Democracy and them

[Verruckter]

Democracy, dating back from ancient Greece, is often considered the best and most equal political system. It is based on the one primary concept: everyone's opinion has the right to be heard and counted. This is achieved by, of course, councils, assemblies and most elementaryly, voting. But one may question himself: is democracy really the best system?

Even starting with the statement that all men are born equal in rights, it is possible to assume that not all men have the same intellectual capacities, the same judgmentary capacities, the same culture and the same interest for politics and society. How can one have a valid, unbiaised opinion, based on facts rather than on emotion and still be allowed to vote?

I honestly believe that if one is not apt to vote, one should not be allowed to vote. Just because the majority decides something doesn't mean it's the best decision. Why should people with absolutely no knowledge on a certain subject be allowed to cast their vote on it? It makes absolutely no sense.

All in all, I believe certain qualifications should be applied when deciding wether or not people should be allowed to vote.

P.S. I searched

[robertsona]

I have thought about this. Someone may be stupid, uneducated, biased, etc. but still allowed to vote? It truly is strange. But how should we sort out the worthy from unworthy? What shall we use? And how, with so very many people?

[devonin]

Given the incredibly inherant problems with bias and prejudice that would automatically be involved in setting standards other than age for voting, trying to limit the franchise to any group no matter how broad, is intrinsically against the tenets of a democracy.

We'd all love to see a meritocracy, where only the truly deserving are able to participate in the process, but it is -impossible- to decide a set of standards that could be even remotely agreeable to everybody, so instead, giving universal sufferage and simply counting on the apathetic and stupid to stay apathetic and stupid seems like the best way we've got.

[funmonkey54]

I agree. It is impossible to decide who is and isn't within the range of qualification for voting simply because we are not able to measure intellectual, emotional, and judgmental capability. That is the only problem with this.

[devonin]

It isn't that we aren't capable of measuring, it's that we aren't capable of setting "correct" bounderies, because we have no objective force to appeal to in order to prove that we are setting "right" standards.

[Verruckter]

Originally Posted by devonin

[...] to decide a set of standards that could be even remotely agreeable to everybody [...]

Ironic, considering not everybody's opinion will matter after the set of rules is applied, don't you think?

A possible solution would be if people had to sign up to a list in order to vote. Of course, not everybody would be accpeted into that list, and you would have to pass a certain test that required both knowledge, a critical mind and a judgement capabilities.

[devonin]

Did you read what I just said though?

What are your standards for "knowledge" "critical mind" and "judgement capabilities"?

[Verruckter]

Originally Posted by devonin

Did you read what I just said though?

What are your standards for "knowledge" "critical mind" and "judgement capabilities"?

Yeah I was about to edit that in but my Firefox crashed and I gave up.

For knowledge, I'd say at least all of your country's history if you live in the United States or Canada (because they are both rather young) and for other countries it would vary. France, for example, would have to start at about the Revolution.

As for the two others, some kind of debate activity where people would have to demonstrate their capabilities to think.

I don't think an IQ test would be appropriate, though, since it doesn't cover certain important aspects of political intelligence.

[devonin]

Why do I need to know the historical facts of my country's background to have an opinion about its future, or more properly, an opinion about which of a selection of politicians best represents what I want to see happen? Why do you need to know about the war of 1812 to prefer to elect someone who is pro-choice or pro-life?

I also don't really see why you should have to engage in debate to prove worthiness to vote. Politicians debate, and boil down their positions into platforms that are relatively clear and easy to understand. One can simply look at what person A and person B want to do, and vote by preference. The critical mind aspect of the equation would be more important in terms of being able to think about the consequences of a given candidate's platform, rather than an ability personally to debate. Also, how do you judge something like a debate in terms of whether you've proven yourself "critical" enough to be allowed to vote?

[Verruckter]

Originally Posted by devonin

Why do I need to know the historical facts of my country's background to have an opinion about its future, or more properly, an opinion about which of a selection of politicians best represents what I want to see happen? Why do you need to know about the war of 1812 to prefer to elect someone who is pro-choice or pro-life?

Because this way you can understand how people think in your contry and why. It's easier for canadians to understand the Bill 101 if they know their canadian history. Many things in politics have repercussions in the future and even though we take them for granted, they still affect us today.

I also don't really see why you should have to engage in debate to prove worthiness to vote. Politicians debate, and boil down their positions into platforms that are relatively clear and easy to understand. One can simply look at what person A and person B want to do, and vote by preference. The critical mind aspect of the equation would be more important in terms of being able to think about the consequences of a given candidate's platform, rather than an ability personally to debate. Also, how do you judge something like a debate in terms of whether you've proven yourself "critical" enough to be allowed to vote?

Debating correctly is one of the demonstrations of intelligence that requires the most critical thought and judgement. Usual politic debates consist of throwing sophisms at each other until you prove the other wrong (without necessarely proving yourself right). A correct debate constitutes of arguments that are well made and thouroughly thought of, and which usually require for the debaters to look at their own views and analyse them before actually using the argument.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Verruckter

Because this way you can understand how people think in your contry and why. It's easier for canadians to understand the Bill 101 if they know their canadian history. Many things in politics have repercussions in the future and even though we take them for granted, they still affect us today.

Hey, I'm a historian, if anybody is going to back up it being a good thing for people to know history, it's going to be me. That said, I'm still not sure what proving a complete knowledge of history has to do with being able to vote. Politics is a changing force, the state of the country now is nothing at all like what the founders envisioned, so it isn't even like we need to hearken back to the great dream of the future of the country. The situation is how it is, and I'd rather people prove they have a grasp of -current- issues nationally and internationally before I'd let them vote, than I would -historical- issues.

Debating correctly is one of the demonstrations of intelligence that requires the most critical thought and judgement. Usual politic debates consist of throwing sophisms at each other until you prove the other wrong (without necessarely proving yourself right). A correct debate constitutes of arguments that are well made and thouroughly thought of, and which usually require for the debaters to look at their own views and analyse them before actually using the argument.

So if the people running for office don't actually qualify under your system to be enfranchised, this suggests a much larger and more glaring problem with one of the two systems.

[rzr]

In theory that strategy would work. But with the inadequate majority lurking in the midst of politics, it wouldn't work.
A more productive theory would be to force the candidates to take an aptitude test first.
But before that theory gets shot down I should probably say that it wouldn't work either. The corruption in politics would hinder the "test" and lead to cheating etc.

[Zythus]

Originally Posted by devonin

Hey, I'm a historian, if anybody is going to back up it being a good thing for people to know history, it's going to be me. That said, I'm still not sure what proving a complete knowledge of history has to do with being able to vote. Politics is a changing force, the state of the country now is nothing at all like what the founders envisioned, so it isn't even like we need to hearken back to the great dream of the future of the country. The situation is how it is, and I'd rather people prove they have a grasp of -current- issues nationally and internationally before I'd let them vote, than I would -historical- issues.

Though humanity and the face of politics is always changing and evolving, it would be fruitful and wise to do both, consider and know the past AND know the contemporary political factors and problems. A good judgment takes the element of knowing the consequences of a past debate in collaboration with the framework of today's system to form an argument that both reflects upon past mistakes or feats, yet foreshadows the consequences of the future.

[Corbin Wells]

Aristote Politics. Buy the book and read it.

[ballaw hare]

Democracy is only good if your part of the majority. Democracy is directly affected by it's peoples prejudices, so it's not even close to being the "best" government.

[rzr]

There would be no perfect government. There is (that I can think of) no conceivable way to treat millions of people perfectly fairly and appease their every whim. However, history has showed the democracy tends to be the most effective of the thus-far theorized and practiced governments. I mean, just off the top of my head I can think of only a few forms of practice(d) governments that were not as productive as democracy: dictatorship, monarchy, empire- republic (closest runner-up), religious, kingdoms, communism, etc. Almost none of these have lasted any special amount of time.

@ Corbin: Are you refering to the book Aristotle, or another book with a similar title? If so, I have read the book.

[Corbin Wells]

I am referring to the politics by Aristotle. The only flaw with this philosophers thinking is that he speaks in ideals. Meaning everything has to fit his (damn good) requirements in order for a certain something to work. But if people were educated to be this certain way, it is something that could work. But reaching such a goal would take such a mammoth task and such. I know I'm speaking vaguely here...

[devonin]

treat millions of people perfectly fairly and appease their every whim.

What leads you to believe that these two things go hand-in-hand? Why is it the job of politics to appease the whims of the people? Shouldn't government be acting in the best interests of their constituants?

If you read The Politics alongside a reading of Plato's Republic I think you'll find a lot more practical application going on instead of just high-minded ideals. The biggest function of the Republic is the idea that the correct way to live is for everybody to know their place and their role in society and to do it happily and well. The usual flaw with reading Plato/Aristotle is that the scale they are working on is very small. They deal in the polis, and how the polis should be run, and at the time, you aren't looking at very large populations at all. Tens of thousands as a high end. As a result a lot of their ideas become very unwieldy if you try to expand them up to countries with hundreds of millions of peopl.