*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3374
    • View Profile
Re: Democracy Is Overrated
« Reply #80 on: December 10, 2021, 07:39:03 PM »
Proponents of tests to prove an applicant’s ability to read and understand English claimed that the exams ensured an educated and informed electorate. In practice they were used to disqualify immigrants and the poor, who had less education. In the South they were used to prevent African Americans from registering to vote.

Different era. Everyone has access to education now.
And I wouldn't necessarily tie this to literacy, although that is another problem with my otherwise brilliant plan. If you can't read then can you pass the test? It seems reasonable that someone has never been able to read but still knows who the politicians are and what they stand for and therefore should get a vote. There are accessibility issues here.
As for whether people should learn themselves the language #simpsons. We are quite nice in the UK - London is very cosmopolitan and you can get translations of many documents, recognising that not everyone who lives here speak well England.
The French have a very different attitude, which is basically "learn French or piss off". I think they kinda have a point. If you go and live in a country I'd suggest the onus is on you to learn their language in order to fully participate in their society.

I'm not sure about it being a "different era". We've slid the deck chairs around, but still have a lot of discriminatory issues especially considering all of the recent GOP backed voting laws like SB1 in Texas that just got signed into law.

I kinda don't think there is a problem to be solved. Sure, I'd love a more informed electorate and a 95% voter turn-out. But I don't think testing people on their knowledge of a candidate or a proposition solves anything. People will still vote because they like some aspects of their platform, but at the end of the day it's a popularity contest and advertising and such plays into a voter's core beliefs starting with Democrats or Republicans are the devil and working down from there. Rather than imposing a "test" on the electorate, I'd rather see Citizens United get reversed and stymy as much as possible ridiculous ad campaigns and such.

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9383
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: Democracy Is Overrated
« Reply #81 on: December 10, 2021, 08:51:07 PM »
I know in Australia it’s mandatory.
I’m not sure what I think of that. I do think encouraging more people to vote is a good thing but part of the right to vote is a right not to.
Anecdotally, the outcome in Australia seems to be that many people who don't care very much vote anyway, which — despite the better-than-average electoral system — produces one of the world's worst two-party strongholds. Many Australian voters falsely believe that voting for a third candidate is a wasted vote, despite Australia having AV. I'm firmly against the policy.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9383
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: Democracy Is Overrated
« Reply #82 on: April 10, 2022, 10:34:51 AM »
I've been pondering the aging population problem recently, and I think it ties into this. If you look at the fertility rate in the Netherlands over the past century, you can see clearly that it plummeted from 3.17 in 1965 to 1.6 in 1980, and has remained at about that level ever since. With a retirement age of 68 — the highest in the world — this means that from now until about 2050, we are going to see a gargantuan outflux of workers from the labour market, with no replacement available. What's more, everybody's vote counts equally, which means that the boomer vote is by far the most powerful, and the policies being made to deal with this problem have the retirees' interests at heart ­— not the young workers.

Perversely, this means that it is in young people's interests for their parents and grandparents to die as soon as possible for them to have the best life they can. I'm sure nobody intends for this to be a consequence of democracy, but it is the situation we now find ourselves in.

I can see two possible solutions to this problem, neither of them ideal, but both better than letting the market work itself out, which is what will happen if we let boomers continue to take all the decisions. One, weight everyone's vote according to their estimated remaining life expectancy — so with a life expectancy of 80, a 20-year-old's vote counts for double a 50-year-old's. Two, tie voting rights to retirement, so that it's a choice whether to continue working past retirement age or to give up your right to vote.

Although these suggestions sound absurd, they do not fundamentally conflict with democratic principles. We have a minimum voting age because children and adolescents — many of whom are well educated with strong political opinions — are considered unfit to make sound voting choices, so why not exclude an age group that has proven itself to make unsound voting choices for decades already?
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol