Democracy or something else.....?

Zombrex

Macmorris wrote:

The test should focus mainly on general knowledge. It doesn't need to be too technical on subjects like economics, just enough for someone of average intelligence to pass.

General Knowledge has nothing to do with intelligence, it has to do with general knowledge.

Zombrex

Macmorris wrote:

I have given the evidence. Look at the difference between democracies where the average level of education is high compared with democracies where the level of education is low.

I have looked, and I stil don't know what you are talking about. America has a higher "IQ" level than some european countries, yet we wouldn't touch Bush with a barge pole but they love him over there. How does that fit into you logic.

Macmorris wrote:

Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe is not a democracy. The "government" has rigged that last few elections.

Macmorris wrote:

More rational and less emotional. I think we can we agree that education makes people more critical and less likely to be swayed by appeals to authority.

Er, no it doesn't. The two are not related, it is just an assumption you have. And besides you have never shown the level at which someone is "educated" enough to vote. Everyone in Ireland gets a high level of education relatively speaking to the rest of the world. Therefore everyone in Ireland should be allowed vote surely? You also go on and on about general knowledge, which has nothing to do with education or intelligence. They don't teach general knowledge in school. How do you even define what general knowledge is??

You seem to just want people to be better informed about everything. That is impossible to measure or enforce. Being informed has nothing to do with education or intelligence. My parents know a fella who dropped out of school at 16 who is a self made man and could tell you anything you wanted to know about Finna Fail. He would probably fail your test, and therefore not be allowed vote. Likewise a college professor of mine didn't know what the last abortion referendum was about (he though Yes=allowing abortion).

bonkey

WHEELER4 wrote:

Monarchy worked for thousands of years.

Worked? Or "was in place"?

What was better for the Russians? Monarchy or democracy?

Which was better for teh French? The Irish? Any other nation?

You can't cherry-pick one specific example and say "look, this shows idea A is better than idea B". Well, you can, but its hardly a strong argument.

And all democracy leads to Tyranny. Athens had 11 changes of constitution and amongst those 11 changes where three or four tyrannies.

Whereas monarchy has never resulted in a tyrant on the throne?

Nothing is more silly than watching some Afghan woman getting "her right to vote".

Sure...unless you're an Afghan woman, right?

I wonder if you'd feel the same way if you were amongst the disenfranchised?

How can democracy be the best form of government when 90% of it is based on ignorance and manipulation of crowds?

Because it gives the public the option to make a change.

Monarchy is the best government by far.

Let them eat cake?

jc

The Corinthian

WHEELER4 wrote:

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn writes that society is getting more complicated and submits that the Scita — the political, economic, technological, scientific, military, geographical, psychological knowledge of the masses and of their representatives — and the Scienda — the knowledge in these matters that is necessary to reach logical-rational-moral conclusions — are separated by an incessantly and cruelly widening gap and that democratic governments are totally inadequate for the job.

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn proposed theories that have not actually been popular for centuries. Essentially his argument was oligarchic, based upon an elite caste, the aristocracy, ruling more competently than the lowest common denominator of democracy. Unfortunately he tended to forget that the fall of monarchy and aristocracy was as a result of the shortcomings of that type of government in the first place - selective blindness that was probably born from the fact that he was an aristocrat himself.

I suggest that you actually get to know a few aristocrats before accepting his theories. Most are perfectly normal individuals, making a living like anyone else, while the old school are still living their completely deluded lives throwing dinner parties with other princes without principalities.

Boggle

wicknight wrote:

Well, unoffically that is kinda how it works now, with the Press playing the role of investigator, if a TD is doing a crap job they will be dismissed from important cabinate positions in the government.

No-one got the chop for e-voting, the nursing-home scandals, the state of the healthcare, etc....

The papers can highlight issues but that's where it stops. If the govt doesn't want to do anything they just hold tough until the next scandal takes away from the current one...

Nothing is more silly than watching some Afghan woman getting "her right to vote".

It pains me to comment on this statement but here goes: Are you saying that they are not entitled to an opinion? That they are not entitled to a say in the country in which they live? Not all education happens in school kid so shockingly as you may find it, these people, despite their lack of structured education, are not all fools and funnily enough, some may even have some interesting insights into life. Your short-sightedness astounds me.

whatisbrain

Wicknight wrote:

And how do we decide what is the best choice for all

Ooh, I know this one! WE don't decide what is best for us all, we vote for the candidate who we want, and THEY try to accommodate the varying opinions of their voters bcause...oh yeah, IT'S THEIR JOB!

Wicknight wrote:

A dictatorship is fine if you can guarentee that the dictator know how to, and will only, work in the best interests of all the people ... how often does that happen :rolleyes:

Ah, Plato's the Republic. A warrior-king ruling in the interests of justice, equality and the greater good of the people. A selfless man who will protect the people from enemies, and deal with society's problems with a fair and even hand...*Plato take another long drag on his joint*...and a giant pink elephant will play 'Oh Come All Ye Faithful' out of his large, rotund arse.

In short, one person ruling many doesn't work. Just as all people ruling equally doesn't (i.e. communism). We are not infallible. Greed and the lust for power are traits we all have, albeit to different degrees and focused on varying areas.

In even shorter, yes Wicknight, you're quite right. So, tick a box, sit back and bask in the knowladge of a job well done.

themurt

Macmorris wrote:

I'm not opposed to democracy so much as the idea of universal suffrage. I don't like the idea that everyone should be allowed to vote, it cheapens the vote and turns it into a meaningless symbol of our 'freedom' rather than as a responsibility that is meant to be taken seriously.

So, where did the idea that we are born with the right to vote (taking age, criminal record, etc. into account) come from?

The Corinthian

themurt wrote:

So, where did the idea that we are born with the right to vote (taking age, criminal record, etc. into account) come from?

Universal suffrage is essentially a twentieth century phenomenon. Prior to that, other than the obvious criteria of gender, one’s right (or strength) to vote have generally been based upon social class or property / wealth.

Other determinants of suffrage have been meritocratic (where you need to earn your vote), such as in corporatism (Fascism) or even with the Irish senate.

In most cases, a mixture has been used - the Roman Republic judged the democratic power of her citizens based upon social class or property / wealth, however social mobility was commonplace, thus adding a meritocratic aspect to the system.

themurt

Isn't the issue of democray being cheapened by universal suffrage and the inclusion of those of (for want of better terms) "lower" intelligence, social class, and so on, kinda moot considering the low turn-outs most elections suffer from?

No one can claim that, in Ireland anyway, we have anything like near total turn out whenever there's an election so until issues relating to voter apathy are addressed isn't it a pointless exercise trying to disenfranchise those who don't seem to care anyway?

WHEELER4

I do acknowledge that there are some shortcommings in aristocracy and in monarchy. If there are "some" in these forms of government, there are many more in democracy. Monarchy and aristocracy don't seek to kill their citizens as does democracy. Democracy always kills and it has done a great amount of killing the royalty and the aristocracy. See, Monarchy and aristocracy presuppose the rest of the people, in order for democracy to work which democracy is always based on egalitarianism, it must kill those not equal.

No system of government is perfect because no human is perfect. All humans are damaged goods and so any government is damaged. A system of government will never perfect any situtation nor perfect humans. Rouseau thought that government corrupted human nature and thought that by returning man to a more "natural state" he would become perfect.

The French revolution and the British "commonwealth" were just the unleashing the beast within.

Macmorris

themurt wrote:

No one can claim that, in Ireland anyway, we have anything like near total turn out whenever there's an election so until issues relating to voter apathy are addressed isn't it a pointless exercise trying to disenfranchise those who don't seem to care anyway?

That would be true if the only reason people didn't vote was because they didn't take an interest in political issues. In my experience, the main reason people don't bother voting is because they don't feel their vote counts. And they're right, it doesn't. I read once that there is more chance of being run over by a car on your way to cast a vote than there is of your vote making a difference to the outcome of an election.

The Corinthian

WHEELER4 wrote:

I do acknowledge that there are some shortcommings in aristocracy and in monarchy. If there are "some" in these forms of government, there are many more in democracy. Monarchy and aristocracy don't seek to kill their citizens as does democracy. Democracy always kills and it has done a great amount of killing the royalty and the aristocracy.

That’s a silly argument. Any forceful change of power will generally result in a purge of the previous regime, so the bloodshed of popular revolutions was as predictable as the bloodshed that followed the overthrow of one aristocracy by another.

Ultimately no system of government seeks to kill their citizens, but by action or inaction that is precisely what they can end up doing.

See, Monarchy and aristocracy presuppose the rest of the people, in order for democracy to work which democracy is always based on egalitarianism, it must kill those not equal.

You’re making way too many assumptions in that statement for it to be even vaguely logically correct.

No system of government is perfect because no human is perfect. All humans are damaged goods and so any government is damaged. A system of government will never perfect any situtation nor perfect humans. Rouseau thought that government corrupted human nature and thought that by returning man to a more "natural state" he would become perfect.

Actually he wrote that the natural state was brutal and to be avoided. And given his views on democracy, I doubt he was promoting monarchy at any point.

The French revolution and the British "commonwealth" were just the unleashing the beast within.

Unleashing the beast within? You do know how most aristocratic families won their titles? I know how mine won ours and it wasn’t terribly nice.

Sand

So, where did the idea that we are born with the right to vote (taking age, criminal record, etc. into account) come from?

As I understand it, the old Liberal parties favoured it on idealogical grounds, and the old Conservitives, like Bismark in Germany, embraced it because they calculated they could manipulate the expanded working class vote through nationalistic appeals. The conservitives are still with us, the old Liberal parties were gutted in the resulting enviroment, so the conservitives were correct imo.

themurt

Macmorris wrote:

In my experience, the main reason people don't bother voting is because they don't feel their vote counts. And they're right, it doesn't. I read once that there is more chance of being run over by a car on your way to cast a vote than there is of your vote making a difference to the outcome of an election.

So, you feel it would be better to increase the apparent value of the vote to the voter by decreasing the size of the electorate? turning the vote into something precious and making each vote count in a manner that is easy to digest? If that's the case, then voter apathy is simply a numbers game?

If the electorate feel that there vote doesn't count due to the numbers in an election result being too large to comprehend then why not (and this is an unworkable idea, just an example) increase the number of consituancies so that handfuls of votes effect the results? Do you think that would bring the voters out in their droves? Do you think the constant recounts such a system would spawn would benefit the governing of the state? Doubtful....

So would disenfranchising some of the population increase voter turn out? Would those who had passed the test turn out every time? How many people would have to loose the right to vote to make those with the vote feel that what they did counted? Would it be necessary to constantly make the tests harder or easier to ensure the correct number of people had the franchise? If that would be the case then the testing idea would stop being about who understood or had the capability to understand the issues of an election but would instead become an exercise in population control. If the tests weren't adjusted in such a way then, as educators adapted to the new system, more and more people would earn the right to vote and apathy would eventually return as people began to once again believe that their vote didn't matter.

lost_lad

What about to at least get turn out up.
Polls stayed open for a week. You could vote in any polling station.
The litterally as you are walking down the street, you see a polling station, think ooh i havn't voted yet. went in and voted. Easy.
Many people dont vote becuse they work too far away from there polling station and when they eventually get home are too tired to go out of there way to vote. Also people dont like queueing for there birth rite. Would alleviate that too.

It would take longer for the result to be counted but would give a better opportunity for a more "democratic" system. The excuse of i wasn't able too go wouldn't work.
Campainging would have to be stopped before hand of course to avoid an un-fair media advantage.

pork99

The Corinthian wrote:

That’s a silly argument. Any forceful change of power will generally result in a purge of the previous regime, so the bloodshed of popular revolutions was as predictable as the bloodshed that followed the overthrow of one aristocracy by another.

It is also predictable that having decapitated (sometimes literally) the previous regime, the next set of victims are those who actually believe in freedom, democracy and so forth.

This is because revolutions are ideal opportunities for the likes of Stalin and Robspierre sieze control. People who simply want absolute political power.