Earning the vote through National Service of some type.

[Peg Leg Pom]

I want to speculate on a variation of something Robert Heinlein set out in his book Starship Troopers. (Note I mean the book itself not the terrible films). The basic idea is that in order to gain the Vote the citizen must undertake a term of National Service. Now in the book that's military service, something which not everyone is capable of even if they're willing. Now suppose in the aftermath of either of the two World Wars a country rather than introducing a blanket universal suffrage instead required the potential voter to undertake a period of service to the state, either in a military role or working on some national project or in a public service such as working in a hospital. Of course to prevent accusations of disenfranchising whole sections of the community acceptance of someone wanting to earn the franchise this way must be automatic. For the sake of the discussion I'll say it's one of the British derived nations as that's the system I'm familiar with.

Upsides

Those who have the vote won't take it for granted as they earned it through their own hard work.
It will provide a way for someone to earn a living rather than go on the dole.

Downsides

It will be very expensive.
There are likely to be protests against the system.
What to do about those who already have the vote but haven't done any form of service. You can grandfather them in, in fact you'd have to, but that's unfair to those wishing to gain the vote after the change.

 

[Mynock]

I want to speculate on a variation of something Robert Heinlein set out in his book Starship Troopers. (Not I mean the book itself not the terrible films). The basic idea is that in order to gain the Vote the citizen must undertake a term of National Service. Now in the book that's military service, something which not everyone is capable of even if they're willing.

IIRC actually think the point is made in the book that if someone wants to earn their vote the state will find something for them to do for a few years no matter how inconsequential.
Which bears relevance to the idea as discussed in this thread, anyone will have to be able to go through this for it to work. If you're blind and don't have any arms, the government will still have to find you a role. If you are paralysed from the neck down, the government will still have to find you a role. Anyone no matter their ability will have to be able to take this pathway.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

IIRC actually think the point is made in the book that if someone wants to earn their vote the state will find something for them to do for a few years no matter how inconsequential.
Which bears relevance to the idea as discussed in this thread, anyone will have to be able to go through this for it to work. If you're blind and don't have any arms, the government will still have to find you a role. If you are paralysed from the neck down, the government will still have to find you a role. Anyone no matter their ability will have to be able to take this pathway.

That's true but in the book those tasks (even according to an example given in the book of counting the hair on a caterpillar) were performed while technically in the military.

 

[Garrison]

IIRC actually think the point is made in the book that if someone wants to earn their vote the state will find something for them to do for a few years no matter how inconsequential.
Which bears relevance to the idea as discussed in this thread, anyone will have to be able to go through this for it to work. If you're blind and don't have any arms, the government will still have to find you a role. If you are paralysed from the neck down, the government will still have to find you a role. Anyone no matter their ability will have to be able to take this pathway.

That's true but in the book those tasks (even according to an example given in the book of counting the hair on a caterpillar) were performed while technically in the military.

And this is the essential flaw in Heinlein's idea, those who've earned their citizenship by going and fighting insurgents in some godforsaken corner of the world or other hazardous duty are not going to be happy that someone else gets it for staying in some leafy military housing facility and mowing lawns. Its ironic that for all his distinctly Libertarian leanings Heinlein makes the same mistakes about human nature that the Marxists and Communists did.
There is another big issue, in the book Heinlein makes a big deal of the Mechanized Infantry having a very small logistical tail, which was remarkably unrealistic for a force that was even more reliant on tenchonolgy than any 21st Century military. I enjoyed the book when I read it but these days if anyone is looking for military sci-fi I would recommend Jack Campbell or David Weber, though the latter has gotten a little too 'humanity is awesome' in his more recent works.

 

[PMN1]

At but these days if anyone is looking for military sci-fi I would recommend Jack Campbell

Lost Fleet series?

 

[Garrison]

Lost Fleet series?

That and his Stark books, which are less well known as they came out before he hit it big with the Lost Fleet. For David Weber, has to be March to the Stars.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

And this is the essential flaw in Heinlein's idea, those who've earned their citizenship by going and fighting insurgents in some godforsaken corner of the world or other hazardous duty are not going to be happy that someone else gets it for staying in some leafy military housing facility and mowing lawns. Its ironic that for all his distinctly Libertarian leanings Heinlein makes the same mistakes about human nature that the Marxists and Communists did

This is why I'm modifying the idea so that you don't have to serve in the military, but can also do so in some government run program that benefits the nation as a whole. Conservation, Forestry, Nation infrastructure construction and maintenance, social health care ect. The point being you earn the franchise by spending a period of time doing directed work that benefits the nation.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

Now suppose in the aftermath of either of the two World Wars a country rather than introducing a blanket universal suffrage instead required the potential voter to undertake a period of service to the state, either in a military role or working on some national project or in a public service such as working in a hospital.

Cutting against the grain of the last century, which was pushing he franchise wider and wider. Hard to imagine anyone going this route. Why would they, what is the gain to society?

 

[walmart]

Why would they, what is the gain to society?

Limiting the voting pool to your preferred demographic.

 

[Garrison]

This is why I'm modifying the idea so that you don't have to serve in the military, but can also do so in some government run program that benefits the nation as a whole. Conservation, Forestry, Nation infrastructure construction and maintenance, social health care ect. The point being you earn the franchise by spending a period of time doing directed work that benefits the nation.

But that still bring serious issues. What if there is a major war and the draft is necessary? Will the draftees get citizenship? if they do how will those who previously served feel when they see their voting power diluted by all these lightweights who had to be forced to serve?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Limiting the voting pool to your preferred demographic.

Limiting it to those willing to earn it, and having had earn it be less likely to take it for granted.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

But that still bring serious issues. What if there is a major war and the draft is necessary? Will the draftees get citizenship? if they do how will those who previously served feel when they see their voting power diluted by all these lightweights who had to be forced to serve?

Even conscripts ultimately have to make the choice to serve rather than attempt to dodge the draft. For example in the US many draft dodgers went to Canada rather than serve.

 

[DJ03]

if they do how will those who previously served feel when they see their voting power diluted by all these lightweights who had to be forced to serve?

badly, but it's not as terrible as you make it sound.
every political system has some chronic issues and faces crisis every now and then, but that doesn't make political organization impossible

 

[Garrison]

At the end of the day it made for a fascinating idea in a science fiction novel, but as the basis for a real world political system? i suspect it winds up more like Sparta than Athens.

 

[VadisDeProfundis]

How could something like this come about? The most plausible way is through some sort of military dictatorship that wants to limit the franchise and install some sort of controlled, authoritarian democratic system. Keep in mind that as this is post 1900, mass politics have already kicked into high gear. Expect the organised workers movement, trade unions and their political parties to massively oppose this. You can also expect that something like this would be opposed by pacifist liberals as well as many non nationalistic moderates; not everyone is going to like the idea of conditional voting. So, this could only be achieved through a military dictatorship that can implement this on the blood of those that would oppose this. Having this in mind, I don't see how the whole process being "automatic" could work out. It is not realistic to expect that a government that would have shed blood in order to implement such a system would not meddle in it.

What its power base be? What social forces would support it? It's likely that in order to consolidate support, it targets the already marginalised, and you can guess where I'm going with this. No society, much less a society of a "British derived nation" as the OP mentions, is "blind" here. One immediate effect here, even if we assume that everything else works out perfectly, and that it isn't implemented by a dictatorship but by a popularly elected government, facing minimal opposition for the sake of argument; how many women re going to be able to "earn" their vote? Are there many women in, say, Australia in 1920 that would be able to spend a considerable amount of time out of the house working for the state? How many of the workers are going to have the financial stability necessary to spend e.g. a year in the service of the state? Is the state going to pay them wages large enough to support families? If yes, where is the money going to come from? How would this be different from a permanent state of siege on the economy, one of constant mobilisation? If no, then congratulations, you've permanently disenfranchised the working class and reinvented property/wealth qualifications for suffrage.

In short, I think that the only people that would be willing to implement this would implement it in a way that would be Jim Crow literacy tests on steroids. Then again, I am also opposed to the idea of restricting voting rights like this, so I'm negatively predisposed against it. Still, I cannot imagine any outcome other than what I've described.

 

[DougM]

in the book it is pointed out that EVERYONE is gambling with their live and health and even those that are chalanged may end up in some sort of dangerous position. I forget the example used but to use the ne above about the catapiler. It may be poisonous or in a hazardous location.
It may not but that is the luck of the draw and not something those volunteering got a say in.
The point was that you were writing the “blank check” to the government that the government could cash in for anything and everything up to you life.
The premise was two fold. 1) it showed that you were willing yo out yourself and you safty and interests on the line for the safty and betterment of the community. and 2) it also showed that you could take orders and work with your fellows to achieve a goal.

The flaw with this is that is seams yo assume that there is a correlation between being willing to risk your life by volunteering for service and that those individuals will vote for the what is best for the country instead of what is best for themselves. And this is complete BS. A self centered individual may very well weigh the benefits vs the risk and take a gamble on volunteering in order to gain the benefit of of full citizenship. So this system dies not really ensure a better outcome from the voters.
It is interesting to discuss the concept or read about it but It is not going to assure the good results desired.
You will note that even in the book the system is a result of a social upheaval that basically forced a group of veterans to risk themselves to creat a stable environment for their families and communities and as a result the decided that they would only let fellow vets have a say in how things were ran. And this system spread.
It does have one potential advantage to a government. Those willingly risk there lives can do so to become part of the government instead of overthrowing said government. Thus tending to limit the likelihood. of armed rebellion, Still wont prevent it but does reduce the likelihood.

Heinlein and his fellow sci fi writers of that timeframe would often take a concept and run with it and see were it went. In many ways similar to the way we do on this site. It is just that they tend to use a future setting and we tend to use the past and “what if”.
And like alt history future speculation can result in an interesting concept or a less interesting concept and it can be fun to read or not fun to read but the two are not related. Sometimes impossible alt history can still be fun to read and a truly “good” alt history concept can be bad reading.

In the case of Starship troopers it is interesting to read and an interesting concept to think about but in reality it is no more likely to result in a a voting citizenship that has the best interests of the country in mind then any other system would. And in fact is VERY likly to result in a government that treats not voting citizens very much as second class and that path could very well be abused. Heck it would mot be unreasonable to argure that the viters and the government ultimately would abuse the non voters. Imposeing higher taxs and opressive laws and what have you. It could easily be argued that this abusive outcome is at least as likly as Heinleins future.

Note this is not intended to be read as a criticism of the book. It is just that what makes an interesting book often results in the book ignoring the other side of things.

 

[Dorknought]

If you are paralysed from the neck down, the government will still have to find you a role.

...thinking of Kevin Bridges: "there's a farmer who needs a scarecrow." Followed by "some people looking for the offside flag on that one".

 

[Llewwyy]

You

This is why I'm modifying the idea so that you don't have to serve in the military, but can also do so in some government run program that benefits the nation as a whole. Conservation, Forestry, Nation infrastructure construction and maintenance, social health care ect. The point being you earn the franchise by spending a period of time doing directed work that benefits the nation.

Your premise is not to adopt Heinlein's Spartan system. In Britain and the Commonwealth was not voting slowly expanded to more and more groups? More recently the woman's vote was first offered to wifes of veterans. I thought, in the past, landholders could only vote. I think a gradual evolution could evolve into your idea.

 

[NedStark]

The people who work in private sector/industries create the majority of a society’s wealth and the upper echelons of this group certainly make more money than public sector employees. They would definitely want to have a say about how their tax money would be spent. The aged old taxation with representation, you know.

Freehold farmers, industrial workers, white-collar corporate employees and capitalists are among the groups that will oppose this system.

 

[Nick P]

Reminds me of In The Wet by Neville Shute. The Australian voting system he put up was for 7 votes, only one of which was given and the rest earned.

Basic - Everyone gets this vote
Education - University Degree
Foreign Travel - Two years overseas
Family - Marry and raise 2 children to voting age
Income - Earn more than the average for your employment (entrepreneur types)
Religion - Hold office in a church
Royal - Awarded by the Monarch for personal endeavour (rather like a medal or knighthood)

Now the categories are looking a little dated after 70 years but that's easy enough to amend as times and attitudes change.

The question is whether such systems will encourage people to vote. Will we say "I've earned my 5 votes and I'm damn well going to use them" or will others say "What's the point of my single vote, those 5-voters have all the power?"