We must first distinguish between a citizen and a civilian. What differentiated the two, is that a citizen, in my eyes, respects and holds certain privileges not designated to civilians. These privileges include the right to vote, which will become the heart of this topic.
I for one believe that Limited Suffrage by process of attaining ones citizenship and right to vote by means of civil service is a far superior system to the current process of Universal Suffrage and birth-right citizenship that we have today. This system of government introduced within this debate shall be predicated upon the fictitious system of government introduced within Robert Heinlein's 'Starship Trooper'. What does Heinlein's system of government entail (Or rather, my own variations of it):
Citizenship is only attainable by means of enrolling within differing forms of civil service jobs upon turning 18. These forms of civil services are selectable by the individual and include enrollment within the military or any federally advised public sector jobs. These jobs are to be demanding and constraining in an attempt to disincentivize those unaffiliated and apathetic toward the nation from gaining citizenship and the right to vote. I envision a nation where suffrage, the right to vote and participating in the process of deciding the fate of ones Nation to be a privilege for those who strive to succeed over the obstacles bestowed upon them during their participation within Civil Service. Those who fulfill the demands of the year long civil service role (Arbitrary length of time, comment below any alternative time lengths) shall be met with citizenship and the right to vote. Those who fail will be denied citizenship, and therefore denied the right to vote. Within Heinlein's system of government, those who fail would be unable to participate in the voting process so long as they live, however within my system, those who fail and wish to redeem themselves worthy of their nation shall be granted a second chance 10 years from the point at which they failed initially (At the age of 28)Clarification
: One may call to question the morals behind limiting the voting population, citing that it is better for a majority of peoples to vote than a minority. I shall respond by saying that the act of limiting the general populations right to vote is not immoral in of itself, so long as the means by which you limit said population is moral. There is a difference between Heinlein's system of government, where the process of limiting the voting population is done so by means of a consistent standard put forth on all individuals, unequal in wealth, physique, education, and limiting a voting population by means of promulgating a certain constituency by means of an immoral standard (Such as standardized testing for only blacks [United States - 19/20th century] Which I am utmost against)
There will be no favoritism amongst the population to promulgate a certain constituency within this system seeing as the standard is equal to all, regardless of belief, orientation, or political affiliation.
I've pondered upon this system for some time now and am convinced that it is the greatest form of democracy. Please feel free to agree or disagree with my argument.