Voting rate of veterans. 70 percent in 2012 and 57% in 2010. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/veteranscensus1.html

A bit better than average, but there are a lot of veterans over 65 and that may explain the higher voting rate ( or at least some of it). http://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p20-573.pdf

As I noted the group that is most conscientious about voting are those 65 and older. Do we want the old to control who gets elected?

Of course, voting rates do not tell us whether us the voter is actually being conscientious with their vote. At least the retired have the time.

I am getting a bit weary of this hero worship of the military. We are making the military into this superior caste because we got rid of the voluntary army after Vietnam. I think military service should be universal. Then military service would still be respected but it would not accord those with it superior status because everyone would do it .

The reality is that it makes little sense for any person to be conscientious about their vote given how little each particular vote matters. For those who like politics ( like us) it is no hardship to put some time into evaluating candidates, but for the average person it really makes little sense. They vote based on their core values and whether candidates appear to promote them. Parties serve to funnel candidates into certain policy groupings that a low-information voter can recognize and vote on. Primaries may be more difficult but even it is not too hard for a voter to figure out whether a candidate is a conservative, moderate or liberal member of the party.

That is how representative democracy works and at least helps to make the state accountable in some way to the people as a whole. Any caste-system, in-born or not, does not do that. Regardless if such a caste did "better" in choosing candidates it would have that fatal defect for a society that is supposed to be a democracy.

Hacker, your anecdotes are nice. But they don't mean much.

The US military has some particular problems. When you consider them as a whole doens't it suggest that as an orgaization it has problems that might make a military career actually an impediment to a successful career.
For instance; sexual assault and sexual harrassment are at epidemic levels.
http://nation.time.com/2013/05/17/the-r ... -military/

Suicide rates are surging
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/mili ... cide-rate/

Hazing is a huge problem
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/04/opini ... -stop.html

corruption, that is bribery, theft etc. is a huge problem. Hundreds of millions disappeared during the Iraq war for instance.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fdd712bd ... tary-fraud

ABout 50,000 Veterans are homeless on any given night.

About 1.4 million other veterans, meanwhile, are considered at risk of homelessness due to poverty, lack of support networks, and dismal living conditions in overcrowded or substandard housing

http://nchv.org/index.php/news/media/ba ... tatistics/

And for veterans who's seen action PTSD is enormous .

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that PTSD afflicts:
Almost 31 percent of Vietnam veterans
As many as 10 percent of Gulf War (Desert Storm) veterans
11 percent of veterans of the war in Afghanistan
20 percent of Iraqi war veterans

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/maga ... 10-14.html

I think you have rose colored glasses on.
As Sass has pointed out, of the experiences you note, all could be attained in a setting that wasn't the military. On the other hand, many of the problems I've listed for you here, are larger in the military. And Post military...

I've a friend who is a doctor in the Canadian Armed Forces. One of my friends has a son serving in the J2 force. (Like Navy Seals or SAS) . And my father in law served in WW2. When we look back at our ancestors who served in WWI and WW2 one thing that stands out is how damaged they were, ad how difficult their adjustment . My wife's grandfather served at the Somme and Ypres, and would never talk about his experiences, suffered nightmares, sleep deprivation and depression. His wife said he came back a shell of the man she married.
So, there's that side of the military experience to consider Hacker.

On the whole, the military is like most organizations. You can gain much, if things go well. Things don't always go well.
I'd rather have a politician who understood social sciences, urban engineering,, transportation engineering. Stuff like that. I'd like a politician who understood how to create organization that work from the bottom up, like democracy is supposed to rather than top down which the military does...
I'd like a politician willing to be out spoken and rock the boat rather than who followed orders well and conformed to regulation...
But then, that's me.

Ummmm.....Freeman....this one sentence of yours...

The reality is that it makes little sense for any person to be conscientious about their vote given how little each particular vote matters. For those who like politics ( like us) it is no hardship to put some time into evaluating candidates, but for the average person it really makes little sense.

...confuses me as to which side of the argument you're on, for or against. In the same breath you say that, you also stated:

They vote based on their core values and whether candidates appear to promote them. Parties serve to funnel candidates into certain policy groupings that a low-information voter can recognize and vote on. Primaries may be more difficult but even it is not too hard for a voter to figure out whether a candidate is a conservative, moderate or liberal member of the party.

So the voters have little sense to vote conscientiously, so someone else ought to do the "thinking" part of it for them. I think the British football terminology is to make "an own goal." However; before I proceed any further---I do not know how old you are freeman, but I'm old enough to remember certain things, and the "hero worship" comment was quite out of the ballpark. You need to learn something before I proceed any further:

I am getting a bit weary of this hero worship of the military. We are making the military into this superior caste because we got rid of the voluntary army after Vietnam. I think military service should be universal. Then military service would still be respected but it would not accord those with it superior status because everyone would do it .

Were you one of the vets coming home from Vietnam? Do you have any idea how they were actually treated by their fellow Americans? I'll give you a hint: like shit. My father actually had a woman come up to him when he entered the terminal building at JFK airport, shout "baby burner!" and spit in his face. He said she actually spit in his face. And she was far from a hippy or flower child (who might have at least been polite and given him a flower).

I was 13 when Iraq invaded Kuwait; not old enough to vote, certainly, but old enough to be cognizant of current events (they encouraged it in our social studies class, in fact) and everything that was going on at the time. Call me crazy, I sensed this sort of tacit "national conversation"---they said stuff on TV about it---about how to treat the returning veterans: win or lose, let's not treat them like the Vietnam vets. Of course, if helped that we won this time, as opposed to a loss with hundreds of thousands of casualties (Saddam was wrong about turning it into Vietnam for the coalition forces). But, according to some of the returning servicemen, there were actually Vietnam vets coming up to them, usually to make one short statement: thank you for bringing us home.

I am glad we have continued that tradition (that of 1991 and today, versus the Vietnam Era). Especially in the light of all the physical and emotional damage caused to veterans. What you do not realize is that, thanks to this "worship", the country can actually talk in the open about things we used to whisper in the dark...like PTSD, physically maimed veterans, and so forth.

Of course, voting rates do not tell us whether us the voter is actually being conscientious with their vote.

Another "own goal". By the way, a "caste" is something you cannot get into. And if I remember correctly, I said myself, what's wrong with permitting 2 years in the peace corps as federal service, too? And again I did not say it would be a perfect form of government. Just as the preamble to our federal constitution begins with "a more perfect Union"

Now Sass and Ricky: you have both raised excellent points that soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, coast guardsmen, etc., are not perfect people (some of them should not have been given a rifle in the first place). I know someone who committed suicide. Fiancee wrote him the proverbial "Dear John" letter and he couldn't live without her. Having access to firearms, well, he shot himself. And I have definitely heard of the tragic murder-suicides that resulted from PTSD and other mental ailments caused by military service.

I won't make this reply any longer, I'll include more of my arguments. In a way I was kind of floating this to see what you all thought. I said right in the first post of this thread "not a silver bullet". For some reason I've had to defend myself as if I hadn't said that.

BTW the old already do control who get elected. Their little lobby group, the AARP, which my father calls "The NRA for Old People." Remember our discussions on PACs and corporate donations. They're one of them!

Hacker, your anecdotes are nice. But they don't mean much.

I should thank my lucky stars, perhaps, that at least he didn't call me an idiot this time.

When Churchill was brought up, it reminded me that he had been in conflict as a soldier. But so had Hitler. Indeed a lot of the support for the far right in post WWI Germany came from veterans, cf the Freikorps

I am older than you Hacker. ( I was born in the late 60s )-- I am quite willing to learn from other people, but you are being a bit condescending and presumptuous in saying I need to learn something Of course you have to treat veterans with respect, but I think there is a downside in exalting the military too much. Here is a nice article on that .http://www.stonekettle.com/2010/06/dang ... n.html?m=1
By the way , stories of veterans getting treated shabbily coming back from Vietnam appear to be vastly overstated--90% in a 1971 poll indicated favorable homecomings. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor ... ing_image/)
( And it is perfectly acceptable to use caste to describe a non- hereditary privileged group even if the word was derived from a hereditary system in India--see http://i.word.com/idictionary/caste)

I did not say voters let others do their thinking for them. I am not scoring an own goal, I am showing how even low- information voters can cast rational votes for politicians whose policies align with their own.

By the way , I think that it is appropriate to ask people to support what they say or question their sources. But you tend to question whether a person is old enough to know something or whether they have adequate sources of information because they live overseas. Basically , you are implicitly arguing that your view on a subject should be favored because you have a privileged source of information that the other person does not have. It's an a appeal to authority type argument ( in this case you 're the authority ) rather than just arguing the case on its merits. We all have the ability to give opinions here and in my view they should be decided on their merits--where the opinion comes from should not matter.

danivon wrote:When Churchill was brought up, it reminded me that he had been in conflict as a soldier. But so had Hitler. Indeed a lot of the support for the far right in post WWI Germany came from veterans, cf the Freikorps

Godwin +1

Not really - in a discussion about the "benefits" of rule by veterans, why is it so wrong to look at an example of a veteran backed by veterans?

If I was calling Hacker a nazi, that would be a Godwin.

The Freikorps support of the far -right is appropriate. Can Hitler be cited as having military experience as a sort of word association from Churchill be justified because there is a discussion about military experience of US presidents? That appears to be a stretch. I think Brad made the right call. Sorry Owen! (But I did like the historical reference to the dangers of having veterans being involved in politics--that was solid.)

Allright freeman, maybe that was a little condescending, the way I said it. A bit of a kneejerk reaction, but one I think that was reasonably justified--at least in intent if not in the manner of its execution. My apologies for the condescending manner, but I think I have a point: the so-called worship of vets in the United States has, ironically, allowed us to discuss the negatives of military service at the same time. How? Because we now have an environment in which it is safe to do so.

So forgive me if I was a little condescending, it wasn't my intent. (Though there's plenty of condescention to go around, not just on this thread.)

OK allow me to say this again, I said that in my personal belief, it would be beneficial to be not just veterans, but also if you wanted to join the Peace Corps or something like that, instead. So not just military vets. Now if you're arguing specifically against Heinlein's position (Fleet, Mobile Infantry or something weird, take your pick) I see; but I myself had said it would be nice if there were another option, then it wouldn't just be military veterans. I have now said this more than several times.

So far I have read your Boston.com article...I get the feeling that it is mostly the author's "opinion". He cites one source. GI's landed at regular airports as well as military bases; he is dead wrong about that. They still do, when they come home. And is my father lying to me that he was at Kennedy (airport) when the lady spit in his face? The author does not seem very knowledgable about the military. I would be more interested in hearing the POV of a veteran of that way, than a sociology professor spouting off mostly what he "thinks". Nothing against sociology professors, but this guy ought to stick to what he knows, and that surely isn't in the realm of military service.

low- information voters can cast rational votes for politicians whose policies align with their own.

Wait a second, freeman, if someone is aware that a politician's policies are aligned with their own, they're not really "low information", then, are they? Certainly they have enough information to know that much, right? Personally, when I vote, if I haven't been able to gather enough info on a particular politician on the ballot, or their opponents in that particular race, then I leave that part of the ballot blank. I'd rather abstain on a particular question than vote carelessly (such as by guessing, or eenie-meenie-minee-moh-ing it).

Actually I would be interested in hearing the opinions on this merited suffrage system from one of our Aussie members. In the Commonwealth of Australia, voting is actually compulsory. I have often wondered why that is....? (It could be that their ballots are so complicated that, if it weren't compulsory, so few would turn out to vote as to make elections meaningless in a democracy?) An Aussie told me the ballot for the House is like a postcard, that for the Senate is a smallish tablecloth, though I am sure he means that as an exaggeration....and you have to number your preferences, too....even for the bizillion candidates for state "legislative councils" (think that's the upper house in the state parliaments?)...wow....I myself might be turned off by that, I have to admit!

That aside, suppose this system *did* have the third option of joining the peace corps or some such organization? Would that make it OK then?

With regard to veterans I would not presume to question what your father told you about what he encountered. But you made a generalized point supported by your father's anecdotal example; I just addressed whether your general point about mistreatment of Vietnam veterans was true. I would also note that in addition to the professor the Harris poll of 1971 indicating that over 90 percent of veterans polled had favorable homecomings. I thought it was interesting the stories of soldiers of other wars reporting not being treated well when they came home. I suspect that a common fear among soldiers is that because war has changed them they will not be well-received when they come home. Admittedly I am somewhat speculating here.
I think this law review article does better than I can in explaining how a low -information voter can still make a rational choice (at least in a general election) and ways that their choices can be better- informed in primaries even though they are not doing much on their own to get informed. http://www.yalelawjournal.org/feature/d ... electorate

sounds like you're saying the voters are "accidentally" informed (a rather fascinating concept). Reminds me: quite a while ago I was reading a book that was not about voting, but about mutual funds. Russ Kinnel, the chief mutual fund analyst at Morningstar (the company that gives em those "star ratings" and lots of other statistical and analytical information they disseminate to the investing public), did a survey that found, despite the fact that many investors, whether do it yourself or via an adviser who is clueless [or as self-interested] as their clients (and they're out there!) end up picking superior funds by accident. They just don't always buy them at the right times, of course, but still end up picking decent ones usually and making at least some headway as far as being inflation and reaching their eventual goals.

What does my mention of Morningstar's mutual fund survey to do with political voting? Maybe the report (I will read it in a sec) will cover something like that? Maybe voters, knowing only a little about a candidate, end up picking the "right" one accidentally, or quasi-accidentally? (by which I mean with only little information they still pick the right winner?) The down side of that is, that of course 1) a broken clock is right twice a day, and 2) the effectiveness of the "right horse" they picked anyway, well, that's a matter of opinion right? (Certainly depends at least partially on whether one is a Democrat or a Republican or a conservative or a liberal you think?) And perhaps that voter's "self-interest" ends up being different than that of all his neighbors, or even many of them?

Now, back to Heinleinism (or its corollary via the Rt. Hon. James Hacker, M.P., wherein one could have one or two non-military options to fulfill what Heinlein is proposing without following him 100% literally). So veterans can be nuts. They can be no more or less wise than a non-veteran. They can possibly be semi-morons, and maybe there was nothing they could have possibly been able to do in the army except peel potatoes, as their superiors would not have trusted them with enough brains to fire a rifle, let alone be a sonar operator or drone...um....person. Yeah, they can be like us, certainly no "better" than us as political animals. (And we mustn't forget Plato's maxim that the best rulers were the ones who didn't want it in the first place, and if you had to do "federal service" by your own choice, that obviously wouldn't apply to Heinlein's, or my, vets.) And I think Sassenach, if I understand you correctly, you're basically saying (correct me if I am wrong) that if these veterans would not be noticeably or by a wide mark "better" voters, per se, than us, what's the point, right?

Did I say this already about corporate donations? How, even though the entire electorate would be smaller---perhaps way smaller---it would be much harder for the PACs and corporations to infiltrate and influence it, as they do today with democracy (but only in the United States, of course ).

Besides, if corporations and PACs have so much control over the electorate, aren't we aiding and abetting them simply by voting the way they influence us to vote? One wonders what a smaller group of electors (OK, call it a caste, whatever you please) would do, especially the citizens/veterans they put in office, in response to lobbyists and corporate execs attempting to influence their hard-earned votes?

hacker

id I say this already about corporate donations? How, even though the entire electorate would be smaller---perhaps way smaller---it would be much harder for the PACs and corporations to infiltrate and influence it, as they do today with democracy (but only in the United States, of course ).Besides, if corporations and PACs have so much control over the electorate, aren't we aiding and abetting them simply by voting the way they influence us to vote? One wonders what a smaller group of electors (OK, call it a caste, whatever you please) would do, especially the citizens/veterans they put in office, in response to lobbyists and corporate execs attempting to influence their hard-earned votes?

Fewer people with power means harder to corrupt?
Surely the opposite is true.
If I have to bribe or influence 3000 people that will be less costly and time consuming than if I have 300,000.
BTW, in most other democracies there are legislated limits to the amount of spending in a campaign, and a limit to who and how much any person or business can contribute... Versus the situation in the US after Citizens United.

And why exactly do those congressmen now have to raise so much money? (Socratic dialogue, follow me on this one....) but this is just a theory, OK?

hacker

And why exactly do those congressmen now have to raise so much money?

Because there are no spending limits.
Because campaign financing is private, not public.

There are alternatives .