by Kent Reedy

Created on: November 02, 2008

The title given to this debate is misleading - since the normal, default voting rule for adults in our society is that anyone may vote unless there is some specific reason why they should be prevented from doing so (like having been recently convicted of a felony, for example). A more honest phrasing would be: "Should mentally ill people be disenfranchised (or specifically excluded from voting)?" You could just as easily ask that same question of any other definable group of people, for example: "Should high school dropouts be prevented from voting?", or "Should unemployed people be prevented from voting?", or for that matter, "Should stockbrokers be prevented from voting?" Just to ask the question is a sign of prejudice against the group that is asked of, and I don't think that any of these groups, including mentally ill people, should be excluded from voting if they want to.

In almost any election, a lot of votes are cast for what many people would think are stupid choices, yet somehow the country survives. In most contests, no one person's vote makes much of a difference - the results are just a reflection of the common wisdom (or lack of wisdom), and for each individual voting is more a sign of them being participants in society than it is of them having any great amount of influence on it. For each person, voting is more of an opportunity for self-expression than it is anything else, and to try and arbitrarily take away this right of self-expression from any group seems awfully arrogant to me. What makes those of you who are so proud of your alleged normalcy think that your opinions are more valuable and deserving of being expressed than the opinions of those of us who have been given a psychiatric diagnosis?

To deny a group the right to vote isn't just a symbolic exclusion, however, since specific steps would have to be taken to enforce this exclusion. It would probably require setting up a database containing the names of everyone to be prohibited from voting. Something like that could and probably would be used for other kinds of discriminatory purposes as well. It could also be used to restrict a person's opportunities for housing or employment, for example. Even if it was originally set up just to disenfranchise some people from voting, lists like that have a way of being used for things beyond their original purposes.

Anyone who honestly believes that it might be a good idea to specifically prohibit people with a psychiatric diagnosis from voting must not realize how easily and subjectively people can be given this kind of label. Under the right circumstances, almost anyone could be labeled as having one of the many different categories of mental illness: bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, attention deficit disorder, depression, and dozens of other, lesser-known diagnoses. There is a lot of subjectivity involved in giving a person a psychiatric diagnosis, and many people who eagerly support repressive measures like disenfranchisement against people called "mentally ill" could be surprised someday to find themselves included in that group. A person's wealth and status in society can sometimes protect them from being diagnosed as mentally ill, however, and I think it is sometimes true that the difference between someone being called "eccentric" or "crazy" is just a matter of whether or not they have much money.

Learn more about this author, Kent Reedy.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.