Printable View
Some people have no business voting
This is not an attack on the precived stupid or poor.
It is an attack on this insane notion, that once every 4 years people who don't care and have no idea about politics get sweped up in one month of insanity. Suddenly everyone's an expert on policy decisions that took years to formulate and come to fruition.
Politicans pander but I can't even get new pandering because no one pays attention long enough
Tl:Dr Fascist
There's an interesting theory that low-information voters tend to cancel one another out. Can't find linkage to the theory, but maybe someone with more time and better Google-fu will source it.
Of course it's not ideal to have ill-informed voters, but the problems created by removing the vote from them are worse than letting them keep it.
I don't think democracy is an important part of a state's legitimacy, but if it was to be unfair and give some a vote that affects decisions made over everyone else, then that is a big problem.
It doesn't matter whether they are informed or not. Politicians never do what they say they're going to do and do things they never mentioned in the first place.
The talk about low-information voters is a red herring.
Watch Watter's world or one of those shows. The low-information people are the best. The "high-information" people can string together enough names and talking points that they think they know what they are talking about.
There are hardly any experts on the specific policy areas, and no one is an expert on the whole range of fields that come into play in a single debate. That's why after a debate everyone talks about "scoring it like a boxing match" and "who seemed more likable".
watters world is just like those "Americans R Dumb at geography" videos on the you tubes.
You can't ask a coherent question, much less answer one in the time alloted in the debates
You can't limit the franchise to the point where just the people who really understand the issues can vote...there aren't enough of them to fill congress.
The purpose of the popular vote can't be about the people making use of their expertise. They don't have it and they shouldn't have to have it. If we restrict the franchise it shouldn't be with the goal of getting more expert voters but with getting voters less likely to be greedy, ideological, naive, partisan etc. Filter for character not for IQ or "high-information" or "civics knowledge". I don't see how that could be done though. Raising the age could help a bit.
I disagree, the inverse would most likely be better. As the saying goes, it is hard for an old dog to learn new tricks. The older population are usually rigid and set in their ways, they do not like to move or adapt. They prefer to stick their feet in the ground over issues which are for the worse or continue to promote something because of an incident which 30-50 years ago, which now makes no rational sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I know of a local headmaster around these parts who actively prefers recruiting Teachers straight from University over the old-agers. It is because lack of 'experience' doesn't outweigh the fact the new teachers are fully equipped with the latest methods, tools and knowledge whilst the older ones are usually equipped with older and inferior methods, unable to adapt and handle issues. Just as a side note, that school changed from an Ofsted of "satisfactory" to "outstanding", which is a massive difference, and the whole educational ethos has significantly changed for the better changing from a 'rough' school to one of 'quality' education in less of 5 years of the Headmaster taking over.
From a statistical point of view, citizens aged under the age of 30 are those which are most often not likely to vote, those who actively vote are in fact the people you want to cater for, the "old guard" generation. The reason is, there is much apathy with the younger populations mostly due to the lack of visible and viable change, it is the older generation which holds back the younger generation, attempting to snuff out the ideas which will form a far better society.
in the particular case of UK teaching i am not surprised, experience may very well be an acceptable trade-off to ensure teachers arrive without have been lobotimised by he NUT.
< son of a teacher
I fear a non-democratic apartheid police state more then terrorism.
Each country can chose how they want to run their nation. Take my vote in my country from myself or others and I would partake in the revolution.
The whole point of democracy is that the people have representation in government. If good governance is the goal, and voting rights get in the way of that goal, then we should just ditch democracy and go for something else.
I am willing to vote. Now, where do I get my Obamaphone?
But we know that the people who are educated are not open minded. In the subcultures that are very pro education (universities) they are not enlightened voters. And why should everyone have to have expertise on economics, foreign policy, etc? We don't think everyone has to be fit enough and well trained enough to fight in the army. We don't think they should all be qualified as emergency medics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
We shouldn't have as democratic a society as that. The majority of people should be free from most civic burdens--free to enjoy their lives and have their families, to simply be prosperous. They are never going to want to be objective and wise, or to know all there is to know. Do you? Most of my interests lie elsewhere. I have a half read book on the financial crisis that I put down a year ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
The civic burdens should be left to the right kind of upper class--not the elites like we have, who lack a sense that with their position comes responsibility--who simply cloister themselves in rich neighborhoods, or devote themselves to their pet causes. But we would need to be fundamentally different. I want to say more but I'm only part way through the book I got this bit from (puritan boston and quaker philadelphia--digby beltzell) so I'm not really sure what I think about it. But ideally an upper class competes within itself for the honor of doing the greatest things for their country, instead of going for wealth and celebrity.
I really liked your last sentence; this kind of thinking is indeed the first step on the fascist ladder.
If you feel other people are misinformed, it is in your own bloody interest to inform them. Take away their right to vote and suddenly you can see them as second class citizens with no repercussions. That their opinions matter just as much as yours is the cornerstone of democracy, and one of the fundamental reason why democracy is so succesful. It is in no way whatsoever a handicap or a fault in democracy.
And at any rate; your point is moot. The uneducated, poor and stupid don't vote anyway. Things like competence tests won't change a thing in voting, it will still be the same old people voting the exact same way they have done all their life. You will have change on fundamental thing though; your not-so democratic state will loose its credability as a state run "for the people, by the people". I don't have to be Nostradamus to predict massive civil unrest.
A bunch of dumb agents can outperform a couple of smart agents.
Intelligence is effected by the size of the network: quantity is a quality.
We used to have more of an upper class.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Nobody is completely free of it, yes. But there is never going to be a nation of moral paragons. I don't believe we should try for such a society either, it's not really desirable. I think it's a dangerous idea--it sounds more like fascism than strike's post does. I'm not going to call people who don't dedicate themselves to politics a "waste of breath".Quote:
But, if we were to walk off the plank into some nice little fiction... Nobody is free of Civic Burden. Everyone has a role to play, whether it be something as small as conducting your business honestly and with integrity or something as grandiose as being a politician who cannot tell a lie! We are all capable of this, and it is our own fault for creating a society that enables people--nay, ENCOURAGES people to take the easy way out whenever possible.
That "sounds like fascism", but "a society ruled by an upper class competeting for the honour of doing the greatest deeds for the country" does not sound like fascism...?
You need an education, good Sir. That's textbook Mussolini, it's a direct copy of his words.
I am not opposed to limiting the suuffrage, but cannot see any valid basis for the discrimination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Ignorance of political issues does NOT automatically mean an inability to select a person with good qualities as a leader or representative.
Intelligence, in and of itself, does not beget the wisdom to make a better choice of candidate.
Age, in an of itself, does not make an informed voter -- nore does experience.
So on what basis can you restrict the suffrage that will not do more harm than good? What basis of restriction would yield the opportunity for those disenfranchised to regain the suffrage by some reasonable means?
Should we deny the sufferage to any person who receives more in government subsidy, welfare, medicaid and the like than they pay in taxes?
Should we follow Heinlein's suggestion and require federal service to win the suffrage -- but deny it to those currently in federal service?
I fear Winston Churchill summed it up most accurately....
The British did well for a long time with a strong upper class.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Great minds think alike.Quote:
You need an education, good Sir. That's textbook Mussolini, it's a direct copy of his words.
I can't think of a good one either, I'm not sure it's important anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by seamus
The elite in our country could be different however--the kind of people we vote for office.
We should do the opposite of the kind of petty insults the democrats have flung at Romney for his wealth and success.
I thought you were saying something different, with the education and knowing all you can know stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by g-cube
Britain also had a strong social contract and a powerful yeoman class.
Helps if your peasants can skewer a Knight at 300 yards.
That british upper class was thoroughly corrupt and kept everyone else down in the drain. The debates among them were not about "how much should we give our workers", the debate was about "should we give our workers enough to live, or justless thanwhat they need to live longer than 10 more years?" The argument was that it was very beneficial for themselves, the ones who matter, if they only gave them enough money to live a decade or so. Adam Smith argued against that attitutde in Wealth of Nations.
And let's not forget Serfdom: the majority of Europeans were kept as slaves up until the 19th century. What a lovely society that is!
Anyway: it's sad to see how many of you self-declared "better than the rest of the lot"-people are against democracy. The name for your ideas remain the same as they always have, sasaki, and the name is fascism.
Wow - what a massive simplification. I'm not surprised as it backs up your preconceived ideas.
Most people just collect information that back up their own position and overlooking bits that don't. Best overlook how the UK was one of the more progressive countries with labour. Perfect? Nope.
There are even fewer persons who approach the situation without preconceived ideas.
~:smoking:
while he is over simplifying it the British Parliament WAS totally corrupt in the "Glory" days of the British Empire (1700's and early 1800's) - they were as he says only interested in maintaining the status quo and there are many accounts of them suppressing the people to do so (especially during and just after the Napoleonic wars)Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
this was before the Parliamentary reforms which gave the vote to the "uninformed masses" (ok not entirely all of them but to more of them - the reform of 1867 almost doubled the number of men who could vote from 1 in 5 to 2 in 5...) - quite on topic
I would suggest you read chapter 8 - "of the wages of labour" - of Wealth of Nations, as it gives an excellent insight into the debate on wages the upper classes engaged in. Unsurprisingly for a social democrat though, Adam Smith has a strong defense of higher wages.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
The point wasn't about what the situation in England was, but rather how it would've looked if sasaki's ideas had been implemented. The upper classes did not rule England unopposed between 1600-1900, and so England wasn't a hellish place in that period. But that wasn't the doing of the upper classes, they wanted England turned into a hellhole.
Intriguing theory, it probably holds more water in a duopoly than in a parliamentary system where a viable third (or more!) option exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
And here it is. The underlying problem of the entire enterprise.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
And not in britain...which really contradicts your argument...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Who said anything about ruling unapposed?Quote:
The point wasn't about what the situation in England was, but rather how it would've looked if sasaki's ideas had been implemented. The upper classes did not rule England unopposed between 1600-1900, and so England wasn't a hellish place in that period. But that wasn't the doing of the upper classes, they wanted England turned into a hellhole.
You have a prejudice against the british upper classes, that's obvious...
It should be clear from history that the people as a group can be corrupt and vicious as well.
Nonsense. Britain was never a fascist country and neither was the US in the time period we are talking about. It has nothing to do with scorn for the people--the elites having scorn for the people is a natural outgrowth of democracy, as is the elites using the people as a weapon against their opponents among the elites.Quote:
Anyway: it's sad to see how many of you self-declared "better than the rest of the lot"-people are against democracy. The name for your ideas remain the same as they always have, sasaki, and the name is fascism.
There are always elites in a democratic country, the question is just which kind you want to have.
Fascism is little more than a rejuvenated feudal system.
Also, no serfdom in England? What?
What was said:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
English serfdom died out before 1500. Hence sasaki's point: and not in Britain.Quote:
And let's not forget Serfdom: the majority of Europeans were kept as slaves up until the 19th century. What a lovely society that is!
Yes, they changed the name of it as well as some of the details, but things continued much the same for several more centuries in Britain too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
And of course, the progressive changes from slavery to freedom in Europe was caused by the political involvment(in the form of revolts, mostly) of those sasaki proposes should have no say - and those he wants ruling the country fought tooth and nail to prevent people gaining freedom.
Fascism in a nutshell.
We owe our freedoms not to the efforts of the educated and superior, but to the blood shed by the ignorant and downtrodden.