Who's mentally fit to vote?
Periodically, an election-year issue arises about the mental health status of a candidate. Now there's a small but growing national debate about the mental health of voters.
Various states are debating the issue of just who is mentally competent to vote. Is a person with dementia? A person declared criminally insane but found not guilty of a crime? How about a person with Alzheimer's disease, schizophrenia, brain injury?
Some advocates for people with mental disabilities say interest and willingness to vote are enough; other voters aren't subject to special tests for voting "fitness." But others say the voting system is compromised if voters don't understand the basics of the process. Some worry that people with disabilities can be manipulated to vote in particular ways.
How do you feel? Should voting be open to everyone, or should there be some determination of competence to vote?
posted by Krista Ramsey at 4:22 PM
17 Comments:
at 5:08 PM, August 08, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 8:35 AM, August 09, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 9:11 AM, August 09, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11:13 AM, August 09, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 1:09 PM, August 09, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 5:48 PM, August 10, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11:23 AM, August 11, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 12:25 PM, August 11, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 8:41 AM, August 13, 2007 
Brah Coon said...
-
-
at 11:10 AM, August 13, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 8:54 AM, August 14, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 9:03 AM, August 14, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 9:06 AM, August 14, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 1:03 PM, August 14, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 3:26 PM, August 15, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 7:38 AM, August 16, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 12:07 PM, August 17, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
Post a Comment*This is silly.
The BMV can't adequately test senior drivers for driving competency. Then, they fail to enforce the standards when bad drivers are identified, to keep bad drivers off the road.
How and who do you expect to test and enforce voting standards for mental competency?
This is a bit off-topic, but I wanted to throw this out there...
Regarding the story of the homeless man who was shot and killed recently -- why do all the stories seem to think that homelessness is the main issue here?
I submit that the real issue is the ease with which mentally unstable people can acquire guns.
It speaks volumes about the NRA's grip over the country that the media seems to overlook that aspect entirely.
well clearly neocons and fundamentalists lack the competence to understand how a democracy functions. cut them off.
had enough of the lies and hate?
vote democratic!
Anon 9:11 demonstrates how silly people can act but we shouldn't prevent her from voting "democratic". I guess democratic means Republican or Democrat?
9:11 says sure. i voted for voinovich and would probably vote for him again, but he's the last mainstream republican that's been available to vote on in a long time.
boener, schmidt, chabot, dewine, bush, cheney, blackweasel, i would put them on an ice floe and set them adrift.
My mother has vascular dementia from a stroke back in 1988. She's been allowed to vote in every election since then (she lived in nursing homes during this time). When I asked her in 2004 how she chose her candidate, she told me it was because he was "so handsome". I asked her what office he was running for, and she said, "I don't know."
She lives with me now, I know she is mentally incompetent and I have no intention of letting her vote in 2008. When a person doesn't have the mental capacity to know the office a person is running for, or the issues they stand for, they shouldn't vote. A level of compentecy should be required, and it is up to those of us who are competent (and hold POA) to make that decision for those in question.
If the person knows who the candidates are, the office they are running for and their stand on issues, then they have every right and responsibility to vote. But when someone can't remember the date, their name, the names of those around them, or any of the aspects of the election or the candidates, they aren't able to make a competent decision, and should not vote.
It's hard to decide this for someone, but it's necessary to insure some degree of rationality in the already tainted process.
Hmm, perhaps we should make sure the candidates are mentally competent, too... ;-)
-indygrad
Who would decide what competency means? It's a dangerous idea.
Anon 5:48pm Perhaps you are too rough on your mother. If your mom wants to vote for the more handsome of the two candidates that can be as valid a reason as some of the kook fringe reasoning by the Libs.
Now if she doesn't know her name, the date, who is running ,etc, she shouldn't be allowed to vote. But obviously the standards for competancy need to be set low or 1/4 of the voters would be disqualified to vote.
Indygrad -- In a country where most people don't know a globe from a basketball; don't know Sunni from Shia and wouldn't know the U.S. Constitution from a hole in the ground, do you really think your Ma' is going to gum up the works?
Let her have her fun for crying out loud! You only have one Mother. Presidents are as common as dirt.
sorry 12:25 but the liberals can't hold a candle to the kook fringe reasoning of the republicans and neocons. you know, the people that brought us fear level red right before the election, or vote for me or a gay person will move into your neighborhood, or vote for me or you'll have to pray to allah.
So some folks think the mentally ill or infirm shouldn't vote, eh? Why? Because they won't make an "informed" decision? Because an ill person's vote is somehow going to throw off the balance of the election and suddenly perennial candidate Ralph Nader is going to win??? Give me a break. Even the most sane, informed individual is constantly stuck in the "lesser of all evils" scenario when entering into the polling booth. Votes are skwewed by dirty politics, slander campaigns, name familiarity, looks, and similarity bias. Let's also not pretend that there aren't probably some very sane people out there who vote with their eyes closed, or write in "Superman" for President, or otherwise make a mockery of the voting process. As a non-felony convicted , American citizen, you have a right to vote (or NOT vote) whatever way you want--sane or not. This initiative reeks of elitist BS. What's next? Poor people aren't fit to vote because they might have "ill-informed" opinions about who best represents them? What about the LGBT community? They're the "scary fringe" too, aren't they? It's simply a ploy to turn back the hands of time and begin marginalizing minority groups in the voting process again? I further ask, who will decide what "mentally ill" is? Will it be only the floridly psychotic who can't vote? Or will it be anyone who has ever had a mental health diagnosis? It's a slippery slope when you start to talk about limiting the rights of individuals based on the judgments of others who may or may not have a particular political ax to grind.
AOA- see, that's the problem. I don't think electing the leader of this country is a "fun" enterprise. I am one of the few citizens who take it rather seriously. But hey, I can make an 'absentee ballot' for Mom to play with...thanks for the suggestion. :)
Before the stroke, Mom knew the difference between a globe and a basketball, lol! She was a highly intelligent woman. Heartbreaking to see her mental state now. As Anon 5:48 stated, if she doesn't know the names of people around her, etc., she shouldn't be allowed to vote. I agree (as I stated in my original post), and that's why she won't be voting...well, for real, anyway.
Interesting note though. I never said who she voted for in 2004. If I had, would it have changed anyone's opinion? You bet!
I just thought of something else to consider. What if someone with dementia were one party, and their POA was another party. Would that unfairly alter the election? After all, the POA could rant on and fill the demented one's head with ideas they normally wouldn't have accepted when they were rational.
This is truly a tricky area, and one in which some hard objective thought should be given.
-indygrad
OOPS...make that Anon 12:25, Aug. 11 who I agree with in my previous post. Sorry. :-S
-indygrad
Anon 11:10am is a perfect example for the question of "where do you draw the line for voting competency?" She is a kook without reasoning or explanation in her comments, but she still should be able to vote.
Influence of caretakers doesn't seem like a crucial issue. Most of the voting populace can be easily swayed by friends and family. And there's too much gray are surrounding who is mentally incompetent. I think any initiative using mental competence as a determiner sets us back.
I do, however, agree with those that advocate limiting voting only to those that contribute to the system. If you are living off the government teat, you should not be allowed to vote. We know the only thing you want is more handouts.
And before someone yells at me and calls me an elitist, I do not mean that people on food stamps or subsidized housing should be excluded. I will support giving people a let up. But people who have been on welfare from birth, who have taken more out than they contribute, should not be able to vote. You shouldn't be allowed to influence the system if you don't contribute to it.
Anon 3:26PM reads like you want to return to the "good old days" when only property owners could vote.
The USA is a representative democracy...at times. The representatives are to represent all within their districts/states. This includes from the "least" among us to the "super rich". Why would you want to deny lifetime fraudulant welfare recipients (whom I deploy), the right to vote for their representatives/senators?
Sorry, I meant deplore and not deploy.
* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.
By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site. << Home