Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 13 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 12 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 11 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 10 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 9 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 8 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 7 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 6 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

Happy belated anniversary! Due to a glitch in the Matrix, we forgot to mark year number 5 since you first became a Sifter. The community wouldn\'t be the same without you. Thanks for your contributions!

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 4 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 3 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 2 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

After much thought and consideration, I don't come to the same conclusion. Let me take the situation we have here in the USA.

Voting is relatively easy here in the US, the biggest obstacle are lines, and the will to stand in said line. Yet, at best you can expect for an average national election is 40%. In that, 100% are bound by that 40%. And of that 40%, you only need majority in most cases to pass legislation. Let us say of that 40% that voted, it was perfectly partisan; 20% red, 20% blue. This would mean that at best in most instances, 100% of us are bound by what 20% of people have said.

Making voting easy has seemingly cheapened it in peoples minds, I think. And my conjecture is that is because you never really "op in" to being a voter in any significant way. There is never a time where one commits himself to his country, and his country to him. There is no right of passage other than age. This is the connection I am seeking to create in my mind. Where there is a true act of commitment by both parties to one another, and that imbibes a since of responsibility and worth.

There is a problem of who manages the rights of the non-citizens, but that is a problem we already have with resident aliens and such. This would just be taking that idea to a new level. There are lots of ins and outs to manage in my theoretical construct, but they are by no means insurmountable, or poise any real problems of liberty any more than a person who chooses not to vote does now. My point is being born is arbitrary. Making a choice to partake in a social contract isn't implicit, or explicit in birth. What I am proposing bears much in common with the confederation in Star Ship troopers if you have ever read it. While I think I would discourage military as a main means for obtaining citizenship, I think citizens would be highly motivated to make their country free from corruption because of the investment they made with time, sweat and blood, personally.

In reply to this comment by mgittle:
My reply to gwiz dealt with your post as well. Really, I should have combined or separated them for more clarity. My bad, you're right, it does look like I was saying you agreed with the property rights thing, and the @ to you should have probably been in the second one along with the one for gwiz.

However, I stand by my opinion that voting needs to be easier instead of harder, and governments don't need more power to disenfranchise people. If we want better results, we need a more informed and educated public or a different form of governing ourselves. Like I said, I agree with the sentiment you and others are expressing, and restricting voting is a logical solution, but I think there are many unforeseeable and unintended consequences in implementing tests/classes/etc for voting. See my comments in that thread about corruption, etc.

Regarding birth in a country giving you specific rights, well, that's just how it happens to work culturally, right? I mean, if you look objectively at the concept of countries, they're automatically going to be fairly arbitrary simply due to the lack of choice in being born. Historically, it was and easy way of determining citizenship in a world where lines on a map could help you determine a lot. In today's world, those lines are all blurred, and technology gives us all sorts of options for keeping records, administering tests, etc. So, we have new options and there's nothing wrong with thinking out loud about that.

You obviously didn't read anything I wrote because I didn't agree with the prospect of land being the basis for voting. I spin your comment on critical thinking back at yourself and challenge you to read my comments for how they were intended. GWIZ has a comment right above yourself that mimics what I have said in a much better phrasing. Perhaps try and be a bit more transcendent yourself, sir.

In reply to this comment by mgittle:
@GeeSussFreeK @Winstonfield_Pennypacker

Let's do a fun critical thinking exercise! You guys really need it.

Say someone's company asks them to move to a different state or city and take a position for 2 years, after which they'll be asked to move again to a possibly more permanent position. That person looks at the local rental/housing market and decides it'll be cheaper to rent for those two years because the cost of the loan/interest and the potential hassle of selling the house (possibly at a loss) is really risky to deal with when you know you're going to move.

That person, who is capable of making an intelligent and informed decision, shouldn't be allowed to vote? Even using your "logic", I can see how someone could feel it prudent to prevent "temporary" residents from voting on local matters like millages, mayoral elections, etc, but state and national elections? Really?

This also doesn't consider college students, people who are living together but not married (such as with significant others or family members who own homes), or millions of other people who simply can't afford homes or don't want the lifestyle, maintenance costs, etc of owning a home.

I was really trying to avoid making any sort of personal attack with this...but I have to ask, did you even think about what you were saying before you typed it out?

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.