting tourists. That could certainly give the economy a temporary shot in the arm, although I have my doubts that the election results would be as conducive to a free market the rest of the time.
Then again, would they even have to be brought in? After all, Americans abroad can vote. If Americans abroad can vote, and foreigners in America can vote, why not foreigners abroad? Letting the whole world vote in US elections could lead to “interesting” results for the market economy.
I’m struggling to come up with a scenario that is not completely devastating to free markets and the public safety on which they rest here. Can you help me out? Which of these, or what other alternative I’ve not thought of, do you wish to implement?
As radical as Jefferson was, I doubt he could have remotely imagined that governments deriving consent from the governed could be interpreted in such bizarre ways.
Perhaps going forward we’ll discover ways of determining the voting preferences of other species – you can hardly argue they are not governed, and in some cases they are even executed for crimes. And, given the great impact the military and economic policies voted on by US politicians have on other countries, you would hardly be able to keep the rest of the world out of voting in US elections for very long under this, er, logic.
Left unanswered is what is the highest importance goal of the Winger wing of libertarianism: free markets, or everyone who is governed voting? Does Richard Winger admit that these can be at odds or cross purposes? Which one is the highest priority?
Once again Stock is spreading commie bullshit and commie bullshit links.
UNIFORM ELECTOR DEFINITION IN USA / ALL STATE REGIMES —
USA CITIZEN, 18 PLUS YEARS OLDE, BE REGISTERED BY 28 DAYS BEFORE ELECTION DAYS. PERIOD.
NO RIGGED CRIMINAL / MENTAL / ETC. STUFF.
—
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
Richard, you should board the Trump Train.
It seems to me that Amendment 14, Section 2 provides pretty clearly for voting rights.
“Left unanswered is what is the highest importance goal of the Winger wing of libertarianism: free markets, or everyone who is governed voting? ”
There is no inherent comtradiction here.
Walter Ziobro, did you read my entire postings? You are more than welcome to explain how those two goals are not at odds. We can, if you wish, compare how different demographic cohorts have voted and the growth in the size and scope of government over the years.
Do you honestly believe that, if voting had continued to be limited to White, property owning men over 21 who paid a poll tax, throughout American history, that we would not today have a relatively more free market, lower taxes, less bureaucracy and regulatory burden, etc?
Do you believe that we wouldn’t see an even faster growth in government if we enfranchised those the proposed Hasen amendment would cover – felons, prisoners, people judged mentally incompetent in a court of law, people who have not bothered to register to vote and keep their registration current?
Do you derive your idea that universal voting is good for free markets from Jefferson, like Richard Winger does? Or from some other source? Please explain why you believe that to be the case, using logic and evidence.
If you are proceeding from consent of the governed, are resident aliens not governed? Temporary residents? Foreign visitors? To my knowledge, all of them are subject to US laws while in this country. What type of government do you think we’d have if they could vote here too?
Richard Winger said adults, but where is that said or implied in consent of the governed? Juveniles are clearly governed under the laws, and just as clearly capable of committing crimes. What’s the logic under which they can be governed without consent? Or, do you wish to lower the voting age again? To what? How do you think they might vote, if you do, and what effect will that have on policy?
It’s easy to say there’s no conflict, but harder to establish it.
But, as an additional thought experiment, let’s say that we do find an empirical case for a conflict, without slogging through a bunch of data. For this purpose, you don’t have to admit that I’m empirically correct, just imagine that I am for the purpose of argument. Thus, suppose we’ve established that the conflict exists. Which is more important: universal voting or free markets?
There’s no point in trying to establish empirically whether the conflict exists or not unless free markets is your answer.
There is no natural disposition for people of certain demographic groups to favor some economic system over any other. All humans are naturally rational and capable of understanding reality.
Very disappointing answer. Please answer each question separately, not gloss over all of it with a bromide that ignores both empirical reality and logical exploration of details. I’m much more interested in the details than in a quick reply.
Historical and personal experience may cloud some people’s judgement, but people of all demographic backgrounds have been equipped with the tools of intelligence, if they choose to use them.
Logic is the same for everyone, even if all minds don’t appreciate it.
In any event, as Madison pointed out in Federalist 10, the key to maintaining liberty in a large and diverse society is to distribute power as much as possible, thru divided sovereignty and separation of powers, and to maintain checks and balances between the separate branches of government, such that it becomes very difficult for any person, party or faction to concentrate power.
What appears to some to be the “chaos” and “gridlock” in our system is simply the system of checks and balances keeping the forces of overreach at bay.
You’re still glossing over the particulars and answering with platitudes, ignoring specific questions and real world data alike.
Theories which dismiss real world evidence tend to lead to some very bad places.
For example, Marxist theory predicts a revolutionary proletarian dictatorship leading to an anarcho communist utopia. The fact that this is not what actually happens doesn’t dissuade Marxists. They blame subversion by counterrevolutionaries, some detail of incorrect implementation, and just call for more of the same.
You’re doing the same thing. Jefferson said this, Madison said that – great, and now we have close to 250 years of data to see how correct or incorrect they were. Let’s look at that data.
Or, perhaps you could at least answer the specific questions I asked. I’m quite capable of reading Jefferson, Madison, and others of various opinions at that time, and throughout other times in history, and have.
I asked specific questions for specific reasons.
No one compels you to answer them, although you not answering them might tell any readers the extent of your confidence in your position.
The questions remain for anyone else who agrees with Mr. Winger and Mr. Ziobro to answer. Thus far, I’m seeing a spectacular failure for anyone to make a case here that universal voting and free markets are proven to be symbiotic.
There’s also a clear refusal to consider even a theoretical case of what to do if they ever aren’t, of the exact implications of who is governed for the purpose of establishing consent, etc, etc.
A position which can’t be defended with either empirical evidence or against logical exploration of implications is extremely weak.
The floor remains open for Mr. Winger, Mr. Ziobro, or anyone who agrees with them to show otherwise.
“You’re doing the same thing. Jefferson said this, Madison said that – great, and now we have close to 250 years of data to see how correct or incorrect they were. Let’s look at that data”
On the whole, I think that things have actually turned out better than they expected. I think that they would be surprised to see that the basic outline of the system they designed is still in place, altho modified for changing circumstances.
Average folk of all demographic backgrounds enjoy more freedom, peace and prosperity than they did 250 years ago. Not that everything is peachy perfect; we will always live in an imperfect world. But things are pretty good, if you use a wide perspective.
Distributing power between branches and levels of government and universalizing the franchise has proven to be a very poor way to prevent the concentration of power.
Large financial and other large institutions have proven themselves quite capable of creating and manipulating for their advantage intentionally large and complicated bureaucratic systems, electoral complexity which lets them pass the buck and point fingers at each other for any blame, and ways of effectively bribing and brainwashing masses of voters.
The idea that this is the best way to ensure a free market and distribution of power is highly questionable, at best.
Walter Ziobro: that requires a great deal of detail to unpack. Please provide details and data. To me, it seems we suffer under a great deal of tax and regulatory burden, with very little practical options to do much of anything about it.
Can you fill in the details of your wide perspective, or will you continue to speak only in vague generalizations and ignore all specific questions?
I’ll grant that we have greater prosperity than 250 years ago, but then we have had 250 years of economic development in the interim. The question now is which policies are likely to ensure greater prosperity in the future, whether a more or less universal franchise is likely to lead to such policies, and why we think it is or isn’t.
More freedom requires unpacking. Freedom from surveillance? Freedom to raise your children as you see fit? Freedom to start and expand a business free of undue government regulation and burden? Etc
Greater peace is also quite tenuous. What is the likelihood of global conflicts ensnaring the United States in future wars, given the US government’s constant, multiple, ongoing entangling alliances?
How does universalizing the franchise further, or its opposite, indicate these conditions will worsen or improve over time, given how different population cohorts vote?
Soviet leaders in the 1980s could have likewise claimed substantially greater peace and prosperity than in 1917 (freedom, I suppose, would have been a matter of definition). That doesn’t in itself establish that any optimal system exists, or tell us which policies would optimise it.
Looking at the development of both the United States and the world from 1776 to the present, there is little doubt of the enormous increase in wealth, technological progress and personal liberty just about everywhere. There is simply no argument about it. And, it is due in no small part to the enormous vision of the very people who founded the US. Their ideas have animated not just the US, but progress everywhere.
Does that mean everything is perfect everywhere? By no means; we can see many problems everywhere, even in the US. Government regulation and taxation are undoubtably higher that they should be. But, honestly, I think they are not as bad as the might have been if a radically different system were in place. Just look at the miserable experience of the Soviet Union.
This is why I am in favor of abolishing the personal income tax. The 16th Amendment was the biggest mistake authorized by the Constitution.
Also, the abolition of the sole Presidency would be a good idea. The growing power of the Presidency is the weak point of the Constitution. Both major parties have been attempting to expand the power of the Presidency to assert their agendas, and short circuit the system of checks and balances. A collective Presidencu, such as in Switzerland, would be better, IMO. I think that Switzerland has actually preserved its federal system better than the US precisely because the executive power is dispersed and limited.
You’re missing the point entirely. I’m not sure whether intentionally or not.
Of course there’s increase in wealth and technological progress. At different rates in different places and times, so we need to look much more carefully at what details of policy slow or quicken that progress, including in this case whether more or fewer people are allowed to vote.
Of course, growth in wealth and prosperity alone is insufficient information. There are other questions too, for example ease of social mobility, public safety, etc, etc, etc.
Personal liberty is ill defined. I asked several questions to nail it down, which you once again ignored.
The vision of the people who founded the US very manifestly did not include everyone voted. I contend for very good reason. Mr. Winger and, apparently, you contend that twisting the words those founders wrote in a literal interpretation they demonstrably never intended obviously must make things even better.
I’m trying to get logical or empirical historical proof of this contention. You’re coming back to their vision. Well, then, their vision was quite different from present reality and certainly the Hasen amendment proposal. Please show me evidence that subsequent changes and the Hasen amendment improve how they themselves implemented their own vision. Evidence? Data? Answer questions already posted above?
Regarding your point that regulation and taxation are higher than they should be, clearly we agree. The question would then be whether allowing additional groups of people to vote has made that worse or better, whether adding yet more groups is likely to make it better or worse still, and reasons for thinking so, if possible
based on real world observations.
Can you provide your thoughts on those points specifically, rather than wide-ranging philosophical observations on other matters???
Things are not as bad as they might have been. Granted, that’s true. But that in no way answers the actual question under discussion.
No one in this discussion, at least yet,has suggested that the USSR had a better system than the US. If anyone does, we can debate it then. But even the USSR could have pointed a finger and said look, people are even more miserable in many parts of Africa and Asia, etc.
The fact that things can be worse is never proof of an optimal system. Things can always be worse. Pol pot killed off a quarter of the Cambodian population, but that means he left 3/4 alive, so things could have been worse.
The question under consideration, to my knowledge, is not US vs USSR, but US with the voting restrictions in place in 17xx vs US with voting system today vs US under Hasen amendment proposal.
You’re in favor of abolishing the 16th amendment. Great, I am too. I might quibble as to whether it was the worst – I’d slate most of the amendments for repeal, particularly those ever since the war of Yankee aggression – but we have a point of agreement.
Do you think we’d be more likely to abolish the 16th amendment with the original voting cohort envisioned by the founders, today’s voting cohort, or the Hasen amendment proposal’s voting cohort? Reasons for whichever answer you provide, preferably grounded in real world evidence if possible?
Is Richard Winger still going to follow up on the additional questions I asked? Anyone else besides Mr. Ziobro?