Should we limit voting rights and change democracy?

[betazed]

You are making a major mistake in somehow assuming education is intelligence. It is not.

Incorrect. I am assuming that in most cases education implies more knowledge and hence knowledgable decisions.

If someone took a physics degree... would that make him know more about politics than me?

Yes. If he is is physics graduate and you were a high school passout only, then I will wager he knows more.

If someone was unable to afford the crippling university fees and thus was forced to take a less "intellectual" profession, like say, plumbing does that make him stupid? Does it mean he is less important or deserves less say in matters than the example above?

If someone is rather stupid, but managed to do well in his studies solely because his parents could afford lots of nice tutors and library of textbooks... does that make him better than me?

:sigh: read my posts again. I am getting tired of repeating the same thing again and again.

Add into that the fact that most education is in fact spent learning about matters which are of no relevance to politics whatsoever, like Math, English, History, Chemistry, Biology, Physics... I could go on... How does having an intricate knowledge of any of these have anything to do with that person's political knowledge?

You would know if you learnt any of them really well.

 

[Mapache]

Education DOES NOT MAKE SOMEONE INTELLIGENT. Education is simply telling people to memorise and repeat. At the most it could be called knowledge, but never in a million years intelligence.

Education filters the more intelligent and the more willing people through. This process doesn't work in an absolute manner, naturally.
I don't believe that all people are created equal, either. People are pretty different already at birth.

 

[Sims2789]

Our society is not a meritocracy because people cannot control the enviroment they grow up in. Why should we punish them even further than we already do for that?

 

[downtown]

You already know my stance, but I'll repeat it just in case there are any questions..

Every law abiding adult citizen should have one vote, period. Limits based on education, intelligence, or financial success are no less detrimental to a free democracy than are limits based on race, sex, or land ownership. Elitism is not freedom, it is tyranny.



-Elgalad

Damn right. One Man. One Vote. doesnt matter if that man is Bill Gates, or Joe Lunchbox.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

Incorrect. I am assuming that in most cases education implies more knowledge and hence knowledgable decisions.

As education teaches nothing about politics, you will need to explain.

Yes. If he is is physics graduate and you were a high school passout only, then I will wager he knows more.

There is no basis for this argument, unless I am mistaken, so explain why knowing about physics means someone is good at political reasoning.

You would know if you learnt any of them really well.

Explain, then, for such ignorant amd evidently inferior beings such as myself, what the understanding of these subjects have to do with politics.

And would I hesitate to guess that you yourself have a degree? And would it be a good guess to say that the degree in question is for a subject that has nothing whatsoever to do with politics?

I might not be so against this idea of yours if you were sugggesting giving people with educational qualifications in politics, or possibly economics, extra say in matters, but to give extra votes based on general knowledge and education, and not things that actually affect a persons ability to make a more informed political decision.

I assume your argument is based on the fact that regardless of whether the higher-educated actually HAVE studied politics, they are more likely to have a high IQ, and thus be more intelligent.
My answer to that is that making an informed decision hinges on knowledge and not intelligence, and regardless of whether the Nobel prize winner is more intelligent, there is no way of knowing that he is more knowledgable about politics.

 

[betazed]

@Corsair: Ok, lets get a few things straight.

(a) Knowing about politics does not make you a better voter. Being well informed about various choices infront of a nation makes you a better voter. Hence please stop this "how does one know stuff about politics"

(b) Education is the best measure that we currently have of a man's awareness and knowledge. Is it possible that a man who has no degree is more knowledgable than a college profressor? Yes. Is it likely to be true most of the time? No.

(c) I have seen in my personal experience (and this can be verified by most people on this forum who are more educated than I am) that if a person is truly educated he is pretty much aware of a vast range of subjects. So a theoritical physicist who is any good would probably be able to carry on an intelligent conversation about economics. Vice versa, an economist who is any good can pretty much carry on an intelligent conversation of physics.

It seems to me that all your arguments are against (c). So, I will try to provide a justification. Empirically speaking, To be good in any discipline you need to be smart. If you are smart you are almost always curious. I have seldom met someone who is smart but not curious. Curiosity leads you to read and study various things. One who has found time to study deeply about something always finds time to study lightly about many other things.

Are there exceptions to the above logic? Yes and I have seen one or two. Do they hold generally to be applicable? Yes.

 

[luiz]

This is precisely the reason why so many people hate intellectuals. They[the intellectuals] like to pretend that they care for the "little men", but at ALL opportunities like to point out how only the "educated elite" knows better what path to follow, how the "ignorant masses" are unable to vote properly and other BS like that.

The thing is, beign a college professor says nothing of one's intelligence. There are many college professors who are complete imbeciles and contribute nothing to society. I have met illiterate people who were smarter then some of my professors at the University.

Furthermore, there is no objective way to determine one's intelligence. IQ tests suck, as do all similars. The group who decides how the tests would be would ultimately decide who votes and who doesn't, and that's tyranny. I could make a test based on Maths that would classify brilliant Lawyers as complete idiots.

And I say more. Knowledge is not concentrated in a group, it is divided among all members of society and it's impossible to objectively determine who holds more usefull knowldge from a political standpoint.

The "ignorant masses" are as intelligence as any one of us, and they have the obligation of knowing what's best for them. We(university educated people) don't have the right to rule their lifes.

 

[sourboy]

Seems to me voting rights have already been limited - it's called corruption.

 

[Manny Kant]

All politics are local. While 'politics' is supposed to be the art of governing, it truly is just the art of securing (a degree of) power. So, I would think that we best redefine the argument to address the issue of governence and not simply politics.

Furthermore, knowing about the political system does better enable one to operate within the system but does not give one insight into the direction a government/administration/country should take. This does not mean that politicians are devoid of any stripe of moral reasoning or that their is something inherently wrong with devoting one's life to politics. It does mean that one need not understand the complexity of the system in order to properly contribute as a voter.

As for being educated, this is hard to measure. Does one simply go by their academic credentials or does life experience matter equally? For example, a friend of mine has a MSW (Masters of Social Work) degree. This is a post graduate degree and one that concerns itself psychology and contemporary social issues. However, her political positions are more influenced by her career in which she must lobby for government money. And no, her degree was not a prerequisite for her job.

Having some knowledge on a subject is different from being knowledgeable. This is a very humbling lesson where it applies towards a skill (I learned that knowing how movies are made and making one...two very different things) but one can delude oneself when it comes to a more academic subject. Having a minor in Philosophy, I can engage in discussions on many philosophers with the Profs, but I haven't read 1% of what they have nor have I the credentials to back up any assertions I might make.

[Having recently spent two years back on campus getting re-educated, I can say without bias that American public university professors are extremely leftist. I wouldn't say Liberal, because they aren't open minded and they will give poor grades to students who make the mistake of arguing politics in or outside of a class setting...not all or most, but at least three I met immediately after the September 11th attacks admitted that they were disinclined toward the students who supported any kind of military action in response.]

While I do appreciate the argument in favor of a Liberal Arts education, I do not think it is the end all and be all of knowledge. Also, many of the citizens are not going to be afforded the opportunity to dedicate years of their lives to study. Is their an argument that their voting rights should be curtailed until they do as such?

Such an argument argues against the underclass having to be respected or having any rights. Class warfare anyone? And on the subject of Rights...the are ordained, not earned. And here in the U.S.A., only adult white men have them. True story. Everyone else has Liberties, which the government can change or deny. As an adult white man, not really a problem for me, but it isn't fair or equal. In the 1970's the Equal Rights Amendment tried to resolve this, but it was confused as an equal-pay platform and squashed.

Equal Pay for Equal Work...and every vote counts. Right?

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

We should limit voting rights, but not as far as you are saying. Its a sad reality that at 15 I know more about politics than a large portion of the voting population. I think a test of some kind should be administered to determine basic knowledge of the canidates, so there are no wild votes.

 

[IglooDame]

Igloo, I do not doubt their patriotism and honor their willingness to die for me. But that does not mean they know what is good for me. Also, protecting the constitution is one thing; that does not entail the understanding of national affairs. For example, you may protect the constituion religiously, but would you from that know whether a fiscal deficit is good or bad. The way I think, if I need advice on something I would rather go to Steven Weinberg than Tommy Franks.

I'm not saying that the willingness to take a bullet for Uncle Sam in itself makes them magically vote better, I'm saying that they satisfy what I consider to be a more difficult-to-quantify/achieve qualification for better voting - a sense of duty toward one's country over duty to one's self. Compared to that, it would be relatively easy to educate them on various civics-related topics; how much of your average four-year degree program contributes to vote-swaying knowledge? I'll freely concede that I don't know whether a fiscal deficit is good or bad (you may have noticed that when the capitalism threads head for the deep end of the pool I get scarce), but once I were to learn that I would be more likely to vote according to that knowledge than an investment banker that would vote according to what helps his wallet.

 

[IglooDame]

Wow. There are still some holes in the system, then. One of my brothers best friends found his way in through that route, and he can't be over 23. They went to boot camp together in 2003.

There are indeed still some holes, but we're doing the best we can to plug them. I suspect your brother's friend was assisted by a recruiter that was focusing more on their quota than on the rules. There are a few out there, and it takes a while to hunt them down.

Doubtful. Given the manner in which American troops are fed information. However, you will be breaking the traditional notion of a professional military implementing the will of a civilian government. Instead, you will have a civilian government implementing the will of the military, since the military holds the voting power. Does that really strike you as a good idea?

Troops tend to lean conservative in the first place, and I'll grant that most DoD news/opinion leans conservative too at this point. Hopefully Al Franken will help correct that, at least. But, the military (under my plan) will not hold the voting power for two reasons: #1, you will have to get out of the military in order to vote (career military will not have the vote for exactly the reason you bring up) and #2, military service will not be the only path to citizenship - civil service of one sort or another will be another option.

 

[ManOfMiracles]

Earning a degree does not confer the ability to understand the viewpoints of others. A tenured professor (especially outside the social sciences) is unlikely to understand the impact layoffs have on families since they will not personally experience this phenomenon.

There are multiple valid viewpoints on most important social issues; therefore, all people representing all viewpoints should be allowed equal opportunity to vote their opinions.

 

[Colonel]

Voting is a Constutionial Right, you cannot limit off voting to the elitists because they think the mass public are too stupid to understand and fully comprehend the ramifications of the choice they make. This is like saying we dont even need elections anymore we can just use polling data, and sample numbers. However these tend to miss a vast portion of the populus. This is a clear violation of the first amendment, to violate the first amendment would mean the United States is a hollowed out meaningless cause, and saying that those who gave there lives for this country died in vain. Also it should be pointed out that most of the soilders that have fought in previous wars and modern wars did not meet the qualifications set in the first post and yet they may die for there country but may not Vote.

 

[WillJ]

If whether or not you contribute to society should determine whether or not you can vote, then wouldn't you say the next logical step is that the amount of contribution should determine the amount of say you have?

If so... The idea that how much say you have in a democracy should depend on how much you contribute to the people of the democracy, along with how capable you are of making good decisions, makes sense to me. The only problem, then, is that both of these things are impossible to objectively and perfectly accurately determine. But of course approximations can be made (based on such things as tax payment and education, as you have brought up). Whether or not these approximations could ever be "good enough" and non-dangerous is tough to say. I'm a bit on the cautious side, thinking that messing with the one-man-one-vote system is just asking for trouble. But theoretically speaking I think I agree with your basic sentiment.

* You pay taxes
* You have earnings but they are not taxable
* You are a house-wife (or house partner for gays etc)
* You are compensated for work you do in non-monetary terms

By earnings do you mean property? Probably not, but if so, I don't see how this means you are contributing to society.

And it should be noted that even five year olds most likely fall into one of those categories (especially the last one). Like you said yourself, that list is nowhere near perfect, methinks.

Equal oppurtunity means that everyone has an equal oppurtunity to pursue whatever education one chooses to.

Ignoring qualifications, or what?

And how should "education" be defined? What if some kid thinks he'd like to be "educated" in the complexities of video games, and to do this he of course needs to play video games? Should this kid have no more or less of an oppurtunity to acquire video games as any other kid?

 

[Perfection]

Ok, for the umpteenth time Why not? Why is that unfair.

Because if black people are generally more uninformed should they lose voting rights too?

You are sick. You have gone to see doctors. You have the oppurtunity/( are forced to) consult many doctors on your ailment. Some are just interns and some are well-known professionals who have been practicing for years. Would you be foolish to give more weight to the opinion of your treatment to the more experienced doctors?

In the same vein the nation is a person. It needs guidance. The people provide the guidance. Is it illogical to give more weight to the guidance from the more educated?

Yes, because education may be associated with political awareness but it's nowhere near the rule.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

This is precisely the reason why so many people hate intellectuals. They[the intellectuals] like to pretend that they care for the "little men", but at ALL opportunities like to point out how only the "educated elite" knows better what path to follow, how the "ignorant masses" are unable to vote properly and other BS like that.

The thing is, beign a college professor says nothing of one's intelligence. There are many college professors who are complete imbeciles and contribute nothing to society. I have met illiterate people who were smarter then some of my professors at the University.

Furthermore, there is no objective way to determine one's intelligence. IQ tests suck, as do all similars. The group who decides how the tests would be would ultimately decide who votes and who doesn't, and that's tyranny. I could make a test based on Maths that would classify brilliant Lawyers as complete idiots.

And I say more. Knowledge is not concentrated in a group, it is divided among all members of society and it's impossible to objectively determine who holds more usefull knowldge from a political standpoint.

The "ignorant masses" are as intelligence as any one of us, and they have the obligation of knowing what's best for them. We(university educated people) don't have the right to rule their lifes.

I find myself in total agreement with you.

(c) I have seen in my personal experience (and this can be verified by most people on this forum who are more educated than I am) that if a person is truly educated he is pretty much aware of a vast range of subjects. So a theoritical physicist who is any good would probably be able to carry on an intelligent conversation about economics. Vice versa, an economist who is any good can pretty much carry on an intelligent conversation of physics.

There is no reason whatsoever why a theoretical physicist should know much about economics. That's like saying your average politician knows about physics.
I think the point where we disagree with each other is this:
You think college professors are smarter than normal people.
I think that while, on average they most certainly are, there are too many exceptions to justify giving them additional votes.

You think that being smart automatically means they are more likely to make an informed choice.
I think that, as above, this may be usually true, there are just too many exceptions.

What if someone was smart, but wanted to be a plumber? Plumbers don't need fancy education, so he wouldn't need a degree. Remember, education is as much due to whether someone actually wants it or needs it for their job as it is down to intelligence.
The only way to effectively judge someones ability should be based on intelligence, and not education. And since determining someone's intelligence is next to impossible without mind-reading abilities like, say a betazoid , the system would be very unfair and inefficient, for luiz's reasons, so until we discover a way to reliably find someone's intelligence a one man one vote system is far more effective and fair.

 

[Paradigne]

I don't see how 'average Joe farmer' needs an advanced education. But, he DOES know what is good for him, and what he believes in. More so than your 'advanced eduacted man'. HOW can one be more important than the other. A man with a degree may be able to put the food on the table, but not if the farmer doesn't grow it.

 

[Richard Cribb]

This is precisely the reason why so many people hate intellectuals. They[the intellectuals] like to pretend that they care for the "little men", but at ALL opportunities like to point out how only the "educated elite" knows better what path to follow, how the "ignorant masses" are unable to vote properly and other BS like that.

The thing is, beign a college professor says nothing of one's intelligence. There are many college professors who are complete imbeciles and contribute nothing to society. I have met illiterate people who were smarter then some of my professors at the University.

Furthermore, there is no objective way to determine one's intelligence. IQ tests suck, as do all similars. The group who decides how the tests would be would ultimately decide who votes and who doesn't, and that's tyranny. I could make a test based on Maths that would classify brilliant Lawyers as complete idiots.

And I say more. Knowledge is not concentrated in a group, it is divided among all members of society and it's impossible to objectively determine who holds more usefull knowldge from a political standpoint.

The "ignorant masses" are as intelligence as any one of us, and they have the obligation of knowing what's best for them. We(university educated people) don't have the right to rule their lifes.

This is an absolutely brilliant post, and I really wish I would have written it myself! I would like to to your honour!
And one more for Elgalad and Corsair#01 respectively, I can only say that I agree totally with you, and that the principle one person one vote is the most fundamental principle in a democracy.
Apart from that I don't want to waste any more time on this, just suggest to the starter of this thread that a search for intelligent life outside the university sphere plus a study of Aristotle's political philosophy (the difference between sophia and phronesis) might be beneficial.

 

[Milan's Warrior]

It is fully undemocratic to limit voting rights;
moreover I can see people wanting to limit voting rights to people with their same agenda.
I for instance would find very conveniente to limit the voting rights only to people who believe in the same things that I do. Actually, let's just make it simpler and limit voting rigths to me only

I think I made my point