Democracy or something else.....?

Stabshauptmann

Stop insulting the intelligence of other ppl. I for one do think that there is merit to the notion of testing ppl on their understanding of a certain candidates policies even though its not something I feel should be done. Everyone can promise to turn led into gold, promises mean nothing in politics

lost_lad

ferdi wrote:

humans are so easily currupted that democracy can never work....but the same goes for all kinds of government.

I would have to agree.

bonkey wrote:

Actually...unless every vote required a questionnaire be filled out alongside it to show how well you understood the issue, the test would only measure a questionably relevant amount of knowledge, at a specific point in time, and have no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not that person would actually ever retain or use that knowledge in subseqent elections.

That would make sense rather then a general test because any sort of election or refendum could come up that the test would not always cover. Getting this to fit into a general Dail election would be more trickey but it could be done.

If say 3 or 5 yes/no questions beside each candidate they voted for. Asking about there policys.
E.G.
Does Person A support farm subsidies. YES?NO
Does Candidate B agree with an EU federal state. YES/NO?

If the voter gets the majority correct for each candidate correct the vote is counted else its spoilt.

The questions could be done up on an independant basis from speechs the candidate made in the run up to the election.

A general knowledge test would be biased on etnicity and background and would be quickly shown up as one. And the vote sytem would fail before it started.

Wicknight wrote:

1 person, 1 vote. That has been the basis for democracy since democracy was invented about 4000 years ago.

The whole point of this thread is to see if there is a better way then democracy. Not to say its not democratic so it cant be done.

seamus

lost_lad wrote:

If say 3 or 5 yes/no questions beside each candidate they voted for. Asking about there policys.
E.G.
Does Person A support farm subsidies. YES?NO
Does Candidate B agree with an EU federal state. YES/NO?

What if the voter was asked about certain policies that they're not interested in? For example, with your questions, I'm not interested in farm subsidies, they have no bearing on me, therefore a certain candidate's position on them would be irrelevant to me, and I wouldn't know about it. So I could be asked a few questions that have no relevance to the reason I'm voting - even though I know who I'm voting for an why - and my vote is spoiled, even though it's as valid as the next man's.

The whole point of democracy is that each voter votes for the person that will represent them the best, not serve the entire community best. By this, in theory you should come out with a Government representative of the entire country.

lost_lad

But a person should no all of there candidates public views. One bad one may off-set the good.
He could be pro abortion, social welfare increases and low taxes.
and against the local incinerator/dump, a new road.

If you didn't no all his policys and you liked all except abortion and you didn't no about it you may decide not to vote for him/her if you did.
I would never vote for someone based on they have one thing that i support. It would be silly.

Zombrex

lost_lad wrote:

The questions could be done up on an independant basis from speechs the candidate made in the run up to the election.

I think the flaws in the this system would out way any (very limited in my opinion) benefits you would get from it.

1) How do you decide what is relivent knowledge. Do you question on everything the politicion has said in what, the last 5 years, 10 years. How long is this questionaire supposted to be?

2) How do you really decide what a politicion is for or against? Charlie Hughy is official for not robbing the state blind. Do you have to answer "Yes he did not take bribes" or forfit your right to vote. If you force only people who agree with your assessment of a politicions speaches, actions and motives you do incrediable damage to the democratic process.

Zombrex

lost_lad wrote:

I would never vote for someone based on they have one thing that i support. It would be silly.

WHat if they supported it and no one else did. What if it was the only issue very important to you. For example a candidate may oppose abortion where all the others support it. If you really care about banning abortion you will want to vote for that person. Under your system you would be restricted from doing that if you don't know the fine detail about the persons economics plan. You might not care about their economics plan, it might be chinese to you and not effect you at all. Knowing or not knowing about the economics plan has no effect on your decision to vote for this person. But you are stopped from voting for them.

You, or anyone, has no right to decide what should be important to voters when casting a vote.

You also seem to believe that if we were all just a bit more educated about candidates we wouldn't vote for them. That is ridiculous. As I showed in my example, knowing or not knowing the ecomonics policy of an anti-abortion candidate doesn't effect how his supporters vote for him over the issue of abortion.

themurt

Macmorris, sounds like you're advocating a first step down the road proposed by Robert Heinlen in "Starship Troopers", where you had to earn the right to vote (in the book it was through military or 'Federal' service), do we really want to get to a situation where our society is even more divided then it already is? Do we really want "citizens" and "civilians"?

sovtek

bonkey wrote:

Would you agree to this if it meant that you lost your right to vote?

I'm just curious...when you say "more intelligent people", do you implicitly include yourself in that, or would you actually support a system where it was determined that you were too thick to vote?

jc

That was a very clever tactic used by my Jim Crow loving ancestors in keeping black people from the polls in the South. Luckily it was eventually found to be unconstitutional... although a similar version was brought back in 2004.
Personally I think apathy and a lack of knowledge of the issues stems from lack of mainstream access to good information.
I don't think people should be tested...but I do think that a media system should be set up with the above mentioned criteria.
I think Ireland (and Europe in general) has it pretty good compared to America in that respect, although it could still be better.

Boggle

There's alot of crap on this thread about diminishing the rights of others due to their apparent lack of 'intelligence'..... funnily enough I seem to remember seeing somewhere a study that showed that the more intelligent a person, the easier the person to con. (or something like that)

To my mind, the general democratic system is okay but the problem is that people have become disillusioned with the actual people who stand for election. My solution would be to introduce accountability into electioneering.

It would work as follows:
- Upon announcing a candidacy, the candidate/party would have to submit a list of what they hope to achieve during their term with actual quantifiable targets where applicable(i.e. x extra gardai).
- After each stint in office (or prior to the following election) each member should have to review their term, giving explanations of how they view their performance and listing all targets met. This should be accessible on-line and in every library so that all can view at the next election time.
- Also a panel should be set up of independent arbitrators who will monitor for apparent corruption and deceit. They can order immdiate investigations into a persons performance and have him/her summarily dismissed from office if the candidate found untrustworthy.
(Basically turn it into a private sector job where you start with a goal, finish with a review and have to answer to your manager...)

Maybe then people would start trusting politicians again...

Macmorris

bonkey wrote:

And your solution is to allow the ignorant to remain ignorant, but to remove their freedom (regarding voting) as a result?

No, I would prefer if everyone was educated enough to vote. As I said, that's one of the great benefits of the system, it would give people an incentive to educate themselves.

Zombrex

Boggle wrote:

They can order immdiate investigations into a persons performance and have him/her summarily dismissed from office if the candidate found untrustworthy.

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.

Making it an offical process brings with it a load of difficult problems what make a system like that unworkable and undemocratic, such as

How do you define a TDs performance as unsatisfactory? For example how do you define the smoking ban as satisfactory or unsatisfactory? It depends on who you ask.

Macmorris

Wicknight wrote:

Thirdly, under this system each election in Ireland would cost billions of Euros. You would have to constantly assess each and every person in the country to determine if they passed a certain level of inteligence and awareness before they can vote. Completely unworkable.

I didn't say that they would have to take the test for every vote. Of course, that would be completely impractical and wasteful. They would only have to take the test once, when they first register to vote. Maybe I should have been clearer in what I meant. The test would measure a person's general level of knowledge on the kind of things (economy, constitution etc) they will be voting on, rather than their knowledge of the topical 'issues'.

Macmorris

themurt wrote:

Macmorris, sounds like you're advocating a first step down the road proposed by Robert Heinlen in "Starship Troopers", where you had to earn the right to vote (in the book it was through military or 'Federal' service), do we really want to get to a situation where our society is even more divided then it already is? Do we really want "citizens" and "civilians"?

Although I think there's alot to be said in favour of that type of system, I think that would be a regression to a more militaristic and patriacharal society, which would be bad for this country.

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.

Democracy was founded on the principle that most people were intelligent enough to elect their own leaders. I have no problem with this view but instead of assuming that people are intelligent enough why not have a test to make sure that they really are intelligent.

Zombrex

Macmorris wrote:

No, I would prefer if everyone was educated enough to vote.

Macmorris you still haven't shown any evidence, or even logic, to support the idea that educated people vote better ... how do you even define better anyway.

You seem to think that people in the past have voted the wrong way because of lack of education about what they were voting for, and if they were educated they would have voted the right way? Can you not see the problem in that? Who defines what is the right way?

Zombrex

Macmorris wrote:

I didn't say that they would have to take the test for every vote. Of course, that would be completely impractical and wasteful. They would only have to take the test once, when they first register to vote. Maybe I should have been clearer in what I meant. The test would measure a person's general level of knowledge on the kind of things (economy, constitution etc) they will be voting on, rather than their knowledge of the topical 'issues'.

How do you know what topics a person will be voting on when they register to vote? You would have to quiz them on a huge range of possible topics. And I have a masters in computer science. Does that mean that I will not be allowed vote in my local elections because I am pretty crap at ecomonics, where as my brother is vice vera, he has a masters in economics, but he knows f**k all about computers and telecommunications. He might have to vote on an issue to do with that (electronic voting for example) would he be barred from that vote because he does not know anything about computers??

The whole idea is ridiculous.

Macmorris

Wicknight wrote:

Macmorris you still haven't shown any evidence, or even logic, to support the idea that educated people vote better

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. If you honestly believe that education has no influence on the decisions people make then you should take a trip to a country like Zimbabwe.

how do you even define better anyway.

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.

Macmorris

Wicknight wrote:

How do you know what topics a person will be voting on when they register to vote?

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.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

1 person, 1 vote. That has been the basis for democracy since democracy was invented about 4000 years ago.

Err... not really how it worked. The Roman Republic worked on a system of electoral colleges. Of course the size of a college vote was dependent on the social class of that block, so that the votes of a few hundred patricians was worth as much as a hundred thousand plebeians. Even more recently it wasn’t a question of one person, one vote – it was one man, one vote...

For this reason it would probably be a good idea not to glibly judge certain states that are often branded as undemocratic, because we are in reality judging them by our version of democracy.

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:

<Pedantry>Historically a dictator was someone who was given emergency powers in a time of national crisis for a limited period of time (although some did stretch this ‘limitation’). Modern dictators are more correctly autocrats or chairmen to an oligarchic junta.</Pedantry>

As for democracy, personally I consider it presently fundamentally flawed.

Unfortunately, the present alternatives are worse.

WHEELER4

Monarchy worked for thousands of years. The Russian Monarchy lasted from time immemorial to about 1917. Then it was a democracy under Kersensky for about seven years and then devolved into the dictatorship of the Herd called communism which lasted 80 years and now the dictatorship of Putin. What was better for the Russians? Monarchy or democracy?

See, Rousseau carried forward the Athenian democracy when he stated that the "General Will" is sovereign. Not the constitution, not the Law, not the Good, or the True. Hilter carried on the "General Will". He was the executor of it. All democracy is based on the "General Will". And all democracy leads to Tyranny. Athens had 11 changes of constitution and amongst those 11 changes where three or four tyrannies. 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.

Nothing is more silly than watching some Afghan woman getting "her right to vote". Think about, what's the last book she read? Does she know anything about history, political science, and socialism? Nothing, but democracy is the "best" form of government. How can democracy be the best form of government when 90% of it is based on ignorance and manipulation of crowds?

Monarchy is the best government by far.

Zombrex

WHEELER4 wrote:

Monarchy worked for thousands of years. The Russian Monarchy lasted from time immemorial to about 1917. Then it was a democracy under Kersensky for about seven years and then devolved into the dictatorship of the Herd called communism which lasted 80 years and now the dictators

It was never a democracy, the first elections to the Duma were nullified by the revolutionaries a year after the revolution. Kerensky fled to London in 1918.

And I have no idea where you got the idea that the Russian people were well off under the Monarchy. The Russian monarchy were infamous for there mistreatment of the Russian people. Why do you think there was a revolution???

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.