An informed electorate

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-06-23 01:54pm

Suppose that you had the option of eliminating the right to vote save for those that are actually informed about a topic? Perhaps some form of exam would be required in order to make sure that you at least give a shit about what you're voting for.

Considering the number of times we have wondered why the American electorate voted for something or allowed their congress to vote for it you have to wonder whether Plato had it right that we need Philosopher Kings - people who actually understand or care what they're voting for.

As I've grown older I have become less and less impressed by the standard of intelligence that the average voter has shown.

Should the right to vote be universal o should the more intelligent and wise not be held to the slavery of the great unwashed herd?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-06-23 02:00pm

I am going to be logically consistent... If the stupid shoudnt breed the stupid should not vote.

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2004-06-23 02:01pm

Isn't that basically the same thing as the old Jim Crow laws?

Besides, informed people would vote against Bush so the conservatives obviously would not want that.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-06-23 02:09pm

Problem arises with qualifications for voting and who sets them. You would end up with a minority of people being able to vote based solely on irrelevant things.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-06-23 02:30pm

Any voter should be able to explain simply the electoral process. Unfortunately, a great majority of them cannot do that. I would say that anyone who can pass a simple (and, by simple, I mean grade-school) level test designed to determine their understanding of the government process should be able to vote. Anyone who can't do that has no right to vote.

The Third Man · Post by **The Third Man** » 2004-06-23 02:30pm

Stravo wrote: Should the right to vote be universal o should the more intelligent and wise not be held to the slavery of the great unwashed herd?

As one who would be lumped in with the "great unwashed herd", I say fine. But you won't mind if we unwashed ones then decide to opt out of paying taxes to support the elite from which we are excluded. And you won't mind if we similarly opt out of the menial tasks which support this elite, and from the armed services which defend it, will you?

Alyrium Denryle wrote: I am going to be logically consistent... If the stupid shoudnt breed the stupid should not vote.

"Sure, we have intelligence, but what's intelligence? We think it is important because we have it. If the Tyrannosaurus could have picked out the one quality that he thought would ensure species domination, it would be size and strength. And he would make a better case of it. He lasted longer than we're likely to" - Isaac Asimov "Breeds There a Man..." 1951

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-06-23 02:33pm

No taxation without representation.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-23 02:35pm

HemlockGrey wrote:No taxation without representation.

Why not?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-06-23 02:43pm

HemlockGrey wrote:No taxation without representation.

When you give the right to vote to resident aliens, this will be more than a pithy phrase to sound good.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-06-23 02:48pm

Personally I would much rather an informed CONGRESS and a stupid electorate. It would be much easier to do and doesn't infringe on voters rights all that much. Let the fuckers in Congress worry about being up-to-snuff. It's not like a gimp could get elected with that restriction. An informed electrorate could still elect a bastard tho.

Skelron · Post by **Skelron** » 2004-06-23 02:53pm

Well lets ignore the problem of who decides what goes on the 'Test' since I'm sure something could be worked out eventually that recognised the simple fact that people may be not what we typically call Intellagent in the way tested for by IQ tests, and we can even be really generous and take into account people who might have problems such as Dyslexia and Photo-Yada-Yada (Why are the words for people with such problems always impossible to spell)

Lets cut to the simplest problem, the economic based exclusion this would potentially bring around. Simply put the rich usually get a bet education, at the moment for example serious thought is being given in the UK to the problem of Que-Jumping Middleclass parents, who use their fianicial independence to move into the catchment area of the better schools in an area, thereby ensuring their children get into the best schools. In doing so it becomes harder for the poorer children to get into these schools... Meaning they will start off with a substandard education...

Meaning that in such as system as the one above even with the fairest of tests for those with learning disabiltys etc... simply put it becomes a form of economic qualifier on who can Vote and who can't. Sure not a 100% Qualifier but on average we can expect the children of the Middleclass to be able to vote more often than the children of poorer parents...

Added to that is my disbelief that learning disabiltys will be taken into account or be spotted before it is too late, hell it took three years at University before my Flatmates Photo-Yadda-Yadda was spotted...

Besides all this it would be simply wrong and a step backwards the greatest strength of Democracy is that everyone old enough has a say, from the smartest to the stupidest, anything else is not a true Democracy these days.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-23 02:55pm

Your arguments are based on the assumption that voting is a human right. If we consider it a responsibility instead, then the analysis changes. Regardless of whether rich or poor people are more likely to be ignorant, the fact would remain that ignorant people should not be given such a weighty responsibility because of their deficient decision-making ability.

Skelron · Post by **Skelron** » 2004-06-23 03:00pm

However Wong that weakness as you see it is something that is beyond their abilty and will lead to a rather strong bias against the poorer segments of society since why would their views be seen as importent, why would their needs be addressed?

And so they would be exploited, and sidelined, by politicians who seek to stay in power by pandering to the people who can vote rather than to the country as a whole...

In the end it is something that would be little more than a dictatorship... nothing more really than the state in Starship Troopers (Book) except rather than those who have served in the Military it's those who pass a test given at some point in their life?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-06-23 03:02pm

Mike: Point. But there's a huge problem with preventing the voters qualifications from getting more and more difficult to live up to, despite how good you would be. And part of the one man one vote concept is that certain things aren't about responsibility at all but about representing the people.

The Third Man · Post by **The Third Man** » 2004-06-23 03:20pm

Darth Wong wrote: Your arguments are based on the assumption that voting is a human right. If we consider it a responsibility instead, then the analysis changes. Regardless of whether rich or poor people are more likely to be ignorant, the fact would remain that ignorant people should not be given such a weighty responsibility because of their deficient decision-making ability.

That logic holds together if you view the democratic process purely as a decision-making apparatus. However, I would submit that an important secondary function of the democratic process is to give the citizenry a stake, or some measure of participation in the government (or, if you are feeling cynical, the impression of such) so that they are amenable towards being governed over without the need for coercion. To achieve this secondary function requires that the system be as inclusive and egalitarian as possible (or again, for the cynical, that the perception is so).

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-23 03:23pm

Skelron wrote:However Wong that weakness as you see it is something that is beyond their abilty and will lead to a rather strong bias against the poorer segments of society since why would their views be seen as importent, why would their needs be addressed?

They'll be addressed when they learn to pay attention in school, dumb-ass. Poverty is not an excuse for failing to learn; it is often correlated to it for various reasons but we aren't expecting people to be brain surgeons here; just to know how their government works. Something anyone should be able to do after a few hours of reading at a public library, so there's really no excuse at all.

And so they would be exploited, and sidelined, by politicians who seek to stay in power by pandering to the people who can vote rather than to the country as a whole...

Ah yes, fear-mongering. Favored tactic of hysterical fanatics everywhere.

In the end it is something that would be little more than a dictatorship... nothing more really than the state in Starship Troopers (Book) except rather than those who have served in the Military it's those who pass a test given at some point in their life?

Slippery-slope too, eh? You're just bound and determined to be an idiot, aren't you?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-06-23 03:24pm

Thirdman: Citizens don't have any stake in government. In general, voters are more interested in bitching about the problems or ignoring them altogether, rather than fixing them.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-23 03:24pm

The Third Man wrote:That logic holds together if you view the democratic process purely as a decision-making apparatus. However, I would submit that an important secondary function of the democratic process is to give the citizenry a stake, or some measure of participation in the government (or, if you are feeling cynical, the impression of such) so that they are amenable towards being governed over without the need for coercion. To achieve this secondary function requires that the system be as inclusive and egalitarian as possible (or again, for the cynical, that the perception is so).

Do you think that people who are totally illiterate and can't read the ballot or don't know who the candidates are should be voting? If not, then do you recognize that this is merely an extension of the same principle?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-06-23 03:25pm

Natorgator wrote:Isn't that basically the same thing as the old Jim Crow laws?

Besides, informed people would vote against Bush so the conservatives obviously would not want that.

Well the same people who passed the Jim Crow laws also made it all but impossible for blacks to better themselves and get a good and equal education, so the comparison does not quite fit here.

Skelron · Post by **Skelron** » 2004-06-23 03:59pm

Darth Wong wrote:[
They'll be addressed when they learn to pay attention in school, dumb-ass. Poverty is not an excuse for failing to learn; it is often correlated to it for various reasons but we aren't expecting people to be brain surgeons here; just to know how their government works. Something anyone should be able to do after a few hours of reading at a public library, so there's really no excuse at all.

Ah yes because those that start to feel left out by the system have been clearly shown to suddenly move to get back in... Oh wait it hasn't been the case which is why we have Third Generation unemployment, and people who have seen that quite frankly school is a waste of time.. Learning to be ignored because they have had no examples of anyone making it in their family life.

Having had a Parent teach children of these backgrounds I can say that the simple fact that it appears that there is no way out of the poverty trap for the Underclass has bred a contempt for the Education system. The simple fact is these Children arrive at Senior school and give up. (My mother has taught both Senior and Primary school and is of the opinion that at Primary a lot of them view the school as an escape from their home life. By Senior school they have given up, the onset of puberty not helping)

Of course Teenagers are ALWAYS thinking of the future Wong, I mean when I was a teenager I was planning out my entire life obviously! No most Teenagers don't.

And what I love about this whole, and all it needs to be is too understand how the government works concept. If thats all it is then WHY bother with the needless excercise. I mean unless the Test will go into details that are quite obscure most of the running of the government is quite simple for the Voting Public to work out. You Vote for an MP he ignores what you said till the next election roles around...

besides which for Christs Sake Even MP's arn't sure what their role in parliament is... Are they there to mindlessly follow their leaders, repersent the wishes of their electorate at the expense of their own values, stick by their own values and judgement even if they fear the Electorate may not support them on this issue, but feel that the Voters picked them as the best person for the Job even should they disagree with them on individual issues or something else.

Hell understanding how the British Government works is an A-Level to Degree Subject

Contents of a Text Book on the British Government

So clearly unless the test is going to only deal with surface things that really would make little differance then it won't be a 'Simple' test at all and claims that it will be are ignorent and unjustified.

Ah yes, fear-mongering. Favored tactic of hysterical fanatics everywhere.

Oh and the concept isn't scary an intellagence test to determine those who can vote, is FUCKING scary. Quite simply it is a dictatorship, and a move away from Democracy.

Slippery-slope too, eh? You're just bound and determined to be an idiot, aren't you?

Hmm let me see Starship troopers Condition to become a full citizen, this system condition to become a full Citizen...

Noipe not slipperly slope simple obvious connection the only differance is that in Star Ship troopers the condition is military service in this it's passing either a simple meaningless test or on the condition of a full study of the subject...
Actually thats not so bad, more people should study politics.

The Third Man · Post by **The Third Man** » 2004-06-23 04:03pm

Darth Wong wrote: Do you think that people who are totally illiterate and can't read the ballot or don't know who the candidates are should be voting? If not, then do you recognize that this is merely an extension of the same principle?

On my all-too-frequent cynical days I think we might as well, just to keep them happy and quiet and co-operative, and leave the actual policy-making to the time-honoured whisperings-in-corridors, old-school-ties, back-bench committees, secret handshakes and all the rest - the mechanisms that carry on regardless of what anything so insignificant as tallies of votes might have to say.

The rest of the time, I would imagine that those who actually can't read the ballot paper will be so small a number in a Western democracy that they are insignificant to the result, especially if you consider that they would have to be voting randomly, and thus you would expect the rules of statistics to cancel them out of the equation. Does make me wonder how they go on in, say, impoverished African states where the illiteracy level would be very high - I seem to remember once hearing about an election that used pictures. (Of course some would insist that "impoverished African states" and "honest elections" are incompatible terms anyway.)

To answer your second question. Yes, I recognize that. And we do indeed currently implement this principle to some degree now, by excluding those under a given age, and those deemed mentally incapable. By extending the principle further, you may well get a better "quality of decision" (although how that might be measured and demonstrated I am not sure), but you run the risk of excluding too many citizens and upsetting the stability of your governmental system.

I think that the most noteworthy acheivement of the democractic model of government (as opposed to monarchies, authoritianism, anarchies and what have you) is not the quality of the decisions it makes - many other systems could make a case for matching this level of quality - but the stability and therefore longevity of democractic governments. This stability, I feel, comes from the concept of participation of the citizenry that I have described, and would be put at risk by, as you put it, extending the principle of exclusion too far.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-23 04:13pm

Skelron wrote:Ah yes because those that start to feel left out by the system have been clearly shown to suddenly move to get back in... Oh wait it hasn't been the case which is why we have Third Generation unemployment, and people who have seen that quite frankly school is a waste of time.. Learning to be ignored because they have had no examples of anyone making it in their family life.

And you figure that by making the consequences of ignorance more obvious and immediate, they will be EVEN LESS motivated to learn?

Having had a Parent teach children of these backgrounds I can say that the simple fact that it appears that there is no way out of the poverty trap for the Underclass has bred a contempt for the Education system. The simple fact is these Children arrive at Senior school and give up. (My mother has taught both Senior and Primary school and is of the opinion that at Primary a lot of them view the school as an escape from their home life. By Senior school they have given up, the onset of puberty not helping)

See above.

Of course Teenagers are ALWAYS thinking of the future Wong, I mean when I was a teenager I was planning out my entire life obviously! No most Teenagers don't.

Most teenagers CAN'T vote, moron. You have to be at least 18 to vote, which freezes out the 13-17 age bracket already. And the ability to conect cause and effect is hardly a complex long-range visualization process.

And what I love about this whole, and all it needs to be is too understand how the government works concept. If thats all it is then WHY bother with the needless excercise. I mean unless the Test will go into details that are quite obscure most of the running of the government is quite simple for the Voting Public to work out. You Vote for an MP he ignores what you said till the next election roles around...

Right, it's quite simple, so why the fear-mongering?

besides which for Christs Sake Even MP's arn't sure what their role in parliament is... Are they there to mindlessly follow their leaders, repersent the wishes of their electorate at the expense of their own values, stick by their own values and judgement even if they fear the Electorate may not support them on this issue, but feel that the Voters picked them as the best person for the Job even should they disagree with them on individual issues or something else.

Irrelevant; you are confusing best practices with structural workings.

Hell understanding how the British Government works is an A-Level to Degree Subject

Contents of a Text Book on the British Government

So clearly unless the test is going to only deal with surface things that really would make little differance then it won't be a 'Simple' test at all and claims that it will be are ignorent and unjustified.

So you said earlier it's simple, now you say it's horribly complicated? Puh-lease. If anybody can walk into a public library and learn it, the masses are NOT being frozen out.

Ah yes, fear-mongering. Favored tactic of hysterical fanatics everywhere.
Oh and the concept isn't scary an intellagence test to determine those who can vote, is FUCKING scary. Quite simply it is a dictatorship, and a move away from Democracy.

Oh look, more fear-mongering rhetoric, supported only by your say-so!

Slippery-slope too, eh? You're just bound and determined to be an idiot, aren't you?
Hmm let me see Starship troopers Condition to become a full citizen, this system condition to become a full Citizen...

False analogy, idiot. No one is forcing anyone to join the military; all you have to do is either pay attention in school or walk into a fucking public library and do a bit of reading, for fuck's sake. Anyone too goddamned lazy to do that shouldn't be voting.

Noipe not slipperly slope simple obvious connection the only differance is that in Star Ship troopers the condition is military service in this it's passing either a simple meaningless test or on the condition of a full study of the subject...
Actually thats not so bad, more people should study politics.

You have only demonstrated that more people should study logic, since you obviously didn't. This is a "limited franchise" where ANYONE can voluntarily get franchise with no real personal sacrifice whatsoever.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-23 04:14pm

The Third Man wrote:I think that the most noteworthy acheivement of the democractic model of government (as opposed to monarchies, authoritianism, anarchies and what have you) is not the quality of the decisions it makes - many other systems could make a case for matching this level of quality - but the stability and therefore longevity of democractic governments. This stability, I feel, comes from the concept of participation of the citizenry that I have described, and would be put at risk by, as you put it, extending the principle of exclusion too far.

Actually, many of the most long-lasting governments in world history have been dictatorial.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-06-23 04:17pm

Darth Wong wrote:And you figure that by making the consequences of ignorance more obvious and immediate, they will be EVEN LESS motivated to learn?

For some reason, this reminded me of when George Takei played a Japanese game show host on The Simpsons. Introducing the show to the family, he says, "On American game shows, you reward knowledge. Here, we punish ignorance," and slams his fist on the podium.

The Third Man · Post by **The Third Man** » 2004-06-23 04:22pm

Darth Wong wrote: Actually, many of the most long-lasting governments in world history have been dictatorial.

I think I may have been mis-using the term "government". We talk about things like the "Blair government", which strictly speaking would last no more than 5 years or thereabouts. I meant to refer to the institutions of government, things like "the British system of government by a (democratic) Constitutional Monarchy" which has lasted since sixteen-hundred-whatever-it-was.

What examples of long-lasting dictatorships do you have, BTW?