Topic of the month: Democracy and the problems thereof

Sleepy

Fysh wrote:

There's a huge difference between consenting to something and having the power to change your situation in any meaningful way. Or would you consider black slaves to have "consented" to being relocated and forced into miserable and servile lives (among countless other examples).

So the American Civil War wasn't in any way a war against opression then? If you are in the majority, you have the power to change situation.

Fysh wrote:

They are an important part in one-way communication, which is a necessary part (although not the only, or biggest, part of education). They are not absolute necessities, and when dealing with people who are not adults I find your attitude to be scarily fascistic. I know several people studying towards qualifications to work with emotionally disturbed children and teenagers, and am interested in the issue myself - one of the things that research has shown with these cases is that authoritarian attempts to impose discipline will only make the case worse. An educational system has to be adaptable to the individual, not force the individual to adapt to the system. This necessarily involves catering to people with learning disabilities (including conditions such as autism), emotional difficulties, and physical disabilities. Anything else isn't good enough.

My own sister has a degree in a similar area (BA in Early Childhood Studies from UCC) and has taught in both regular and special needs environments. In no way are you comparing like with like.

Going back to your meritocracy idea, how is that any less subject to the flaws in human nature? Specifically, in the ways which I pointed out previously?

It's not really any less subject to the flaws in human nature. However I believe it would deal with them better. An educated electorate would be less tolerant of corruption or ineptitutude in government than one containing elements which are unable to notice these things.

Quite aside from the fact that even if we can't ever fully succesfully implement it, it's still a damn good method to aim for and try to use. Or is anything less than perfection not worth implementing, even if it improves the current system?

Of course it's worth attempting to promote better standards of education and I agree that a more interactive means of teaching is necessary to improve current standards. However, if a teacher doesn't have an authoritive position over a class, how would you suggest they maintain a safe environment or even one in which a child can learn. Some of the best teachers I ever had couldn't teach me a thing because they couldn't control the class. Think back to your own school days, surely you remember what a class was like with a H Dip that was't perceived to be able tio assert their authority?

Sleepy

simu wrote:

What would change in Ireland with the introduction of such a system? Graduates would vote for whatever party best looked after middle and upper class interests and the problem of Ireland's underclass would be ignored entirely as these people wouldn't even have a vote anymore. The existing political parties would have to get rid of some of their present-day politicians who don't have degrees but there are plenty of graduates involved with Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael etc to replace them. Not much of an improvement there.

Interesting argument. For a start, I originally suggested that anyone with a leaving certificate would have a vote. I hardly think it's a fair assertion that only the middle or upper classes obtain leaving certs. Again, as I already stated, this sort of system would have to introduced hand in hand with an overhauled education system that teaches the electorate enough basic principles to understand what government are doing.

A better educated electorate would be able to understand that Sinn Fein offer nothing as a political party.

A better educated electorate wouldn't re-elect Fianna Fail politicians that have been proven to be corrupt. (Frank Fahy for instance)

A better educated Dail Eireann would be more likely to make better decisions and therefore less likely to waste government money through mismanagement.

simu

Sleepy wrote:

So the American Civil War wasn't in any way a war against opression then? If you are in the majority, you have the power to change situation.

What about all those who lived and died under slavery before the Civil War? What if the Civil War never had happened or if the other side had won?

It's not really any less subject to the flaws in human nature. However I believe it would deal with them better. An educated electorate would be less tolerant of corruption or ineptitutude in government than one containing elements which are unable to notice these things.

There's no way of being certain about this. I'm sure many educated people would "tolerate" less money being spent on the poor if it meant tax relief for them on their second home in the sun or whatever.

No system of government will ever be completely flawless. Mistakes, whether deliberate or accidental, will always be made and some of these will be irreversible in their effects. I still think that the best way to minimise the number of mistakes is to give people a voice and let them have a say in how their own areas are run.

Sleepy wrote:

A better educated electorate would be able to understand that Sinn Fein offer nothing as a political party.

A better educated electorate wouldn't re-elect Fianna Fail politicians that have been proven to be corrupt. (Frank Fahy for instance)

I know many well-educated people who vote for these parties...

DadaKopf

So the American Civil War wasn't in any way a war against opression then?

Point of information! The American Civil War involved slavery as an issue but it was actually fought over Union-Confederacy economic relations. The northern Union was industrialised, the southern Confederacy was still an economy based on the export of unprocessed commodities. In economic terms, the relationship was not unlike the one between the US and Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Slavery became an issue because the Confederacy argued that banning slavery would cause their economy to collapse. The Civil War was a trade dispute. It was really only to a lesser degree that the war was genuinely about the exploitation of black slaves.

SkepticOne

The fundamental question raised by Sleepy is this: should democracy be limited to those who are educated if that leads to better decisions being made.

There are two points raised here:
1. That voting should be limited to those who can make good decisions.
2. That the current educational system produces such people.

Most of the subsequent discussion, unfortunately, is centred around the second point leading to a discussion about different forms of education (participatory) etc. which we all have opinions about.

The first point is the more fundamental one, I think. I agree with simu, that if you limit voting to a particular group, they will vote according to their own interests and this applies to any group that you separate out, graduates or otherwise.

Fysh

Sleepy wrote:

So the American Civil War wasn't in any way a war against opression then? If you are in the majority, you have the power to change situation.

Put it this way - you and twenty of your mates, against me. Only I'm armed with a chaingun, kevlar armour, and a better knowledge of the terrain than you.

Available resources, weapons, and not least training come into these things. The majority can easily be kept down forcibly, by a well-trained elite military force - particularly in countries where firearms are not easily available to civilians. Plus you have to account for the fact that part of the majority doing the rebelling is stupid, which will have negative effects on any plans implemented by the rebellion.

Sleepy wrote:

My own sister has a degree in a similar area (BA in Early Childhood Studies from UCC) and has taught in both regular and special needs environments. In no way are you comparing like with like.

I didn't mean to suggest the two were alike, my point was that an educational system has to be flexible and adaptable. And a recognition of the symptoms, causes and effects of emotional problems has to be part of that. This will not be the case for every bratty child in a school, but on the other hand I don't see why a child (legally not responsible for themselves) should be punished for the parent's failure to bring them up properly. And yes, I would consider removing someone's right to education (and in your system, subsequent right to have any say in how they are governed) to be punishment.

Sleepy wrote:

It's not really any less subject to the flaws in human nature. However I believe it would deal with them better. An educated electorate would be less tolerant of corruption or ineptitutude in government than one containing elements which are unable to notice these things.

There's nothing stopping the electorate educating themselves now. What you're suggesting isn't really any different to Margaret Thatcher's Poll Tax. And look what happened to that. By your own arguments above, people would eventually overthrow your system, unless the military elite prevented them from doing so. Think about what we consider "average" intelligence. Then think that "average" is mathematically defined as what everyone would have if we shared equally. Therefore, a huge chunk of the population (not necessarily half, but certainly not a significant number) is "below average".

Sleepy wrote:

Of course it's worth attempting to promote better standards of education and I agree that a more interactive means of teaching is necessary to improve current standards. However, if a teacher doesn't have an authoritive position over a class, how would you suggest they maintain a safe environment or even one in which a child can learn. Some of the best teachers I ever had couldn't teach me a thing because they couldn't control the class. Think back to your own school days, surely you remember what a class was like with a H Dip that was't perceived to be able tio assert their authority?

No, actually. But then again, I was quite lucky at my school. However, I go back to my previous point. The breakdown of parenting in many western countries is the fault of parents being crap at parenting, which in turn is down to a lack of any restrictions on people breeding combined with poor sex education programs. Now, I don't see how the solution to all of that is by simply chucking the troublesome kids out of class. I mean, social services spend quite a lot of their time trying to look after these kids - are you saying this is pointless? What gives you the right to decide to throw away someone's right to education just because they've had what can be considered a less priviledged upbringing than others?

Aside from which - you chuck the troublesome kids out of class, and they can't vote. Fine. They get on with doing manual labour or whatever, get involved with someone, have a kid. Due to their utterly crap education and lack of awareness of what constitutes proper parenting, their kid ends up exactly the same. Your program would do nothing about that kid, therefore institutionalising neglect - at least, as far as is currently apparent.

Classroom discipline is not a simple topic - part of it is down to teachers who don't really know how to handle a class (and I guarantee you that if you have any interest in actually teaching, merely shouting at people or resorting to kicking people out of class doesnt work - all that shows is that you're willing to give up on people instead of getting inside their heads and leading them to understand what you're trying to explain, which is what teaching is about), part of it down to kids who are rowdy for a variety of reasons (from a simple bratty lack of respect for authority on to genuine emotional trauma or psychological problems), part of it is down to poorly-presented subject matter, part of it is down to resources available to schools (to explore the benefits of technology or alternate teaching methods and escape the constraints of the traditional teaching methods). We need to eliminate the causes of the problem, not just hide the symptoms.

Sleepy wrote:

Quite simply: a group of three relevantly qualified people will make a better decision than a group of three relevantly qualified people and one completely unqualified person.

Yep. But it still negates the unqualified person's right to self-determination, and this seems to be the crux of your argument, that self-determination should be filtered by intelligence. Again, I don't trust this because it's something that's naturally beneficial to you (as one of the non-stupid people)and therefore I question your arguments in favour of it - basically I don't trust the 3 qualified people to adequately consider the unqualified person's wants and needs, partly because of a marked tendency among those considered intelligent to look down on those less intelligent than them.

I don't see the benefits to the "less intelligent" section of the population of having their right to say how they are governed forcibly removed, because that leaves them wide open to exploitation in the name of "the good of society as a whole". Intelligence is one of the few things that it is socially acceptable to be biased on, but I don't see why it's fair to treat people as lesser human beings because of this. Why should being unintelligent be any different to being a different race or religion, in the eyes of government?

A system where before voting on a given issue, you have to take a basic comprehension test to ensure that you have grasped the issues I could see the benefits of, even if it would still be open to abuse and a logistical nightmare to implement. But what you are talking about is institutionalised discrimination, effectively - especially in our current educational system, where access to finances can have a marked influence on the quality of your education.

Sleepy

DadaKopf wrote:

Point of information! The American Civil War involved slavery as an issue but it was actually fought over Union-Confederacy economic relations. The northern Union was industrialised, the southern Confederacy was still an economy based on the export of unprocessed commodities. In economic terms, the relationship was not unlike the one between the US and Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Slavery became an issue because the Confederacy argued that banning slavery would cause their economy to collapse. The Civil War was a trade dispute. It was really only to a lesser degree that the war was genuinely about the exploitation of black slaves.

That's why I said "in any way", it was part of the reason the war happened.

Sleepy

Fysh wrote:

A system where before voting on a given issue, you have to take a basic comprehension test to ensure that you have grasped the issues I could see the benefits of, even if it would still be open to abuse and a logistical nightmare to implement.

This must be a first for boards.ie. I give up my entire argument for meritocracy based on education. With a few tweaks, that suggestion is possible one of the best I've ever heard.

With a *proper* electronic voting system. It could be a matter of answering, say over 70/80% on a multiple choice test on the candidates policies in a general election or on the effects of the proposed legislation in a referendum situation.

Fysh, you fancy running for government?

DadaKopf

Once again, that's problematic, depending on what the referendum is.

In the case of constitutional referenda, this would be possible. Making an entitlement to voting dependent on one's ability to prove that he/she understands the issues in a 'yes' or 'no' referendum is probably the closest thing you ever get to clear-cut in democratic politics.

Party elections (or any combination thereof under representative democracy) is different; candidates and parties stand on multiple issue platforms and in democracy, everyone is entitled to have an opinion on whatever issue they feel is relevant to them. The tests might be so complicated that it'd push any intelligent person to the limit (intelligent, not necessarily educated), not to mention, as Fysh said, administrations (but lack of administrative capacity isn't necessarily an argument against this).

The question to be asked about this suggestion is: would people's disenfranchisement on the basis of having to pass a competency test actually encourage more people to participate in politics? I don't think it would.

Going back to Weber, who I mentioned earlier on, I don't see how this competency test improves on the division of society into politically active and passive elements, perhaps classes, which was already identified as an impediment to democracy. Again, such a test would result in effectively disenfranchising swathes of society (even if the test was devised under the most democratic circumstances) on the basis of these members being politically active or passive. This undermines the essential values of democracy: democracy should be about the sharing of power in state institutions among the whole of society, not a limited system of governance based on, firstly, a politically bifurcated society and, secondly, the reduction of democracy to a minimal set of procedures such as voting and tax-paying.

I would actually consider such a suggestion similar to the Poll Tax when the Conservative government attempted to institutionalise political passivity by restricting the vote to those who were rich enough to pay. The effect of this on democracy would have been profound had it lasted.

Basically, this would not solve the deep-seated structural issues at the heart of modern democracy. There are reasons for this active-passive division. Some democratic theorists assumed the level of non-involvement in politics was a sign that democracy was working so well, and politicians doing such a good job, that most people didn't need to get involved! Nonsense. That's what figures like Robert Dahl and Seymour Lipset argued. Dahl later changed his mind, but Michael Mann carried out extensive research in America and found that political apathy was actually the result of class relations - while the middle classes were more likely to be politically active and to espouse dominant political norms, working classes were more likely to consign themselves to their social position and to support "deviant values" (such as socialism). David Held carried out similar research in Britain; he found that there are considerable differences between a group in society absolutely endorsing government policy, being apathetic and accepting what they're up against because they don't see how, in their social position, they can effect change - this he called instrumental acceptance.

In both studies, the social elements that are most likely to engage in the prevailing political system, and therefore steer the state's policies at all levels, are the ones who are most likely to benefit from the status quo. Those who were marginalised usually advocated fringe politics, but have little impact. Those non-dominant class groups who support mainstream political parties/groups do so because they've instrumentally accepted the leadership of the dominant groups, not because they actively endorse what they represent.

My own personal position is I absolutely reject any suggestion to divide society into groups, ostensibly for the purposes of efficiency, or sound governance, but actually for control. Democracy should mean democracy.

Although, democratic countries in transition? That's another argument!

SkepticOne

"Going back to Weber, who I mentioned earlier on, I don't see how this competency test improves on the division of society into politically active and passive elements, perhaps classes, which was already identified as an impediment to democracy."

Maybe it is not supposed to.

Sleepy

A competency test would ensure that only those interested/intelligent enough to understand what they're voting for would be allowed to vote.

I can't see any problem with this. To my mind the chief problem of Demoracy is that it leads to poor decision making due to allowing the ignorant have their say.

Dadakopf, you're arguing that the majority should suffer this poor decision making to ensure that those who are too lazy/stupid/passive to make their vote count aren't victimised by the system. This is where we have fundamentaly different viewpoints. To my mind, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and I have enough faith in human altruism to believe that those that aren't intelligent enough to vote won't be turned into the slave class you seem to envision.

There is nothing to do with "control" in this suggestion. It IS for sound governance. With better decision making in the governmental process, one can expect better results. Better results means better usage of government funding which means that all social services can be improved, which benefits the entire population. Frankly, you seem obsessed by the class system. Personally I don't see there being such a 'class' structure any more unless one is purely derived from income/wealth levels.

Fysh

Sleepy wrote:

Dadakopf, you're arguing that the majority should suffer this poor decision making to ensure that those who are too lazy/stupid/passive to make their vote count aren't victimised by the system. This is where we have fundamentaly different viewpoints. To my mind, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and I have enough faith in human altruism to believe that those that aren't intelligent enough to vote won't be turned into the slave class you seem to envision.

Given our bloody and colourful history as a species, faith in our ability to care for one another should not be used as arguments to introduce a system which could easily be manipulated or abused by a government looking to consolidate power and make itself less accountable to its electorate. Never mind the fact that the duty of a government is to cater to the needs of ALL, not just the many. And it cannot be argued that refusing some of the population their right to vote will always lead to their needs being catered, because they would effectively have no voice with which to make their needs known.

In short, I don't have faith that those who are "qualified" to vote would consider the needs, wants and opinions of those "not qualified" to vote, and as I pointed out before, I do think that pretty much any system built on such a notion of being "qualified" to vote is going to end up institutionalising discrimination against those of lower intellect. The only way this could be avoided with my above suggestion would be to try and break down any issue into a yes/no question - this can be done in the case of a referendum, but in the case of electing leaders becomes very difficult if not impossible. (Perhaps a series of yes/no questions regarding the policies of all parties listed on the ballot, with a cut off point that decides whether you can, at that time, vote? Again, a logistical nightmare, but possibly something that might help eliminate uninformed voting. Conversely, as I warned previously, it would be extremely open to manipulation by an unscrupulous government).

I agree with Dadakopf's comparison to the Poll Tax, and I think the effects would be very similar, since the intent is essentially the same - to consign a subset of humanity to "drone" status, unable to have a say in how they are governed. I can't imagine this being anything other than the UN's declaration of human rights, for that matter, which should also be food for thought.

DadaKopf

Yes, Sleepy, I know you're a utilitarian. And I'm opposed to utilitarianism. Leaving aside my own political leanings, I think you should read up on John Rawls' Theory of Justice. He has been one of the singlemost influential political thinkers of our century. He's not a Marxist, he spent his live opposing utilitarianism on the grounds of Liberal philosophy.

His basic premise is this: utilitarianism (what you suggest above) tramples on people's fundamental rights neccesary for Justice. You can read up on it here.

I'm, personally, a critic of Rawls for different reasons and would probably be more attuned to Jurgen Habermas who covers similar ground.

Ultimately, what you seem to advocate is a form of technocracy, which may make governance more 'efficient', but it doesn't make things more democratic, and it limits people's options in a particular way. Technocratic modes of governance aren't impartial or apolitical, they're grounded in subjectivity and ideology. Normally, democracy ought to be about members of society negotiating their ways through competing moralities, but, as you repeatedly say, you're not interested in democracy. Technocracy operates to banish questions of morality in favour of efficiency, thereby concealing power and ideology.

The following is from an excellent article about how what you're advocating affects underdevelopment in Sub-Saharan Africa:

'The depoliticisation of the mass of the population and the decline of the public realm as a political institution are components of a system of domination that tends to exclude practical questions from public discussion. The bureaucratized exercise of power has its counterpart in a public realm confined to spectacles and acclamation' (Habermas, 1996c: 51)

Note that Habermas is here using 'practical' to denote moral-political issues. To maintain this system of domination, it is imperative that the public does not debate matters of import because 'public discussions could render problematic the framework within which the tasks of government present themselves as technical ones' (Habermas, 1996b: 60). And to make the system acceptable (or legitimate) in the eyes of most people, this notion of technocratic, non-public decision-making must take on ideological properties i.e., become part of the way in which people think, part of 'the consciousness of the depoliticized mass of the population' (Habermas, 1996c: 62).

Sleepy

First off, apologies for the length it's taken me to respond to this, a bank holiday weekend session and a lot of reading have slowed me down!

Fysh wrote:

Given our bloody and colourful history as a species, faith in our ability to care for one another should not be used as arguments to introduce a system which could easily be manipulated or abused by a government looking to consolidate power and make itself less accountable to its electorate.

Can you name (or propose) one system of government that isn't easily manipulated in that fashion?

Never mind the fact that the duty of a government is to cater to the needs of ALL, not just the many. And it cannot be argued that refusing some of the population their right to vote will always lead to their needs being catered, because they would effectively have no voice with which to make their needs known.

My argument is that a percentage of this country doesn't know what's good for them. Can you honestly believe that a layabout who has chosen to be on the dole would vote for a party with strong policies on reforming the welfare system? I think not. I'd wager he'd vote for whichever party gave the best propaganda about being the party for "d'workin class". It's in this person's interest to have a government that would train him and create jobs for him to fill, not to have a government that would increase the dole and waste the economy. Yet which do you think he'll vote for?

I do think that pretty much any system built on such a notion of being "qualified" to vote is going to end up institutionalising discrimination against those of lower intellect.

If you knew you wouldn't be allowed to vote in the next election unless you boned up on the issues of the election surely you'd be prepared ot read the papers? Obviously, the tests would need to be subject to monitoring for transparency and accountability (perhaps by a body made up of a single member of each political party?)

I agree with Dadakopf's comparison to the Poll Tax, and I think the effects would be very similar, since the intent is essentially the same - to consign a subset of humanity to "drone" status, unable to have a say in how they are governed. I can't imagine this being anything other than the UN's declaration of human rights, for that matter, which should also be food for thought.

I fail to see how an unprogressive tax has any similarity to the proposal of only allowing someone who can prove they understand the issues at hand to vote? Yes, Thatcher’s Poll Tax was idiotic, but how exactly did it deny idiots the right to vote.

Can you clarify your point about the UN's declaration of human rights, I can't understand that sentence.

DadaKopf wrote:

Ultimately, what you seem to advocate is a form of technocracy, which may make governance more 'efficient', but it doesn't make things more democratic, and it limits people's options in a particular way. Technocratic modes of governance aren't impartial or apolitical; they're grounded in subjectivity and ideology. Normally, democracy ought to be about members of society negotiating their ways through competing moralities, but, as you repeatedly say, you're not interested in democracy. Technocracy operates to banish questions of morality in favour of efficiency, thereby concealing power and ideology.

Yes Dadakopf, I am a technocrat. I don't believe that the government of a country should have any real say in the morality of it's peoples. This type of thing leads to the likes of Bush being elected due to the innate homophobia of Bible Belt America. A government's duty is to protect, and provide for, it's people.

Efficiency is a concern of government, but so too is effectiveness. You can cut all the red tape you like but if the person/people making the decisions is/are (a) buffoon(s) it won't matter how efficiently you carry out that decision because it's still the wrong decision.

However, I don't see how a system of government based on qualification of it's actors necessarily "conceals power and ideology". Transparency and Accountability are enforceable on any political structure you can name or devise.

Finally, and this is where I fear we may end up having to agree to disagree, in my opinion a meritocracy is the most likely system to produce an efficient and effective government. With a government being thusly run, the state will see improvements in the provision of health, education and all the states other functions. This leads to a more inclusive society as the populace are better cared for and educated. Eventually, the system would in large part end up being a democracy, but it would be a democracy of properly educated individuals with only those wasters that couldn't be bothered not having their say. And I'm afraid, I don't believe they deserve a say.

True, this system doesn't prevent corruption any more so than that of democracy but what system does? The most corrupt societies we've seen in human history were those on the farther edges of the left. It does deal with the problems democracy has vis a vis efficiency and effectiveness so it's an improvement from it. The issues of accountability and transparency are a different tenet of this argument. Yes, democracy has problems with these, but are they truly inherent in the system? Or can they be tackled without the need to drastically change the system? I'd suggest the latter, through reductions of legal manners in which lobby groups can hold undue influence with our politicians (e.g. reduced limits of "political donations" etc).

So I ask yet again: what problems are there with a system based on qualification that don't exist in democracy? I see only improvements, not a perfect solution, but an improved system. It tackles some of the problems with democracy and perhaps the remaining problems can be tackled without a change to our form of government selection relying instead on new legislation governing the running of that means of selection.

simu

I've already given the reasons about why I don't think your meritocracy would be a good system of government but maybe I wasn't all that clear with one of these, namely the possibility of gaining redress. You state that any group of people that is being treated unfairly will eventually rebel against its leaders and that this threat of rebellion will ensure that those who get a say in the running of the country address the problems faced by those who don't. Well, as I already stated, downtrodden people might not have the resources to rebel and besides, any good system of government should, in my opinion, allow for change in the system without violence & bloodshed.

As you said, all forms of government can be manipulated to some degree but at least, in a democracy, if the people or subgroup of the people any don't like the way things are run, they get a chance to change things at regular intervals without having to get killed in the process.

Can you honestly believe that a layabout who has chosen to be on the dole would vote for a party with strong policies on reforming the welfare system? I think not. I'd wager he'd vote for whichever party gave the best propaganda about being the party for "d'workin class". It's in this person's interest to have a government that would train him and create jobs for him to fill, not to have a government that would increase the dole and waste the economy. Yet which do you think he'll vote for?

This is the exact same argument I gave except that I used the example of the middle class voter voting for the party that best furthered his/her interests. Why do you trust one more than the other?

Obviously, the tests would need to be subject to monitoring for transparency and accountability (perhaps by a body made up of a single member of each political party?)

Tbh I don't think problems in the political system in Ireland are caused by people coming in and voting for candidates randomly due to their ignorance of their policies. I don't imagine such people would bother going all the way to the polling station at all. Most people in Ireland, for example, who vote for FF, FG etc are well aware of their past history and so on and I don't think that making them pass a test on polling day would change much.

Sleepy

simu wrote:

I've already given the reasons about why I don't think your meritocracy would be a good system of government but maybe I wasn't all that clear with one of these, namely the possibility of gaining redress. You state that any group of people that is being treated unfairly will eventually rebel against its leaders and that this threat of rebellion will ensure that those who get a say in the running of the country address the problems faced by those who don't. Well, as I already stated, downtrodden people might not have the resources to rebel and besides, any good system of government should, in my opinion, allow for change in the system without violence & bloodshed.

As you said, all forms of government can be manipulated to some degree but at least, in a democracy, if the people or subgroup of the people any don't like the way things are run, they get a chance to change things at regular intervals without having to get killed in the process.

Of course they can change things easier than through revolution. They can educate themselves and join the system.

This is the exact same argument I gave except that I used the example of the middle class voter voting for the party that best furthered his/her interests. Why do you trust one more than the other?

Because one is a criminal. Contrary to some people's beliefs it is a crime to collect unemployment benefit when one isn't actively seeking employment.

Tbh I don't think problems in the political system in Ireland are caused by people coming in and voting for candidates randomly due to their ignorance of their policies. I don't imagine such people would bother going all the way to the polling station at all. Most people in Ireland, for example, who vote for FF, FG etc are well aware of their past history and so on and I don't think that making them pass a test on polling day would change much.

How else can Sinn Fein's current popularity be explained other than by ignorance? How else can Fianna Fail's continued raping of the country be explained other than through the numbers that blindly vote for them, not understanding any parties policies, voting for people merely because they own the local pub or are from the next village over. You give too much credit to the electorate Simu.

Fysh

Sleepy wrote:

Of course they can change things easier than through revolution. They can educate themselves and join the system.

This is where we disagree. Once a system excludes a group people by default, it's open to exploitation. I cannot conceive of any way in which the tests required for your system to work would not be biased and basically training people to jump through hoops rather than actually be able to think and ask pertinent questions before voting on an electoral topic. Nor do I understand why you think that someone being educated under our current system makes their vote any more informed or geared towards "the greater good". I know many university-educated people whose vote is exclusively based on what suits them best at a local level. Frankly, I don't trust them any more than I'd trust someone with mild mental deficiencies when it comes to choices on a ballot paper, but I'm not advocating taking away their votes.

Because one is a criminal. Contrary to some people's beliefs it is a crime to collect unemployment benefit when one isn't actively seeking employment.

And? I know a good few dole claimants who aren't entitled who also happen to be middle-class and university educated.

How else can Sinn Fein's current popularity be explained other than by ignorance? How else can Fianna Fail's continued raping of the country be explained other than through the numbers that blindly vote for them, not understanding any parties policies, voting for people merely because they own the local pub or are from the next village over. You give too much credit to the electorate Simu.

You give too much credit to university degrees and those who possess them. While I agree that Irish elections have a tendency of putting incompetents in power, I don't see how letting a self-serving "elite" systematically ignore the needs & wants of those deemed "too stupid to vote" is going to help. I don't know about you, but I've met people with good degrees from respected universities who were thick as the famous planks (no joke - I met people at work who'd done spanish for 3 years at uni and yet didn't speak a word, among others). I also fail to see how education removes the incentive to corruption, which seems to be central to your suggestion.

Frankly, the reason I'll go with democracy over your system is because I don't trust anyone with power, and I think the checks and balances given by democracy are the best way we have to stop anyone getting too crazy. No, it's not perfect, not least because our selection of candidates and our cult of personality means that the system often weeds out those who might actually do a better job. It doesn't mean you restrict the voices of those whose attitudes or actions you dislike, and I find your motives questionable. The "greater good" could be argued to require many things, but if you're going to argue that the ends justify the means then you and I, at least, have nothing more to say to each other.

My earlier reference to the UN somehow missed out a couple of words, but in essence I was suggesting that your idea would run contrary to the UN's declaration of human rights by virtue of reducing the status of those deemed to be "stupid" according to a given educational system to "worker humans".

Sleepy

Fysh, your obsessed with the pretty much defunct notion of classes. Nowhere did I say that the criminal I spoke of was from any particular class. I took a sideswipe at Sinn Fein's "policies" of increasing the dole regardless of how it would be paid for with the "D'workin Class" comment (interesting title since most people that include themselves in this class, don't actually work).

SO, answer my question again: should criminals be allowed to vote? Should we be dropping off Ballot Papers in the Joy too?

Where it would seem to be that we fundamentally disagree Fysh, is that in your passion for the class system, you'd rather see dangerously unqualified people do jobs than to force them to become qualified before filling their role. I'd rather deny someone their vote until they become sufficiently educated on the matter at hand to deserve their say in it.

My faith in the Irish University system isn't all that high to be honest, but I'd rather have someone with a qualification to fill a certain role than someone without. In other words, to me at least, it makes more sense to have a qualified management accountant or economist fill the role of minister for finance than a farmer. It makes more sense to have someone qualified in agri-science in the rold of minister for agriculture than it does to have a publican fill the role. How anyone can argue against this logic baffles me because that's all it is: cold hard logic, the thing that democracy falls so short of the target of as to be laughable.

Fysh

Sleepy wrote:

Fysh, your obsessed with the pretty much defunct notion of classes.

I'm not obsessed with it, but I would argue that it's far from defunct in our current economic system and I do think that ignoring this can have dangerous results. I don't *like* the idea, but I don't want to ignore it just because of this.

Sleepy wrote:

SO, answer my question again: should criminals be allowed to vote? Should we be dropping off Ballot Papers in the Joy too?

A convicted criminal serving a sentence should not be allowed to vote; this would imo be part of the reformation process that prison is meant to provide. Someone with a criminal record who has completed any penal sentences, however, should be allowed to vote. Otherwise we not only negate the notion that our justice system can reform people but more importantly the idea that people themselves can choose to change their ways to become accepted members in society.

Sleepy wrote:

Where it would seem to be that we fundamentally disagree Fysh, is that in your passion for the class system, you'd rather see dangerously unqualified people do jobs than to force them to become qualified before filling their role. I'd rather deny someone their vote until they become sufficiently educated on the matter at hand to deserve their say in it.

I wouldn't. I agree that people doing a job should be able to do it, but I maintain that in the case of politicians in particular, we should be restricting who runs for candidacy (make *them* take tests to show they understand what effects policies have, etc) and force them to serve in certain positions as an apprenticeship before giving them any real power. You still haven't said how someone "qualified" for the job is going to be guaranteed to protect the rights and interests of those with no vote outside of saying that those without a voice can rebel and overthrow the government - at which point I say, any system where you have to include armed rebellion as a tool of the people is doomed.

Sleepy wrote:

My faith in the Irish University system isn't all that high to be honest, but I'd rather have someone with a qualification to fill a certain role than someone without. In other words, to me at least, it makes more sense to have a qualified management accountant or economist fill the role of minister for finance than a farmer. It makes more sense to have someone qualified in agri-science in the rold of minister for agriculture than it does to have a publican fill the role. How anyone can argue against this logic baffles me because that's all it is: cold hard logic, the thing that democracy falls so short of the target of as to be laughable.

It's not cold hard logic because it relies on an education system that fails utterly to maintain the standard you assume of it. Going back to my previous example - I've lived in spain for most of my life and speak spanish fluently, yet I'm not qualified in it beyond GCSE (junior cert) level. I speak it far better and in general have a better knowledge of the language (although perhaps not its literaty history) than many people I know in possession of Honours Degrees in the Spanish language, including one girl in particular I worked with who had a 2:1 from UCC in Spanish but could not speak a word of it and whose written comprehension was patchy at best. Given this, who would be better at translating an official document from Spanish into English? By your logic, I would rate second best.

Now, obviously this doesn't apply to all cases - but I maintain and will not change my opinion that our education system does not include enough provision for hands-on training in subjects where it would not only be relevant but should be required. This is one reason I'm opposed to this suggested system.

For the record : as a utilitarian, do you believe that the ends justify the means? I quite emphatically do not believe this, and I think that this may be where we disagree at a fundamental level.

DadaKopf

Sleepy wrote:

Fysh, your obsessed with the pretty much defunct notion of classes.

If it's such a defunct notion, how come it's OK to refer to the middle-class but no other classes? I suggest you back up that statement with someone's research findings. Do you even know what class is?

Sleepy wrote:

Nowhere did I say that the criminal I spoke of was from any particular class. I took a sideswipe at Sinn Fein's "policies" of increasing the dole regardless of how it would be paid for with the "D'workin Class" comment (interesting title since most people that include themselves in this class, don't actually work).

Have you any sources for these statements?

Sleepy wrote:

SO, answer my question again: should criminals be allowed to vote? Should we be dropping off Ballot Papers in the Joy too?

Now you're trying to shift the argument. We're not discussing criminology, we're discussing the merits of democracy.

Sleepy wrote:

Where it would seem to be that we fundamentally disagree Fysh, is that in your passion for the class system, you'd rather see dangerously unqualified people do jobs than to force them to become qualified before filling their role. I'd rather deny someone their vote until they become sufficiently educated on the matter at hand to deserve their say in it.

I don't see where Fysh has shown an obsession with 'class'. What he, and I, are challenging you on is your obsession with 'classifying' people according to their levels of 'ignorance' and limiting their political freedoms accordingly. The only reason we're discussing forms of social stratification and exclusion is because you're advocating it. And to add spice to your argument, you throw a little fear into the mix as well when you claim only to be arguing for ways to prevent 'dangerously unqualified people' to serve public offices. Oooh, I'm scared. In fact, democracy, as you agree, is not a perfect system, and democracy in fact acknowledges this possibility, which is why democratic systems employ so many checks and balances, including the divisions of power.

You argue that meritocracy is a solution to the democratic 'crisis of governance'. The system is already a quasi-meritocracy except for ministerial levels, although as any civil servant will moan (and I have personal experience of this), promotions are made on the basis of politics and power rather than ability. As much as people have attempted to 'design out' this problem, new management techniques have made it worse. So much for meritocracy in the civil service.That's with a meritocratic system in place within one of our pillars.

But let's get the argument straight, we're talking about cabinet leadership here. Again, I don't see how restricting public offices at ministerial level on the basis of educational background could be any kind of solution here. Like I said much earlier, for example, to prevent everyone except those who attained a certain minimum qualification in economics from serving as Minister of Finance. As I indicated in the Habermas quote above, limiting the scope for 'joined up thinking' at any level damages the quality of administration and leadership. By quality, I don't simply mean efficiency (anyone can be efficient) or efficacy, I mean the ability of democratic government to fulfil its duties to all of the people, to provide for all of the people and not to favour any groups on the basis of any social categorisation.

Of course, today, it's natural to assume that a Minister of Finance will be expected to have a good grip on the economy. Of course I agree, but what I disagree with is the type of 'expert' who fills that post. Who decides on the conditions of entry? How fixed are they? How restrictive are they? For example, should serving as Minister of Finance only be limited to neoliberal economists, or could development economists or Marxist economists apply, too?

And this is where power in education comes in. I know many, many people who studied economics in UCD and elsewhere who cried out to learn something beyond Neo-classical and neoliberal economics; they saw how these theories damaged the world and kept people in poverty. They were denied those opportunities. Various actors have an interest in not providing critical economics courses, and then you get people with defunct economic theories becoming finance ministers who have no conception beyond their graphs and curves how they affect the quality of people's lives. You have to ask: who maintains this intellectual hegemony and why?

To me, advocating what you're saying further prevents these serious questions from being asked. They're not even asked by our fragmented and ineffective Left.

And before you think you can get away with only responding to this final portion of the post, I'd like you to answer the questions I started off with first.

Sleepy

DadaKopf wrote:

If it's such a defunct notion, how come it's OK to refer to the middle-class but no other classes? I suggest you back up that statement with someone's research findings. Do you even know what class is?

I try not to refer to anyone as being part of a class. I don't believe classes really exist in modern society. Sure, some people are richer or poorer than others but in a society that isn't run by a monarchy I don't see the relevance. Somee of the richest people are the most vulgar and some of the poorest the most dignified.

If you want to define class as being a definition of one's financial place in society, I think it's a pretty arbitrary definition. Take the example of tradesmen such as builders, carpenters, plumbers etc. All would traditionally have been considered to be working class. Nowadays these people are some of the highest earners in society. So, where do we place them now according to your class structure?

Have you any sources for these statements?

Merely my interpretation of the various media I've read in the last five to ten years (both broadsheet and tabloid).

Now you're trying to shift the argument. We're not discussing criminology, we're discussing the merits of democracy.

I think it's relevant to the theme of meritocracy as an improvement on democracy. It removes elements from the electorate who aren't fit to vote.

I don't see where Fysh has shown an obsession with 'class'. What he, and I, are challenging you on is your obsession with 'classifying' people according to their levels of 'ignorance' and limiting their political freedoms accordingly. The only reason we're discussing forms of social stratification and exclusion is because you're advocating it. And to add spice to your argument, you throw a little fear into the mix as well when you claim only to be arguing for ways to prevent 'dangerously unqualified people' to serve public offices. Oooh, I'm scared. In fact, democracy, as you agree, is not a perfect system, and democracy in fact acknowledges this possibility, which is why democratic systems employ so many checks and balances, including the divisions of power.

You argue that meritocracy is a solution to the democratic 'crisis of governance'. The system is already a quasi-meritocracy except for ministerial levels, although as any civil servant will moan (and I have personal experience of this), promotions are made on the basis of politics and power rather than ability. As much as people have attempted to 'design out' this problem, new management techniques have made it worse. So much for meritocracy in the civil service.That's with a meritocratic system in place within one of our pillars.

But let's get the argument straight, we're talking about cabinet leadership here. Again, I don't see how restricting public offices at ministerial level on the basis of educational background could be any kind of solution here. Like I said much earlier, for example, to prevent everyone except those who attained a certain minimum qualification in economics from serving as Minister of Finance. As I indicated in the Habermas quote above, limiting the scope for 'joined up thinking' at any level damages the quality of administration and leadership. By quality, I don't simply mean efficiency (anyone can be efficient) or efficacy, I mean the ability of democratic government to fulfil its duties to all of the people, to provide for all of the people and not to favour any groups on the basis of any social categorisation.

Of course, today, it's natural to assume that a Minister of Finance will be expected to have a good grip on the economy. Of course I agree, but what I disagree with is the type of 'expert' who fills that post. Who decides on the conditions of entry? How fixed are they? How restrictive are they? For example, should serving as Minister of Finance only be limited to neoliberal economists, or could development economists or Marxist economists apply, too?

And this is where power in education comes in. I know many, many people who studied economics in UCD and elsewhere who cried out to learn something beyond Neo-classical and neoliberal economics; they saw how these theories damaged the world and kept people in poverty. They were denied those opportunities. Various actors have an interest in not providing critical economics courses, and then you get people with defunct economic theories becoming finance ministers who have no conception beyond their graphs and curves how they affect the quality of people's lives. You have to ask: who maintains this intellectual hegemony and why?

To me, advocating what you're saying further prevents these serious questions from being asked. They're not even asked by our fragmented and ineffective Left.

And before you think you can get away with only responding to this final portion of the post, I'd like you to answer the questions I started off with first.

So we divide the power between two people whoare unfit to rule, great idea, it sure works doesn't it? :rolleyes:

I'm not even getting into the area of Marxism, like everyone else who develops an interest in it, you'll grow out of it eventually.

I think this discussion isn't going to go anywhere because we'll never agree on the fundamental difference between us: I believe that some people are simply too uneducated to be fit to vote. You don't. Unless either of us were to back down on this central disagreement, which it doesn't seem is the case, there's not much point to continuing the discussion.

DadaKopf

If you want to define class as being a definition of one's financial place in society, I think it's a pretty arbitrary definition.

That's not really the definition of class.

Merely my interpretation of the various media I've read in the last five to ten years (both broadsheet and tabloid).

Great! So you won't mind furnishing us with some good sources.

So we divide the power between two people whoare unfit to rule, great idea, it sure works doesn't it?

I described how things are to undermine your own argument. I didn't really suggest ways it could be improved. By your own admission both meritocracy and democracy don't work.

I think this discussion isn't going to go anywhere because we'll never agree on the fundamental difference between us: I believe that some people are simply too uneducated to be fit to vote. You don't. Unless either of us were to back down on this central disagreement, which it doesn't seem is the case, there's not much point to continuing the discussion.

If you backed up your arguments with good sources or facts rather than conjecture and value judgements we might be able to have a real debate. Instead, you've failed to back up any of your statements or define any of the concepts and assumptions central to your argument, for example 'ignorance'. Some of us here have tried to do that for you but you haven't shown any sign of assimilating anyone's arguments or developing your own which, since the beginning, danced around just one idea.

I'm not even getting into the area of Marxism, like everyone else who develops an interest in it, you'll grow out of it eventually.

Perhaps you should engage with the areas other people here have discussed. The genuine exchange of ideas encourages communication and improves the quality of deliberation. I get the impression that you think Marxism is a phase teenagers go through rather than it actually being the other half of European political tradition for over a century (and that's not even mentioning its prominence in other regions of the world).

Fysh

Sleepy wrote:

I try not to refer to anyone as being part of a class. I don't believe classes really exist in modern society. Sure, some people are richer or poorer than others but in a society that isn't run by a monarchy I don't see the relevance. Somee of the richest people are the most vulgar and some of the poorest the most dignified.

If you want to define class as being a definition of one's financial place in society, I think it's a pretty arbitrary definition. Take the example of tradesmen such as builders, carpenters, plumbers etc. All would traditionally have been considered to be working class. Nowadays these people are some of the highest earners in society. So, where do we place them now according to your class structure?

But financial position is not determined by trade in a capitalist market place, given that the "high earners" you're mentioning will mostly become really high earners by virtue of managing a company in their trade rather than working directly and manually in that trade. (ie show me a millionaire "plumber" whose day to day job consists of going to houses and unblocking pipes etc)

Sleepy wrote:

I think it's relevant to the theme of meritocracy as an improvement on democracy. It removes elements from the electorate who aren't fit to vote.

And how are you fit to decide who is fit to vote? This is the point I keep coming back to - what guarantee do we have that, under your system, you will adequately provide for the needs of those you deem "unfit to vote"? How do we know that you won't eg pass a bill legalising the sterilisation of those who fail an intelligence test to "tackle the crime problem", and how would those opposed to this voice their concern? You say they can "learn and join the system" - how can you guarantee that your tests won't discriminate against someone with learning difficulties? Your alternative, that people can restore power to themselves by armed revolution, is stupid - saying that people can do that is basically admitting that your proposed system will not serve people's needs, and as such I don't see why your "cold hard logic" suggests it as an improvement to democracy, where there are at least checks and balances designed to prevent and detect abuses of power.

So we divide the power between two people whoare unfit to rule, great idea, it sure works doesn't it? :rolleyes:

Fitness to rule involves far more than passing an intelligence test, as you are demonstrating by your fear/loathing of the people who you're trying to take the vote from. I wouldn't trust you at all with their concerns, and frankly the only way to make sure that their concerns are in the hands of someone who they can be trusted with is to let them have a say in it.

Sleepy wrote:

I'm not even getting into the area of Marxism, like everyone else who develops an interest in it, you'll grow out of it eventually.

Well excuse me for having an opinion you don't agree with. If it's going to get to such pathetically broad statements, I think you're going to have to concede that you can't satisfactorily answer Dadakopf's questions - and I assert yet again that, if you were to suggest this on a national level, he wouldn't be the only one raising those questions and opposing this move. And frankly, if you can't answer doubts like these, you'll have to accept that you can't make a convincing case for rescinding democracy.

Sleepy wrote:

I think this discussion isn't going to go anywhere because we'll never agree on the fundamental difference between us: I believe that some people are simply too uneducated to be fit to vote. You don't. Unless either of us were to back down on this central disagreement, which it doesn't seem is the case, there's not much point to continuing the discussion.

The problem isn't with the distinction of fundamental views - its the fact that you don't accept that letting government (who control and influence the imperfect educational system) use the educational system as a filter on who can have a say in the run of the country is incontrovertibly open to exploitation. And, given your dim view on the education of some fraction of the population, I fail to understand your subsequently naive (especially in consideration of the past abuses of power by leaders in pretty much every country around the world) assumption that "this wouldn't happen" because it's intelligent people in power. When pressed on this, you've failed to comment on the known phenomenon of "educated" people voting for parties that you feel no educated person could vote for.

At the end of the day, I can't help feeling that you are assuming only a stupid and uneducated person could disagree with you or vote in certain ways, and you seem blinkered to the idea that this might happen anyway.

Sleepy

/me takes deep breath.

Ok, I think we're all agreed that democracy doesn't work or at least that it's seriously flawed.

To me, a system of meritocracy would help improve this as better decisions would be made by an more educated electorate. If someone isn't prepared to take advantage of an education, I don't believe them fit to have a say in the running of a country because if they can't take charge of their own life to even a basic degree, why should they be allowed governmental determination? I don't think that they should be.

What level of education would be sufficient for this? Originally in this argument I proposed ammending the education system to include compulsory education in economics, society and politics and I stand by that. Without at least a basic understanding of these things an individual doesn't understand enough about how countries are run to voice a valid opinion. Following the suggestion of a test to determine who should be allowed to vote in a given election, I agreed that this was a good idea and suggested a means of ensuring it was unbiased by having a representative from each policitcal party (presumably the party whip) take a role in the creation of this test. This ensures continued education of the populace in regard to the issues of the day (the political parties themselves would no doubt take the brunt of this cost given that their supporters and prospective voters would need to understand the issues before being allowed vote on them). This is the minimum education level I'd advocate before allowing someone to vote in an election. If you consider this to be unreasonably high please give me good reason why?

You suggest that this system leaves itself open to abuse as it splits the populace into two sections: the electorate and those unfit to vote. Your premise seems to be that only college educated people would be able to pass these tests. Surely a Leaving Cert student is capable of understanding and learning economics, soc and pol? I know we had some pretty dumb guys in our economics class in Leaving Cert, but they all had a better understanding of how nation states work after doing the course than they had before it and I'd dare say were better able to make their electoral decisions in their first election for having taken this course. Surely if Leaving Cert students are capable of this, so are the electorate?

With regards the notion of an "elite", if the educational quotient is that of a Leaving Cert level, surely the VAST majority (i.e. 99.99999%) of the public are capable of achieving this level of education without too much difficulty or hardship? If so, how can it be argued that these people would have no other option to have their voices heard than through armed revolt, which really is a lot more difficult and dangerous to do than simply to get off your arse and read a few books?

If it's this simple to attain an education in the fundamentals of how a country is run, how can you maintain that the system would leave itself open to being used by your perceived elitist class to the detriment of those too lazy to acquire an understanding of governance?

I don't understand how you believe this system to be any more open to corruption than any other. Democracy has proven itself to be rife with it, as have monarchy, communism and dictatorship. It's an issue to be tackled by laws, not systems of government.

My early suggestion regarding a third level qualification being a requirement for a member of the parliament doesn't seem unreasonable. You don't find too many management positions in this country that don't require a college education in a releveant field so why should the management of the country be any different? You argue that I put too much faith in college degrees. I don't feel I do, I'm merely playing the odds. If someone has been to college it can be expected that in the course of getting their degree they have been exposed to ideas, theories and principles of best practice in that field. Thus, the odds on them knowing and understanding these principles are significanly higher than someone without a degree. This is why companies expect their employees to get a qualification in their relative field, and why shouldn't the public expect the same from their employees? I certainly don't think it's unreasonable to expect a politician to have a qualification in the running of a country before being elected into that position.

My apologies if I've come across as quite brisk at times in this discussion, but I am quite famously intolerant of stupidity and those too lazy to educate themselves before casting a vote. I'm also sick to death of people advocating central planning as it quite simply is not as effective or efficient as a properly legislated market.

I see this as a means of improving democracy, not of separating society into a ruling and under class. I honestly believe that if you're too lazy to take an interest in the running of your country you don't deserve a voice in it's rule.

Fysh

Sleepy wrote:

To me, a system of meritocracy would help improve this as better decisions would be made by an more educated electorate. If someone isn't prepared to take advantage of an education, I don't believe them fit to have a say in the running of a country because if they can't take charge of their own life to even a basic degree, why should they be allowed governmental determination? I don't think that they should be.

Because government, at least a democratic government, is about providing the people with what they want, not with what you think would be better for them.

Sleepy wrote:

What level of education would be sufficient for this? Originally in this argument I proposed ammending the education system to include compulsory education in economics, society and politics and I stand by that. Without at least a basic understanding of these things an individual doesn't understand enough about how countries are run to voice a valid opinion. Following the suggestion of a test to determine who should be allowed to vote in a given election, I agreed that this was a good idea and suggested a means of ensuring it was unbiased by having a representative from each policitcal party (presumably the party whip) take a role in the creation of this test. This ensures continued education of the populace in regard to the issues of the day (the political parties themselves would no doubt take the brunt of this cost given that their supporters and prospective voters would need to understand the issues before being allowed vote on them). This is the minimum education level I'd advocate before allowing someone to vote in an election. If you consider this to be unreasonably high please give me good reason why?

Incorporating this into the educational system will involve developing a syllabus and, unless they radically change the system, using competitive examinations. It's very difficult (some would argue impossible) to provide a blanket test, with a black & white distinction between understanding a topic and not understanding it, that will be adequately understandable to all those taking it. So there's the problem of the examination adequately matching the understanding (or perceived understanding, more importantly) of the students.

Then you have the problem that creeps in when different political parties try to agree on anything - they'll be presenting ideas in different ways, trying to push for teaching methods which show their policies in a beneficial light while showing their rivals as being negative. So effectively, letting the political parties be involved in the syllabus that determines if someone can vote means there's even less chance of an educated vote - at present you can learn about the subjects and then try to wade through the parties' rhetoric to figure out where they stand. Under your system, even the education you receive about the issues would be tinted by rhetoric and therefore less reliable.

Sleepy wrote:

You suggest that this system leaves itself open to abuse as it splits the populace into two sections: the electorate and those unfit to vote. Your premise seems to be that only college educated people would be able to pass these tests. Surely a Leaving Cert student is capable of understanding and learning economics, soc and pol? I know we had some pretty dumb guys in our economics class in Leaving Cert, but they all had a better understanding of how nation states work after doing the course than they had before it and I'd dare say were better able to make their electoral decisions in their first election for having taken this course. Surely if Leaving Cert students are capable of this, so are the electorate?

No, I know many people who started working at 16 who are on a comparable level to myself in terms of intelligence. You'll argue that, fine, they can take the test and provided they jump through the hoops you set them, they can then vote. I counter that why should they have to prove to the existing administration that they are fit to vote for the next administration? Can you not see that this then allows the existing administration to fiddle with the hoops so that those who would oppose them end up being deemed "unfit to vote"? I mean, Christ. Imagine the US election with Bush in power if they used this system.

Sleepy wrote:

With regards the notion of an "elite", if the educational quotient is that of a Leaving Cert level, surely the VAST majority (i.e. 99.99999%) of the public are capable of achieving this level of education without too much difficulty or hardship? If so, how can it be argued that these people would have no other option to have their voices heard than through armed revolt, which really is a lot more difficult and dangerous to do than simply to get off your arse and read a few books?

I'd love to see your evidence that 99.9999% of all leaving cert students achieve results that demonstrate a useful and valuable understanding of the subjects. Especially when you're talking about issues like economics, which at any usefully advanced level requires you to have a fairly good grasp of some advanced maths.

Sleepy wrote:

If it's this simple to attain an education in the fundamentals of how a country is run, how can you maintain that the system would leave itself open to being used by your perceived elitist class to the detriment of those too lazy to acquire an understanding of governance?

Because it's not that simple - partly because you seem to subscribe to the theory that everyone has the same academic potential, partly because our current educational system is nowhere near good enough to be considered a reliable source of people educated to such a level, and partly because having the system that allows people to make impartial and intelligent decisions about their government controlled by the existing government naturally allows for the existing government to unfairly influence who can vote, and use that influence to improve their electoral results.

Sleepy wrote:

I don't understand how you believe this system to be any more open to corruption than any other. Democracy has proven itself to be rife with it, as have monarchy, communism and dictatorship. It's an issue to be tackled by laws, not systems of government.

I'll say it again : because a system that removes the voice of a section of the population cannot be relied on to adequately cater to the needs of that population subset. There will always be an incentive to favour those who have a vote to the detriment of those who do not, and it's not one I would trust politicians to avoid because of their high moral standards (which, I think it can be agreed, are often lower than a limbo-dancing pygmy - certainly in enough cases to back up the argument that politicians and those in power should not be considered as intrinsically trustworthy).

Sleepy wrote:

My early suggestion regarding a third level qualification being a requirement for a member of the parliament doesn't seem unreasonable. You don't find too many management positions in this country that don't require a college education in a releveant field so why should the management of the country be any different? You argue that I put too much faith in college degrees. I don't feel I do, I'm merely playing the odds. If someone has been to college it can be expected that in the course of getting their degree they have been exposed to ideas, theories and principles of best practice in that field.

I can only pray you're joking, particularly with the changes in a lot of colleges to accomodate industrial requirements regardless of whether this has a detrimental effect on the overall academic standard of the course.

Sleepy wrote:

Thus, the odds on them knowing and understanding these principles are significanly higher than someone without a degree. This is why companies expect their employees to get a qualification in their relative field, and why shouldn't the public expect the same from their employees? I certainly don't think it's unreasonable to expect a politician to have a qualification in the running of a country before being elected into that position.

Again, I wouldn't trust possession of a degree as an indicator of intelligence, because not only do I know many people who were utter fools but made their way through college, I also know people who were really very good at their subject but who would be utterly untrustworthy in a position of power - ie their understanding of the subject would be good, but they openly admitted that they would exploit a position of power if they had a chance to do so.

I would also suggest that you respond to Dadakopf's comments regarding the civil service before further discussing the benefits of meritocratic selection of political candidates.

Sleepy wrote:

My apologies if I've come across as quite brisk at times in this discussion, but I am quite famously intolerant of stupidity and those too lazy to educate themselves before casting a vote

And this is why I don't trust your motives for promoting this - rather than being in "the interests of democracy", they appear to be designed to further the interests of yourself and others in similar positions.

Sleepy

Fysh wrote:

Because government, at least a democratic government, is about providing the people with what they want, not with what you think would be better for them.

That's why I believe in Meritocracy. Look at the UK as an example of a democracy: whilst fathers for justice carry out massive campaigns to get their current legislation on family law reviewed, whilst their army are involved in a highly questionable war what does democracy deal with? Fox hunting. What people want, and what they need are often two completely different things.

Incorporating this into the educational system will involve developing a syllabus and, unless they radically change the system, using competitive examinations. It's very difficult (some would argue impossible) to provide a blanket test, with a black & white distinction between understanding a topic and not understanding it, that will be adequately understandable to all those taking it. So there's the problem of the examination adequately matching the understanding (or perceived understanding, more importantly) of the students.

That argument is so tangental as to be almost off-topic. So, you don't think the education system as a whole works. Why bother with education then? Sure, why not just let students choose their courses and not bother with the CAO, which must be an inherrantly wrong way to work because it allows students their choices based on merit. This is a problem you see with our system of education, not the system of government I propose.

Then you have the problem that creeps in when different political parties try to agree on anything - they'll be presenting ideas in different ways, trying to push for teaching methods which show their policies in a beneficial light while showing their rivals as being negative. So effectively, letting the political parties be involved in the syllabus that determines if someone can vote means there's even less chance of an educated vote - at present you can learn about the subjects and then try to wade through the parties' rhetoric to figure out where they stand. Under your system, even the education you receive about the issues would be tinted by rhetoric and therefore less reliable.

At present you can learn about the subjects. Under my proposed system, you would learn the subjects. Most referendums are fairly black and white in terms of their content so I assume your question of how things are put would be based on how to test knowledge of political party's policies when coming to an upcoming referendum. With only one representative taking part in setting the test from each party, perhaps under the guidance of an independent (or as independent a person as can be found, perhaps someone from the UN?) authority I can't see the parties having much room for argument when the questions would be of the form "Fianna Fail intend to cut taxes by: ____" a) decreasing government expenditure b) increased taxation c) stimulating the economy d) all of the above e) 50%". This sort of thing is on any parties manifesto in the run up to exams and anyone with a Leaving Certificate education, particularly one in which the main subjects involved in government are taught, should be able to understand and understand the implications of.

No, I know many people who started working at 16 who are on a comparable level to myself in terms of intelligence. You'll argue that, fine, they can take the test and provided they jump through the hoops you set them, they can then vote. I counter that why should they have to prove to the existing administration that they are fit to vote for the next administration? Can you not see that this then allows the existing administration to fiddle with the hoops so that those who would oppose them end up being deemed "unfit to vote"? I mean, Christ. Imagine the US election with Bush in power if they used this system.

How can the esixting administration fiddle with a test when they only have one person involved in the writing of it and it's based on their own manifesto?

I'd love to see your evidence that 99.9999% of all leaving cert students achieve results that demonstrate a useful and valuable understanding of the subjects. Especially when you're talking about issues like economics, which at any usefully advanced level requires you to have a fairly good grasp of some advanced maths.

Again, this seems to be your problems with the education system we have in Ireland at present. I agree that the Leaving Cert essentially only examines knowledge retention and needs reform but that's a different debate.

Because it's not that simple - partly because you seem to subscribe to the theory that everyone has the same academic potential, partly because our current educational system is nowhere near good enough to be considered a reliable source of people educated to such a level, and partly because having the system that allows people to make impartial and intelligent decisions about their government controlled by the existing government naturally allows for the existing government to unfairly influence who can vote, and use that influence to improve their electoral results.

Again, the existing government would only have one voice on a committee to set the exam.

I'll say it again : because a system that removes the voice of a section of the population cannot be relied on to adequately cater to the needs of that population subset. There will always be an incentive to favour those who have a vote to the detriment of those who do not, and it's not one I would trust politicians to avoid because of their high moral standards (which, I think it can be agreed, are often lower than a limbo-dancing pygmy - certainly in enough cases to back up the argument that politicians and those in power should not be considered as intrinsically trustworthy).

And I'll say it again: if a person is too damn lazy to educate themselves in the subject, they don't deserve a voice.

(lower than a limbo-dancing pygmy - I love that expression)

I can only pray you're joking, particularly with the changes in a lot of colleges to accomodate industrial requirements regardless of whether this has a detrimental effect on the overall academic standard of the course.

Well, can you see an undereducated government or populace understanding this issue? No, neither do I. This issue, which i agree with you on, is one that needs tackling but it won't be tackled by people that have never experience an education worth a damn in the first place. Again, this is a problem you see in the education system, not the form of government proposed.

Again, I wouldn't trust possession of a degree as an indicator of intelligence, because not only do I know many people who were utter fools but made their way through college, I also know people who were really very good at their subject but who would be utterly untrustworthy in a position of power - ie their understanding of the subject would be good, but they openly admitted that they would exploit a position of power if they had a chance to do so.

Well, when every person in HR disagrees with you on a matter that is essentially HR, maybe you should admit you're wrong.

I would also suggest that you respond to Dadakopf's comments regarding the civil service before further discussing the benefits of meritocratic selection of political candidates.

The Civil Service has a lot of deadwood in it. However, at present, it's promotional structure is largely based on seniority, not merit. I work with these people every day, they make up something like 95% of the company I work for's client base. At present, most of the deadwood is at the top, they actually seem to have some considerable talent in the lower ranks at present. If you have, as you suggest, considerable experience with the Civil Service, surely you would accept the fact that at present, as an organisation they are in better shape than they were twenty years ago.

And this is why I don't trust your motives for promoting this - rather than being in "the interests of democracy", they appear to be designed to further the interests of yourself and others in similar positions.

My interests aren't those of democracy and nowhere have I stated that. My motive to see the country's finances and resources properly managed for the good of all it's citizens. If the country is run in a more professional manner, there should be far less mismanagement in our health service, education system, police force etc. Proper management of the funding these departments are currently allocated would drastically improve the standards of service they provide to the people of this country. Proper management of some of the other departments (transport and local government would be obvious ones) would free up further funding for either the primary services or investment in infrastructure. How is this to the detriment of anyone?

Fysh

Sleepy wrote:

That's why I believe in Meritocracy. Look at the UK as an example of a democracy: whilst fathers for justice carry out massive campaigns to get their current legislation on family law reviewed, whilst their army are involved in a highly questionable war what does democracy deal with? Fox hunting. What people want, and what they need are often two completely different things.

My point being that appointing a system of government to decide what people "need" with little or no regard to what they want is inherently dangerous. Society is about more than being a productive and efficient machine. From your comments about "useless" subjects previously, I'd have grave concerns about the fate of the arts under such a government if it were implemented in the way you describe.

Sleepy wrote:

That argument is so tangental as to be almost off-topic. So, you don't think the education system as a whole works. Why bother with education then? Sure, why not just let students choose their courses and not bother with the CAO, which must be an inherrantly wrong way to work because it allows students their choices based on merit. This is a problem you see with our system of education, not the system of government I propose.

Not tangential at all - you're discussing a government system reliant on education which filters by that self-same education, I'm stating that before you did anything like that you would have to firstly develop and secondly implement an education system that could be considered to be unbiased and not affected by social relativism. Until then, your proposed government system suffers because those voting (and those being elected) are not in fact at the standard you propose to use.

Sleepy wrote:

How can the esixting administration fiddle with a test when they only have one person involved in the writing of it and it's based on their own manifesto?

Because they are the government in power, and they can (and will) find ways of manipulating, bending or exploiting legislation in their own favour. You only have to look at the actions of the Bush administration to see this sort of thing in action.

Sleepy wrote:

And I'll say it again: if a person is too damn lazy to educate themselves in the subject, they don't deserve a voice.

That's not a fact, that's your (to my mind quite scary) opinion. And I'm arguing against it, as are others.

Sleepy wrote:

(lower than a limbo-dancing pygmy - I love that expression)

OT I know, but I can't take credit for it - I nicked this off of Simon travaglia's Bastard Operator From Hell

Sleepy wrote:

Well, when every person in HR disagrees with you on a matter that is essentially HR, maybe you should admit you're wrong.

Nope. I point blank refuse, because HR tend to move far more towards theoretical assesments of what a job requires rather than asking someone doing the job for their opinion. I don't trust them at all, because they are being paid to make a judgement on someone based on what that person chooses to present to them on a piece of paper. And this is broadly the same reason I don't trust having testing introduced before being allowed to vote - once paperwork creeps in problems (and corruption) will inevitably arise. Whereas if someone can, no matter what, vote if they are over the age of 18, and the law protects this right, then the problem can always be overcome. Requiring people to prove they can vote is inherently dangerous, and much less reliable than requiring the government to prove that certain people, dealt with on an individual basis, can't vote. But starting from "you can't vote unless you fulfil criteria x" is very very dodgy, and a thin end of wedge scenario.

Sleepy wrote:

The Civil Service has a lot of deadwood in it. However, at present, it's promotional structure is largely based on seniority, not merit. I work with these people every day, they make up something like 95% of the company I work for's client base. At present, most of the deadwood is at the top, they actually seem to have some considerable talent in the lower ranks at present. If you have, as you suggest, considerable experience with the Civil Service, surely you would accept the fact that at present, as an organisation they are in better shape than they were twenty years ago.

I'd argue this is similar to many large enterprises, and I know of at least 2 where I know for a fact (and from personal experience) that this is the case. Since these companies arguably implement systems similar to what you are advocating, surely the fact that they can only be viewed as succesful when compared to themselves years earlier would suggest that the system doesn't work?

Sleepy wrote:

My interests aren't those of democracy and nowhere have I stated that. My motive to see the country's finances and resources properly managed for the good of all it's citizens. If the country is run in a more professional manner, there should be far less mismanagement in our health service, education system, police force etc. Proper management of the funding these departments are currently allocated would drastically improve the standards of service they provide to the people of this country. Proper management of some of the other departments (transport and local government would be obvious ones) would free up further funding for either the primary services or investment in infrastructure. How is this to the detriment of anyone?

By denying people a vote (for whatever reason) you're negating them a say in how the country is run, seemingly on the assumption that requiring education before voting will significantly change how people vote or, indeed, who can run for election. You have repeatedly ignored statements that, for the examples you've given of what you think of as dodgy voting habits, these have been repeatedly found in the so-called "educated" people as well as in the underclass you seem to fear so much. And ultimately, I think what you're missing is that sadly, not everyone feels the same way about how the country should be run as you do. I would like to see resources used intelligently and allocated wisely, but I balk at any system other than democracy because whatever the outcome, the means required to get there are perilously open to exploitation and devoid of the checks and balances that a democracy provides. And frankly, given the choice of a system which is inefficient but prevents utter maniacs from getting to power when implemented correctly, or a system which is "efficient" but gives the government the power to restrict the voice of those it purportedly serves, I know which way I'd go and it's not the way you'd go. I'm not sure theres much else I can say about this, and it's pretty clear to me that you and I, at least, are not going to change each others' minds.

simu

Sleepy wrote:

At present you can learn about the subjects. Under my proposed system, you would learn the subjects. Most referendums are fairly black and white in terms of their content so I assume your question of how things are put would be based on how to test knowledge of political party's policies when coming to an upcoming referendum. With only one representative taking part in setting the test from each party, perhaps under the guidance of an independent (or as independent a person as can be found, perhaps someone from the UN?) authority I can't see the parties having much room for argument when the questions would be of the form "Fianna Fail intend to cut taxes by: ____" a) decreasing government expenditure b) increased taxation c) stimulating the economy d) all of the above e) 50%". This sort of thing is on any parties manifesto in the run up to exams and anyone with a Leaving Certificate education, particularly one in which the main subjects involved in government are taught, should be able to understand and understand the implications of.

But then it would be a test of a person's ability to learn off party propaganda. :eek:


The argument boils down to this: There's no way of deciding who is "fit" to vote/govern. Any set of standards that purports to do this will be arbitrary and will reflect the values of the person/people that created it. Furthermore, it will be possible to abuse such a system to give greater legitimacy to the voices of certain groups in society and to silence others.

(btw, I think prisoners & criminals ought to be allowed to vote - see the thread I started on this in the politics board)

Fysh

simu wrote:

(btw, I think prisoners & criminals ought to be allowed to vote - see the thread I started on this in the politics board)

Hope you don't mind me quoting one of your posts in that thread, since it's relevant to one of my earlier arguments:

simu wrote:

There's an interesting article here on this topic.

The right to vote is an inalienable human right enshrined in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Looks like we're denying prisoners their human rights in Ireland.

That clarifies that for me - the right to vote is considered an inalienable human right. Yet another reason to oppose Sleepy's suggested meritocracy.

simu

Fysh wrote:

That clarifies that for me - the right to vote is considered an inalienable human right. Yet another reason to oppose Sleepy's suggested meritocracy.

Well, the UN Human Rights Convention is also an arbitrary set of rules ...