Is Democracy really the best way to go?

[Holder of the Heel]

I have been thinking lately about the ways in which countries/states/etc. are run. What would the best way to run a country? Is it through democracy? When raising this question to my brother, he mentioned we aren't running a true democracy; not privy to that knowledge I simply accepted it and noted that it sounded likely, though it isn't entirely my point. Asking the title's question, I do not inquire specifically as to how we should do democracy right, although anyone may do that as they wish. My intention is this, compared to any other form, such as countries run by a king, by aristocrats, countries ruled through property, money, honor, etc. An array of things plant seeds of doubt in my mind.

First being, I look around and consistently see people who are annoyed by our system, and think we don't get anything done. We elect presidents, and we quickly turn on them and blame them for our problems. People wonder how George W. Bush got elected, especially two times in a row. This makes me wonder, does this mean our voting system is unfit for deciding leaders? (Regarding the question of whether we should have something similar to a "president" to begin with I'll perhaps consider later) The principal, as far as my limited knowledge shows to me, is that we believe that those who live here have the right to vote, and that not only this, but in doing so, our country will improve through the power of the general will. I immediately see two problems with this, which I imagine will perhaps be unpopular, but please regard me. On the subject of the idea of those who live under our constitution can vote, I must ask, why does living here grant such a right? Our country is remarkable for our liberties, our freedoms, but granting the right to vote seems to be on a different level of freedom. What do I mean by this? The freedom of speech allows us to do things without restriction. The freedom of religion allows us to believe as we wish. But the right to vote, this is giving us a power by living here (and being old enough, of course). I do not object to the notion, but I must ask to what benefit? Which leads me to question the use and logic of it. By living here, you can vote for a president who will reside over not only yourself, but others, so by living here, you are granted a right that affects everyone. This is for the sake of creating the "general will", or rather, capturing it. And the beauty of it is clear to anyone, but we must also wonder, does a lot of people who are voting extensively educated in politics and their candidates. Are they aware of everything about the person they are voting for, and what this country needs? Is the general populous unbiased and heavily knowledgeable of the circumstances? And when we get our president, this influences our country greatly, not to the degree of a king to his subjects in a monarchy, but still does. Should those who live here obtain the liberty to earn the right to decide what would happen to their country? Do we not see this embodied in the legislative branch? But this two is done by voting, just with more people.

So perhaps to put it more candidly: my concerns are of the prerequisites of making decisions that affect the state of our country. But if it is not through the right being granted through living here, then what is? We have an age requirement, which shows we clearly aim to capture competence in our general will, but is that enough to know what people need, or do we just learn what people want (or perhaps, what they think they want in specific circumstances). Would it not make sense to take that line of thinking to its ultimate conclusion, by requiring that we use education, tests, (keeping in mind of measurements of experience and community involvement to even be qualified for such tests), to decide who looks over our problems and tries to solve them? And is it not better that we gather a multitude of the most qualified people in each state to govern said state, and the most qualified of those who are qualified, can collect and form a more national government presiding over the nation as a whole. Would we not avoid the problems of having ignorance be a part of the "general will", and the issues of having a single head in any area of our federal government, and the same for our states? All the while, the general will can still speak, and the general populous all have the right to go and try to be elected in each of these units, provided they are vastly knowledgeable, experienced, and dedicated (for re-elections would be done through the same process, and thus everyone must continue to study, experience, and keep their dedication to their country constant). We could even avoid the tribal mentalities and tendency for labels that plague our country as we speak by not having such a representative method for gathering our leaders. I'm not trying to preach that we should have "philosopher kings" (but oh how I love the sound of it), I'm simply looking at what a country does, and take it to their logical conclusions. Even using our common sense in social situations, we never assume that others think perfectly, in fact, thinking perfectly that way would be considered imperfect. Is not our voting system that undesired assumption on a grander scale? That is of course only taken into account when we realize that the right to vote given so unconditionally (again, ignoring the 18-years of age requirement) is a form of assumption, and must first be justified by consequence, which I think may some agree, that our results can be unsatisfactory. I do not feign to know much about politics, I care about it, but it cannot keep my weak attention span. However, I do see people who are interested in it, and have seen debates, and it is all rather pessimistic, which is what caused me to even consider other ways of managing our country in the first place.

I hate to mention my cynical views of our present education system as well, but I would be remiss to say that a country under these rulings would likely prioritize education higher than we do, and as a result have a better one. Not only this, but we would reprioritize the subjects taught in these schools to reflect our desire to produce human beings who are well versed in problem solving, the issues of the past and present, and experienced and involved in many practical activities. Granted, all of this is so much reform that it seems like pipe dreams, especially when we take into account that the only thing that can change our governmental system when it is faulty is... itself, which is by definition, at that juncture, faulty, and therefore going to have issues. The times of political experimentation has passed, and so has times of simple revolutions. Anyways, sorry for the long post, and most of all, for posting on a subject I know almost nil about, but I figured that the only way to improve is to act despite of it, even at the cost of likely being rejected and embarrassed. If my proposed theories are off the mark, and yet you think Democracy isn't the most effective method, what do you think is?

 

[Dre89]

Theoretically, the best system would just be to have a dictator, but that dictator would just make all the right decisions. Of course that would never happen though.

The problem is representative democracies aren't real democracies, and direct empower the uneducated too much.

I can't remember who said it, but one of my favourite quotes is "you only have to speak to the average citizen for five minutes to realise why democracy is a bad idea.

I know some people propose socialism or anarchy, but I'm not really educated in those.

 

[Battlecow]

You only have to speak to the average debate hall member for five minutes to understand why putting "educated" people in sole charge of everything is a bad idea. Makes you start to understand what Mao was thinking when he whacked everyone with glasses for being intellectuals.

But seriously--have you ever experienced academia? Government is a goddam well-oiled machine compared to the petty cluster**** that goes down daily in our universities. It's not like ignorant people run things in this country; to get anywhere you have to be educated. Hell, even Bush went to Yale.

Your frustration's understandable--you see people with different views from you and you say "hey, those views are wrong! Why are we letting people put flawed policies into action?" The problem, of course, lies in deciding who's allowed to have a say.

Let's say you're a fireman who spent some time in the armed forces. You have a lovely family and you like to think you have a pretty good handle on life, and you want a say in how your government is run. All of a sudden, some guy in glasses stops by and tells you that you're no longer allowed any sort of vote because you don't have a PhD. You're gonna flip **** and depose the **** out of some *****es, of course.

So how do you decide who doesn't get a say? Well, obviously half the people are gonna want the other half axed. Only way to solve that's a civil war.

 

[Dre89]

I find the quote funny moreso because of statement of the intelligence of the average citizen rather than the criticism of democracy.

Also, ignorance and education are compatible. I'd say a lot of republicans in your country are a good example of that mix.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Honestly, democracy is just a way for the citizens to choose their dictator. I suppose the reason why it's used as a government system is because other systems in the past hasn't worked quite so well. Sure, democracy is flawed, but if one must choose their own poison...

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Well democracy is definitely flawed, for I notice that in political philosophy, people don't treat it very special, and Aristotle noticed a pattern (Kyklos, meaning cycles) of how monarchies, aristocracies, democracies, and tyrannies develop because over a period of time they fall apart, for example I think he said democracy comes from tyranny/monarchy, which seems to be proven by our very creation. This is not to say that in our history monarchies and aristocracies haven't done well before, which isn't true, so I'm unsure as to why we can justify getting bratty about us losing our ability to vote.

At any rate, I do understand that the people who are running are country are educated, I just think the format is incorrect and the education is not good enough and their selection isn't good enough and not justified. Kant puts it well when he says that people in a democracy all want to be rulers, we're spoiled rotten in that sense, many people would feel like their freedom has been destroyed if they ever lost their voting, which of course would be absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Battlecow]

I call bull**** on this "cycle" stuff. In the modern world, we have monarchy->Democracy instituted in the US->Democracy just about everywhere within an astoundingly short period of time. Do you think we're headed back to a monarchy any time soon? Please.

Who do you want to take votes away from? There's no reasonable way of choosing.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I'm not choosing who can't vote, there is no voting. I remove the "poll" process entirely, in the theory I mentioned.

And yeah, I understand in the modern world it is not applicable, that was in a time when things changed a lot, revolutions and political experimentation were going on. Might point was that it showed that each form isolated was inadequate, or else it wouldn't have changed when things could change.

 

[global-wolf]

I found this post interesting, because recently while watching the Olympics I was thinking of how China's one-party government gets things done fast. For example the one-child policy would have almost definitely never had made it through our system, but the Chinese government did it and statistics I've seen show that the majority of people support it (not sure how reliable these statistics are, but my relatives in China didn't seem to have any problem with it.) I think our ability to choose our leaders encourages us to blame whatever goes wrong on the current leader, which isn't inherently bad but people often just seesaw between parties instead of giving good thought to who they're voting for. I'm not really sure what I'm talking about anymore so I'll stop here.

 

[Aesir]

Theoretically, the best system would just be to have a dictator, but that dictator would just make all the right decisions. Of course that would never happen though.

The problem is representative democracies aren't real democracies, and direct empower the uneducated too much.

I can't remember who said it, but one of my favourite quotes is "you only have to speak to the average citizen for five minutes to realise why democracy is a bad idea.

I know some people propose socialism or anarchy, but I'm not really educated in those.

Not what it's originally from but http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4pB5_0AUVk


Also I would argue, representative isn't perfect but it's the best thing we have.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I found this post interesting, because recently while watching the Olympics I was thinking of how China's one-party government gets things done fast. For example the one-child policy would have almost definitely never had made it through our system, but the Chinese government did it and statistics I've seen show that the majority of people support it (not sure how reliable these statistics are, but my relatives in China didn't seem to have any problem with it.) I think our ability to choose our leaders encourages us to blame whatever goes wrong on the current leader, which isn't inherently bad but people often just seesaw between parties instead of giving good thought to who they're voting for. I'm not really sure what I'm talking about anymore so I'll stop here.

China is also facing a demographic nightmare thanks to that policy.

 

[global-wolf]

China is also facing a demographic nightmare thanks to that policy.

Not arguing for the policy here, just remarking on the efficiency of government. :]

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

This makes me wonder, does this mean our voting system is unfit for deciding leaders? (Regarding the question of whether we should have something similar to a "president" to begin with I'll perhaps consider later) The principal, as far as my limited knowledge shows to me, is that we believe that those who live here have the right to vote, and that not only this, but in doing so, our country will improve through the power of the general will. I immediately see two problems with this, which I imagine will perhaps be unpopular, but please regard me. On the subject of the idea of those who live under our constitution can vote, I must ask, why does living here grant such a right?

You pay taxes to maintain the state and you through your economic actions participate in it for the betterment of your country, so you deserve some say in where your money is going. Additionally, if the state wants to implement conscription or something like that which is going to require you by law to do something, you should have some say in that.

Our country is remarkable for our liberties, our freedoms, but granting the right to vote seems to be on a different level of freedom. What do I mean by this? The freedom of speech allows us to do things without restriction. The freedom of religion allows us to believe as we wish. But the right to vote, this is giving us a power by living here (and being old enough, of course). I do not object to the notion, but I must ask to what benefit?

I think that the right vote somewhat safeguards these other rights. If people wish to restrict your freedoms, you can oppose that.

Which leads me to question the use and logic of it. By living here, you can vote for a president who will reside over not only yourself, but others, so by living here, you are granted a right that affects everyone. This is for the sake of creating the "general will", or rather, capturing it. And the beauty of it is clear to anyone, but we must also wonder, does a lot of people who are voting extensively educated in politics and their candidates. Are they aware of everything about the person they are voting for, and what this country needs? Is the general populous unbiased and heavily knowledgeable of the circumstances

Yeah. Idiots vote. That is a problem. However, they still pay taxes, they still work to benefit the state, they still deserve some say in what they do. It's awful patronising for them when we say that they shouldn't be allowed to vote because they're incapable of making a decision. They're legally allowed to sign contracts and do everything else, so surely they are capable enough to vote.

So perhaps to put it more candidly: my concerns are of the prerequisites of making decisions that affect the state of our country. But if it is not through the right being granted through living here, then what is? We have an age requirement, which shows we clearly aim to capture competence in our general will, but is that enough to know what people need, or do we just learn what people want (or perhaps, what they think they want in specific circumstances). Would it not make sense to take that line of thinking to its ultimate conclusion, by requiring that we use education, tests, (keeping in mind of measurements of experience and community involvement to even be qualified for such tests), to decide who looks over our problems and tries to solve them?

I don't believe there is fair way to ensure competence in the voting body. Intelligence? Some 'smart' people are immature. Education? Being educated does not make you smarter. Some smart people did not have access to a good education. Life experience? There's no objective way to measure that. Community involvement? Again, no objective way to measure that. All these measures are either subjective and probably do not guarantee competence.

And is it not better that we gather a multitude of the most qualified people in each state to govern said state, and the most qualified of those who are qualified, can collect and form a more national government presiding over the nation as a whole. Would we not avoid the problems of having ignorance be a part of the "general will", and the issues of having a single head in any area of our federal government, and the same for our states? All the while, the general will can still speak, and the general populous all have the right to go and try to be elected in each of these units, provided they are vastly knowledgeable, experienced, and dedicated (for re-elections would be done through the same process, and thus everyone must continue to study, experience, and keep their dedication to their country constant). We could even avoid the tribal mentalities and tendency for labels that plague our country as we speak by not having such a representative method for gathering our leaders. I'm not trying to preach that we should have "philosopher kings" (but oh how I love the sound of it)

Here's the strange thing. Smart people are not necessarily good people. Perhaps these folk are more dangerous because they know how to play the system. Inevitably, justified by some elitist rubbish they'd probably start twisting the whole system to benefit themselves. And how are these people going to be held accountable? At least if we have a vote, we have some method of punishing bad performance and rewarding good. Who selects these guys? Other "guys"? How the hell are we going to stop the relationships between these rulers and their selectors becoming incredibly cosy?

I hate to mention my cynical views of our present education system as well, but I would be remiss to say that a country under these rulings would likely prioritize education higher than we do, and as a result have a better one. Not only this, but we would reprioritize the subjects taught in these schools to reflect our desire to produce human beings who are well versed in problem solving, the issues of the past and present, and experienced and involved in many practical activities. Granted, all of this is so much reform that it seems like pipe dreams, especially when we take into account that the only thing that can change our governmental system when it is faulty is... itself, which is by definition, at that juncture, faulty, and therefore going to have issues. The times of political experimentation has passed, and so has times of simple revolutions. Anyways, sorry for the long post, and most of all, for posting on a subject I know almost nil about, but I figured that the only way to improve is to act despite of it, even at the cost of likely being rejected and embarrassed. If my proposed theories are off the mark, and yet you think Democracy isn't the most effective method, what do you think is?

I think Democracy is the least worst. Therefore the best. I think that the American system is heavily flawed though and could be improved greatly. I don't like the first past the post system. Minor parties are just gypped. There should be a preferential system, also known as instant run-off voting. And with regards to the election of the president, there should be none of that winner-takes-all business with regards to the college electors for the candidate that wins a state.

Well democracy is definitely flawed, for I notice that in political philosophy, people don't treat it very special, and Aristotle noticed a pattern (Kyklos, meaning cycles) of how monarchies, aristocracies, democracies, and tyrannies develop because over a period of time they fall apart, for example I think he said democracy comes from tyranny/monarchy, which seems to be proven by our very creation. This is not to say that in our history monarchies and aristocracies haven't done well before, which isn't true, so I'm unsure as to why we can justify getting bratty about us losing our ability to vote.

I see how we can get bratty about losing our right to vote. The revolutionaries in the America had to fight for that. They had to fight for the right to self-determination and you just want to say, "well stuff it". The vote gives us a say, a small one individually, to influence the political process that determines our future.

Another thing, if you think there are too many idiots out there with too much a say in politics, at the next election vote to oppose them! There are too many reasonable but apathetic people out there.

At any rate, I do understand that the people who are running are country are educated, I just think the format is incorrect and the education is not good enough and their selection isn't good enough and not justified. Kant puts it well when he says that people in a democracy all want to be rulers, we're spoiled rotten in that sense, many people would feel like their freedom has been destroyed if they ever lost their voting, which of course would be absolutely ridiculous.

How can you safeguard our freedoms without making us the guardians of them? Who else would you entrust them to? If you can vote for them, you can at least try to protect them. If you can't, then you're completely at the mercy of the rulers.

China is also facing a demographic nightmare thanks to that policy.

They also have a strange gender ratio, at birth there is something like a 1.1:1 or 1.2:1 ratio of male to females. Not a good look.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Not arguing for the policy here, just remarking on the efficiency of government. :]

I guess the question is, how efficient is government that enacts bad policy?

 

[global-wolf]

I don't know what you're trying to imply with that question, are you saying that organizations can only be efficient if they every decision they make is a "good" one? One bad policy doesn't mean everything, or even most of the government does is bad. China's government was able to pass this without the threat of being taken over by another party. That is efficiency, if they want to do something they do it and don't waste time and money fighting over it. The actual result of the policy is a different matter.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I think it's a pretty straight forward question. Making bad decisions quickly doesn't sound like efficiency to me.

 

[global-wolf]

So you're saying an efficient government is simply one that never makes bad decisions ever.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

You pay taxes to maintain the state and you through your economic actions participate in it for the betterment of your country, so you deserve some say in where your money is going. Additionally, if the state wants to implement conscription or something like that which is going to require you by law to do something, you should have some say in that.

So we pay taxes, and therefore acquire the right to vote? But do we not pay taxes to be living in the country and benefit the government? I don't see how we go from that to saying, "I am fulfilling what I must do by law to live here and benefit the government with the money I make here. This must mean I can vote to dictate what that government does." Note how the first sentence involves doing obligatory things for living in our country. The right to vote kind of comes out of the blue there, and isn't justified by anything.

I think that the right vote somewhat safeguards these other rights. If people wish to restrict your freedoms, you can oppose that.

But voting isn't the only way to protect those freedoms, of course, so I see no necessity for it.

Yeah. Idiots vote. That is a problem. However, they still pay taxes, they still work to benefit the state, they still deserve some say in what they do. It's awful patronising for them when we say that they shouldn't be allowed to vote because they're incapable of making a decision. They're legally allowed to sign contracts and do everything else, so surely they are capable enough to vote.

It isn't that they are incapable of making a decision, but that there are those who best make decisions. We make these beliefs, and quite rightly and logically, in all other areas of life, so why is leading the government different? And do we not do this in the sense that we elect a president who then does everything? Not to mention, more specifically, the Senate, who helps lead us because they are the best in doing so. I'm only taking what we belief in all other things, and mostly in how we work in our government, to its best and logical conclusion.

I don't believe there is fair way to ensure competence in the voting body. Intelligence? Some 'smart' people are immature. Education? Being educated does not make you smarter. Some smart people did not have access to a good education. Life experience? There's no objective way to measure that. Community involvement? Again, no objective way to measure that. All these measures are either subjective and probably do not guarantee competence.

Life experience and community involvement can of course be objectively seen because they can be documented. We merely use that segment the same way we do when we try to enter big schools and they look at our community involvement, or when we go to get a job and we get our experience checked. Is there a foolproof way of looking at it? Of course not, but that doesn't stop us from doing it elsewhere, and that doesn't mean the information can't be studied and used at all.

As for problems of education, I do believe that those who are well-skilled in the art of politics and any relevant field do make you more able, in fact that is how we do it now, again, but just not in the most efficient way possible. Intelligence isn't required, as long as your knowledge and community involvement and experience show that you are dedicated and adept at leading a state/country. Intelligence will simply make it easier for people to gather knowledge, that is all.

Here's the strange thing. Smart people are not necessarily good people. Perhaps these folk are more dangerous because they know how to play the system. Inevitably, justified by some elitist rubbish they'd probably start twisting the whole system to benefit themselves. And how are these people going to be held accountable? At least if we have a vote, we have some method of punishing bad performance and rewarding good. Who selects these guys? Other "guys"? How the hell are we going to stop the relationships between these rulers and their selectors becoming incredibly cosy?

These are all good questions. Of course, the initial test for the leader's would involve making sure who we appoint is interested in benefiting the state/country, part of which would be checking community involvement, and perhaps interviewing etc. That isn't much though, so we also need to make sure that we can remove anyone who is being unconstitutional/unlawful. The specifics of which, I am not sure. We can use those whom we have elected, the judicial branch, and maybe even bring in the citizens to be constantly shedding those who are not doing their duties as they should. I'm not trying to delineate an actual political doctrine here, I'm just saying that there could be systems in place that constantly force everyone to be in line lest they be removed. At any rate, we have this problem in our own government system, and it doesn't seem like the common people have much power in getting rid of those who are like that. I'd argue that with a lot of changes, akin to what we are discussing, would make it easier, not more difficult.

I think Democracy is the least worst. Therefore the best. I think that the American system is heavily flawed though and could be improved greatly. I don't like the first past the post system. Minor parties are just gypped. There should be a preferential system, also known as instant run-off voting. And with regards to the election of the president, there should be none of that winner-takes-all business with regards to the college electors for the candidate that wins a state.

I see how we can get bratty about losing our right to vote. The revolutionaries in the America had to fight for that. They had to fight for the right to self-determination and you just want to say, "well stuff it". The vote gives us a say, a small one individually, to influence the political process that determines our future.

Another thing, if you think there are too many idiots out there with too much a say in politics, at the next election vote to oppose them! There are too many reasonable but apathetic people out there.

Yeah, I have yet to vote although I've had the opportunity. Despite my negative sentiments to largely the government format and the voting process in general, it is what we have, and I'm granted influence, albeit incredibly small, but it is still there. Might as well participate. I don't think we're "hopeless", hopefully I didn't come off thinking as such.

How can you safeguard our freedoms without making us the guardians of them? Who else would you entrust them to? If you can vote for them, you can at least try to protect them. If you can't, then you're completely at the mercy of the rulers.

I see where you are coming from. Just thinking that through getting the most active and educated people can be entrusted, and that we can continually test that trust by refreshing every so few years the elected, and putting in a system that removes anyone found undeserving of being in their position.

At any rate, thank you for responding seriously to my questions and thoughts. :D

So you're saying an efficient government is simply one that never makes bad decisions ever.

Yeah, I'm with global on this. A government system that can effectively make decisions is a good system. When these decisions are bad, that means the people in it are poor, not the system itself. Of course, the system can be better to ensure those who are in it are efficient, which is basically what this topic is about.

 

[Jam Stunna]

So you're saying an efficient government is simply one that never makes bad decisions ever.

You're just being obtuse at this point. I never defined efficient government, but I am saying that making bad decisions with minimal resistance (like the one child policy) is not efficiency.

Also, one party rule does not guarantee efficiency at all, and China is actually a really good example of that.

 

[global-wolf]

You're just being obtuse at this point. I never defined efficient government, but I am saying that making bad decisions with minimal resistance (like the one child policy) is not efficiency.

Also, one party rule does not guarantee efficiency at all, and China is actually a really good example of that.

That's right, you didn't, in the 4 posts you've replied to me with you never once said what you thought was efficient government so don't blame me for guessing what you think. You're pretty obtuse yourself.

What the link you just posted does give evidence of is that China's government does not screen foods well before they are sold into the public, which may be a problem of negligence, undeveloped infrastructure, or a number of other issues that are not necessarily of poor efficiency. China's government clearly isn't perfect and I never said it was, but it does things quickly and unanimously and you can't deny it that, unless you can find some evidence that it dawdles around like the U.S. government does. Which you haven't.

Every time I try to debate on this site it turns into an argument about semantics, it's very annoying.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Efficiency is not just a matter of doing a job quickly. It also means actually doing the job. In this case, the Chinese government has tasked itself with ensuring food safety, and fails miserably at it. We're not just talking about one or two isolated incidents either; the level of incompetence far exceeds anything in the United States, despite the alleged benefits of one party rule.

If my definition of efficient government will help, then here it is: government that enacts sound policy quickly. I don't think any system of government is more likely to achieve that end than any other, because as Holder pointed out, the problem isn't the system, it's the people within it.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

So we pay taxes, and therefore acquire the right to vote? But do we not pay taxes to be living in the country and benefit the government? I don't see how we go from that to saying, "I am fulfilling what I must do by law to live here and benefit the government with the money I make here. This must mean I can vote to dictate what that government does." Note how the first sentence involves doing obligatory things for living in our country. The right to vote kind of comes out of the blue there, and isn't justified by anything.

I stated that if you pay taxes, you should have some say where your money goes. Ultimately it is your hard work that produced this money. You are a stakeholder in issue of taxes and how your money is spent. You deserve some say in it.

You also didn't address my point about conscription.

But voting isn't the only way to protect those freedoms, of course, so I see no necessity for it.

How else do you plan on protecting these freedoms?

It isn't that they are incapable of making a decision, but that there are those who best make decisions. We make these beliefs, and quite rightly and logically, in all other areas of life, so why is leading the government different? And do we not do this in the sense that we elect a president who then does everything? Not to mention, more specifically, the Senate, who helps lead us because they are the best in doing so. I'm only taking what we belief in all other things, and mostly in how we work in our government, to its best and logical conclusion.

It's not the idiots who are supposed to be the elected officials. They are supposed to be the ones electing competent officials who have proved their competency to the general public. If somebody is proven to be a shambling wreck in the public arena, I don't think even the idiots will elect him. I also stated that these idiots still contribute their tax dollars to the governments, so they are a stakeholder in how the governments spend their money.

Life experience and community involvement can of course be objectively seen because they can be documented.

No. Just because something can be written down, doesn't mean it's objective. Art criticism can be documented. That is far from objective.

We merely use that segment the same way we do when we try to enter big schools and they look at our community involvement, or when we go to get a job and we get our experience checked. Is there a foolproof way of looking at it? Of course not, but that doesn't stop us from doing it elsewhere, and that doesn't mean the information can't be studied and used at all.

This is a subjective appraisal of a candidate. There is no way to ascribe scores to this kind of thing based on your resume that aren't based on someone's reaction. It's not like I can guarantee that because I've done Duke of Edinburgh Bronze I'm somehow more self-aware than those who haven't.

As for problems of education, I do believe that those who are well-skilled in the art of politics and any relevant field do make you more able, in fact that is how we do it now, again, but just not in the most efficient way possible.

I actually don't know what you mean by that. Please explain.

Intelligence isn't required, as long as your knowledge and community involvement and experience show that you are dedicated and adept at leading a state/country. Intelligence will simply make it easier for people to gather knowledge, that is all.

So we've established that intelligence is not an okay metric for this? It's probably the only objective and maybe valid one we've got so far. Now you've got only subjective measures of capability (life experience and what not) and at best an invalid objective one; education.

These are all good questions. Of course, the initial test for the leader's would involve making sure who we appoint is interested in benefiting the state/country, part of which would be checking community involvement, and perhaps interviewing etc. That isn't much though, so we also need to make sure that we can remove anyone who is being unconstitutional/unlawful. The specifics of which, I am not sure. We can use those whom we have elected, the judicial branch, and maybe even bring in the citizens to be constantly shedding those who are not doing their duties as they should. I'm not trying to delineate an actual political doctrine here, I'm just saying that there could be systems in place that constantly force everyone to be in line lest they be removed. At any rate, we have this problem in our own government system, and it doesn't seem like the common people have much power in getting rid of those who are like that. I'd argue that with a lot of changes, akin to what we are discussing, would make it easier, not more difficult.

The problem with this kind of debate is that if you're arguing without a clear model on your side, then it doesn't really work. I can't criticise it, you can't discuss the benefits of it without sounding presumptuous. It just breaks down. See if there was a group of really good, really smart, really experienced people that would run the country and we could guarantee them to be all of the above with a system that would be efficient, then you're system would have some advantages. But I don't know if there's a way of doing that.

Yeah, I have yet to vote although I've had the opportunity. Despite my negative sentiments to largely the government format and the voting process in general, it is what we have, and I'm granted influence, albeit incredibly small, but it is still there. Might as well participate. I don't think we're "hopeless", hopefully I didn't come off thinking as such.

Good on you. I dislike it when people whine about their current political situation and will not even commit to do something with the option that everyone is given.

I see where you are coming from. Just thinking that through getting the most active and educated people can be entrusted, and that we can continually test that trust by refreshing every so few years the elected, and putting in a system that removes anyone found undeserving of being in their position.

Yeah. Unfortunately it seems like you're comparing the ideal implementation of your system to a flawed implementation of democracy. I don't know if it's a fair comparison.

At any rate, thank you for responding seriously to my questions and thoughts. :D

No worries. Sorry if I come across as cynical or sarcastic or something, sometimes it's really hard to reign it in.

Yeah, I'm with global on this. A government system that can effectively make decisions is a good system. When these decisions are bad, that means the people in it are poor, not the system itself. Of course, the system can be better to ensure those who are in it are efficient, which is basically what this topic is about.

See that's the thing right? If democracy all had really smart people, who were all really well-educated and well-informed it would be fine.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I stated that if you pay taxes, you should have some say where your money goes. Ultimately it is your hard work that produced this money. You are a stakeholder in issue of taxes and how your money is spent. You deserve some say in it.

You also didn't address my point about conscription.

But one pays taxes because they are living here and being protected by the government. Whether it is right or wrong for the government to do that is something I've heard people discuss before because it seems like a form of "stealing" (I think that is some anarchists say or something, I don't know), but for the sake of discussion, I'm just assuming it is in place as it is. The remaining money is yours to spend as you wish, but the country is what allowed you to earn the cash in the first place, and for you to be able to use it at all.

As for conscription, I feel like to address that is entirely a different topic for me because personally I don't know how I feel about that, nor do I a whole lot about it beyond the main point of it.

How else do you plan on protecting these freedoms?

I mean, those who are trying to be elected are doing so in order to best protect those freedoms, that is perhaps the biggest point of it all, for it is designed to select and maintain the best suited in protection our freedoms.

It's not the idiots who are supposed to be the elected officials. They are supposed to be the ones electing competent officials who have proved their competency to the general public. If somebody is proven to be a shambling wreck in the public arena, I don't think even the idiots will elect him. I also stated that these idiots still contribute their tax dollars to the governments, so they are a stakeholder in how the governments spend their money.

I wouldn't put so much faith in our idiots. From what I've seen there are a lot of clowns trying to lead this country currently (and there are the clowns in the past) and that there are always backed by even greater clowns.

No. Just because something can be written down, doesn't mean it's objective. Art criticism can be documented. That is far from objective.

Note how I say in that paragraph that is isn't foolproof, and by that I mean not objective, and that these things are not currently avoided, nor could they ever be.

This is a subjective appraisal of a candidate. There is no way to ascribe scores to this kind of thing based on your resume that aren't based on someone's reaction. It's not like I can guarantee that because I've done Duke of Edinburgh Bronze I'm somehow more self-aware than those who haven't.

Again yes I understand, but it isn't unlike what we see in reality.

I actually don't know what you mean by that. Please explain.

I must have worded that awfully. >_< I simply mean that those who understand politics, governing, etc. will perform better in those fields, of course, over those who aren't as much. Can we objectively find out who is best? No, but we can still try, and we do now, but just not very well, or at least I'm led to believe.

So we've established that intelligence is not an okay metric for this? It's probably the only objective and maybe valid one we've got so far. Now you've got only subjective measures of capability (life experience and what not) and at best an invalid objective one; education.

I disagree, the ability to absorb knowledge is probably the least likely thing to make you better at governing than the next guy, it simply gives you the best opportunity to do so. Everything else, although not objective, is the closest thing we can get to knowing those are who are most suited.

The problem with this kind of debate is that if you're arguing without a clear model on your side, then it doesn't really work. I can't criticise it, you can't discuss the benefits of it without sounding presumptuous. It just breaks down. See if there was a group of really good, really smart, really experienced people that would run the country and we could guarantee them to be all of the above with a system that would be efficient, then you're system would have some advantages. But I don't know if there's a way of doing that.

And you're right, I deeply apologize about that. As I was responding to you the first time the thought came to mind, so the best I can offer to you is whether my theories are proper. The thing is, and this is going to sound much like the ideas I've discussed, it seems wrong of me to try and work out the practical details, because I don't think I'm at all qualified to do so. I don't understand much, as I've mentioned, let alone things of a political nature. I care about that stuff, I understand it matters, but it fails to interest me, and I just don't actively study it. Perhaps I might have to, or at least a little, but for now, I'm simply going to have to disappoint you, sorry. =/

Good on you. I dislike it when people whine about their current political situation and will not even commit to do something with the option that everyone is given.

The worst thing of all is to see people say things like, "Politics sucks!" or "I don't care about politics!" These are the people who live by the rules of it without being aware of it, or bemoaning the state of affairs in certain issues, or with candidates or the president. I need to avoid ignorant people and find more learned individuals, might instill a little bit more faith in democracy.

Yeah. Unfortunately it seems like you're comparing the ideal implementation of your system to a flawed implementation of democracy. I don't know if it's a fair comparison.

True, can't argue.

No worries. Sorry if I come across as cynical or sarcastic or something, sometimes it's really hard to reign it in.

Honestly, nah not really.

See that's the thing right? If democracy all had really smart people, who were all really well-educated and well-informed it would be fine.

Haha, it would indeed be easier and a lot more likely if we could just improve our society and educational system. XP Granted, would still like a slightly tweaked system of democracy, but any beneficial reforms I suppose would come naturally.

 

[global-wolf]

Efficiency is not just a matter of doing a job quickly. It also means actually doing the job. In this case, the Chinese government has tasked itself with ensuring food safety, and fails miserably at it. We're not just talking about one or two isolated incidents either; the level of incompetence far exceeds anything in the United States, despite the alleged benefits of one party rule.

If my definition of efficient government will help, then here it is: government that enacts sound policy quickly. I don't think any system of government is more likely to achieve that end than any other, because as Holder pointed out, the problem isn't the system, it's the people within it.

Alright, then we can modify my statement to say that China's government makes decisions efficiently. Is that better?

On the issue Bob and Holder are discussing, what if we had a general candidate knowledge test that a person had to pass before voting? It could be administered in different languages and in audio so it wouldn't discriminate between classes. An intelligence or education test won't work well for the reasons that Bob mentioned, and also because intelligent and well-educated doesn't mean well-knowledgeable in politics. I very recently asked someone who had graduated from the equivalent of Harvard in China who they would be voting for in the Presidential election, and they said "Romney, because he's Republican." Then someone else mentioned that Romney was a Mormon and that person said "What? He's Mormon? I can't vote for him then."

A general knowledge test about the candidates would allow us to to filter who gets to vote somewhat without being discriminating, because information on the candidate's platform isn't hard to come by. I think it would be an incentive for people to really learn about who they were voting for too.

 

[Claire Diviner]

On the issue Bob and Holder are discussing, what if we had a general candidate knowledge test that a person had to pass before voting? It could be administered in different languages and in audio so it wouldn't discriminate between classes. An intelligence or education test won't work well for the reasons that Bob mentioned, and also because intelligent and well-educated doesn't mean well-knowledgeable in politics.

A general knowledge test about the candidates would allow us to to filter who gets to vote somewhat without being discriminating, because information on the candidate's platform isn't hard to come by. I think it would be an incentive for people to really learn about who they were voting for too.

That's actually not a bad idea. Of course, one must ask how many voters will actually take the time and effort to learn and understand the people they want to vote for. I could be completely off, but I imagine the number of qualified voters in this case will be far fewer than if the voting system stays the way it is now. I guess it's a matter of preference; does one want the entire population to vote, even if it means blindly voting without knowing what the candidate wants to accomplish, or does one want to have far fewer votes, with voters knowing the background and campaign of their candidates?

 

[global-wolf]

The U.S. voter turnout rate is actually really low already, usually around 50%. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections

I think having a knowledge requirement would encourage voters who don't know about the candidate now to research who they're voting for. I don't think it would lower the voter turnout too much. The problem would be delivering the test in a timely manner though, it would have to be something quick and easy for many people to take.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I'm strongly against the use of any kind of test to determine voter eligibility, because that test can very easily be designed in a way to keep certain kinds of people from voting. The use of literacy tests in the past is an example of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test

 

[Holder of the Heel]

That is the point Jam, to prevent people who pretend to know what they are doing from trying to dictate who should lead all of us. It would not, however, cut anyone off beyond that, say, people of a certain opinion in a certain subject, for the point of the test is simply to illustrate a knowledge of the subject that you are voting in. Again, I must point out, that most people wouldn't want individuals voting on things that involve them if they didn't understand what was going on, so why in this instance is it any different? Even in the subject at hand, after all, we exercise that concept when we do not let those under 18 vote, for laws still apply to them (although turning 18 makes you legally an adult and thus laws change for you, but that goes, again to show how knowledge of laws and the world apply in the reasoning for voting privileges), but they are not presumed to have adequate knowledge to justify taking part in something that has an impact on everyone around them, including themselves. The root of voting privilege is grounded in the principle of sufficient knowledge and understanding, thus a succinct and general test of this would do nothing but aid in consistency.

 

[Jam Stunna]

It doesn't sound like global-wolf is looking to disenfranchise voters, but to make them more informed. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

I accept the 18 age limit, because that age is tied to legal recognition of many rights and privileges. Beyond that, I'm against any form of disenfranchisement for citizens, because every form of disenfrachisement has always limited the vote for the poor, women and racial minorities. Sure, a literacy test sounds good in theory, but it was used almost exclusively to keep blacks and poor whites from voting. A really fascinating book called The New Jim Crow discusses how mass incarceration has stripped many blacks of their civil rights, including political franchise at disportionate numbers.

Given the connection between knowledge, money, and race, why should we assume that this well-intentioned attempt at disenfranchisement would play out any differently?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I see what you mean, but what I fail to see is how it disproves of the principles I have laid out that we follow, or how women and blacks be treated unfairly by this process. Poor, perhaps in terms of internet and television inquiries, but a poor individual could still be well learned through the masses, and either way, if they are blind of the matter, they should not be speaking, as we all think people ignorant of something should not speak authoritatively on it; their right's wouldn't be removed because they are poor. In fact, I've been describing hitherto that we do not by nature possess this right.

Global does seek to educate them, through telling them that if they are not informed, they cannot vote, thus anyone who is truly interested in being heard, must educate themselves and reveal that they know what their voice is about. Of course, this doesn't solve all of our problems in terms of bias and such, after all, we may never fix this (my theories to cut as much as the fat off the meat as we can cannot do this perfectly either), but at least this would put us a step closer in the right direction than where we are at the present moment.

 

[Jam Stunna]

The highest rates of poverty occur among racial minorities and women. By acknowledging that the tests would negatively impact the poor, you acknowledge that the tests would negatively impact those groups, because they are the poor.

We can see how the argument over the franchise of the poor is playing out now. Republicans favor requiring photo IDs for voting, because they disenfranchise those who are least likely to obtain them, the poor. The poor tend to vote for Democrats. Likewise, Democrats favor same-day registration, because it makes it easier for the poor to vote, for them usually. Franchise always has a political angle to it.

The basic problem I have with your argument is that it seems to presume that more knowledgeable people are more likely to vote the "right" way, whatever that may be. In fact, as you say, your reforms would "put us a step closer to the right direction." However, voters don't vote their knowledge, they vote their interests, and I'm not convinced that increased knowledge alters voter's self interest. As such, a knowledge test won't encourage people to vote a certain way, but instead decrease the amount of people who can vote their interests.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Negatively impact the poor? I never acknowledged this, because it would not negatively impact the poor. Not only does it do nothing to them, but I feel that no one had the right to vote to begin with. I've only acknowledged that they'd be less likely to know about politics through means of internet and television. Through people, through paper, through other peoples' technology, they all have the potential to know. But this is not the point. If some poor people, some rich people, don't know what they are voting for, it defeats the purpose of the entire voting process. In fact, this creates an entire argument against the spirit of democracy, if everyone is for the most part voting for their own interests, than we simply acknowledge the greatest interest, and the lesser interest is denied. In other words, the general will is another word for the most-possessed interest.

This otherwise wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't for the fact that those who are voting are not prompted to properly illustrate that they know their interests are being satisfied. I've already conceded that the drop in bias from such a policy is minimal at best, but it in essence forces the general will to better capture the most-possessed interest; people desire things, but not always the best route to achieve these things, nor do they know all of the consequences of what they want, or what other things the candidates want. If we simply listed the basic knowledge of what we are voting in and for, this would help, but if what you say is true that we go for our self-interest anyhow, that means that there is no necessity to deliberate any listing of knowledge. People know who they are voting for when they go to vote (exceptions to this would be rare), and where you might find a small portion of voters altering their vote at the last moment because of the listed knowledge, but it is merely to conform to their self-interest. The rest will simply fulfill their interest they carried when they left to go vote.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

But one pays taxes because they are living here and being protected by the government. Whether it is right or wrong for the government to do that is something I've heard people discuss before because it seems like a form of "stealing" (I think that is some anarchists say or something, I don't know), but for the sake of discussion, I'm just assuming it is in place as it is. The remaining money is yours to spend as you wish, but the country is what allowed you to earn the cash in the first place, and for you to be able to use it at all.

I'm not saying that taxation is right or wrong. That is a completely different topic. What I am saying is that if someone is taking your money to benefit the community (including you), you ought to have some say in how it's spent. It is ultimately your money, you earned it and you deserve some control over it. The point is that you have an interest in how your money is spent, so you should be able to represent that interest with a vote.

As for conscription, I feel like to address that is entirely a different topic for me because personally I don't know how I feel about that, nor do I a whole lot about it beyond the main point of it.

But surely you deserve some say in the decision making process if the government wishes to implement it? I mean they are essentially sending you out to shoot and get shot at. You should be able to vote on that, and/or elect representatives that oppose that.

I mean, those who are trying to be elected are doing so in order to best protect those freedoms, that is perhaps the biggest point of it all, for it is designed to select and maintain the best suited in protection our freedoms.

So you are saying that these people will be selected based upon your views about your freedoms? What about Controversial topics like the right to bear arms? There's 2 sides to an issue like this.

What about the changing moral zeitgeist? Gays are allowed to marry in some place and there has been a general push in that direction, but how do you select candidates who will "maintain" freedoms that are new?

I wouldn't put so much faith in our idiots. From what I've seen there are a lot of clowns trying to lead this country currently (and there are the clowns in the past) and that there are always backed by even greater clowns.

By the end of George. W. Bush's reign, he was one of the least popular presidents in US history. I don't think all hope is lost.

Note how I say in that paragraph that is isn't foolproof, and by that I mean not objective, and that these things are not currently avoided, nor could they ever be.

But hang on, you said:

Life experience and community involvement can of course be objectively seen because they can be documented.

But to determine who runs our country, a measurement has to be objective. That's the only way it can be fairly compared between candidates so that there is no controversy regarding who selected who? If it's subjective, that leaves room for nepotism and cronyism.

Again yes I understand, but it isn't unlike what we see in reality.

Well, that is true on an individual level. As a society however, we do measure candidates in the current system with an objective measure that does reflect on one aspect of a good leader, popularity with his constituents.

I must have worded that awfully. >_< I simply mean that those who understand politics, governing, etc. will perform better in those fields, of course, over those who aren't as much. Can we objectively find out who is best? No, but we can still try, and we do now, but just not very well, or at least I'm led to believe.

I see. I'm not sure if this is something we can easily test for at all, it's a very nebulous concept.

I disagree, the ability to absorb knowledge is probably the least likely thing to make you better at governing than the next guy, it simply gives you the best opportunity to do so. Everything else, although not objective, is the closest thing we can get to knowing those are who are most suited.

So, the only objective measure of ability here is thrown out the window? That means all that we are left with is subjective.

And you're right, I deeply apologize about that. As I was responding to you the first time the thought came to mind, so the best I can offer to you is whether my theories are proper. The thing is, and this is going to sound much like the ideas I've discussed, it seems wrong of me to try and work out the practical details, because I don't think I'm at all qualified to do so. I don't understand much, as I've mentioned, let alone things of a political nature. I care about that stuff, I understand it matters, but it fails to interest me, and I just don't actively study it. Perhaps I might have to, or at least a little, but for now, I'm simply going to have to disappoint you, sorry. =/

Okay then. Maybe you can think about this a bit more and when you have a more complete model we can make another thread?

The worst thing of all is to see people say things like, "Politics sucks!" or "I don't care about politics!" These are the people who live by the rules of it without being aware of it, or bemoaning the state of affairs in certain issues, or with candidates or the president. I need to avoid ignorant people and find more learned individuals, might instill a little bit more faith in democracy.

And people who bag other people out based on their political beliefs without having even thought about it. I hate those guys.

Haha, it would indeed be easier and a lot more likely if we could just improve our society and educational system. XP Granted, would still like a slightly tweaked system of democracy, but any beneficial reforms I suppose would come naturally.

Yeah. I think we should also as a society not be so damned selfish. You've got billionaires who just want more cash, sometimes at the expense of everyone else. You've got companies willing to sell products that can cause all kinds of adverse health effects just to make themselves richer.

On the issue Bob and Holder are discussing, what if we had a general candidate knowledge test that a person had to pass before voting? It could be administered in different languages and in audio so it wouldn't discriminate between classes. An intelligence or education test won't work well for the reasons that Bob mentioned, and also because intelligent and well-educated doesn't mean well-knowledgeable in politics. I very recently asked someone who had graduated from the equivalent of Harvard in China who they would be voting for in the Presidential election, and they said "Romney, because he's Republican." Then someone else mentioned that Romney was a Mormon and that person said "What? He's Mormon? I can't vote for him then."

A general knowledge test about the candidates would allow us to to filter who gets to vote somewhat without being discriminating, because information on the candidate's platform isn't hard to come by. I think it would be an incentive for people to really learn about who they were voting for too.

So a political-awareness test?

Even those who aren't necessarily politically aware pay tax dollars. They should have a say in how that money is spent, as they are a stake-holder.

Perhaps instead the government can take steps such as political awareness classes, segments on the television detail the main parts of policy for the different candidates, segments in newspapers etc. I think that we shouldn't exclude people from the voting process simply because they fail a certain test. If we are going to test people on them and fail them, we should at least give them a very good chance to succeed first.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Thanks again Bob for replying. :D

I'm not saying that taxation is right or wrong. That is a completely different topic. What I am saying is that if someone is taking your money to benefit the community (including you), you ought to have some say in how it's spent. It is ultimately your money, you earned it and you deserve some control over it. The point is that you have an interest in how your money is spent, so you should be able to represent that interest with a vote.

Yes, but this all falls back onto what we have established before. The money, while yours, was given to you through the government, it could be said that it ends at "We get a portion of all money you make" and does not continue to say "and through this you can have a say on how we run" because it doesn't fit, trying to force it is simply self-imposed entitlement, which I referred to our mentality of us thinking it is a vital freedom. It is in the system of democracy, but the theory of democracy is flawed, particularly when we see what conclusion I was forced to meet with in my discussion with Stunna. Giving the right to vote to anyone who pays taxes can even be counter-intuitive to the most-possessed desire unless we ensure proper understanding through vote-testing. At this point, I can only think that dropping democracy altogether in the spirit of this enlightenment. Perhaps, however, if we have a large amount of educational reform, coupled with a political-awareness test, could be quite adequate in solving the problems I'm attempting to address, but to me at that point it would seem that any further application of the democratic system would be clinging onto it for the sake of clinging onto it; why not then leave it behind and isolate the nature of what we are using to decide our government? Because people feel entitled to speak their self-interests because they give back to the government for protecting them?

We live here under protection and given opportunities and freedoms, benefit, we pay taxes, reciprocation for said benefit, we then ask to vote for our self-interests, baseless entitlement. Gain, payment then desire for more gain. The theories we are critiquing don't even entirely strip said entitlement, no, it simply requires a base for it, and grants the opportunity, all the while staying purely consistent with everything and cutting off the most margin of error we possibly can as a result.

Of course, voting acquires a base if we are to assume it is the most superior method of governing, in which case, it wouldn't find its base from taxation. But this is what is contested in our discussion.

But surely you deserve some say in the decision making process if the government wishes to implement it? I mean they are essentially sending you out to shoot and get shot at. You should be able to vote on that, and/or elect representatives that oppose that.

Well, honestly, I'd try to avoid any issues with that by simply not having that system in place; arguments may or may not be able to be made that because we live here under the protection of the government, that we must fight for it if it deems necessary. Whether that is enough justification or not, I'm not entirely sure, but if we are to have it in place, that'd be the line of reasoning it'd have to take.

So you are saying that these people will be selected based upon your views about your freedoms? What about Controversial topics like the right to bear arms? There's 2 sides to an issue like this.

What about the changing moral zeitgeist? Gays are allowed to marry in some place and there has been a general push in that direction, but how do you select candidates who will "maintain" freedoms that are new?

But moral zeitgeist's, and the right to bear arm's controversies have their root cause in the fact that we scrutinize them under the lenses of the basic principles that our government has and always will have. In fact, that sums up the entirety of each argument for each side, they appeal to consistency with our aim for freedom and protection; any freedom's found baseless or any laws that do not protect, these are not my personal view, that is the way things are scrutinized, and is what I'm trying to harmonize with in the purest sense possible. The things under our scope may change with the times, but not the principles we use to measure and weigh them.

By the end of George. W. Bush's reign, he was one of the least popular presidents in US history. I don't think all hope is lost.

The thing is though, it took our country two reigns by their own will for them to realize that what he wanted was not what we wanted, hence my previous mention that the democratic voting system can be counter-intuitive.

But hang on, you said:



But to determine who runs our country, a measurement has to be objective. That's the only way it can be fairly compared between candidates so that there is no controversy regarding who selected who? If it's subjective, that leaves room for nepotism and cronyism.

So you say that when analyzing test results, we will pick the ones out of the basket based off of family ties and connections? But could we not solve this problem the same we do when we select jury members? As in, we make sure the decision process is absolutely impartial through eliminating anyone among the judges who possesses any potential for partiality to the test-takers? In fact, I'd perhaps not even go that far, for in the decision making process, wouldn't anyone who is trying to back a test-taker purely by ties be revealed to be partial in front of all the other judges, and thus wouldn't aid in their pursuits unless they can ground their support on something actual?

I would even take a further step back and say that, again, even in our system we have our degree of subjectivity, and like I've mentioned before, the absolute removal of it is impossible. The best we can do is try and use a system that cuts off as much as we can. Surely picking the most successful test takers is less subjective than taking the largest invested interest among a pile of self-interests, of which are directed towards people who gain popularity through connections and ties, in other words, nepotism and cronyism.

Well, that is true on an individual level. As a society however, we do measure candidates in the current system with an objective measure that does reflect on one aspect of a good leader, popularity with his constituents.

But in what way is this objective? It is objective in the same way I have said documentation of community involvement and experience is documented. People objectively can be documented to want this or that, but that isn't to say that the reasoning for why they want this or that is objective. At any rate, the community involvement and experience involvement segment is not the main focus, after all, that doesn't even involve the test itself.

I see. I'm not sure if this is something we can easily test for at all, it's a very nebulous concept.

Perhaps, it all might have to be quite elaborate, perhaps require multiple testings, forms of testing, I wouldn't speak on it because I don't know the best ways in which to measure these things as would people learned in the subjects measure them.

So, the only objective measure of ability here is thrown out the window? That means all that we are left with is subjective.

If we are to say that all of our methods are subjective and that is what we are left with, than I see no problem inherently with my model of government, considering it is more of a problem with reality. At the very least with this model we can try our best to cut as much of it out as we can. The talents to govern, and the things that human society needs are objective, the only way we can try and isolate that is by measuring knowledge, which is objective, because it can be tested. The appraisal of it in areas may or may not be subjective, but we'd be finding fault with an inherent flaw of reality, not with the system itself. After all, even a system that is 99% objective and 1% subjective, while has subjective elements, it can't be considered to fail because it has it, all systems are going to have some sort of percentage of it.

Okay then. Maybe you can think about this a bit more and when you have a more complete model we can make another thread?

Perhaps, this post has been very frustrating to write, especially the above part. Suspicions invade my mind as I'm trying to wade through the fog and find the best way to look at all of this. I myself get fits of dissatisfaction that distract me, what a difficult subject for me. I think, "Must we consider the general will as our basis for objectivity, the largest self-interest? If so, do they reliably act in favor of their own desires? If not, does this truly matter, as in, this is simply the least worst way of government?" vs "Must we consider knowledge of governing the only basis for objectivity? If so, can we reliably capture that essence? If not, does this truly matter, as in, this is simply the least worst way of government?" I do think the latter is correct, because it avoids the party-mentality, the presidential aspect that seems poor to me, and cuts the margin of human error greatly, but my certainty certainly wanes at times.

 

[global-wolf]

The highest rates of poverty occur among racial minorities and women. By acknowledging that the tests would negatively impact the poor, you acknowledge that the tests would negatively impact those groups, because they are the poor.

We can see how the argument over the franchise of the poor is playing out now. Republicans favor requiring photo IDs for voting, because they disenfranchise those who are least likely to obtain them, the poor. The poor tend to vote for Democrats. Likewise, Democrats favor same-day registration, because it makes it easier for the poor to vote, for them usually. Franchise always has a political angle to it.

The basic problem I have with your argument is that it seems to presume that more knowledgeable people are more likely to vote the "right" way, whatever that may be. In fact, as you say, your reforms would "put us a step closer to the right direction." However, voters don't vote their knowledge, they vote their interests, and I'm not convinced that increased knowledge alters voter's self interest. As such, a knowledge test won't encourage people to vote a certain way, but instead decrease the amount of people who can vote their interests.

I found an official report on the November 8 election, specific demographic statistics can be found on page 4. http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20-562.pdf

It shows very clear trends on the effect of education and income on voter turnout. The poorer and less educated a person is, the less likely they are to vote already, without any sort of test. It doesn't really take much time for a person to get information on a candidate's views, a quick search on the internet will get results and if one doesn't have internet, a friend probably will. If a test like this was put into place it would be an incentive to distribute actual information about their policies too, instead of the inane commercials they have now.

I find from personal experience that the more a person knows about politics, the more they care about it, and the more they talk about it. That could inspire another person to look into politics too. I used to be an "ugh politics" person myself before I learned more about it.

So a political-awareness test?

Even those who aren't necessarily politically aware pay tax dollars. They should have a say in how that money is spent, as they are a stake-holder.

Perhaps instead the government can take steps such as political awareness classes, segments on the television detail the main parts of policy for the different candidates, segments in newspapers etc. I think that we shouldn't exclude people from the voting process simply because they fail a certain test. If we are going to test people on them and fail them, we should at least give them a very good chance to succeed first.

The problem is, how will you get people in these classes? Above I linked a report that includes data on voter demographics and the least educated are the ones least likely to vote. Most states require high school seniors to take government and politics classes but there are so many people that drop out before they go through the classes and yet more that just float through the class, barely pass, and forget everything. You could have an out-of-school class you must take before you can vote, but that would take up a lot of time. People simply don't have time or will to go to classes; the problem is even worse in low-income demographics because many work long hours or may not have the transportation to get to the class. A class also has the danger of having a biased teacher.

It takes minimum effort to get oneself acquainted with the basics of a candidate's platform, I think, and a person who only does that is already well on his way to making a well-informed decision.

 

[Jam Stunna]

The point of this test would be to determine the voter's knowledge of the candidates, right? Well, the point of most election campaigns is to purposefully distort the opposition. How would the test control for that?

 

[global-wolf]

Campaigns aren't allowed to tell outright lies about the opposition. If a test like this would put into place I think a candidate would try to focus more on their own party's stances in advertising, and the opposing candidate would put out information of his own.

 

[Battlecow]

Any sort of political knowledge/intelligence test is going to be biased towards those with the time and inclination to study politics/study in general, and ironically enough, that would benefit exactly the people you guys are trying to get rid of here, because ignorant urban people outnumber ignorant country people.

 

[global-wolf]

Wait, what exactly are you talking about? The premise of this idea was to help ensure that the voting population is decently knowledgeable. In other words, it's to get rid of people who vote and yet don't know what they're voting for. Dunno where your urban/country thing came from.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Thanks again Bob for replying. :D

No worries mate.

Yes, but this all falls back onto what we have established before. The money, while yours, was given to you through the government, it could be said that it ends at "We get a portion of all money you make" and does not continue to say "and through this you can have a say on how we run" because it doesn't fit, trying to force it is simply self-imposed entitlement, which I referred to our mentality of us thinking it is a vital freedom. It is in the system of democracy, but the theory of democracy is flawed, particularly when we see what conclusion I was forced to meet with in my discussion with Stunna. Giving the right to vote to anyone who pays taxes can even be counter-intuitive to the most-possessed desire unless we ensure proper understanding through vote-testing. At this point, I can only think that dropping democracy altogether in the spirit of this enlightenment. Perhaps, however, if we have a large amount of educational reform, coupled with a political-awareness test, could be quite adequate in solving the problems I'm attempting to address, but to me at that point it would seem that any further application of the democratic system would be clinging onto it for the sake of clinging onto it; why not then leave it behind and isolate the nature of what we are using to decide our government? Because people feel entitled to speak their self-interests because they give back to the government for protecting them?

Let's examine this more closely then. As a taxpayer you contribute your money to a pool of money to which the government spends. In a good system this money is raised by the government for use on the people, ie. you and me and every other taxpayer. The money ultimately comes from us, to be spent on us, so the whole system is about us. And if the whole system revolves around us, trying to give us the best possible quality of life, justice, etc. it makes sense to think that we should at least be able to give the system some feedback on whether it's working, what we think quality of life means, what we think justice for us means etc.

If you're not clear on this, lets use an analogy. Let's say Fred is offering to build you and a few of your friends a house for a certain amount of money. Fred wants the house to keep you guys warm, safe and happy. If Fred wants to spend his money best on keeping you happy with his house, he should at least consult you in his choice of features for the house. Maybe Fred is a builder and knows what he's doing. But he doesn't know what you want. He knows what might keep you safe, but he doesn't know how much money you want to spend on safety. Ultimately, it's your (collectively) money, so it's you and your friends' choice. And that's the way I believe it should be.

I think the analogous situation under your model, would be that Fred chooses for you. Or that one of the smartest of your friends does so for you. Now that's not okay, because they get to spend your money however they want. Yeah, sure they're smarter than you. Maybe they're very good at this kind of thing. But if the house is for you, and your money is being spent on building it, then you should at least have some say in what's going on.

We live here under protection and given opportunities and freedoms, benefit, we pay taxes, reciprocation for said benefit, we then ask to vote for our self-interests, baseless entitlement. Gain, payment then desire for more gain. The theories we are critiquing don't even entirely strip said entitlement, no, it simply requires a base for it, and grants the opportunity, all the while staying purely consistent with everything and cutting off the most margin of error we possibly can as a result.

These things are done for our self-interest. We tell the government how to best spend our money on ourselves, because who knows better what we want and what we need other than ourselves?

Well, honestly, I'd try to avoid any issues with that by simply not having that system in place; arguments may or may not be able to be made that because we live here under the protection of the government, that we must fight for it if it deems necessary. Whether that is enough justification or not, I'm not entirely sure, but if we are to have it in place, that'd be the line of reasoning it'd have to take.

If a bunch of guys decide that they have to give you a gun and shoot brown people for some reason that you may or may not understand or agree with, and these guys haven't even considered your opinion, and are totally unaccountable to you, would you be okay with that?

But moral zeitgeist's, and the right to bear arm's controversies have their root cause in the fact that we scrutinize them under the lenses of the basic principles that our government has and always will have. In fact, that sums up the entirety of each argument for each side, they appeal to consistency with our aim for freedom and protection; any freedom's found baseless or any laws that do not protect, these are not my personal view, that is the way things are scrutinized, and is what I'm trying to harmonize with in the purest sense possible. The things under our scope may change with the times, but not the principles we use to measure and weigh them.

I don't entirely understand what you mean there. I'm saying that values change in society. How would your system account for that?

The thing is though, it took our country two reigns by their own will for them to realize that what he wanted was not what we wanted, hence my previous mention that the democratic voting system can be counter-intuitive.

But I would like to point out that he was not popular for all of his terms. In short, the public only lack the gift of foresight, which is perfectly understandable. It makes sense when you think about it, how are we to know that he was going to be arguably the worst President in History before he did it?

So you say that when analyzing test results, we will pick the ones out of the basket based off of family ties and connections? But could we not solve this problem the same we do when we select jury members? As in, we make sure the decision process is absolutely impartial through eliminating anyone among the judges who possesses any potential for partiality to the test-takers? In fact, I'd perhaps not even go that far, for in the decision making process, wouldn't anyone who is trying to back a test-taker purely by ties be revealed to be partial in front of all the other judges, and thus wouldn't aid in their pursuits unless they can ground their support on something actual?

How the hell is this going to work? I mean, there are only a few qualified judges right? Because, my goodness it's a difficult job to do. And with all the potential candidates in the ring how are we meant to ensure that none of the judges know none of the candidates? See with a jury, you're drawing on the entire public, here you're only drawing on a few people to choose from. And you seem to be assuming that nothing is going to go wrong here at all, that there will be no corruption whatsoever. At least with democracy, we can vote-out a corrupt government, but with this kind of system, the corruption will presumably be pretty entrenched.

I would even take a further step back and say that, again, even in our system we have our degree of subjectivity, and like I've mentioned before, the absolute removal of it is impossible. The best we can do is try and use a system that cuts off as much as we can. Surely picking the most successful test takers is less subjective than taking the largest invested interest among a pile of self-interests, of which are directed towards people who gain popularity through connections and ties, in other words, nepotism and cronyism.

Aside from pork-barrelling the public, it is very difficult to develop these connections.

Additionally, it is a more objective system because it is quantitative and there is no way to misinterpret the data once a system for interpreting it has been set in place.

But in what way is this objective? It is objective in the same way I have said documentation of community involvement and experience is documented. People objectively can be documented to want this or that, but that isn't to say that the reasoning for why they want this or that is objective. At any rate, the community involvement and experience involvement segment is not the main focus, after all, that doesn't even involve the test itself.

How is it not objective? Popularity with the community is not something that can be interpreted subjectively. If more people would be willing to vote for one candidate than another, than he is objectively more popular. If you design the system properly then how can this be open to interpretation?

Perhaps, it all might have to be quite elaborate, perhaps require multiple testings, forms of testing, I wouldn't speak on it because I don't know the best ways in which to measure these things as would people learned in the subjects measure them.

I don't believe you can measure something like practical ability and quantify it easily.

If we are to say that all of our methods are subjective and that is what we are left with, than I see no problem inherently with my model of government, considering it is more of a problem with reality. At the very least with this model we can try our best to cut as much of it out as we can. The talents to govern, and the things that human society needs are objective, the only way we can try and isolate that is by measuring knowledge, which is objective, because it can be tested. The appraisal of it in areas may or may not be subjective, but we'd be finding fault with an inherent flaw of reality, not with the system itself. After all, even a system that is 99% objective and 1% subjective, while has subjective elements, it can't be considered to fail because it has it, all systems are going to have some sort of percentage of it.

I don't think you can just say that it's a problem with reality. I can do the same for say why the masses sometimes makes bad decisions.

Perhaps, this post has been very frustrating to write, especially the above part. Suspicions invade my mind as I'm trying to wade through the fog and find the best way to look at all of this. I myself get fits of dissatisfaction that distract me, what a difficult subject for me. I think, "Must we consider the general will as our basis for objectivity, the largest self-interest? If so, do they reliably act in favor of their own desires? If not, does this truly matter, as in, this is simply the least worst way of government?" vs "Must we consider knowledge of governing the only basis for objectivity? If so, can we reliably capture that essence? If not, does this truly matter, as in, this is simply the least worst way of government?" I do think the latter is correct, because it avoids the party-mentality, the presidential aspect that seems poor to me, and cuts the margin of human error greatly, but my certainty certainly wanes at times.

Yeah. I'm getting annoyed at debating this topic too. It's really difficult. I don't think it's a clear topic.