Firstly, I need to ask if anybody has read Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein. Great book; the movie didn't really do it justice. However, some say former soap-opera star Casper van Dien is attractive.

While the title Starship Troopers puts it on the Science Fiction shelf, it's really political: all of it. And for good reason: there is no better way to get a very hefty, very controversial moral and/or political message across to your readers than by using a medium or literary genre popular at the time of its publication, which happened to be 1959. I will go out on a limb and assume that sci fi was quite popular among more than just "geeks" in the early Space Age in United States.

Abstract: it is the 23rd century, and Earth (more properly the "Terran Federation") is attacked from afar by a grotesque insectoid species which somehow possess the ability to fire space weapons which score a direct hit on the City of Buenos Aires, instantly vaporizing its millions of unfortunate inhabitants, and thrusting a previously at-peace Terran Federation into a State of War. About this time, the main character, Juanito Rico, has already graduated high school and decided to give the military a try: specifically, its most badass division known as "Mobile Infantry" (akin to the USMC in badassedness...but in space).

The plot itself chronicles the travails of Juanito ("Johnny") and his Mobile Infantry career, during and after the War with the Bugs. But here is where Heinlein squeezes in his politics: the narrative (from Rico's point of view) constantly flashes back to his senior year of high school, specifically his memories of a mandatory (but not graded) class called History and Moral Philosophy. (Rico later finds out that his teacher, who he formerly could not stand, is actually the much-respected Lt. Col. DuBois, Mobile Infantry, Ret.)

It is in M. DuBois' class that we learn of the total collapse of democratic (universal suffrage) government in the United States, the UK, Russia, et.al., following a massive war fought between the former and their alllies, and China. The democratic societies on Earth had become by the early 21st century more and more internally chaotic, due to some basic flaws in democracy Heinlein is not too squeamish to point out to his readers. (Personally, I am surprised Heinlein wasn't hauled before the Senate Committee on Un-American Activities for his sharp criticism of universal-suffrage democracy.)

By the way: Heinlein reveals that the world's parliamentary democracies, just like the United States, all dysfunctionally went down the drain together, and for the same reason. Q.E.D.

What happened?

Democracy, by which Heinlein meant any system of representative government with universal suffrage (you get the "right" to vote at 18 no questions asked except perhaps your name, address and social security number), gives people what they DESIRE and not what they have EARNED. Even more: the lack of a true concept of value is a built-in caveat to democracies where suffrage is automatic at age 18. Why?

For example, some teenager gets a Lexus for his 16th birthday (happens in America with stupid parents). His friend from down the street got a part-time job, worked for months on end, and bought a car HIMSELF. Who is going to take care of their car better? The former, the idiot who got it free of charge? Or the latter, who had to earn his car through hard work? Five'll get ya ten, the former will be the victim, or only one of the victims, of a drunk driving accident before the year is out. The latter will likely take more diligent care because he had to go through so much hardship and effort to earn it.

In his fictitious Terran Federation, you still have "rights" like in the American Constitution, or those of the declarations of rights most developed and democratic constitutions guarantee. Except the right to vote and/or run for office! To be a voter and/or elected leader of any sort, local, state or federal, it required completion of a minimum of two years "federal service" (usually experienced as service in the Space Fleet or the Army/Mobile Infantry). Of course, you had to be a VETERAN to have suffrage, not active duty (in other words you had to wait until you retired or got out to be a voter and/or politician).

The $64,000 question is of course would people who had to EARN their suffrage, as opposed to people in our societies, who are just GIVEN it, "take better care" of their suffrage? Vote more carefully; and not only vote but "get involved" in the political affairs of their state, city, and country? Would Juan Rico cast his vote in similar fashion to the voter who, in the American presidential election of 1964, told a reporter she was not voting for Barry Goldwater because she thought he was going to sell her TV? (Incidentally, when the reporter better informed the voter that Senator Goldwater was probably talking about his plan to privatize the Tennessee Valley Authority [TVA], she paused for a moment, but then shook her head and said "No, I'm not taking any chances.") Or, would Juan Rico have read the news every single day, did careful research (not just Googling for articles supporting what he already believed) and maybe even made extensive emails and phone calls to talk with and try to "know" the politicians or candidates personally?

I doubt that this new form of government would be the "silver bullet" for all the problems facing our society, today. But it would at least place the power of the society into a caste of voters who earned that privilege (not a "right" as it was not just there already, but they had to earn it). In fact, it would not be a "caste" or an "elite", because it's perfectly accessible to everybody, provided they willingly jump through the right hoops to earn it. And when you get right down to it, at least in this country, how many Americans would miss it? How many actually get off their fat asses and vote in primaries? And vote in an informed manner, rather than a herdlike one? Before one protests that debarring a large percentage of the population from participating in society's "watchdogs of freedom", the tradeoff would be yes, less of watchdogs, but the watchdogs who were participating due to merit would be better and more careful watchdogs (in other words, what good is "quantity" if not commensurate with "quality"?)

Whatever certain Redscapers may say to the contrary they have to consider if the dysfunction in some governments is due to politicians getting into office who care less about the people, because they just kept sending them back to Washington (or Ottawa, or Westminster, or Paris, or Tokyo) in sheeplike fashion and constantly failing to investigate what they were really up to. Dysfunctional governments are only put in office by dysfunctional voters. Ultimately we all get the governments we deserve when we go to vote.

Heinlein mentions other flaws in democracy, in the U.S. and around the world, that he thought would eventually contribute to the fall of our democracies. But I'm not going to get too extensive this single post is long enough.

JH

Yeah, because military governments have a glittering track record...

(Personally, I am surprised Heinlein wasn't hauled before the Senate Committee on Un-American Activities for his sharp criticism of universal-suffrage democracy.)

Heinlein was very right wing, so it's not really surprising.

For example, some teenager gets a Lexus for his 16th birthday (happens in America with stupid parents). His friend from down the street got a part-time job, worked for months on end, and bought a car HIMSELF. Who is going to take care of their car better?

Folksy metaphors don't really make a good basis for a constitution. The simple fact is that we don't know who would take better care of it. That depends on all kinds of different personality traits.

In his fictitious Terran Federation, you still have "rights" like in the American Constitution, or those of the declarations of rights most developed and democratic constitutions guarantee. Except the right to vote and/or run for office!

Our civil rights spring from our political rights.

The $64,000 question is of course would people who had to EARN their suffrage, as opposed to people in our societies, who are just GIVEN it, "take better care" of their suffrage? Vote more carefully; and not only vote but "get involved" in the political affairs of their state, city, and country?

I'd take exception to the idea that the right to vote is something that is given to us. In a democratic society it's an inherent right that derives from our citizenship, it isn't handed down from on high. The state's right to pass laws and govern us is something that is given to it by virtue of our consent. This is a fundamental point that Heinlein doesn't really seem to understand. In proposing a system where only military veterans can take part in the political process he's essentially proposing a state that is fundamentally lacking in basic legitimacy.

But in answer to the specific question, no, I don't see that it is more likely. Military veterans are human just like the rest of us. Some of them might choose to get involved in politics but most probably wouldn't, and there's no reason to suppose that they'd be qualified to make better decisions just because they once blew the hing legs off a giant beetle.

The likelihood is that this system would be very bit as dysfunctional and corrupt as the current system. Military veterans, being the only constituency, would be the only people who count. You can be sure that greater tax breaks/free healthcare/increased benefits for veterans would be top of every politician's agenda. People vote primarily in their own perceived interests.

Yeah, because military governments have a glittering track record

True, however: the book said that the active duty military were never citizens, only veterans were citizens. Heinlein explicitly explains that if you stay in the military (say you wanted an actual career in the Fleet or Mobile Infantry) you are not a citizen, yet, and cannot vote as long as you stay in. Only once you get out. Juan Rico stayed in and became an officer, so I believe by the end of the book he still wasn't a citizen, even though he had been in greater than two years.

Otherwise, yeah, that would be a very peculiar thing: an electoral military junta. Though I have never actually heard of one of those (though General Sisi's "presidency" of Egypt comes close).

Folksy metaphors don't really make a good basis for a constitution. The simple fact is that we don't know who would take better care of it. That depends on all kinds of different personality traits.

I think my metaphor was more than just folksy: it was spot-on. In a way this is more than a constitution, it's a concept of value: you cannot get in life that which you do not earn. It's human nature to want something for nothing, and when we get it we do not treat it [whatever we got for free] very well.

To be honest, this kind of government, a representative meritocracy, or, in countries without a monarch, a meritocratic republic; could probably only come to be after a total collapse. Military defeats are good for producing total collapse and chaos, and causing revolutions. So if the world's democratic power centers, including the United States, did collapse it might end up being the only preferable option.

This form of government described by Heinlein would not be to my personal tastes, because I am someone who puts in a bit more effort than the average Joe when it comes to political participation. But I would prefer it to dictatorship, or communism, or fascism, or a chaotic pseudo-democracy like Iraq or Weimar Germany. But if things really did go to pieces, it might end up being the only option.

But look at this from another angle: why would it have to be the military? Heinlein had some sharp criticisms of the military so he focused on that pretty much. Naturally, a book like this that is trying to get a political message across is going to exaggerate the point a little bit. In reality, a government could do the same thing, but allow the Peace Corps as a third option: do a few years in the jungles or deserts of the Third World, helping provide medical care and construct housing and wells, and that sort of thing, instead of the Armed Forces as the only option.

Our civil rights spring from our political rights

And ink is cheap. How many democracies, even perfectly stable ones, have degraded into dictatorships? (and not just by the grace of the CIA and/or United Fruit). So civil rights are not political? how interesting. I'm sorry to sound terribly old-fashioned, but Hitler was defeated by our military, not by our journalists and college campus activists.

it isn't handed down from on high

I would agree, but in any case it becomes a "birthright" in a democracy. See paragraph above.

The state's right to pass laws and govern us is something that is given to it by virtue of our consent.

You just said that the State has the right to pass laws. The rest of the sentence said "by our consent" but who enforces that consent?

By the way, I did say "it would not be the silver bullet for all of our problems", I might point out. And yes, members of our military, judging by the ones I know, certainly do represent a vast range of opinions. Military people would not be the only ones "who count". Because out of the "civilian" population would be a shitload of people who could at any time sign up for the military (or Peace Corps as I suggested) and end up citizens themselves. Of course veterans aren't necessarily smarter or anything, or even wiser, politically. And if many of them do not want to get involved in politics when they get out, ya think it could be because, having had to follow its orders (and misorders) for so long, they're a little jaded by the experience?

Democracies do not always act peacefully, benevolently or even in the interests of their own people's freedom. I haven't verified this, but I do believe the vote in the Senate on the Patriot Act was 98 to 1 (in favor). Sounds like even Congress goes for "national security" before Freedom. Our Congress, whether it was lied to or not, voted in favor of going to war with Iraq in 2003. Do not forget the Tonkin Resolution of 1965. And I understand that EU countries have had arbitrary powers to fight internal discord for a much longer than we've had the Patriot Act on our side of the pond. My point? If you think democratic governments enforce freedoms themselves, or that the people will all rise up the minute the government suspends habeas corpus (they didn't in this country) or oversteps its constitutional bounds, and force those in power to follow that constitution, that's a little naive. Politicians must be forced to enforce the constitution. John Marshall said "the People made the Constitution, and they can unmake it." They can unmake it by sitting on their asses doing nothing pretty easily. And a lot of times the people do do nothing and let democratic governments get away with a little more, and a little more, and a little more...until they're no longer democracies (and by extension, the Bill of Rights is torn to shreds).

Yes, Heinlein was a little right wing. Just remember that there is always some exaggeration to political satire. So let's not take the whole book 100% literally. But he did raise some other good points in the book.

You can be sure that greater tax breaks/free healthcare/increased benefits for veterans would be top of every politician's agenda.

Again, vets have families and friends, too right?

Also there's one other aspect. A civilian president, who hadn't done a real day's military service in his life, got us into Iraq and got a shitload of soliders/marines/etc killed, and a shitload of veterans coming home physically maimed or with PTSD. It was so easy for him to send friends of mine off to be killed, because he hadn't seen how horrific a battlefield really looks like. Veterans are not "hardened" to murder and violence: the more they see of it the less likely they are to start a war. Why? Because they and their friends are the poor bastards that have to fight it whenever the silly, hotheaded civilian politicians start them.

Verhoeven's film portrays a society that embraces the logic of extermination and uses Nazi language and signifiers to express eliminationist rhetoric at every turn. Schools, the media, and the future military consisently invoke Nazi terminology and allusions to frame the conflict against the "Arachnids." From the blatant mimicry of Triumph of the Will to the twisted use of Frank Capra's Why We Fight series, Verhoeven cleverly mixes Nazi imagery with the patriotic fervor promoted in American propaganda films from the Second World War. Verhoeven attempts to seduce the audience into accepting and even cheering for genocide on a galactic scale. The irony of this approach was lost on most of the audience and reviewers

https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/shofar/

Liberal democracies did not grow up fully formed. The first modern democracies (US and UK) were limited in offering certain people the franchise, and rights.They built upon institutions that secured protection of rights and property for that minority. However, as the concept of their liberal institutions evolved they increased the definition of citizenship and personal liberty consistently. And continue to do so, even today. (see gay marriage and gay rights)
The notion that facisim represented by Starship Troopers is an improvement over the ever widening circle of liberty represented by evolving modern democracies is appalling.

Um, Ricky, what papers are you asking me to read? You gave me a link to a whole library full of them. Do you expect me to read them all?

And besides, if you're so hell-bent on the dysfunction of the United States Government, don't you think some sort of revolution is inevitable?

The notion that facisim represented by Starship Troopers is an improvement over the ever widening circle of liberty represented by evolving modern democracies is appalling.

Excuse me for speaking a little too bluntly, but have you read the book yourself? Or is this again the opinion of "prominent political scientists" you Googled five minutes ago?

I had read it myself some years ago. But to refresh my memory, I've put the thing on reserve at the Library. (I could download a copy but I'm actually lacking the $6.84 it costs on Kindle.) It was a little right-wingy, but not outright Fascist. And you said it yourself, Sassench:

Military veterans are human just like the rest of us.

They sure as hell are. And they would probably have a diverse range of opinions, too. From what my family and friends in the military tell me, this is true: they do not all think alike, politically speaking.

Oh, and Switzerland and Israel. It isn't an "option" to be able to earn suffrage, but in those two countries, you do have to do a year military service, training and so forth or else you go to jail (though there may be excuses out of it or even deferments in Switzerland these days...not entirely sure). Not exactly what Heinlein was talking about, but it's in the ballpark.

Does the British [or English, at first] "constitution" look the same in the era of Queen Elizabeth II, as it did in the era of Queen Elizabeth I? If one were able to enter the actual court of King Henry VIII, and try to sell him on the idea of modern parliamentary democracy, the most likely result would be one's own beheading (or burning at the stake, whichever the King pleases). 500 years from now, none of our constitutions or what political scientists call "civil society" will any way resemble that which they do today.

I'd take exception to the idea that the right to vote is something that is given to us. In a democratic society it's an inherent right that derives from our citizenship, it isn't handed down from on high. The state's right to pass laws and govern us is something that is given to it by virtue of our consent. This is a fundamental point that Heinlein doesn't really seem to understand. In proposing a system where only military veterans can take part in the political process he's essentially proposing a state that is fundamentally lacking in basic legitimacy.

Have you read the book as well Sass? The right to vote being given to us is what Heinlein is saying is the actual problem. A gift that lands in your lap usually isn't taken care of as well as something you earned personally. The concept of value in that sense was more along the lines of what he was getting at. And in the book, citizenship, as I said, had to be earned. In our three countries, it is given, no questions asked, at age 18.

Besides, the American Revolution didn't begin with a junta seizing power in New York and Boston, did it? And again, Heinlein was also leveling some hefty charges at the way the U.S. military was run; so that's why he concentrated on the military in the plot (in other words, why 2 years hardship in the jungle in the Peace Corps wasn't mentioned...if this veteran revolution happened for real, it's actually possible there would be other options...firefighters? Police officers? basically people who took a risk defending the people in some way...) And he did refer to American society before "things went to pieces" as "what was an otherwise admirable society". And didn't you outright say we need "a strong government with the ability to act"? Just because I think Heinlein's meritocratic government is a nifty concept does not mean I desire to live under a junta any more than you do. And again, he wasn't advocating one: he was advocating a government run by people with at least two years military experience.

And what, by the way is "the state"? And what gives it "legitimacy"?

By the way do you guys watch The West Wing? Anyone remember the episode where--speaking of gays in the military--the two military officers are arguing to Sam Seaborne and Josh Lyman, about how it would "reduce combat efficiency"? And the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm. Fitzwallace pops in and says "yes, at first perhaps...the same way it did when *I* became a sailor and was told that, and look where I am now."

When Obama was first inaugurated, a group of African-Americans were given front row seats and special mention: a group of the Tuskegee Airmen still living. If they had not existed, neither would an African-American president, or much of the civil rights movement.

And didn't you want "a strong government with the ability to act"?

Heinlein had a knack of coming up with wonderfully simple justifications for some very odd ideas.

The problem with restricting the franchise is that it creates a class of people who are outside the democratic system but who it affects. Because governments make laws that affect all of society (even when they make laws to keep government out of things).

Where such exclusions occur by dint of capacity (barring minors and the insane) or through poor action (barring prisoners / felons) or inaction (failing to register or, as is the case for many, failing to vote), we may quibble on definitions or where lines are drawn, but they do not seem unreasonable.

When that is extended to the qualification to have served in the military (which is a part of government, remember, and so potentially a source of top-down indoctrination), it does seem to undervalue other contributions to society. Think of all those taxpayers, bankrolling a military just so that the veterans can then decide how to spend the rest of the taxes and who to levy them from.

Switzerland and Israel have conscription. Are you proposing that also as a component of the "Starship Troopers" idea?

I wonder what party would benefit from restricting the vote to veterans? Let me see...about 85% of people in the military are Republican?
Can't let those uninformed Democrats vote, can we?
Stable democracies need three things: (1) a strong state, (2) rule of law, and (3) accountability. Expanding the franchise beyond those who had property not only made governments more responsive to the needs of people on the lower-income strata, it also promotes the idea of overall equality in society (a pretty good thing). This happened in the 19th century in both Britain and the United States. Once people have the vote political parties tend to try and attract their vote with policies that attract their vote (to be sure sometimes this meant in the 18th century not by policies promoting general welfare but specific goodies handed out in party machines with client/patronage networks)
I am not going to read a book by some right-wing nut, but I presume I can address the points you make about the book without having to read the entire book.

At the end of the day this appears to be the age-hold distrust of the aristocracy at entrusting the vote to the masses. I thought we had gotten past that and realized that the vote is a central foundation of equality in society. People can exercise their vote or not, but the right to vote is key (and remember that people might have low-information but they can still vote rationally based on cues from candidates that they will promote policies favored by the voter; of course party affiliation is one of the biggest cues)

To answer your question Danivon, no. Also, did you read it, too? I said it was in the ballpark.

Again, you have to exaggerate in a political satire to get your point across, especially when presented as science fiction; so it's hard to try to pin down Heinlein's exact thoughts. He does kind of go all over with this one. So I am not entirely sure if his beef is specifically with democracy on the whole, or just specific parts of our society because of which he felt we were about to run off of a cliff because of. It is like in 1984: did Orwell really believe that there would be, quite literally, three totalitarian superstates running the whole world? I doubt it. It was his [Orwell's] point that democratic governments would turn to totalitarianism, and a constant state of war would exacerbate this, and a bunch of other stuff he was trying to get across.

Heinlein may not have actually predicted democracy would actually be replaced with his veteran meritocracy, or that he had no faith whatsoever in democracy; but he was definitely taking potshots at American society of the late 1950s, and certain "cracks" he thinks he saw forming in it.

Now, on the other hand, maybe Heinlein did mean it literally that he favored a different form of government over universal suffrage. But here is the thing, did the United States actually have universal suffrage in 1959?

Also, the authors of The Dictator's Handbook, in their advice to despots who want to cling to power, suggest that the dictator keeps the "nominal selectorate" (e.g., the masses of voters) as large as possible. Rather interesting, no? I do not have an opinion on that matter one way or another. But it does beg a rather interesting question about the size of the electorate and the amount of personal freedom. One would think that freedom is guaranteed as long as the electorate is as large as possible.

But wait a moment: in pre-glasnost Russia, voting was actually mandatory, if you can believe that: all adults had to vote in every election at 18. But the insiders, a much smaller "real selectorate" of the Communist Party, would select the slate of candidates: when you voted, you just voted yes or no to each one. The electorate in the pre-1989 USSR was as big as ours was. A lot of good it did them.

I will admit though, that that is a different situation than the United States. Our government has been established for 225 years. The cement has dried, now. So perhaps Smith & de Mesquita's (the authors of The Dictator's Handbook) three dimensions might not apply to the United States. But it just strikes me as odd that people believe that freedom is automatically guarded by making the whole electorate as huge as possible. In theory I believe it should. Only power can check power, said Hamilton. If we have the power to choose our leaders, we can protect ourselves from them. But has that always necessarily been the case? Even recently?

hacker

Um, Ricky, what papers are you asking me to read?

Just what I quoted.

I read heinlein in its original form when I was a teenager.

I may have slightly warped recall of it because of the Movie version which was an intentional send up of its fascist elements...
And at the time pretty funny seeing Doogie Howser in Gestapo uniform.

The notion that there should be requirement for franchise is difficult to consider. When we've discussed it before i raised the idea of a meritocracy where only persons who passed some kind of test could vote... I was soundly disavowed of that notion. Representative democracies work because they try to represent every ones views, needs and wants. And when society works for the greater numbers it succeeds and thrives.
Elite systems of government have failed because they do not.

The United States used to be one of the most elite republics in the world. Of the present constitution, Art. I, S.2 reads:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

That bit of late 18th century mumbo-jumbo means that, if you are eligible to vote in a state election under your state's laws, you are automatically eligible to vote in an election for your congressman. (It was not until later that presidential electors and senators were directly elected.) The laws in most--if not all I believe--of the 13 states at the time had some pretty high barriers to suffrage in their elections (and by extension, in federal elections as well). After all that revolution for "freedom", it resulted in, as one British historian put it about all revolutions, "the same men sitting in the front parlour, along with the same flatterers." I do not know the exact numbers, but probably, out of the white-adult-male population, maybe 5% or 10% of them were voters (wild-assed guess). This did not start to change until the era of "Jacksonian Democracy", of the 1830s (about the same time actual secret ballots made their appearance in the United States!)

Like the UK, it was an old boys club which only rarely admitted any new boys. If you made a splash in the military, like Andrew Jackson did, you could "get in" but then again, Jackson was probably already one of the super-citizens eligible to vote in the early republic.

This is indeed different. It's not based on wealth. It's not based on land ownership. It's not based on the kind of heredity that admits one to a pre-Enlightenment "ruling class" of some sort. To get in this ruling "elite", you can be anybody, provided you jump through the hoops. Certainly it would be a bit of an old boys club. But an accessible one. And this begs another question: how do you judge the effectiveness or beneficence (I think that's the right word) of a particular government or form of government?

However, I do admit, the military is not for everybody. While I was scared to do so in a way--I do not see myself surviving something like Marine boot camp a la Full Metal Jacket and I am sure nobody who knows me would indeed disagree --I nonetheless tried to join shortly after high school and was bitterly disappointed when I was turned down for medical reasons by the recruiter for both the National Guard and the Air Force. Now Heinlein said something like if you come into the recruiting station in a wheelchair or even mentally retarded, they have to find you something. It is for this reason that I---were I give the powers to revise the Constitution to change from universal to merited suffrage---would allow another option, such as the Peace Corps or some such service to humanity. If you could do that, too, would it be so bad?

Just what I quoted.

Er, yes, you quoted something about Verhoeven's film, but gave me a link to a page of links, so I do not know which one(s) they are. If you could give me a more specific link, please?

I'm glad that you've read him. It was, whatever anyone thinks of his politics or 1950's science fiction, a fascinating read nonetheless. And he raised some good points other that just the concept of full citizenship by merit. There were other themes running through his work.

And I didn't think any of them were fascist. I think that's taking it a bit alarmist and far too literal. Though, yes, it was hilarious seeing him, I think he's also on How I Met Your Mother right?, in military uniform.

Besides, I think the fascists were quite more misogynist, at least than the movie: would Heinrich Himmler or Goring have showered totally nekkid right next to Eva Braun in the barracks shower room, like it was a totally normal thing?

hacker

The United States used to be one of the most elite republics in the world

And changed because?

Sorry I don't understand your question. Are you trying to ask why did it change?

If that's what your asking, the answer would be revolution, etc. Not necessarily "revolution" like the American Revolution, French Revolution, Russian Revolution whatever....but usually constitutions change in response to some sort of socio-political change. Not the other way around (socio-political change is not caused by constitutional changes).

I think this is an idea that you probably need to drop. I honestly don't see a way that it could be made to work. The fact is that the great mass of the disenfranchised which would be entailed by this system would never accept any government that severely restricts the franchise as being legitimate. The only way around that problem (partially at least) would be to make the hoop that people need to jump through a simple one that the vast majority of people could easily achieve. Make it too difficult and you're certain to create mass social instability and the government would collapse in no time. But the flipside of course is that if you make it too easy then what's the point ? The only selling point of this proposal is that it would lead to a more engaged and socially considerate electorate who would cherish their hard-earned rights and be more likely to act responsibly. That isn't going to apply if the franchise is something that most people can easily attain.

That's a pretty fundamental flaw in my view. There are others of course. I have a hypothetical question for you. Two people grow up in the same town, go to school together and then reach the age of 18. One of them decides to join the army, spends the next few years training how to kill people and a few years later leaves the army and returns to society with a very limited education but extensive skills in the handling of firearms. The other goes off to med school where he spends several years learning how to save peoples lives before taking up a career in a hospital battling infectious diseases. Knowing nothing else about their respective personalities, which of these people would you feel more comfortable having the vote ?

JimHackerMP wrote:To answer your question Danivon, no. Also, did you read it, too? I said it was in the ballpark.

I have read plenty of Heinlein, but not Starship Troopers.

Most recently I read "The Day After Tomorrow", which was also published as "The Sixth Column".

Comparing the Soviet Union to the USA is not really that useful. One party states in which everyone has to vote for one or other Party nominee are not quite the same as liberal democracies. Also, there is more to democracy than voting.