Dangerous Idea: Democracy is Overrated

[R. U. Sirius]

This is something I've been pondering for a while now, and I wanted to toss it out there for discussion.

Seeing the kind of idiocy that passes for government here in the U.S., I've recently come to the conclusion that democracy is overrated. My reasoning is that in a democracy, everyone is given an equal vote on any given issue, no matter how much or little they actually know or understand about it. Hence why we have conservative, overwhelmingly male legislatures trying to block access to abortion, birth control and sex education, just as one example.  Since those who truly understand an issue will almost always be outnumbered by those who don't, and since people are easy to manipulate by scare tactics, appeals to emotion and appeals to religious beliefs, you end up with skewed voting pools, progress vastly slower than it should be, and an inflated sense of how the U.S. compares to other countries in the world.

The problem is that the concept and system of democracy are premised on the assumption that people will think and act rationally, which history shows us time and again is not the case. Most people are driven far more by emotions than logic and rationality. I would even hesitate to count myself among the rational minority, because I know I can get pretty worked up about certain issues. That's why we see so many laws that work better as theater than as actual effective government. That's why we still have a justice system that focuses almost entirely on getting revenge rather than on actually correcting the root of the problem.

How to fix this?

I have no idea. There has to be a happy medium between limiting voting only to the wealthy and educated and the carte blanche we have in practice, but I have no idea what it would be or how to reform the system to get there.

[whitewater]

Hi, new to this forum.
I must say, having read your post, that these arguments against universal sufferage are not new. They are as old as the concept of democracy itself.
I don't think that the concept of democracy was ever premised on the assumption of rationality.
One fix, I think, would be to eliminate the "party" system, somehow, and evolve the system into a more direct form of governance, like the early Greeks, or the latter day Occupiers tried.
Public meetings, discussion and choice by lot of legislators to serve single, fixed terms, like we do with juries.
It could work, but would require an adjustment in our concept of politics, to say the least.

[Cataclysm]

Well, we could make people take a test to see if they should be able to vote, similar to how immigrants need to take a test to become a citizen. It would be like a drivers license and they'd have to take it again every few years to see how much they retained as well as kept up with current events.

One fix, I think, would be to eliminate the "party" system, somehow, and evolve the system into a more direct form of governance, like the early Greeks, or the latter day Occupiers tried.

Not possible with a country with 313 million people.

[JohnE]

Well, we could make people take a test to see if they should be able to vote, similar to how immigrants need to take a test to become a citizen. It would be like a drivers license and they'd have to take it again every few years to see how much they retained as well as kept up with current events.

Systems like that are easily exploited by those in power to disenfranchise their political opponents and/or underprivileged groups.

[Auri-El]

I like the idea of having to take a test in order to vote, in theory. In practice, it would result in the same kind of discrimination that we see now. One "fix" I'd like to see, is to have the playing field leveled, financially speaking, for all candidates. A candidate's lack of funds should not disadvantage him or her.

[SimSim]

Well, we could make people take a test to see if they should be able to vote, similar to how immigrants need to take a test to become a citizen. It would be like a drivers license and they'd have to take it again every few years to see how much they retained as well as kept up with current events.

Systems like that are easily exploited by those in power to disenfranchise their political opponents and/or underprivileged groups.

Jim Crow and literacy tests jump to mind.

[RavynousHunter]

I like the idea of having to take a test in order to vote, in theory. In practice, it would result in the same kind of discrimination that we see now. One "fix" I'd like to see, is to have the playing field leveled, financially speaking, for all candidates. A candidate's lack of funds should not disadvantage him or her.

I like this idea, along with removing a corporation's ability to essentially buy any politician they want, as it gives them unfair leverage.  If you're a citizen, you can vote.  Aside from serious mental handicaps like Down's Syndrome or currently under incarceration for a violent crime, anyone that's of age should be able to vote.  Also, it'd be wonderful if we could make an online voting system that'd be secure and allow only Americans to vote on 'em.  Alas, that could likely be seriously exploited.

[niam2023]

My solution is easy; just let ME be the dictator. What's the worst that could happen?

[Alehksunos]

I'd say the best solution is to transform the nation to an Athenian Democracy (as in, democracy in ancient Athens), but the overwhelming population proves this process very difficult. But then again we have 50 states and 50 lone leaders with fewer millions in their rule, so if there is another thing like what we had over here in the Texas state, there should be something like that, but only the people can make a difference and there is no one but Rick Perry (just an example of a lone leader, no senators, no legislators) having to grudgingly overturn a proposal he agrees with because an overwhelming number of people said no, while if he violates that promise he gets hell from the highest court of the United States.

Oh yes, corporations, organizations, even Super PACs are forbidden to fund politicians and tests to forbid people with serious mental disabilities and a criminal record of at least one felony, and none of that literacy and Jim Crow bullshit.

Of course, I also fear so much of my idea on paper will end in failure, because human beings are egotistical bastards.

[Flying Mint Bunny!]

Although I think some people probably are too stupid to vote, I don't really agree with the idea of restricting it.

Personally I think the best thing would be to stop political parties from advertising, so that people are no longer influenced by emotional bullshit. Just send a booklet to every household, giving people people impartial information about key issues and the involved parties policies.

That way people will be forced to really think about who to vote for and the thick ones might not even bother.

[dpareja]

Although I think some people probably are too stupid to vote, I don't really agree with the idea of restricting it.

Personally I think the best thing would be to stop political parties from advertising, so that people are no longer influenced by emotional bullshit. Just send a booklet to every household, giving people people impartial information about key issues and the involved parties policies.

That way people will be forced to really think about who to vote for and the thick ones might not even bother.

No, you'd still get people voting for one party or the other because they've always done so, or because their parents did, or whatever.

[Lt. Fred]

Although I think some people probably are too stupid to vote, I don't really agree with the idea of restricting it.

Personally I think the best thing would be to stop political parties from advertising, so that people are no longer influenced by emotional bullshit. Just send a booklet to every household, giving people people impartial information about key issues and the involved parties policies.

That way people will be forced to really think about who to vote for and the thick ones might not even bother.

No, you'd still get people voting for one party or the other because they've always done so, or because their parents did, or whatever.

Or because they agree broadly with the party.

[JohnE]

Well, we could make people take a test to see if they should be able to vote, similar to how immigrants need to take a test to become a citizen. It would be like a drivers license and they'd have to take it again every few years to see how much they retained as well as kept up with current events.

Systems like that are easily exploited by those in power to disenfranchise their political opponents and/or underprivileged groups.

Jim Crow and literacy tests jump to mind.

Exactly.

[Art Vandelay]

One fix, I think, would be to eliminate the "party" system, somehow, and evolve the system into a more direct form of governance, like the early Greeks, or the latter day Occupiers tried.

Not possible with a country with 313 million people.

I doubt we could go all the way to direct governance, but with current tech, it would be quite feasible to move a lot closer to it. For instance, eliminate the idea of electorates/voting districts altogether and only consider the total number of votes. At the very least, it would mean gerrymandering is no longer a thing.

[Flying Mint Bunny!]

Although I think some people probably are too stupid to vote, I don't really agree with the idea of restricting it.

Personally I think the best thing would be to stop political parties from advertising, so that people are no longer influenced by emotional bullshit. Just send a booklet to every household, giving people people impartial information about key issues and the involved parties policies.

That way people will be forced to really think about who to vote for and the thick ones might not even bother.

No, you'd still get people voting for one party or the other because they've always done so, or because their parents did, or whatever.

Or because they agree broadly with the party.

True, but at least we wouldn't have to watch loads of insincere crap around election time.