Advocate: Mike. Challenger: Geoffrey. Facilitator: Robert. Other Participants: Jamili, Vickie, Roxy, Heather, Bill, Larry, Daniel, Amber, Andrea

---

Mike’s Argument

Mike’s argument was that: “There should be more voter suppression, in the form of literacy tests, along the lines of the test given to people applying for citizenship. We don’t need more voters who are clueless about the Constitution.”

Mike argued that voters should be required to possess a minimum of civic knowledge. He argued that this requirement would incentivize each party to increase the levels of education in their voter bases. Mike expressed concern about those who might vote to undermine the Constitution or in pursuit of mob justice. Mike pointed to Athens and the early US republic favorably, with qualifications. While literacy tests had an ugly history, if racism is taken out, they could become a useful tool to avoid the harm of ignorant decision-making.

---

Reactions

One of the sentiments was that people should have a vote because they are governed (because they pay taxes and are subject to the government’s laws), and not because they are informed or civically literate.

Daniel suggested more civic education and to improve education in general.

There was concern about who could be excluded: the poor, overworked, disabled, or marginalized. “Who writes the questions? Who administers the law? How do you stop rigging or other manipulations?”

Some participants approved of increasing access rather than limiting eligibility: For example, moving elections off of Tuesdays and having an election holiday.

Robert (I) wondered what problem this would solve. I felt that educated populations may also support attacks on the Constitution (or violent attacks on minorities); i.e., this threat was not confined to people unable to pass literacy tests.

---

Geoffrey’s Challenge

While Geoffrey argued against Mike’s proposal, he also supported further restriction of the vote. Geoffrey argued that: “Age is arbitrary and a civics exam is subjective. Democracy works best when the vote is limited to those who are willing to pay a steep price for the privilege. The most valuable resource anyone has is time. Therefore, the voting privilege should be limited to those who have served the government (police, military, etc.) for at least 4 years for nothing beyond basic room and board.”

Geoffrey argued that voting should be more valued. He updated the language of his original proposal, lowering the time requirement to 2 years of service, and indicating an openness to offering more than just room and board (for example, some sort of basic pay). He also clarified that service could include any federal service. Geoffrey felt that exposure to the workings of government would help inform voters. A major concern of Geoffrey’s was for people to value their vote more, and so he emphasized sacrifice (specifically, service that is unpleasant or “hurts”). In this vein, later in the conversation, he also suggested voters pay their taxes on election day to qualify.

---

Reactions

There was a similar concern by some that voters needn’t serve the government to deserve representation under its laws.

There was concern that it was un-American and contradicted the principle of “no taxation without representation”. If government can tax, arrest, regulate, draft, and imprison, then voting may be seen as a basic protection, not a mere privilege.

Roxy emphasized that it was already the case that many people feel skeptical about the responsiveness of government.

There was a lot of support for national service aside from it as a requirement to vote. Potentially some of that support may even have extended to national service as a requirement not tied to the vote, but this was not explored.

Larry voiced support for the idea of requiring people to vote. Vickie wondered if that idea would backfire encouraging people to vote without thought or with resentment.

A claim was made that both approaches would have challenges under the current Constitution via the 14^th, 15^th, 19^th, and 26^th amendments.

---

Fact Check: SAVE ACT

Vickie volunteered to fact check the SAVE Act. A claim had been made along the lines that Republicans wanted onerous processes to vote requiring passports and travel to the county seat.

The fact check indicated that the SAVE ACT required one of the following for registration: US passport, birth certificate, or a certificate of naturalization. Additionally, a photo ID would be required to vote: either a passport or a driver’s license. Excluded documentation included student IDs and tribal IDs. For people with documentation problems, a process exists to receive a letter of no record. (However, it was not explored whether this letter would meet the SAVE ACT’s requirements).

A comparison of current law and the SAVE ACT was not made.

The source of the fact check was named: Gemini and Chat GPT. There was some light laughter about the sources, but the facts presented were not challenged as inaccurate.

---

Philosophical Differences

The conversation revealed a number of philosophical differences.

Is the vote a right or a privilege?

Where Mike emphasized the quality of decision-making behind a vote, Geoffrey emphasized the value of the vote, and others emphasized access to the vote as offering a basic protection, or voting access as a basic component of the government’s legitimacy.

If voting is seen as a privilege, then that privilege can be limited to people who earn civic standing or display sufficient competence.

If voting is seen as a basic right, then that right is tied to the fact of being subject to the government’s laws.

Does scarcity create value?

From a behavioral-economic perspective, scarcity drives up prices, and high prices indicate high value. There are many studies that show people value high priced services and goods over low priced services and goods, even when those goods and services are in fact identical other than their prices.

From a moral-political perspective, rights have inherent value because they protect dignity and support autonomy. There are also studies that show people’s intrinsic motivation (e.g., curiosity, drive for mastery, etc.) can be undermined by overemphasizing extrinsic motivation (e.g., recognition, payments, etc.).

How do we improve social problems such as apathy and low civic literacy?

There was support for doing something about the underlying problems Mike and Geoffrey were concerned with. From apathy and low civic literacy, to cynicism, despair, and the entrenchment of false beliefs; most people in the room seemed to agree that these were social problems that were worth trying to improve.

While there was a lot of opposition to tying Mike and Geoffrey’s recommendations to voting rights, there was generally a lot of support for both a stronger civics education and the concept of national service. It was not explored, but perhaps there would also have been support for reforming media institutions.

In general, there was more support for better preparing citizens to vote well than there was for limiting who can vote.

---

Format Feedback

There was generally support for the current format. However, Larry felt there wasn’t enough opportunity for most participants to contribute to the discussion. He felt the advocate and challenger dominated the exchange too much. On the other hand, Mike felt there should be more time for the advocate (and the challenger) to respond to each question directed to them after their opening argument.

In general, I think it would be wise for me to stick to the current format for a while before experimenting more. I believe the experience would benefit from repetition at this point. I will do more to communicate my reasoning around the format’s design and to introduce it more thoroughly at the beginning of the event. I will also give both Larry and Mike specific feedback about my reasoning behind design decisions they critiqued. Anyone interested in also hearing that reasoning can reach out to me and I will freely share it.