Should we limit voting rights and change democracy?

[Gogf]

Every legal American citizen born in America over eighteen (or who was born in another country, but has been a citizen for over ten years) should have the right of optionally casting one, and only one vote.

 

[PantheraTigris2]

The ideas of the thread starter remind me of the way things were 200+ years ago throughout the world, where if you are not among the privileged elite of society, your opinion does not matter, you cannot vote, and you have limited rights. Steps in the opposite direction of 'democracy'.

This is why we had so many revolutions/ evolution of gov't throughout the world since then...

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

No way!!

Brilliant men aren't. I'm in MENSA, but can't imagine only the 'super-intelligent' voting. (Certain types of) Intelligence can be measured in a test, wisdom can't. GPA does not relate to success as an adult; book smarts ain't street smarts. Over 50% of SELF-made millionares in the US got into trouble in high school with the administration or the law. I've gotten into more trouble listeing to my brain instead of my gut.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

Taking this intellect thing to the candidates:

Strangely (or not) I voted for Clinton not due to his Intellect, but because I believe he cared about the little guy, while I thought Bush41 didn't.

Same reason I voted for Bush43 instead of Kerry. I know he really cares about us, while I think Kerry is an opportunist intellectual.

Now if we could only get a Rice/McCain ticket!

 

[~Corsair#01~]

Betazed really has to answer fast, there's a bit of a waiting-list for rebuttals now.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

A good idea, but I'm not sure how big of an effect it will have. Does anybody have statistics on the percentage of people that completed a certain level of education (US or World)?

 

[EdwardTking]

The ideas of the thread starter remind me of the way things were 200+ years ago throughout the world, where if you are not among the privileged elite of society, your opinion does not matter, you cannot vote, and you have limited rights. Steps in the opposite direction of 'democracy'.

This is why we had so many revolutions/ evolution of gov't throughout the world since then...

So true.

And what amazes me is that it seems to nearly always be US contributors who fire up these threads. They claim their ancestors fought the american revolution to gain representation but they would now deny others such representation, whereas the descendants of the other side, who were quite happy to live with a constitutional monarchy, would never dream of now withdrawing hard won representation.

I could even argue that the persistence of such US originated threads gives support to the theory that the american revolution was as much about denying representation to blacks, catholics, women and native americans
which would likely have been granted as the outcome of civilised negotiations between aggrieved colonists and the British (instead of the quasi terrorist revolution that actually occurred), as it was about obtaining representation for the wealthier half of the colonial white population.

Getting back to topic. In my view, beyond a certain age ~ about 14 ~ formal education merely serves to specialise people in particular disciplines or prepares them to be personally successful, and in no way makes them a better voter. If it does not improve their ability as a voter, then why should they get more votes?

I left university at 21. Some of my contemporaries left school at 16, others stayed for PHDs and left at 28. As far as politics goes, I don't regard my 5 years as making me a more enlightened person, and I don't defer to perpetual students who hung about to 28 or 30.

A person who leaves school young and works in a good mixture of jobs, can gain just as much, sometimes more knowledge from the school of real life, as those who remain merely academic students.

The world needs builders, engineers, farmers, truck drivers etc who do things.
Why should they be denied full representation? And what is the real value in and consequences of enncouraging people to dodge real work and seek to obtain as many eligible qualifications as possible to maximise their voting rights?

 

[Mise]

I propose we apportion votes wrt what newspaper one reads. There could be a password hidden in the crossword of each newspaper which gives you more votes. Like if you read a left wing (and therefore a high brow, intellectual) newspaper, like The Independent, you get a password for 10 votes, but if you read a right wing (and therefore a low brow, fish 'n' chips wrapper) newspaper, you only get one vote. If you read at all, you don't get any votes.

Seriously, this plan isn't very good. A "general trend" just isn't enough to justify basing representation on the level of education (or, indeed, the quality of education, since I doubt a University of Wales College Newport graduate with a BA in Photography is as good as an Oxford PPE graduate of the same level [PPE stands for Politics Philosophy and Economics, and is the degree of choice for career intellectuals]).

No, instead of basing it on the level or quality of education, why not base it on awareness of current political issues? Why not ask, say, 10 multiple choice questions, and the number you get right is the number of votes you get? A question could be something like "Who wrote Das Kapital?" or "What year did the USA gain independence?" or "If Anne has one and two fifths potatoes and Bob has 4.6 potatoes, and it takes the square root of four potatoes to make enough for one night's dinner, how many nights dinner can they have?" -- something simple, but would weed out the truely stupid, ya know?

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?

That's why we elect people to think for us . Your arguement is really more against direct democracy than against representative democracy.

And besides, even if the academically gifted are better suited to decide who runs the country than the rest of the population, shouldn't we .... umm .... vote on that, rather than have it forced on us? I wouldn't go as far as saying it was "tyrannical", but it definately goes against what I have always considered democratic.

That said, it would encourage more people to go into higher education (or at least stay at school).

 

[betazed]

Betazed really has to answer fast, there's a bit of a waiting-list for rebuttals now.

Patience, my dear Corsair. All in good time. {Weekends are always very busy for me. Hence I could not reply earlier} I will read thru the posts and reply to the issues raised very soon.

 

[betazed]

There have been a lot of replies. Only some of them make sense (the rest is typical reactionary stuff). So let me tackle those only (and in chronological order).

... the argument to address the issue of governence and not simply politics

Correct. I did have governence in mind.

As for being educated, this is hard to measure. Does one simply go by their academic credentials or does life experience matter equally?

I agree that it is hard to measure exactly and objectively. Hence, I am going by academic credentials because it is an objective measure in itself and I can reasonably assume that there is a strong correlation between academic credentials and being educated (however you define it).
As to the rest of your post I am not sure what u are saying. I see that you have voted for the change. Could you clarify your points?

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.

It seems to me that instead of arguing against my plan you are arguing for a plan where military work gives more votes. That is a separate issue altogether. We can discuss that but it is off topic.

... all viewpoints should be allowed equal opportunity to vote their opinions.

Why? Especially since we do not do it now. Do we take into account kids viewpoints? Or viewpoints of mentally unstable people? Or what about legal immigrants? Or criminals? If we make so many exceptions to the rule then why do you think it is unreasonable for me to make another exception. Can you mathematically prove that only those exceptions are valid and none others?

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?

Nope. Your being of legal age determines whether or not you get to see porn. Does the amount of your age determine the amount of porn that you see?
Hence the part of your post depending on the above becomes irrelevant.

I'm a bit on the cautious side, thinking that messing with the one-man-one-vote system is just asking for trouble.

We should of course be cautious. But believing that we cannot do better than what we have already achieved is at best unambitious. It is exactly the opposite that leads to change and progress.

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

Nothing to do with black, white or orange. and no one is losing any rights. Just some people's votes are counted more.

No, instead of basing it on the level or quality of education, why not base it on awareness of current political issues? Why not ask, say, 10 multiple choice questions, and the number you get right is the number of votes you get? A question could be something like "Who wrote Das Kapital?" or "What year did the USA gain independence?" or "If Anne has one and two fifths potatoes and Bob has 4.6 potatoes, and it takes the square root of four potatoes to make enough for one night's dinner, how many nights dinner can they have?" -- something simple, but would weed out the truely stupid, ya know?

Because such a questionaaire will pre-judge the answers to some questions and hence will be / can be designed to select any side.

Your arguement is really more against direct democracy than against representative democracy.

If you say that then you have not understood my argument at all.

but it definately goes against what I have always considered democratic.

So?



Another interesting thing that I have noticed is that consistently the % of people that have been in support of this has been 25%.

 

[storealex]

Only citizens with more than five slaves should be allowed to vote.

 

[cgannon64]

And they should be able to cast 3/5 of a vote for each slave!

 

[Mise]

Because such a questionaaire will pre-judge the answers to some questions and hence will be / can be designed to select any side.

Fair point, but your proposal would do the same, only biased towards academics, rather than people of a particular political leaning.

If you say that then you have not understood my argument at all.

Well your proposal aims to cut down on the amount of say that politically ignorant people get currently in the running of the country, right? Well in representative democracy (I'm not sure that's the correct term, but the "first past the post" system in the UK), that already happens, since people (stupid people included) vote for someone to represent their interests, i.e. someone who is politically savvy, someone who can get the job done, someone who is... well... intelligent. It's not the stupid people who pull the strings, at least not in this country, and I doubt it's the case in any Western nation, with the level of education as it is. That's probably the best arguement against proportional representation, and further, direct democracy, since in PR, the voices of 1000 stupid people countrywide count as much as 1000 intelligent people countrywide, whereas in first past the post, the voice of 1000 stupid people count for nothing. So first past the post already renders impotent the votes of a minority of stupid people. Perhaps someday, when stupid people outnumber intelligent people*, your proposal might be a better idea, but I honestly doubt that will happen, and the trend (historically, i.e. long term) is definately in the opposite direction -- voters are more and more becoming better informed (if a little apathetic), at least on this side of the pond.

*In areas where fascist racists like the BNP actually win a majority, this criterion that stupid people outnumber intelligent people has already been met, and I would certainly support a measure like yours to be implemented in such areas.

So?

Fair point.

(note that I'm using "stupid people" and "intelligent people" to mean "poorly informed voters" and "well informed voters" for convenience.)

 

[betazed]

Well your proposal aims to cut down on the amount of say that politically ignorant people get currently in the running of the country, right?

Hmmm... I wouldn't put it that way. Rather, I would say "I want to increase the say of people who understand governance in the running of the country." There are subtle differences (politics vs. governance, cut down vs. increase) between what you state and that.

Well in representative democracy (I'm not sure that's the correct term, but the "first past the post" system in the UK), that already happens, since people (stupid people included) vote for someone to represent their interests, i.e. someone who is politically savvy, someone who can get the job done, someone who is... well... intelligent. It's not the stupid people who pull the strings, at least not in this country, and I doubt it's the case in any Western nation, with the level of education as it is.

The aim of democracy is *not* to chose someone who is intelligent but rather someone who has the best governance and can do the maximum benefit to the nation. I do not care if Forrest Gump is the prez as long as he follows sound policies. In your case what happens is the intelligent guy who dupes the stupid people gets elected and then drives the nation towards his own agenda.

In my scheme it does not matter whether the person who stands for is stupid or not because I am working under the premise that the academically educated person can understand the policies of the incumbent and vote accordingly. And since it is impossible to dupe all the intelligent and they have more say noone gets duped (including the stupid). {Remember, this is an assumption I am working on. If it can be somehow empirically proved that academic qualifications do not make any statistical difference on a person's choice of national policies then my scheme falls apart.}

Perhaps someday, when stupid people outnumber intelligent people*, your proposal might be a better idea, but I honestly doubt that will happen, and the trend (historically, i.e. long term) is definately in the opposite direction -- voters are more and more becoming better informed (if a little apathetic), at least on this side of the pond.

*In areas where fascist racists like the BNP actually win a majority, this criterion that stupid people outnumber intelligent people has already been met, and I would certainly support a measure like yours to be implemented in such areas.

So you agree with me if the majority is stupid. But if the majority is intelligent then what is the problem anyway? An intelligent electorate will choose the right person whichever way you divide the votes. So my scheme does not hurt at all.

So you should agree that it works in both cases and hence it is a better system.

(note that I'm using "stupid people" and "intelligent people" to mean "poorly informed voters" and "well informed voters" for convenience.)

So did I to avoid all confusion.

 

[cgannon64]

College professors and nobel prize winners already have their claim on more influence on public affairs: their positions. They don't need extra votes in addition.

 

[betazed]

College professors and nobel prize winners already have their claim on more influence on public affairs: their positions. They don't need extra votes in addition.

If you say so (which I must say is dubious - when have you last seen them driving any policy meausures?). however, are you ok with that? if you are then you should not have too much problem with this since all I am doing is formalizing their influence.

 

[cgannon64]

They don't drive policy measures, but teachers and professors certainly influence the views of their students. Much like any writer or philosopher. They may not propose legislation or endorse a specific candidate, but they can certainly popularize an idea.

And I'm saying that formalizing this influence is a bad idea, because it assumes it exists, and it assumes it is deserved. A professor that has an influence will have it because he makes persuasive arguments to his students. You shouldn't give him 10 votes just because he has his job. What if he is some senile old hermit with tenure?

 

[Mise]

Unfortunately, this:

So you agree with me if the majority is stupid. But if the majority is intelligent then what is the problem anyway? An intelligent electorate will choose the right person whichever way you divide the votes. So my scheme does not hurt at all.

So you should agree that it works in both cases and hence it is a better system.

denies this:

Hmmm... I wouldn't put it that way. Rather, I would say "I want to increase the say of people who understand governance in the running of the country." There are subtle differences (politics vs. governance, cut down vs. increase) between what you state and that.

since, if the "average" voter is intelligent and gets, say, 9 votes, then the stupid minority are being brought down from the average. (Imagine if only 1 in 9 stupid people could vote now, whereas every intelligent person could vote -- the perspective is different, but the effect is the same, and equally unpopular among the stupid.) But anyway, that's just a matter of perspective.

Besides, I prefer the line of thinking that if it is redundant, get rid of it. So if your plan was implemented now, it would not only be redundant, but expensive and unpopular, so I would chose to get rid of it.

The aim of democracy is *not* to chose someone who is intelligent but rather someone who has the best governance and can do the maximum benefit to the nation. I do not care if Forrest Gump is the prez as long as he follows sound policies. In your case what happens is the intelligent guy who dupes the stupid people gets elected and then drives the nation towards his own agenda.

In my scheme it does not matter whether the person who stands for is stupid or not because I am working under the premise that the academically educated person can understand the policies of the incumbent and vote accordingly. And since it is impossible to dupe all the intelligent and they have more say noone gets duped (including the stupid). {Remember, this is an assumption I am working on. If it can be somehow empirically proved that academic qualifications do not make any statistical difference on a person's choice of national policies then my scheme falls apart.}

Assuming you're right, and intelligent people will see through the propaganda and politicking, then I would go for it. But it's one hell of an assumption! I still think a test on current events (or even the crazy "what newspaper do you read?" idea) would be more accurate, but like I say, assuming you're right, I don't have any objections.

So, since we already have a majority of well informed voters, I don't think your idea is really neccessary at the moment, especially given the popularity of any such scheme, and the pretty hard to swallow assumption. If it ain't broke, don't fix it

 

[betazed]

@mise: I did not understand how the second part of my earlier post denies the first part. But be that as it may, I think we are in agreement in priciple. We only differ in the reasonability of my assumption as you state.

it's one hell of an assumption!

I can see why you may think so and I think that questioning the assumption is valid. After all I have nothing to back it up apart from my convictions.

Let me think of some ways we can test this assumption. it will most probably be a statistical test. I just have to think up the details. I will post when i have thought it through.

 

[Perfection]

Nothing to do with black, white or orange. and no one is losing any rights. Just some people's votes are counted more.

And thus marginallizing the votes of others and infringing on thier rights

All animals are created equal but some animals are more equal.