Can real democracy exist in a society of idiots?

Perhaps voting rights should be limited to those with high enough contempt of their fellow man? :mischief:

Then there will be screams of elitism, unfairness and how every man is born equal and deserves a vote...blah blah blah.

I vote we go back to Iron Fisted Monarch equalled to a parliament with educated Noblity and commoners. Like the good old days of George I :)
 
Then there will be screams of elitism, unfairness and how every man is born equal and deserves a vote...blah blah blah.

I vote we go back to Iron Fisted Monarch equalled to a parliament with educated Noblity and commoners. Like the good old days of George I :)

How about just make some standard test for people who wish to vote. One needs to pass the test in order to vote.
 
How about just make some standard test for people who wish to vote. One needs to pass the test in order to vote.

Again, screams of elitism, unfairness...blah blah blah
 
How about just make some standard test for people who wish to vote. One needs to pass the test in order to vote.

Unconstitutional and immoral that would only remove the voice of those who need a voice in politics the most.

Look people, you're fools if you call yourselves liberals and want to restrict suffrage. Universal suffrage is still important even if there are uneducated or uninformed voters, because the government is still supposed to be in charge of them. A group of people that does not vote or cannot vote can and will be repressed by the government. The only thing that stops uniformed voters are education, and you can't exactly fault parties for taking advantage of human psychology to win the political games. The United States, while it still has a few problems with its democracy, far, far outweighs the problems of any African or Asian democracy. We don't have the massive educational problems that would cause us to elect a dictator or have the military coup the government. We don't have the problems that would allow us to elect a genuine communist or fascist government.
 
Well, one thing to consider is that perhaps the power of democracy is not to elect the best canidate but to allow us to get rid of those unfit for office.
 
Well, one thing to consider is that perhaps the power of democracy is not to elect the best canidate but to allow us to get rid of those unfit for office.

I do kinda wish we had the ability to recall high positions.
 
Democracy will continue to work just fine. Just don't big things from the country in question.
 
The Election of George W. Bush already proved that.
 
Can real democracy exist in a society of idiots?

Yes. 'Real Democracy' is 'Real Democracy', regardless of the intellectual aptitudes of the populace. A 'society of idiots' making stupid electoral choices does not detract from the fact that the choice is still democratic. Making fundamentally smart choices is no part of the definition of 'real democracy'.

You are confusing the properties that you would like certain things to have with the properties that those things do have. You are coloring your believe with desire.
 
Democracy doesn't merely exist in a society of idiots. It thrives.

Democracy is specifically designed to prevent those idiots from getting anything done, thereby minimizing the damage they do to the rest of us. :)
 
Well putting the idiot on the voter may not be the best example of what I am thinking of. Let’s say that a vote is called every 4 years and the only information you have is 2 names. That is all you are given. You still vote for 1 name-is that democracy? Now let’s say you have 2 names and there are 1000 assertions about the 2 candidates of which 4 are correct and 996 are false but there is no way of knowing the correct assertion, is that democracy? I'm not saying that is the situation but in the limit you get the picture.

I know that people have been voting on emotion and demagoguery and falsehoods for 1000s of years and that will not change But it would be nice if it did.
 
This is still not a "society of idiots" compared to other countries. Democracy can be a real problem when there is an uneducated populace, because they can prop dictators like Chavez or Mugabe, or otherwise prevent a liberal society.

Education is necessary for a functioning liberal democracy.

QFT. Not only this, I would further say that a society of uneducated real idiots would prevent democracy from taking root because it would quickly fall apart and be replaced by something else. Democracy itself precludes an idiotic populace, so where democracy falls apart, it is not the system that is to be blamed, but rather the problems that destroy the system.

This works rather like the invisible hand. I don't get why despite the economic fetish of this age many people still treat the idea of governments like silly ideologues, sometimes masquerading as proponents of realpolitik. The real ideologues are the ones who are willing to sacrifice others for some esoteric purpose.
 
Technically, "idiot" (or at least the Latin "Idiota") just means a layman, someone without a government job. I don't see a problem with the population being mostly private citizens.



Democracies are usually run by ignorant masses, which is why the US was set up not to be a Democracy. Democracy in the mind of the founders equaled "mob rule." The Republic was set up prevent that. As the founders predicted, faction essentially has lead to the death of the republic, albeit more subtly than they expected. The system lumbers on, but has never served the public good particularly well.



I agree with Madison that you cannot eliminate faction while preserving freedom, but there is a lot you can do discourage it. First, forbid the government from subsidizing any parties or primary elections. Second, set up a voting system that discourages primaries and gives individuals a greater say in how they vote, rather than needed to pledge their full support to one leader. I prefer allowing fractional ballots, but I'd be fine with Range Voting too. Either method would make voters have to study more candidates and their positions, and make polarization much harder. Making voting more complicated and eliminating cognitive shortcuts like party identification would also discourage stupid people from voting, and allow the better educated to better express what they want. It would also make it harder for candidates with extreme views to get elected.


I'd definitely also want to allow for national initiatives (probably requiring significant super majorities), including the ability to overturn any law, executive order, or judicial doctrine, and to remove any government official from office.


Ideally, I'd also like to significantly restrict citizenship. No one should ever gain citizenship automatically, whether based on where or to whom he/she may be born. Emigration would not be restricted at all for non-criminals, and any non-citizens could be deported/banished for crimes. Everyone would have to be naturalized, which would require passing tests in History, Logic, Mathematics (at least basic algebra, preferably basic Calculus), Economics, Ethics, English (I'd much rather require Latin instead, but for the US using English as an official language makes more sense), and Political Science. (There may be a small number of exceptions of those who can become citizens wihout such tests, but these should be pretty much limited to war heroes.) (Public Education in these areas would be available to anyone for free, regardless of age, but be non-compulsory. I'd also have easily accessible, government-sponsored news media providing info on all the candidates and initiatives, but not try to stop private media from doing whatever they want.) Government could then function as a more valid social contract, to which citizens knowingly submitted themselves.
 
Why do you think those who have written and signed the US Constitution have chosen a republican form of government? The most 'direct' a voter can do is to elect local, state and federal legislators. He/she does not get to vote presidents and vice-president 'directly'. Not to mention he/she also does not get to vote house speakers 'directly'.

Oops! There is already a forum member who have posted something in regards to the above matter.

Posted by MagisterCultuum:
Democracies are usually run by ignorant masses, which is why the US was set up not to be a Democracy. Democracy in the mind of the founders equaled "mob rule." The Republic was set up prevent that. As the founders predicted, faction essentially has lead to the death of the republic, albeit more subtly than they expected. The system lumbers on, but has never served the public good particularly well.

My thoughts and feelings towards republic > democracy has to do with the sheer scale of a society involved. Democracy as in direct-elections as much as possible would work okay at the scale of village/town. However, once we scale up beyond that, this arrangement breaks down.

I think a good example of 'mob rule' is the recent massive demonstrations over US beef which has taken place in South Korea since late June. 'Mob sentimentality' has pretty much overblown the issues over US beef. You can say more instances of 'mob sentimentality' in massive labor strikes as well.
 
'Republic' often has no real meaning. It's a term of embellishment, like the word 'democratic' in countries' names, unless you are talking about Plato's Republic. Representative government is a better term, although in itself it contains many variations. That's why it's pointless to try and lump different systems together. Democracy is an ideal, an archetypal system, not a fixed set meal.
 
Democracy is a lie. It doesn't work in reality.

I'm going to point to most of the western world. You're going to make a ridiculous argument cribbed from some neo-Nazi friend, or you're not going to answer. Such is life.

The rednecks shouldn't rule
That might hurt the chances of your nativism programs gaining traction.

the intellegent competent elements of society should decide.

First off, by misspelling 'intelligent', I think we can agree you've just advocated we ignore you as being part of the unintelligent component of society. Secondly, their are multiple forms of intelligence, and no test can ascertain which types someone posses and to the what quantities reliably enough to hand him a second class citizenship over.

There is a logical disjoint between those two statements. Spot it and you win a prize!

A strong military dictator who puts the country's intrests[sic] first is the ultimate.

Name one truly capable military dictatorship that lasted a mere century. If you attempt to engage in the before stated, I don't think we'll be seeing you on these forums for a long time.
 
Back
Top Bottom