Is the voting system of Democracy flawed?

feaven

It should be voluntary:D

L31mr0d

DadaKopf wrote: »

You're totally missing the point.

If I posted a comment which I felt didn't get my point across effectively then I'd reiterate it so it isn't lost. Merely stating I've missed your point does not help your argument.

But can I get confirmation on something. Can I assume that if a free course where instituted BUT was not made mandatory before voting that yous would agree with it? Is the main gripe here with a government making a mandatory step before being allowed to vote.

ChocolateSauce

L31mr0d wrote: »

but would instituting a system whereby everyone has to pass a basic course before being allowed to vote make the system worse? Maybe even having a mandatory class in schools? My premise is that if you know where to look and what to look for you will be able to find the needed information on a given referendum or election and make an educated decision.

The plain and simple answer is to educate children, as they do in the US, about what democracy is.

DadaKopf

L31mr0d wrote: »

If I posted a comment which I felt didn't get my point across effectively then I'd reiterate it so it isn't lost. Merely stating I've missed your point does not help your argument.

But can I get confirmation on something. Can I assume that if a free course where instituted BUT was not made mandatory before voting that yous would agree with it? Is the main gripe here with a government making a mandatory step before being allowed to vote.

I've already said education is fine, and I stated a preference for a particular pedagogy. If it were adopted, I'd consider it OK to make it a madatory course in schools in the same way English and Maths are mandatory.

How many times do people have to repeat themselves? Go back and read the thread if you want clarification.

L31mr0d

DadaKopf wrote: »

I've already said education is fine, and I stated a preference for a particular pedagogy. If it were adopted, I'd consider it OK to make it a madatory course in schools in the same way English and Maths are mandatory.

How many times do people have to repeat themselves? Go back and read the thread if you want clarification.

I will agree that you have never fully disagreed with the idea but then you have not fully endorsed it either.

I am not so sure though that I agree with it being forced upon children. Like I've previously said, a lot of children in school are thought subjects which they will have no interest in outside of a school environment. I think if a course where to be instituted it should be made optional when the person reaches the voting age and merely mandatory before they should vote. Under this institution the person would need to decide that they want to take the course rather than the education system deciding for them.

DadaKopf

L31mr0d wrote: »

I will agree that you have never fully disagreed with the idea but then you have not fully endorsed it either.

I am not so sure though that I agree with it being forced upon children. Like I've previously said, a lot of children in school are thought subjects which they will have no interest in outside of a school environment. I think if a course where to be instituted it should be made optional when the person reaches the voting age and merely mandatory before they should vote. Under this institution the person would need to decide that they want to take the course rather than the education system deciding for them.

I'd have assumed that, considering we agree the voting age should be lowered, it would make most sense to run these classes in the two years prior to voting age (or to be timed to coincide with elections/referenda). And, as I said, the classes should not be prescriptive or didactic; while they would describe the current Irish political system and how to engage in it (empowering citizens), most of the classes would focus on critical reflexion and examination of issues through discussion, rather than through text-book. Issues would have to include comparing other countries' political systems, understanding the media and media literacy, diversity workshops, values, morality and ideology, broader critical group analysis of society and economy. In other words, the course would increase children's critical and reflective capacities, it could not be a vehicle for indoctrination.

By that token, the whole curriculum needs to be reformed along these lines (with Denmark as an example of a good curriculum in this respect).

Now, it's up to people to decide it this course would be mandatory.

And, again, in case you missed it: this course cannot be a condition for voting.

I will agree that you have never fully disagreed with the idea but then you have not fully endorsed it either.

Excuse me. I don't want to hurt your ego, but I fundamentally disagree with you. If anything, you've changed your opinion to agree with everyone else. The only point of agreement is that education is important; you agreed with me that development education is an appropriate pedagogical approach.

L31mr0d

DadaKopf wrote: »

Excuse me. I don't want to hurt your ego, but I fundamentally disagree with you. If anything, you've changed your opinion to agree with everyone else. The only point of agreement is that education is important; you agreed with me that development education is an appropriate pedagogical approach.

The only opinion I've ceded was that the course should end with a test. If anything your system goes a step further than mine in that I only wished to have people who wanted to vote take the course. Under your system everyone who receives an education would have to take the course regardless.

If anything by instituting this mandatory course in the 2 years prior to voting age you are accomplishing everything I wanted, a mandatory course that needs to be taken before being allowed to vote.

DadaKopf

By law, it's already the case that children between 6 and 16 must attend school. If the curriculum includes, as it does, a political and social education course, fine, but it wouldn't be examined. All children attending school do the course, and all citizens of a certain age get to vote.

They're sufficiently separate issues.

Your idea would work a different way. If you make a course voluntary, not everyone will take it. If you tie voting to taking the course, not everyone will vote. The system would reinforce inequalities in the system and become illegitimate, undermining democracy as a whole.

The two options may look the same, but they're not.

At least be making things universal, such inequality would be avoided with the benefit of a better political and social education course for all.

brianthebard

L31mr0d wrote: »

Also, yes, we do have an education system and civics course but it is not mandatory to vote. Also I'm surprised you are not already picketing this as I assume you believe it to be inherently biased already.

Of course I think its biased, but its not mandatory to vote. Out of interest, would you make this test retroactive, ie all those who already have a vote would have to take a test before being allowed again?

No it is not. The same way a passenger on a plane only cares about their destination, the people, in general, only care about the end result of politics and what it can do for themselves and what affect it will have on their lives. To this end the individual needs to have a certain prudence in deciding the correct individual to vote for who will meet their needs effectively

You're elitism is clearly showing through now.

Can you detail the criteria why you think all 17 year olds are not fit to vote

they aren't eighteen.

They seem fairly self evident in this context?

Definition:

Propaganda: A type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people
Sentiment: A personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty

So because some people have voted for a party before, and may then vote for them again "out of sentiment" they are less qualified to do so in your opinion? Also I pointed out that these things are taught in school, yet they still exist. How do you account for this and how would your magical test stop propaganda from happening again?

I'd like to hear peoples opinions on this and how you would expect to achieve universal suffrage with universal education.

As I see it, we have universal suffrage and universal education. Job done.

L31mr0d

DadaKopf wrote: »

By law, it's already the case that children between 6 and 16 must attend school. If the curriculum includes, as it does, a political and social education course, fine, but it wouldn't be examined. All children attending school do the course, and all citizens of a certain age get to vote.

They're sufficiently separate issues.

Your idea would work a different way. If you make a course voluntary, not everyone will take it. If you tie voting to taking the course, not everyone will vote. The system would reinforce inequalities in the system and become illegitimate, undermining democracy as a whole.

The two options may look the same, but they're not.

At least be making things universal, such inequality would be avoided with the benefit of a better political and social education course for all.

I am willing to concede that your approach is indeed better. My approach assumes a certain level of understanding prior to taking the course. The person would already have to be educated to the point of wanting to take the course before actually taking it. I can agree that this would isolate already uneducated individuals from ever voting.

My initial postulate seen the problem as lack of education as the crux of the matter and that the easiest solution would be to force education on those choosing to vote.

My approach aimed to simply filter votes from people who voted for illogical reasons ,whereas your approach aims to educate people to not vote for illogical reasons. This would be a better approach overall.

AngryHippie

theozster wrote: »

The plain and simple answer is to educate children, as they do in the US, about what democracy is.

Just before they put them in uniform and get them to help spread "democracy" to the rest of the world.

just a little naive

Kama

Improved critical thinking skills through pedagogy and increased political engagement > arbitrarily value-based exclusion of citizens voice. I'm not even going to go into the issue of political choice being value-based, and hence involving a strong emotional component rather than being a purely cerebral 'logical' affair. Suffice it to say, if humanity was able to collectively reason this way, society would reflect that already, and the messy necessity of real democracy would be structurally unnecessary.

A little historical attention to system where the vote had qualifications (Jim Crow? Restriction of franchise to property owning men?) imho is a strong argument against such regulation of the franchise. Yes, we regulate by age, but restriction by what some consider 'rationality' or 'illogic' is substantially different.

'Approved political opinion' is anathematic to the democratic project, its Orwellian 'goodthinking' tbh. I would be in favour of extending the franchise downward, and indeed extending the democratic project throughout society. There are school systems where democratic participation is incorporated into the organization, extending of the span and scale of democratic process by involvement. Process-based education on such democratic principle I would argue is a better approach than the assumption that 'proper knowledge' can be transmitted and tested, which seems to me elitist, and begging the question of its arbiters.

a5y

L31mr0d wrote: »

Yesterday at lunch a heated debate sparked because one of the guys at the table said they'd be voting No to Lisbon, when asked for his reasons he said "because my father told me to"

I then proposed that a better voting system would consist of a vetting process whereby the individual would have to go through a free course, then a test and then be allowed to vote once they have proven they have an understanding of how to vote and why they should be voting.

Even once people pass any test, there is nothing to stop the voter from "voting for X because his father told him to". There is, after all no test that people must take before they can have a family. Besides, complicating a process is no sure way of improving a process, it is only a sure way of complicating a process.

And I haven't heard too many complaints about society not being complicated enough.

bonkey

a5y wrote: »

Even once people pass any test, there is nothing to stop the voter from "voting for X because his father told him to".

Indeed. The entire argument thus far appears to have overlooked the distinction between "I know the answers to your questions about how I should make my choices when voting" and "I apply those answers to how I make my choices when voting".

You will have people who apply the answers, but would fail the test for non-related reasons.
You will have people who know the theory and potentially understand it, but do not apply it.
You will have people who know and understand the theory, believe they apply it, but in reality will be voting based on other prejudices.

Democracy is, of course, flawed. Every system is, as they all ultimately are susceptible to human fallibility.