NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been out at a bar all night, and one of the many topics of conversation that came up was who we're going to vote for in the (English) General Election. Out of the three other people there at the time, one knows bugger all about politics and clings to the narrowminded fascist BNP view that "there's too many blackies" (altho he's not totally serious; he thinks its 'cool' to know nothing about politics and the BNP are pretty much the total opposite of out current labour government, hense they attract his random pro-opposition tendency which is also 'cool'), the other says he won't bother voting because he ses no point and couldnt care less, and the third said he'd vote for the tories but purely, i believe, to try and wind me up; he doesn't care who's in power at all and will vote randomly.
All this led me to thinking about the inherent problems in the democratic process - morons who neither know nor care about politics have the saem power as the highly intelligent well-read politicians who vote based on an informed knowledge of politics rather than a random choice influenced by whoever the tabloids happen to be backing this year.
The obvious solution (and bizzarely, when i logged onto NS to post these thought i got an Issue very similar to this :eek:) is to have some sort of standardised test; people can only vote if they're abel to demonstrate a reasoned understanding of the seperate party's policies and how they will affect everyday life.
Now, admittedly, i'm not whole-heartedly advocating such a move. The suggestion when it came to me automatically struck bells deep within my pro-socialist, equalitarian (is that a word? :p) brain, and i guess i'm more playing devils advocate than seriously making the proposal. However, the more i think about it the more i'm intrigued by the idea, and i'd love to hear the opinions of other people on the board - both for and against the suggestion. While inherently unfair to the less-intelligent from a purely democratic point of view, the sugestion that rulings and decisions should be left to the more intelligent does seem to appeal somewhat to common sense. Was not Plato a big advocate of the oligarcy (perhaps not exactly the same, but definately a system whereby a group of intelligent people hold political power over the masses)?

I've been out at a bar all night, and one of the many topics of conversation that came up was who we're going to vote for in the (English) General Election.
thatll be the British General Election then?

The proposal of limiting sufferage to an educated and interested elite could have some value in a first world country where there is a genuine opportunity for everybody, or at least all those that so desired, to enter this elite.
Now try transferring this idea to India. More than 1 billion people to evaluate to start with. Just exisating is no longer sufficient to be granted a vote. You hae to be assessed. Even if you get round or through this administrative nightmare, without bankrupting the country, you will be disenfranchising people due to circunstances beyond their control. Not everyone in India has the opportunity to receive an education.

The next question, and the critical one for the developped nations is who decides? What shall be the criteria that you have to meet to be able to vote? IQ testing is way too controversial to be accepted by anyone. Perhaps you only let college (university) graduates vote. But this would favour the wealthier families that can afford better private education. What about immigrants? What will their status be?

One could take the thinking a step further though. If the franchise is to be limited in this way, then why have a representative democarcy? Why not just have all the qualified electorate vote directly on the issues at hand. Go for an educationally delimited directly democratic oligarchy.

I think you can get a blue pill that helps that type of thing now.

I've been out at a bar all night, and one of the many topics of conversation that came up was who we're going to vote for in the (English) General Election. Out of the three other people there at the time, one knows bugger all about politics and clings to the narrowminded fascist BNP view that "there's too many blackies" (altho he's not totally serious; he thinks its 'cool' to know nothing about politics and the BNP are pretty much the total opposite of out current labour government, hense they attract his random pro-opposition tendency which is also 'cool'), the other says he won't bother voting because he ses no point and couldnt care less, and the third said he'd vote for the tories but purely, i believe, to try and wind me up; he doesn't care who's in power at all and will vote randomly.
All this led me to thinking about the inherent problems in the democratic process - morons who neither know nor care about politics have the saem power as the highly intelligent well-read politicians who vote based on an informed knowledge of politics rather than a random choice influenced by whoever the tabloids happen to be backing this year.
The obvious solution (and bizzarely, when i logged onto NS to post these thought i got an Issue very similar to this :eek:) is to have some sort of standardised test; people can only vote if they're abel to demonstrate a reasoned understanding of the seperate party's policies and how they will affect everyday life.
Now, admittedly, i'm not whole-heartedly advocating such a move. The suggestion when it came to me automatically struck bells deep within my pro-socialist, equalitarian (is that a word? :p) brain, and i guess i'm more playing devils advocate than seriously making the proposal. However, the more i think about it the more i'm intrigued by the idea, and i'd love to hear the opinions of other people on the board - both for and against the suggestion. While inherently unfair to the less-intelligent from a purely democratic point of view, the sugestion that rulings and decisions should be left to the more intelligent does seem to appeal somewhat to common sense. Was not Plato a big advocate of the oligarcy (perhaps not exactly the same, but definately a system whereby a group of intelligent people hold political power over the masses)?
the word you're looking for, i guess, is egalitarian, but i hear what you're saying.
firstly, this idea goes waaaay back to Plato (and probably beyond): the problem of 'mob rule' in democracy. a person can be smart, but people are generally stupid, fickle, and divided. they may vote one thing one day, out of emotion or lack of understanding, and go back on it the next. this was especially a problem in the polis of ancient Athens, where they had a direct democracy (well, sorta...)

and its still a problem today. its inherent in democracy. who do you really want to be making the decisions? somebody who is informed about the issue(s). are the public informed? not at all.
this is one of the reasons i'm so disappointed with the media in this country (and most of the world i'm sure) - TV is full of programs like "Pop Idol" and "Big Brother" when it could be used far more effectively. but of course that borders on censorship and we don't really want that imo.
more than the media, our culture is to blame - as you pointed out people simply don't care about politics (or many important things). if the majority of people took a real interest in these issues, the media would respond. hence why the media goes crazy about the election, because suddenly people who usually don't care have an opinion.

this whole thing was really brought to my attention when one of my friends, who i normally regard as quite intelligent, said that he was going to vote UKIP. when i asked why, he said he didn't really know and that he guessed he based his opinion on how our local are has "gone downhill recently". he wasn't taking into account that our particular location is not indicative of the whole country - the UK economy is strong and stable; while our local economy may indeed be going through a slump this is not a good way to think. plus he didn't take into account the past - the boom & bust economics of the 1980s was hugely damaging, with massive inflation and unemployment - now we have economic stability but because he doesn't care and/or is uninformed, he will be voting UKIP. shame.

sorry for the rant , but this is something that has been... annoying me for some time now also. nice one for bringing it up :)
hope i made some sense... i'm pretty tired :D

I think you can get a blue pill that helps that type of thing now.
Hee. I misread it the exact same way.

thatll be the British General Election then?

Sorry, i meant that :/

A little too tired to read through other posts properly atm, but i will tomorrow :)

As I just so happen to know all the solutions to all the problems, I will gladly volunteer my services are Patriarch, Master, Autocrat and Hegemon of Humanity :D

As I just so happen to know all the solutions to all the problems, I will gladly volunteer my services are Patriarch, Master, Autocrat and Hegemon of Humanity :D

Sorry, Cheney already has that position.