Referendum on War

[Dermanus]

I've been reading a Heinlein book ("For Us, The Living") and he raised an interesting idea. The story is set in the future, after the twenty-seventh amendment has been past.

That amendment is that before congress can declare war, it must be supported by a referendum among the population. This requirement is waived in the case of invasion.

The only people eligible to vote are those who are eligible for military service. A 'yes' vote puts you in the first draft. Not voting puts you in the second draft. A 'no' vote puts you in the third.

Obviously this will never happen, but it seems like an interesting idea. There are problems with it, the main one I see being the possibility of cowardice. People do not vote for war because they are afraid, and therefore doom the rest of the country.

It also has some nice things to it, as I see it. Gone are armchair generals, perfectly willing to send other people to die, knowing they won't have to.

 

[LW]

The only people eligible to vote are those who are eligible for military service. A 'yes' vote puts you in the first draft. Not voting puts you in the second draft. A 'no' vote puts you in the third.

Obviously this will never happen, but it seems like an interesting idea. There are problems with it, the main one I see being the possibility of cowardice. People do not vote for war because they are afraid, and therefore doom the rest of the country.

I think there is a more fundamental problem than that: by its nature, the vote would have to be open.

This leaves the way open for voter manipulation since a person may be coerced, blackmailed, or bribed into voting what some powerful person or organization wants.

 

[Wudang]

Re: Re: Referendum on War

I think there is a more fundamental problem than that: by its nature, the vote would have to be open.

This leaves the way open for voter manipulation since a person may be coerced, blackmailed, or bribed into voting what some powerful person or organization wants.

Look at the use of white feathers by WW1 civilians as an example of social pressure.

Still interesting though to look at the military records of so-called "hawks" and "doves". Often the "doves" seem to be the ones with more direct military experience and are so more careful of putting their military in harm's way unless required. Note the "seem" - that's my impression, anyone know better?

 

[RussDill]

Re: Re: Referendum on War

I think there is a more fundamental problem than that: by its nature, the vote would have to be open.

This leaves the way open for voter manipulation since a person may be coerced, blackmailed, or bribed into voting what some powerful person or organization wants.

then you'd need to make it that:

A yes vote gives you a 90% chance of being in the first draft, 8% chance of the second, and 2% chance of the third

Abstaining gives you a 80% chance on the second, 10% chance on the first, and 10% chance on the third.

A no vote gives you the opposite of the yes vote.

When voting, the machine gives you a draft card.

 

[Throg]

Re: Re: Referendum on War

I think there is a more fundamental problem than that: by its nature, the vote would have to be open.

Perhaps I am being dense but why would the vote necessarily have to be open?

 

[TragicMonkey]

The referendum described is unfair to those people who fought in previous wars, but are now too old to be drafted. My grandfather, for example, fought in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. If a new war breaks out, and threatens to undo everything he fought for previously, he's just supposed to accept it because some punk kids are afraid of getting shot? I'd hate to have to explain to him that despite his years in a Nazi POW camp, his vote doesn't count any more.

Everyone in the society has a stake in that society's wars, whether they are actively fighting it or not.

 

[drkitten]

The referendum described is unfair to those people who fought in previous wars, but are now too old to be drafted.

Everyone in the society has a stake in that society's wars, whether they are actively fighting it or not.

It's unfair in general. How many civilians lost lives, homes, property, familiy members, etc. during any of the recent conflicts? I'd hate to have someone tell me that I'm too old (or the wrong sex, or don't have good enough vision, etc.) to have an opinon about whether or not I want my house to be lifted fifty feet into the air and then scattered over a wide area.