The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: AATW on December 06, 2021, 05:47:38 PM
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QFgcqB8-AxE
He does have a point, tbf.
I used to joke that there should be a test before you can vote, I am getting increasingly serious about that as I get older.
And I don’t mean an intelligence test but just some basic indication that you know who you’re voting for and what they stand for would be nice.
-
The best argument against democracy is a conversation with the average voter, and all that…
-
The same stupid video appeared in my youtube feed as well.
-
The same stupid video appeared in my youtube feed as well.
Hmm. I’m worried what that says about my interests and how aligned they might be to yours :(
-
Hobbesian monarchy, then?
-
There is no possible scenario in which any kind of "test" to see who should be allowed to vote and who shouldn't be wouldn't promptly be manipulated and abused by the people in charge of said tests to only allow their preferred voters in.
-
People who clamor for "democracy" are clueless, mindless morons.
-
There is no possible scenario in which any kind of "test" to see who should be allowed to vote and who shouldn't be wouldn't promptly be manipulated and abused by the people in charge of said tests to only allow their preferred voters in.
Given that all democracies currently feature such a test, this is patent nonsense.
-
There is no possible scenario in which any kind of "test" to see who should be allowed to vote and who shouldn't be wouldn't promptly be manipulated and abused by the people in charge of said tests to only allow their preferred voters in.
One suggestion I heard was that the test would be on which policies go with which parties.
Seems fairly reasonable that you should check people actually know what the various parties stand for before they vote for one of them.
One thing which doesn't help in the UK is we have a particularly poor voting system which yields results that don't even close to represent how people voted.
-
Given that all democracies currently feature such a test, this is patent nonsense.
Do what?!
-
One suggestion I heard was that the test would be on which policies go with which parties.
so people who are more educated and smarter get to run the country the way they want to, at the expense of dimmer people with lower incomes who are disenfranchised.
That seems like an elitist gerrymandering policy to bury the poor. Have another go.
-
One suggestion I heard was that the test would be on which policies go with which parties.
so people who are more educated and smarter get to run the country the way they want to, at the expense of dimmer people with lower incomes who are disenfranchised.
That seems like an elitist gerrymandering policy to bury the poor. Have another go.
That kind of information is not difficult to come by and would require a minimum of effort. You could even provide study guides to all prospective voters.
-
One suggestion I heard was that the test would be on which policies go with which parties.
so people who are more educated and smarter get to run the country the way they want to, at the expense of dimmer people with lower incomes who are disenfranchised.
Are you just upset that you wouldn't get a vote?
But no. As I said, not an intelligence test.
But if someone can't identify basic key policies that the parties have put in their manifestoes then on what basis are they voting? Because they think Boris is funny? You don't have to be particularly educated or smart to pass a test like that, you just have to be engaged. Shouldn't people be engaged and understand what they're voting for, or against?
-
One suggestion I heard was that the test would be on which policies go with which parties.
so people who are more educated and smarter get to run the country the way they want to, at the expense of dimmer people with lower incomes who are disenfranchised.
That seems like an elitist gerrymandering policy to bury the poor. Have another go.
That kind of information is not difficult to come by and would require a minimum of effort. You could even provide study guides to all prospective voters.
So intellectually lazy people don't get a a vote? Why not? They live here too?
Are you just upset that you wouldn't get a vote?
I would guess I'm more in tune with politics than the average citizen. I think it would be an unreasonably high bar if I was someone also unable to vote because of your test.
But if someone can't identify basic key policies that the parties have put in their manifestoes then on what basis are they voting?
Maybe they like the man's face. He looks trustworthy to them. That might be a better reason to vote for that candidate than that you read the candidate pledged to close down a polluting pipeline ... which that politician is lying about in his manifesto.
Because they think Boris is funny? You don't have to be particularly educated or smart to pass a test like that, you just have to be engaged. Shouldn't people be engaged and understand what they're voting for, or against?
If it was the law that whatever a politician said in their manifesto, they had to actually do when they got into power ... sure. You'd need to know what you were voting for. But being as we have a system where the biggest fucking liar wins the prize ...no. Your test is meaningless and if I want to vote for the guy with the nicest tie, its every bit as valid as your choice.
-
One suggestion I heard was that the test would be on which policies go with which parties.
so people who are more educated and smarter get to run the country the way they want to, at the expense of dimmer people with lower incomes who are disenfranchised.
Are you just upset that you wouldn't get a vote?
But no. As I said, not an intelligence test.
But if someone can't identify basic key policies that the parties have put in their manifestoes then on what basis are they voting? Because they think Boris is funny? You don't have to be particularly educated or smart to pass a test like that, you just have to be engaged. Shouldn't people be engaged and understand what they're voting for, or against?
But what if you know about X but not Y candidate?
Honk is right: this would be abused to no end.
Q4. Which candidate has the stance that boys should be spanked as punishment?
*Candidate answered 12 years ago in a town hall meeting*
The price of free and fair elections is that alot of stupid people will vote based on very shallow reasons or just vote purely by party and not give a fuck about anything else.
-
Q4. Which candidate has the stance that boys should be spanked as punishment?
*Candidate answered 12 years ago in a town hall meeting*
I'm not talking about some trivia quiz which people would have to study extensively for.
Before an election each party publishes a manifesto which no-one reads. But the key points from them could be made available.
And sure, Thork is right in that parties lie in them. So people would have to take that in to account when they choose to vote.
But I don't think it's unreasonable to think that people should be encouraged to have some idea of what they're voting for over and above "he's got an honest face" or "I think his speeches are funny"
-
Given that all democracies currently feature such a test, this is patent nonsense.
Do what?!
All democracies have an age requirement to vote. Now, that's not what you were talking about, but it does satisfy Saddam's description of a test that he believes would be corrupted. Its existence is proof that a restriction on who can and cannot vote can be implemented in a way that doesn't compromise democratic principles.
-
And sure, Thork is right in that parties lie in them. So people would have to take that in to account when they choose to vote.
So what is the point in reading the manifesto if it can be full of lies?
There are plenty of people who think a big bus lied to them in the Brexit referendum. Many think the government lied to them about the dangers of Brexit with wild doom predictions and even plagues of super gonerea. We are 5 years later and still no one really knows who told the truth, how it really effects them and whether the opposite outcome would have been better.
So "I don't like foreigners" was every bit as valid as "Brexit will save the NHS £350m a week". The manifesto pledges don't mean anything. Testing people's ability to remember who told what lies isn't helpful.
But ... absolutely everyone should be able to look at the current incumbent and think "I want that fucker out". And you don't need to know the manifestos to have such an opinion because their governance is your lived experience. And if you hope for something better, vote for it.
-
Given that all democracies currently feature such a test, this is patent nonsense.
Do what?!
All democracies have an age requirement to vote. Now, that's not what you were talking about, but it does satisfy Saddam's description of a test that he believes would be corrupted. Its existence is proof that a restriction on who can and cannot vote can be implemented in a way that doesn't compromise democratic principles.
Reaching the legal voting age is not really what anyone is talking about when they say “test” in the context of having educated voters. Seems a bit disingenuous.
I think you can make a knowledge test that is reasonably egalitarian though and that could be a good idea. It’s better than people voting on blind tradition or gut instincts.
-
Reaching the legal voting age is not really what anyone is talking about when they say “test” in the context of having educated voters.
Saddam said «any kind of "test"». Checking someone's age is a kind of test.
-
I think we can safely assume we all know what was meant by the word "test" and ignore xasop's transparent troll.
That said, if the test was well defined, the only way to pervert it would be to redefine it, which the remaining voters would hopefully have a say on. This isn't really more or less vulnerable to warping than current democratic systems.
-
Wow, what a hot take everyone.
“No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time…”
-Churchill 1947
-
Q4. Which candidate has the stance that boys should be spanked as punishment?
*Candidate answered 12 years ago in a town hall meeting*
I'm not talking about some trivia quiz which people would have to study extensively for.
Before an election each party publishes a manifesto which no-one reads. But the key points from them could be made available.
And sure, Thork is right in that parties lie in them. So people would have to take that in to account when they choose to vote.
But I don't think it's unreasonable to think that people should be encouraged to have some idea of what they're voting for over and above "he's got an honest face" or "I think his speeches are funny"
And who says it won't turn into a trivia quiz?
-
And who says it won't turn into a trivia quiz?
Obviously it would have to all be highly regulated. There’s clearly a lot of scope for corruption here, but the question shouldn’t be whether it’s perfect but whether it’s better than the current system where people can vote for someone because they’re funny or because they always vote for that party without a clue what any of the parties actually stand for or are promising to do. Isn’t some attempt at making sure people are engaged worth a try?
-
Who are you to say that The People™️ don't want to be ruled by people with funny faces? Why should your subjective reasons to vote for someone trump others' reasons?
-
I think we can safely assume we all know what was meant by the word "test" and ignore xasop's transparent troll.
That said, if the test was well defined, the only way to pervert it would be to redefine it, which the remaining voters would hopefully have a say on. This isn't really more or less vulnerable to warping than current democratic systems.
Making the exact same point I just made is an interesting way of ignoring my point.
-
Making the exact same point I just made is an interesting way of ignoring my point.
You probably wanted to make a point, but instead you rambled about how the word "test" might mean something else than what was pretty clearly Saddam's intention. You then concluded, based on that subverted definition, that such a ">><<test>><<" can be implemented without breaching democratic principles, which is antithetical to what I suggested. I implore everyone, yourself included, that we do not waste our time on that. With that in mind, this is the last time I'm addressing it. If you want to make your point clear, start now instead of dumping vague implications and then insisting that people cLeArLy agree with you.
If you agree with my point, or if you indeed intended to make it yourself, then at least it has now been articulated. Win-win.
-
If you agree with my point, or if you indeed intended to make it yourself, then at least it has now been articulated. Win-win.
I thought I did, but now you're saying that it's antithetical to what I agree with, so I suppose we may never know what you meant.
-
Who are you to say that The People™️ don't want to be ruled by people with funny faces? Why should your subjective reasons to vote for someone trump others' reasons?
I'd suggest that having a funny face is an objectively bad way of determining whether someone is fit to run a country.
I'd also suggest that having some understanding of what the person with the funny face stands for and is promising to do is advantageous when deciding whether to vote for them.
-
So what is the point in reading the manifesto if it can be full of lies?
Because if you've read it then you know it was full of lies. And that might make you think twice about voting for the person or party who promised them again. And obviously no-one reads the whole thing. But making sure someone knows the key points isn't a bad thing.
-
So what is the point in reading the manifesto if it can be full of lies?
Because if you've read it then you know it was full of lies. And that might make you think twice about voting for the person or party who promised them again. And obviously no-one reads the whole thing. But making sure someone knows the key points isn't a bad thing.
So you want to conduct a test on a manifesto that you don't expect people to fully read and despite it possibly being full of lies and empty promises anyway, if you can't regurgitate those jingoistic tropes when tested, you will lose your right to vote?
This sounds like a shitty idea.
-
I'd suggest that having a funny face is an objectively bad way of determining whether someone is fit to run a country.
I only disagree that it's objective. As you said, plenty of people vote like this and are perfectly happy with their choices. You want for people like you and me to assert our superiority over their judgement. Annoyingly, this is only desirable to those already convinced.
I'd also suggest that having some understanding of what the person with the funny face stands for and is promising to do is advantageous when deciding whether to vote for them.
Let me probe this a little bit. Let's say that we take the average "stupid" voter and educate them on what parties stand for. What happens when they start voting for completely idiotic policies? For the sake of a thought experiment, imagine that they're voting for something "objectively" terrible, and they're doing so in droves. A certain referendum comes to mind. Would you still consider this an improvement over funny faces?
-
So you want to conduct a test on a manifesto that you don't expect people to fully read and despite it possibly being full of lies and empty promises anyway
I think people should be familiar with the key points in manifestos so that they can make a more informed choice when they vote and so they can compare what was promised to what was delivered. That's a reasonable expectation to have of someone before they vote.
I'm not 100% sold on the idea of a test, there are certainly problems with the idea, but the older I get and the more stupid I see people becoming the more I warm to the idea.
-
Putting the vote in the hands of any kind of elite group would be antithetical to our modern conception of democracy. And that includes a test to determine someone's understanding of what their political party stands for. Educated people would obviously have a better grasp of such things, so it would guarantee educated classes would have more of a say and the poor would be disenfranchised. I feel like that's precisely the opposite of what democracy is supposed to accomplish.
Democracy isn't perfect, but it seems to be the best system available for giving at least some power to decide a government's agenda to everybody, so yeah, Pongo's point.
-
Isn't this why we don't let children vote though? Because we don't believe they have the understanding to make an informed choice.
Is it unreasonable to expect to know what the parties various policies are at a high level?
Do you really need to be educated to learn that?
I'm not talking about all the details and minutiae. I mean look at this mouth breather
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LIpgh4EZ4o
He just called our PM Joris Bohnson.
Joris.
Bohnson.
So he gets a vote, does he? Despite not knowing the actual name of the Prime Minister...
-
So he gets a vote, does he? Despite not knowing the actual name of the Prime Minister...
Well, yea, that’s…. How it goes.
Obviously it would be great if everyone was informed and engaged, and held their elected officials accountable for their actions and inaction related to different issues. We’re not there yet. But an entrance exam to gain access to a voting booth is one hell of a slippery slope
-
He just called our PM Joris Bohnson.
Joris.
Bohnson.
Ehhhhh. He pretty clearly has a speech impediment (and there could be other factors affecting how he articulates himself), and it's more than likely that he just misspoke. Note that he stuttered. To me it sounded something like "Bo[stutter]joris Bohnson". I think you might be too quick to judge.
-
Why would understanding of a political party's policies be a deciding factor anyway? We're ostensibly supposed to be voting for the individual candidate whose goals most closely align with our own, and few politicians actually adhere strictly to one side or the other. Meanwhile it would strengthen the notion that we should always pick one ideology over the other, like the world is black and white. It's just a bad idea all the way around.
-
Y'all are missing the obvious and stupidly easy solution: put a bulleted point list in the viting area for each candidate.
Or, if you have really nice voting booths with touch screens, selecting a candidate gives a small list of their policies.
But this is why we have political parties: so you don't have to care what a specific person thinks, just what the party itself stands for.
If we want to really fuck up the system and force people to think or vote based on name/look..., make political parties illegal. Or at least ban candidates from revealing which party they are part of. Would mean people wouldn't be able to vote party lines without research.
Hell, it would disenfranchise voters more than anything.
-
I'd suggest that having a funny face is an objectively bad way of determining whether someone is fit to run a country.
I only disagree that it's objective. As you said, plenty of people vote like this and are perfectly happy with their choices. You want for people like you and me to assert our superiority over their judgement. Annoyingly, this is only desirable to those already convinced.
I say it's objective because there are certain traits which one would fairly reasonably associate with being a good leader.
Having a funny face isn't one of them. Nor is someone's star sign. Or a load of other things which someone might use as a reason for voting for someone, or not voting for them. Unless someone can demonstrate that Geminis make better leaders then people shouldn't be using that as part of their reason for voting for someone.
Let me probe this a little bit. Let's say that we take the average "stupid" voter and educate them on what parties stand for. What happens when they start voting for completely idiotic policies? For the sake of a thought experiment, imagine that they're voting for something "objectively" terrible, and they're doing so in droves. A certain referendum comes to mind. Would you still consider this an improvement over funny faces?
Well. I don't think there are many objectively good or bad policies.
Without wishing to go all Godwin's Law, I don't think there's any party extreme enough to have "exterminate the Jews" as a policy, one which I think the vast majority of people would agree is objectively bad. Politics in this country is fairly middle of the road, the pros and cons of most policies can be debated. People want to pay less tax, but people want good infrastructure and a lot of people think nurses should get paid more. You can't have it both ways. So most policies have pros and cons. It would be nice to think that people voting have some handle on what the parties policies are, at the moment it's become little more than an X-Factor style popularity context. Style over substance isn't new of course, but I think in the era of social media and increasingly polished media soundbites it's got worse.
-
Why would understanding of a political party's policies be a deciding factor anyway? We're ostensibly supposed to be voting for the individual candidate whose goals most closely align with our own
So that's interesting.
Because in theory in the UK you're right, you don't vote for the PM or the party, you vote for a local MP who is supposed to represent your interests.
But...in practice, the local MPs represent a party in almost all cases. And that party has a leader who will be the PM if their party wins the election.
So it's basically impossible to separate the individual you vote for from the party they represent and the PM you'll end up with.
So having some idea of what those parties stand for might be a good idea.
-
The point of democracy is that no one stays in power for too long. No other system works like that. Monarchy lasts a life time. Communism always gives you a dictator etc.
Democracy accepts that the person running the country is a self serving asshat ... but will also ensure that they won't be in power for too long. No one can get to good a grip on power before someone else knocks them off their perch. Even if it is someone in their own party. Russia have had Putin for over 20 years. That just isn't possible with democracy and that is why it is the best system. Not because you let imbeciles vote, but because there will always be a change at the top before anyone can become a proper tyrant.
So we have a system that more or less works. Now you have to get everyone to agree to it. And you do that by letting them have a say. No matter how dumb the say because it doesn't matter ... all the parties are shit. There are no good parties to choose from. This isn't a fluke. It doesn't matter who you vote for, you still have the same civil service and legal people. So nothing really changes and no one is in power long enough to change it.
But if you tell people "You failed a test, you didn't get a say" when they wanted one ... well then they will burn things until you have a change of heart.
-
Russia have had Putin for over 20 years. That just isn't possible with democracy and that is why it is the best system.
What the hell are you on about? There are plenty of democracies around the world with long-serving leaders. Lukashenko has been President of Belarus for nearly 30 years, Orbán has been Prime Minister of Hungary for over a decade and his popularity is showing no sign of waning, and in South Africa the same party has been in charge (albeit with changes of leadership) since 1994. Even in your own country, the longest-serving Prime Minister (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Walpole) lasted 20 years.
-
Russia have had Putin for over 20 years. That just isn't possible with democracy and that is why it is the best system.
What the hell are you on about? There are plenty of democracies around the world with long-serving leaders. Lukashenko has been President of Belarus for nearly 30 years
Imagine thinking Belarus is a functioning democracy.
-
Imagine thinking Belarus is a functioning democracy.
It isn't now, but it was when Lukashenko gained power. If it weren't possible for someone to become a tyrant under democracy, then he'd be long gone.
-
Even in your own country, the longest-serving Prime Minister (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Walpole) lasted 20 years.
???
Britain wasn't a democracy 300 years ago. We didn't have a democracy until the reform act in 1832. Less than 3% of people could vote when Warpole was in power. We don't become a fully fledged democracy until 1918 when women get the vote.
Imagine thinking Belarus is a functioning democracy.
It isn't now, but it was when Lukashenko gained power.
What the actual fuck are you talking about? Belarus gained its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. They create the office of President (read dictator) in 1994 and Lukashenko becomes the first and only President they have ever had.
Lukashenko heads an authoritarian government and has often been referred to by media outlets as "Europe's last dictator".[1] Elections are not considered to be free and fair by international monitors, opponents of the regime are repressed, and the media is not free.[2][3]
^That is not a democracy. That is the exact thing a democracy is pretty good at preventing.
-
The point of democracy is that no one stays in power for too long. No other system works like that. Monarchy lasts a life time. Communism always gives you a dictator etc.
Democracy accepts that the person running the country is a self serving asshat ... but will also ensure that they won't be in power for too long. No one can get to good a grip on power before someone else knocks them off their perch. Even if it is someone in their own party. Russia have had Putin for over 20 years. That just isn't possible with democracy and that is why it is the best system. Not because you let imbeciles vote, but because there will always be a change at the top before anyone can become a proper tyrant.
So we have a system that more or less works. Now you have to get everyone to agree to it. And you do that by letting them have a say. No matter how dumb the say because it doesn't matter ... all the parties are shit. There are no good parties to choose from. This isn't a fluke. It doesn't matter who you vote for, you still have the same civil service and legal people. So nothing really changes and no one is in power long enough to change it.
But if you tell people "You failed a test, you didn't get a say" when they wanted one ... well then they will burn things until you have a change of heart.
This is probably one of the best explinations of Democracy.
The issue America has is twofold.
1. There's only two parites. So itsiterally "this party or its exact opposite." There isn't a realistic middle ground or alternative.
2. The president has term.limits. no one else does. So a senator, who has alot of power, can be in power for decades without issue.
-
That is the exact thing a democracy is pretty good at preventing.
Why do you think it would be less good at preventing it if there was a simple (emphasis on that word) test to ensure that you have some clue what you're voting for.
Why can't under 18s vote? They can do other things like drive and (at the moment) get married.
There's already a principle that people need to have a certain maturity before they can vote, is it such a leap to extend that to making sure they have a vague understanding of what they're voting for?
-
That is the exact thing a democracy is pretty good at preventing.
Why do you think it would be less good at preventing it if there was a simple (emphasis on that word) test to ensure that you have some clue what you're voting for.
I don't know what you think a test would achieve? People will grow weary of Boris Johnson and eventually vote him out. They don't need a test on the lies he put in his manifesto to do that.
Why can't under 18s vote?
It is a good question. There should be no taxation without representation. Personally I think 18 y/os shouldn't be able to vote, but that they should also be tax exempt as well should they choose to work.
There's already a principle that people need to have a certain maturity before they can vote, is it such a leap to extend that to making sure they have a vague understanding of what they're voting for?
No. Again, it isn't important that people know what they are voting for. They aren't really voting for anything. Let us suppose Russia invades Ukraine. Whether we go to war or not is not going to be down to whether we have a Labour or Conservative government in power. Our response will be the exact same. The civil service and military advisors ... fiercely corralled by lobbyists and investors, will determine a course of action that leads to the greatest wealth opportunity for those investors. It is that simple. It doesn't matter what you think you voted for. You are not important. All that matters is that you shut up and stop burning important things that are owned by rich people. If giving you a vote for a puppet achieves that ... so be it.
-
Britain wasn't a democracy 300 years ago. We didn't have a democracy until the reform act in 1832. Less than 3% of people could vote when Warpole was in power. We don't become a fully fledged democracy until 1918 when women get the vote.
No, that's not how this works. Our standards for democracy in the West have changed over the years, mostly for the better, but you don't get to pick an arbitrary point in time at which 40% of women were granted the right to vote and claim a sudden transition from not-democracy to democracy.
Lukashenko heads an authoritarian government and has often been referred to by media outlets as "Europe's last dictator".[1] Elections are not considered to be free and fair by international monitors, opponents of the regime are repressed, and the media is not free.[2][3]
^That is not a democracy. That is the exact thing a democracy is pretty good at preventing.
It isn't now, but it was when Lukashenko gained power. If it weren't possible for someone to become a tyrant under democracy, then he'd be long gone.
-
you don't get to pick an arbitrary point in time at which 40% of women were granted the right to vote and claim a sudden transition from not-democracy to democracy.
I'm not picking an arbitrary point in time. Historians are picking a point in time and telling you ... 'this is when Britain became democratic'.
We were not democratic in the 1700's.
For centuries, Parliament consisted of a small landowning elite whose priorities were their own power and prosperity.
From the 18th century onwards, the social changes brought about by industrial growth and the decline of agriculture meant that the demographic landscape of Britain was altered.
With these changes came demands from the working and middle classes for equality and fairness. It took many years for a more representative Parliament to be achieved.
A small landowning elite is not a democracy. It is a plutocracy. We need the great reform act before we can even begin to consider ourselves a democracy. But we also need the Second reform act (suffrage) and the third (women's emancipation) before we can consider ourselves a modern democracy. Be we absolutely were not by any definition a democracy when Warpole was Prime Minister.
Lukashenko heads an authoritarian government and has often been referred to by media outlets as "Europe's last dictator".[1] Elections are not considered to be free and fair by international monitors, opponents of the regime are repressed, and the media is not free.[2][3]
^That is not a democracy. That is the exact thing a democracy is pretty good at preventing.
It isn't now, but it was when Lukashenko gained power. If it weren't possible for someone to become a tyrant under democracy, then he'd be long gone.
Really? Belarus being a functioning democracy is a hill that you are willing to die on? Again, When Lukashenko gained power, he was installed as the first President after the fall of the Soviet Union. Belarus has never had a free and fair election in its sovereign history.
-
I'm not picking an arbitrary point in time. Historians are picking a point in time and telling you ... 'this is when Britain became democratic'.
Can you find me a single historian saying that Britain became a democracy in 1918?
A small landowning elite is not a democracy. It is a plutocracy.
What difference does it make whether you have a million people or 67 million people voting, in terms of the likelihood of one person staying in power for a long time?
Be we absolutely were not by any definition a democracy when Warpole was Prime Minister.
No, that's not correct. The word "democracy" comes from Greek δημοκρᾰτῐ́ᾱ, which was used over 2000 years ago to describe a system in which women, slaves and foreigners could not vote. What you mean is that you were not a democracy by modern standards, standards which did not exist in that time.
But even if we accept your deeply flawed position, the longest-serving Prime Minister after the 1832 Reform Act had a tenure of nearly 14 years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gascoyne-Cecil,_3rd_Marquess_of_Salisbury). Not quite 20, but not far off either.
Really? Belarus being a functioning democracy is a hill that you are willing to die on?
No. Read what I said.
Again, When Lukashenko gained power, he was installed as the first President after the fall of the Soviet Union. Belarus has never had a free and fair election in its sovereign history.
Wrong again.
The election in 1994 that brought Alyaksandr Lukashenka to power in Belarus was arguably the first and last election in the former Soviet republic that met some Western norms. In fact, a U.S. commission hailed it as a “first step toward more pluralistic democracy and a free market system.”
-
I'm not picking an arbitrary point in time. Historians are picking a point in time and telling you ... 'this is when Britain became democratic'.
Can you find me a single historian saying that Britain became a democracy in 1918?
They are telling you that Britain definitely wasn't a democracy when Warpole was Prime Minister. Pick the bones out of that.
A small landowning elite is not a democracy. It is a plutocracy.
What difference does it make whether you have a million people or 67 million people voting, in terms of the likelihood of one person staying in power for a long time?
Well, a small group of people with the same interests (wealthy landowners) are aligned on most policies and would look for unending stability. An entire country is full of people with different needs. Winners and losers. And those losers will demand a change when there are enough of them.
Be we absolutely were not by any definition a democracy when Warpole was Prime Minister.
No, that's not correct. The word "democracy" comes from Greek δημοκρᾰτῐ́ᾱ, which was used over 2000 years ago to describe a system in which women, slaves and foreigners could not vote. What you mean is that you were not a democracy by modern standards, standards which did not exist in that time.
We didn't even have public elections when Warpole was appointed Prime Minster BY THE KING (George I).
But even if we accept your deeply flawed position, the longest-serving Prime Minister after the 1832 Reform Act had a tenure of nearly 14 years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gascoyne-Cecil,_3rd_Marquess_of_Salisbury). Not quite 20, but not far off either.
14 years and done. There is no end in sight for Putin. Its not the same thing at all.
Really? Belarus being a functioning democracy is a hill that you are willing to die on?
No. Read what I said.
I read it. You are wrong.
Again, When Lukashenko gained power, he was installed as the first President after the fall of the Soviet Union. Belarus has never had a free and fair election in its sovereign history.
Wrong again.
The election in 1994 that brought Alyaksandr Lukashenka to power in Belarus was arguably the first and last election in the former Soviet republic that met some Western norms. In fact, a U.S. commission hailed it as a “first step toward more pluralistic democracy and a free market system.”
Yeah, nah.
-
We didn't even have public elections when Warpole was appointed Prime Minster BY THE KING (George I).
Who do you think appointed Boris Johnson PM, genius?
Yeah, nah.
Wow, what a brilliant refutation.
-
Yeah, nah.
Wow, what a brilliant refutation.
You: Belarus was a credible democracy.
Me: No it wasn't, here is why.
You: Belarus was a credible democracy.
Me: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
You: Belarus was a credible democracy.
Me: No it wasn't, here is why.
You: Belarus was a credible democracy.
Me: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You didn't provide any "here is why". Perhaps you'd like to try addressing the source I provided if you want to change that.
-
I say it's objective because there are certain traits which one would fairly reasonably associate with being a good leader.
I know what you're saying. Really, I do. However, it is my opinion that you've fallen into the trap of mistaking things that are eminently reasonable to you for things that hold universally. There are people out there who hold the opposite views to you, and they're not a small fringe, either. To some, for example, personality is more important than policy, because leaders also perform a representative role. It's one of the things that gave Reagan an edge.
So, no, it's not objective, regardless of how obvious it seems to you and me.
Well. I don't think there are many objectively good or bad policies.
That's why I slapped it in between quotation marks. It's as "objective" as your view on who makes a better leader. In other words, not at all.
Without wishing to go all Godwin's Law, I don't think there's any party extreme enough to have "exterminate the Jews" as a policy
Maybe not today (and even then, I'm not sure that's the case), but you're proposing a replacement for democracy. It's only been 100 years since NSDAP's rise to power. Maybe it won't be anti-semitism next time, but terrible views gain prominence all the time.
Finally, c'mon. Work with me at least a tiny bit. I asked you to pick a terrible view and imagine people are voting for it. Decide for yourself what the worst possible outcome is. If you just say "no", we can't really look at how robust your proposal is.
-
I'm not picking an arbitrary point in time. Historians are picking a point in time and telling you ... 'this is when Britain became democratic'.
Can you find me a single historian saying that Britain became a democracy in 1918?
Dude, come on.
Obviously Thork is wrong about basically everything, but not on this occasion.
You are stretching the word "democracy" to breaking point if you're going to claim that a country where half the adult population had no right to vote was a democracy. Even if it does fit the dictionary definition of the word (and it does) in common understanding pretty much everyone would expect a democracy to mean that everyone gets a vote. There are some limits on that of course, I think it's sensible that kids under x years old don't get a vote - you can debate what x is. And there are a few other exceptions. But eyebrows would be raised if there was a country which called itself a democracy where women couldn't vote, or black people couldn't.
-
You are stretching the word "democracy" to breaking point if you're going to claim that a country where half the adult population had no right to vote was a democracy.
You mean like the UK after 1918?
-
You are stretching the word "democracy" to breaking point if you're going to claim that a country where half the adult population had no right to vote was a democracy.
You mean like the UK after 1918?
Possibly. Had a quick look and it looks like it wasn't till 1969 when the vote was extended to all men and women over 18. Gosh.
But anyway, the point remains that you started this by claiming we were a democracy a couple of hundred years ago when almost no-one had a vote. Come on dude, there are better ways to score internet points against Thork.
-
But anyway, the point remains that you started this by claiming we were a democracy a couple of hundred years ago when almost no-one had a vote. Come on dude, there are better ways to score internet points against Thork.
I concede that some of my examples may have been poorly chosen, which is how we got onto this diversion. The point wasn't supposed to be about the history of British democracy. It is not impossible for leaders to rule for a long time in a democratic system, let alone that being its raison d'être. Indeed, Thork seems to be overly preoccupied with the individual that ends up at the top, when the beauty of democracy is in enabling representatives from all corners of society to gather together and discuss things.
To put it in other terms, the point of democracy isn't that it produces different leadership, but that it makes the leader's role less significant.
-
It is not impossible for leaders to rule for a long time in a democratic system, let alone that being its raison d'être.
Right. Agreed. If "the people" are happy with a leader then they'll stay in power for as long as that remains the case in a democracy.
To put it in other terms, the point of democracy isn't that it produces different leadership, but that it makes the leader's role less significant.
I don't know about that. I'd say the point of it is that it means the leader is elected (whether directly or indirectly) by "the people" and thus has a mandate to lead.
Another key feature is it recognises that public mood changes over time and leaders should be held to account, so that mandate has an expiry date and every so often the leader has to seek a new mandate.
My issue with democracy is that it's predicated on two things
1) Everyone has a right to an opinion (which is obviously true)
2) Everyone's opinion is equally valid (which is obviously not)
It is that second premise which my "solution" seeks to address, by making some attempt to ensure that someone is engaged before they cast their vote.
Again, I'm not expecting people to have to study extensively to pass this. But being able to identify basic stuff like who the leader of each main party is and their high level policies seems like a reasonable prerequisite for casting a vote for them.
-
I don't know about that. I'd say the point of it is that it means the leader is elected (whether directly or indirectly) by "the people" and thus has a mandate to lead.
Some democracies do work this way, and they tend to be the ones most in need of reform. The best-functioning democracies recognise that no one leader, however democratic the election process, will be able to represent all interests. The European Parliament and many national parliaments in Europe work this way — there is rarely or never a majority held by a single party, and the nominal leader has to work with representatives of other viewpoints to find solutions that work for everyone. Democracy isn't supposed to stop when election day is over, it's the daily job of MPs.
My issue with democracy is that it's predicated on two things
1) Everyone has a right to an opinion (which is obviously true)
2) Everyone's opinion is equally valid (which is obviously not)
It is that second premise which my "solution" seeks to address, by making some attempt to ensure that someone is engaged before they cast their vote.
I don't agree that it's so obvious there is a problem to be solved. Rather than talking about solutions, I would prefer to try to measure the scope of the problem and see if there is anything that needs to be solved. How about having exit polls ask voters a few probing questions on the parties' policies and publish statistics on the matter? That can not only tell us how many voters don't know what they're voting for, but we could also simulate an election where they were prevented from voting and see if the results would be any different. If not, then there's no point changing anything.
-
My issue with democracy is that it's predicated on two things
1) Everyone has a right to an opinion (which is obviously true)
2) Everyone's opinion is equally valid (which is obviously not)
I take issue with your second point. Democracy is predicated on the notion that we are all equal. If we are all equal, then we should all have a say in who gets to run the government. You complain that people with no understanding of their party's platforms or whatever still get to vote. This is arguably one of the points of democracy; it is certainly an unavoidable consequence. Limiting anybody's ability to vote because they can't pass some test would not be democracy any longer. And it would be a great way to keep control in the hands of elites while simultaneously disenfranchising the poor.
I just can't agree with you on this.
-
And it would be a great way to keep control in the hands of elites while simultaneously disenfranchising the poor.
Ha. Our PM, like many before him, is an old Etonian. Pretty much the most elite school in the country. The elites are already very much in control in the UK.
And are you really suggesting the poor can’t identify party leaders or learn the key parts of a manifesto?
I just can't agree with you on this.
I’m not entirely sold on the idea myself.
But when you hear stuff like “What is the EU” being the most Googled question in the UK after the Brexit polls closed
(https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/06/24/480949383/britains-google-searches-for-what-is-the-eu-spike-after-brexit-vote)
That does not speak to me of a well informed population who are well qualified to make informed decisions when they vote. It is desirable to improve that. A test would be a way to incentivise people to be engaged more.
I’m not convinced it’s a good solution but I do think there’s a problem. I don’t agree it would mean we are no longer a democracy. Democracy doesn’t mean literally anyone can vote. Under 18s can’t. I don’t think prisoners can in the UK. I don’t know if adults with severe learning disabilities can. Should they be able to if they have no understanding what they’re voting for? There’s already a principle in democracies that not every person can vote, the only issue is where the line is.
-
But when you hear stuff like “What is the EU” being the most Googled question in the UK after the Brexit polls closed
(https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/06/24/480949383/britains-google-searches-for-what-is-the-eu-spike-after-brexit-vote)
That does not speak to me of a well informed population who are well qualified to make informed decisions when they vote.
How do you know it was the voters doing the googling? It could well be the huge number of people who didn't vote hearing the news and wondering "What on earth is this all about?".
But it fits the remoaner BBC narrative much better to say people didn't know what they voted for because they were on the losing side.
-
But when you hear stuff like “What is the EU” being the most Googled question in the UK after the Brexit polls closed
How do you know it was the voters doing the googling?
This is exactly why measurement of the problem must be the first step. Making changes without evidence of their efficacy is an awful way to govern. Meanwhile, in the case of the UK in particular, there are many long-overdue reforms that have been repeatedly proven in other countries that should be given a higher priority than this.
-
How do you know it was the voters doing the googling? It could well be the huge number of people who didn't vote hearing the news and wondering "What on earth is this all about?"
Adding on to this, it could be kids in particular. I could definitely see schools in Britain giving the students assignments on this subject in response to the news.
-
I don't know about that. I'd say the point of it is that it means the leader is elected (whether directly or indirectly) by "the people" and thus has a mandate to lead.
Some democracies do work this way, and they tend to be the ones most in need of reform. The best-functioning democracies recognise that no one leader, however democratic the election process, will be able to represent all interests. The European Parliament and many national parliaments in Europe work this way — there is rarely or never a majority held by a single party, and the nominal leader has to work with representatives of other viewpoints to find solutions that work for everyone. Democracy isn't supposed to stop when election day is over, it's the daily job of MPs.
Right. We do have a particularly bad version of democracy in our country. I'd definitely be in favour of any reform which means our system yields more representative results but there's no realistic prospect of it as the current system favours the current duopoly.
I don't agree that it's so obvious there is a problem to be solved. Rather than talking about solutions, I would prefer to try to measure the scope of the problem and see if there is anything that needs to be solved. How about having exit polls ask voters a few probing questions on the parties' policies and publish statistics on the matter? That can not only tell us how many voters don't know what they're voting for, but we could also simulate an election where they were prevented from voting and see if the results would be any different. If not, then there's no point changing anything.
That sounds sensible. I admit I don't have good data around this, it's more a vague feeling that people in this country are, by and large, bloody idiots. But that feeling is based on my interactions with people so I reckon I'm right ;D
-
it's more a vague feeling that people in this country are, by and large, bloody idiots.
Please read the following article. By the end of it, you will likely doubt that intelligent people should do the voting and will probably accept that the status quo is about as good as it gets.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2016/05/17/8-ways-smart-people-act-stupid/
Also I got the bat and ball question wrong. If that was the question, I just lost the right to vote. :(
-
Right. We do have a particularly bad version of democracy in our country. I'd definitely be in favour of any reform which means our system yields more representative results but there's no realistic prospect of it as the current system favours the current duopoly.
I don't really buy that. There was a referendum on AV, and while that wouldn't have solved all the problems, it would have been a good start. It was defeated by a supermajority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum), which is almost entirely thanks to British voters and not the established duopoly. (I say "almost" because the duopoly undoubtedly had a hand in influencing voters through their campaigning.)
-
And it would be a great way to keep control in the hands of elites while simultaneously disenfranchising the poor.
Ha. Our PM, like many before him, is an old Etonian. Pretty much the most elite school in the country. The elites are already very much in control in the UK.
Point taken but I can't help but think that excluding people from voting would only make it worse.
And are you really suggesting the poor can’t identify party leaders or learn the key parts of a manifesto?
Of course not. But people with better access to quality education would have a natural edge. In this country anyway that would be people who can afford good schooling.
I just can't agree with you on this.
I’m not entirely sold on the idea myself.
But when you hear stuff like “What is the EU” being the most Googled question in the UK after the Brexit polls closed
(https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/06/24/480949383/britains-google-searches-for-what-is-the-eu-spike-after-brexit-vote)
That does not speak to me of a well informed population who are well qualified to make informed decisions when they vote. It is desirable to improve that. A test would be a way to incentivise people to be engaged more.
I’m not convinced it’s a good solution but I do think there’s a problem. I don’t agree it would mean we are no longer a democracy. Democracy doesn’t mean literally anyone can vote. Under 18s can’t. I don’t think prisoners can in the UK. I don’t know if adults with severe learning disabilities can. Should they be able to if they have no understanding what they’re voting for? There’s already a principle in democracies that not every person can vote, the only issue is where the line is.
Again, point taken. I don't think convicted felons can vote in the US either, although they probably should be if they've served their debt to society. I still think with your test idea you'd end up excluding way too many people for it to still be considered a democracy as we know it today. More like democracy in ancient Greece. I feel like all the decisions would be made by the affluent, and that would leave the poor in even worse shape than they're in now.
And the potential for corruption, beyond the surface issues, seems staggering. Do you think unscrupulous politicians wouldn't figure out how to manipulate such a situation to their advantage? I'm not convinced.
It's an interesting idea. Given how many uneducated people voted for Trump in the 2016 election it poses the interesting question of whether or not we would have ever had a President Trump in the first place. But as tempting an idea as that is I think it only underscores the problem, which is that it would exclude too many people.
-
The US already went down this path from about the 1890’s to the 1960’s. This from the National Museum of American History:
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. The Voting Rights Act ended the use of literacy tests in the South in 1965 and the rest of the country in 1970.
In Mississippi, applicants were required to transcribe and interpret a section of the state constitution and write an essay on the responsibilities of citizenship. Registration officials selected the questions and interpreted the answers, effectively choosing which applicants to pass and which to fail.
I don’t think there is any way, at least in the States, to not weaponize any form of “test” being discussed.
-
I still think with your test idea you'd end up excluding way too many people for it to still be considered a democracy as we know it today.
Well, I think that depends on the test. Again, I'm not expecting people to know the details of everyone's manifesto - I'd fail that test! But a basic knowledge of who the main candidates are and what they stand for at a high level isn't a bad idea. But I agree there's lots of potential for this to be a terrible idea which simply causes other problems.
I actually don't think it would have made a difference to the Trump election. I think most people who voted for him knew exactly who he was and knew the sorts of things he was promising. I find his attitudes and policies reprehensible but so long as the people who vote for him know what they are and find themselves agreeing with them then fine. I'm not saying we should try and stop people making a bad choice in who they vote for - that's subjective. I'm saying we should try and stop people making uninformed choices. If you don't know who the main leaders are or anything about their policies then on what basis are you casting a vote?
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 don't really buy that. There was a referendum on AV, and while that wouldn't have solved all the problems, it would have been a good start. It was defeated by a supermajority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum), which is almost entirely thanks to British voters and not the established duopoly.
Yeah. But...
That referendum was only offered by Cameron as part of the deal when he had to get in to bed with Nick Clegg to form a government.
Cameron was pretty clever with that one. He knew that what they were offering, while demonstrably more representative than our current system, was too complicated for a lot of people to understand. And a more representative voting system does the duopoly parties no favours, so they both campaigned against it hard. Cameron knew he could offer this referendum with almost no risk of it passing, and it was very much a one time offer.
[Cameron then doubled down by offering the Scottish Independence referendum...he then went for 3 in a row with the Brexit referendum and that didn't go so well, the utter prick]
-
you will likely doubt that intelligent people should do the voting
This is not what I am suggesting.
I simply think that people should be engaged and informed before they cast a vote.
If they are and they then vote in (what I regard to be) a stupid way then fine. They have a right to their opinion. I just think that opinion should be based on more than "Ha ha ha! Isn't Boris funny? Do you remember when he got stuck* on a zip wire?! Hoo hoo hoo!!"
*a situation I read by the way that he entirely engineered as he knew what a brilliant photo op it would be and would play in to the "good old Boris, what is he like?!" persona he so carefully cultivates and which is depressingly effective.
-
you're proposing a replacement for democracy.
I'm really not.
There are already limits on who can vote, those limits have changed over time. It is not an inalienable human right. Under 18s can't vote. People in prison can't. People who are adults but have severe mental retardation...I actually don't know. If they can then what, a kid of 17 who is doing Politics A Level and who is thoroughly engaged in the political processes can't vote but a 20 year old with the mental age of a 4 year old can? That doesn't make much sense.
I think there's a reasonable principle that people should have some idea what they're voting for, who they've voting for. If there was a test which involved having to study all the major manifestos extensively then that seems excessive, it would exclude too many people. It would exclude me. If it was a simple "Who is the leader of the Conservative party" or I dunno "Which party has vowed to 'Get Brexit Done'". Well holy shit, if you don't know that then are you really able to make an informed decision?
If people demonstrate that they know the basics and they still vote for a terrible leader/party then so be it. As you've said, this is all subjective anyway. My problem with Boris is mostly that he's an incompetent liar rather than any actual policies he might have, so arguably I am voting for a stupid and subjective reason. But at least I make some effort to understand who he is and what he says he's going to do.
So yeah, if we have a more educated/engaged/informed voting population and they vote for people/parties/policies I think are stupid then yes I still think that's an improvement. Because I do believe in democracy and I think the will of "the people" should be heard. I was dead against Brexit but "the people" voted that way so that's the course we should take, however stupid and self-destructive it may be. I just wish that people had been a bit more engaged. I don't think the principle that if you're going to ask someone a question you make sure they understand that question and what the potential answers mean is a bad one. But testing that understanding is I agree problematic. I'm not sure it's impossible though.
-
you will likely doubt that intelligent people should do the voting
This is not what I am suggesting.
I simply think that people should be engaged and informed before they cast a vote.
If they are and they then vote in (what I regard to be) a stupid way then fine. They have a right to their opinion. I just think that opinion should be based on more than "Ha ha ha! Isn't Boris funny? Do you remember when he got stuck* on a zip wire?! Hoo hoo hoo!!"
*a situation I read by the way that he entirely engineered as he knew what a brilliant photo op it would be and would play in to the "good old Boris, what is he like?!" persona he so carefully cultivates and which is depressingly effective.
You know ... not voting is an entirely acceptable option. And I would imagine most people who don't vote don't care much about politics. Anyone who does vote is expressing an opinion. They shouldn't be forced into a test to do so. Its already hard enough to get people to vote. I don't think a test is the way to go.
I used to think a 'House of Academics' would be a good way to go. So maybe bus drivers, pilots and road engineers all vote for the secretary of transport. Professional coaches and people who work in gyms get to vote for the secretary of Sport. Culture secretary is voted for by people working in showbiz etc. Doctors, nurses, Chemists etc vote for the health secretary. And then you get the very best person from each academic field being voted for by their peers ... people who know what they are voting for.
But in recent years I have seen how corrupt academics are. They pretend to be noble but they are basically available for hire to say whatever you want is 'the science'. Example ... aspartame is a vile additive. It causes a list of illnesses as long as your arm including brain cancers. It has been banned TWICE by the FDA as harmful. But, Donald Rumsfeld was the CEO of the company that invented it and he lobbied Ronald Regan to make it legal backed by huge interests like Coca Cola and Pepsi. It was made legal as 'New Science' funded by these people appeared saying it was safe after all. It isn't. Long story short ... don't drink diet soft drinks. Science is bent. You just hire scientists to create conditions that make whatever you want become the 'science' the truth and unable to be argued with. You don't want academics anywhere near politics.
-
Reaching the legal voting age is not really what anyone is talking about when they say “test” in the context of having educated voters.
Saddam said «any kind of "test"». Checking someone's age is a kind of test.
In Australia, there are no "tests" in the sense it's been used here, but there are nevertheless certain
conditions one has to satisfy in order to vote:
• At least 18 years of age.
• A registered home address.
• An Australian citizen.
• Name registered on the electoral roll.
• A jail inmate of not more than two years duration.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033478/fertility-rate-netherlands-1840-2020/) 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?