Dangerous Idea: Democracy is Overrated

[nickiknack]

Going to be honest, are you guys fucking serious about the whole test to vote shit?? This scares me, really. I really hope you're kidding, because it reeks of this "I'm better than others" attitude.

Government positions should require aptitude tests to make sure that the person applying for the position actually understands their job and is capable of doing the job. After they pass the test can you then perhaps have people in the field vote to get the final candidate. Far too often people who have no idea about anything are given government positions and other times people unrelated to an issue and without any real understanding of an issue vote. Limiting options to ensure relevancy is a good thing.

The problem is that a lot of those in congress do know what their job is, they just want to destroy it. It's been the the GOP's mo for some decades now.

[Witchyjoshy]

Going to be honest, are you guys fucking serious about the whole test to vote shit?? This scares me, really. I really hope you're kidding, because it reeks of this "I'm better than others" attitude.

I'm not seriously considering it, but then I hope that America, especially liberals who claim to be for civil rights, knows exactly why it's a bad thing.

All I wanted to do was entertain a thought experiment.

[RavynousHunter]

Echoing Zack, I thought it was more of a thought experiment than anything seriously being considered.  A passing curiosity, if ya will.

[Sylvana]

So if I'm so sceptical about the ability of educated people to determine good candidates, why do I think uneducated people will do better? I don't. I do, however, think that democracy has the very useful feature that you don't need a popular revolt to change who is in power, which creates a stronger incentive against the government fucking the people over too badly. This useful feature of democracies, though, fails if there is some particular class of people who are under-represented in the voting pool, because policy will default into decisions that harm them and benefit the rest.

Democracy also has the useful property of letting people think they have some control over the future of the country. Removing this (in large part illusionary) feeling from a segment of the population is bound to piss them off, cause social friction, etc.

You raise a number of good points. When people feel they have control over their futures and destinies they feel happier and social cohesion. Unfortunately democracy as it stands now in basically all democratic countries is a complete lie. The people are fooled into complacency with their votes because they believe that they have the power to change things, but the reality is their vote is essentially meaningless. Democratic systems right now focus on only one thing, preserving and straightening the system to elect the elites. Everything from money in politics to gerrymandering to the spoiler effect to the filibuster all exist as tools to keep the current groups in power, in power. These problems all have relatively easy solutions, but they are solutions that can never be achieved because the problem directly benefits the people who use the problem to get into power.

Lastly, I am strongly in favor of international intervention with regards to elections. A committee of different foreign nations should become the independent electoral commission, handling voter registration and vote counting. It is far too easy for current local governments and organizations to influence voting patterns and rules.

That mostly shifts the problem to foreign nations influencing elections, which means they can end up favouring candidates based on foreign policy rather than what's good for the actual citizens of the country.

The trick with using international election officials is that it generates a degree of forced neutrality. Having only a single country act as the election officials solves nothing but when multiple nations with conflicting agendas are used they keep each other in check. Game theory means that each side will take whatever options possible to not loose. This means they will do everything to prevent the other factions from winning even if it means they don't get their most favorable scenario.

It is similar to how the different parties in America are supposed to work together to keep everything fair, the problem is that both parties are basically the same party and that regardless of who wins the same elites stay in actual power. Hence they have no reason to actually bother with keeping things fair because they both benefit from the unfairness. With an international control, the international group never actually ends up in power, regardless of election outcome they are not influenced or really capable of influencing the situation. Also regardless of who wins, they are incapable of influencing the next election process.

Short version is that I strongly do not trust democracy.

Neither do I. But I trust most alternatives significantly less.

As you mentioned the skills needed to become a leader are completely different from the skills needed to actually lead. Which is where the popularity contest that is democracy is ultimately a failure. It is an ultimately corrupt system that feeds on its own corruption. Other forms of government have honestly been more stable historically speaking. They are just as open to corruption, but instead of the democratic system that breeds corruption other systems corruption is primarily based on the individual in power.

You are right that educated people are just as gullible as the low information voters during elections and hence a civics test would probably have minimal effect on actual voting patterns while disenfranchising people. Although part of the problem behind one man one vote is that low information voters believe their opinion is just as valid as professionals. One man one vote actually makes everyone's opinion just as valid as everyone else, regardless of how wrong it may be. What we need is to give weight of opinion to people who actually have a correct understanding of the issue. Like how a panel of men right now get to decide on women's reproductive right, or how businessmen and lawyers get to decide on medical regulations. I would really rather trust those decisions to professionals in those fields. Even if it is a vote amongst those professionals at least they can make informed decisions in their voting.

Echoing Zack, I thought it was more of a thought experiment than anything seriously being considered.  A passing curiosity, if ya will.

As I dont have the answers really this is more of a debate in the hopes of finding an answer. We can only learn when we begin to discuss and challenge each others ideas. Even the instinctively unfavorable ones.

[PosthumanHeresy]

Going to be honest, are you guys fucking serious about the whole test to vote shit?? This scares me, really. I really hope you're kidding, because it reeks of this "I'm better than others" attitude.

Government positions should require aptitude tests to make sure that the person applying for the position actually understands their job and is capable of doing the job. After they pass the test can you then perhaps have people in the field vote to get the final candidate. Far too often people who have no idea about anything are given government positions and other times people unrelated to an issue and without any real understanding of an issue vote. Limiting options to ensure relevancy is a good thing.

The problem is that a lot of those in congress do know what their job is, they just want to destroy it. It's been the the GOP's mo for some decades now.

Honestly, I think it should at least be considered. I've never bought into the idea that all humans are completely equal. I think it's fair to say that some are smarter than others, and some are wiser than others, and I think everyone agrees at some level. I think everyone on here would have the same answer if they had to choose one person to control their life: Bill Gates or a random piece of white trash. And that's my major point: the white trash of the nation outnumbers the Bill Gates, so the white trash is what runs our lives. I'm not a big fan of how things are done in general, because it's either back-asswards or gives all the power to the uneducated majority, which isn't a wise plan. The truth is, a lot of things should not be left up to the people. One good example is gay rights. All human beings should be equal, and that should not be decided by a vote. If it has to be decided by a vote, it should at least be decided by a vote of people who can read better than small children and know that the Soviet Union does not exist. An "I'm better than others" attitude isn't always bad, because in many cases, we are.

The thing is, we've always been taught that all people are equal, and most of the posters have grown up being taught that nobody can lose at anything, and that all should be rewarded, even if they did badly. We need to get to the point were we understand not all are equal, not for the color of their skin or who they want to pleasure them and love, or their sex, or their gender, but because some of them are idiots, and some are not. We make fun of the idiots, and are regularly horrified by the suffering they cause to millions of people, but whenever someone suggests doing something, we become shocked. It's the same problem the Democratic party has. It's the "Countdown to Final Crisis" argument. "Should we do something? We should do something! Should we do something? We should do something! Should we do something? We should do something! Should we do something? We should do something!"

We never get anything done, because while the Republicans are trying to prevent all of us from voting, we refuse to play dirty. There's a term for the person in a fight that refuses to play dirty while their opponent does: the loser. And so, we keep losing, because we have too much faith in our fellow man, mindlessly worship the idea of having the moral high ground, and because in general, we're too optimistic. The Democratic party has proven one trope oh so very true: Good is Dumb. For all the intellectuals we have, we never get anything done, because we may be intelligent, but we are not smart. We need to oust the white trash government, in any way possible, rather than losing because we won't fight dirty. The only way to do that is to realise that not all are equal, but not because of any natural trait (besides for being born mentally retarded, but as far as I know, they don't normally vote anyways, and even then, I'm not talking about them, but the willfully stupid), but because some people shun intelligence, and those people should not control what used to be a pretty damn good nation. Our government repeatedly is with the shittiest of nations in the UN, against the rest of the first world, because the people in charge of our nation are basically third world religious dictators with far more power. Until the white trash is sent packing, expect shit to get worse.

[Alehksunos]

Going to be honest, are you guys fucking serious about the whole test to vote shit?? This scares me, really. I really hope you're kidding, because it reeks of this "I'm better than others" attitude.

This is because back here in Texas (one of the states that shamelessly accepted the revisions done when a portion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was struck down) Rick Perry and Greg Abbot only wants Republicans to win, and let me tell you this: The Southern Model Republican is a special breed of evil, these people are so self-righteous and headstrong, they take themselves too seriously and are intolerant to any criticism regardless of legitimacy, and most especially, they're hostile towards others. These people are different from other Republicans, whom there are some who had already considered the Southern Model.

No one pray for my home state, it's a lost cause. The Wendy Davis campaign is so underfunded and Greg Abbot's has a shit load of money, and I've lost all fractions of hope left in this state, regardless of the growing Hispanic and African communities of Texas (all whom are alienated by the Texas GOP). Here in not just Texas, but the rest of the South too, we're all a lost cause.

[/sad]

[Witchyjoshy]

I don't fear the stupid Republicans.

I fear the smart Republicans who will make sure that the tests cater to the stupid Republicans while making sure that the stupid and smart Democrats have a harder time voting.

[PosthumanHeresy]

I don't fear the stupid Republicans.

I fear the smart Republicans who will make sure that the tests cater to the stupid Republicans while making sure that the stupid and smart Democrats have a harder time voting.

I fear both, specifically because the stupid ones decide what the smart ones do, so the smart ones are basically the stupid ones, but with more manipulative skills.

[Witchyjoshy]

Nah, the smart ones encourage the stupid ones to be stupid, because fear is a good way to get elected.

[PosthumanHeresy]

Nah, the smart ones encourage the stupid ones to be stupid, because fear is a good way to get elected.

True, but the smart ones then play into the fear, so they are in effect acting like the stupid ones.

[Jack Mann]

Voting tests for voting make about as much sense as enforced eugenics programs.

They sound good at first, especially if you fancy yourself an intellectual, but in practice they're terrible, terrible ideas.

[RavynousHunter]

Ya see, PHH, the thing about such tests is that while they look good on paper, in practice, they'll be abused to hell and back by the wrong people.  The wrong people are already abusing a system that's riddled with more holes than a block of Swiss cheese, your idea, when put into practice, would just add that many more holes for the worms to crawl thru.  You view all our opponents as idiots; the reason they've had such success until recently is because many of them are not.  Being able to manipulate people requires intelligence, you have to know how people work before you can make them do what you want.  The ones at the very top know how to keep those below them stupid, misinformed, and generally apathetic.  Inventing bogeymen for them to fear helps quite a bit, as well.

What we need is to not keep the stupid from voting, but to turn those stupid voters into more well-informed ones and get the ones that are already intelligent and well-informed to the voting booths in larger numbers.  That's a lot easier, and doesn't evoke images of "holier than thou" (except replace "holier" with "smarter") bullshit AND doesn't trample on one of our most basic freedoms: the right to have a say in hour our nation operates.  Like it or not, its the idiots' nation, too, and they have as much of a right to have their voices heard as we do.

We need better education, not to get so caught up in some moronic superiority complex that we end up creating 2nd class citizens out of otherwise normal, well-meaning people.  We are not better than they are.  We might be smarter, but that doesn't mean we're superior beings, and that its our place to tell them what their place should be.  Because that's basically what you're doing.  You're telling misinformed, ill-educated people to shut the fuck up and know their place.  People tried that before, and those people got brutally killed by violent uprisings.  Suppressing people only pisses them off, and will ALWAYS bite you in the ass in the long run.

[Sigmaleph]

You raise a number of good points. When people feel they have control over their futures and destinies they feel happier and social cohesion. Unfortunately democracy as it stands now in basically all democratic countries is a complete lie. The people are fooled into complacency with their votes because they believe that they have the power to change things, but the reality is their vote is essentially meaningless. Democratic systems right now focus on only one thing, preserving and straightening the system to elect the elites. Everything from money in politics to gerrymandering to the spoiler effect to the filibuster all exist as tools to keep the current groups in power, in power. These problems all have relatively easy solutions, but they are solutions that can never be achieved because the problem directly benefits the people who use the problem to get into power.

I would argue it's only a partial lie. Of course actual democracies fail the standards of the idealised version we teach kids in primary school, but they do at least some of their job. Democratic forms of government have historically been significantly better about protecting the rights of their citizens than any alternative.

One might raise the alternate hypothesis that democracies only do better because they became popular around a time where people have more resources to spare on respecting basic human rights, i.e. it's not that democracies cause respect for human rights, but (relatively) wealthy, industrialised nations tend towards both democracy and human rights.

That mostly shifts the problem to foreign nations influencing elections, which means they can end up favouring candidates based on foreign policy rather than what's good for the actual citizens of the country.

The trick with using international election officials is that it generates a degree of forced neutrality. Having only a single country act as the election officials solves nothing but when multiple nations with conflicting agendas are used they keep each other in check. Game theory means that each side will take whatever options possible to not loose. This means they will do everything to prevent the other factions from winning even if it means they don't get their most favorable scenario.

It also means you're optimizing under "what causes the most foreign countries to lose less", rather than "what is best for the country undergoing elections". This might not be a bad thing, actually*, but it seems nearly impossible to implement universally (That is, all countries enter this arrangement, as opposed to a single country having its elections controlled by others. What country would voluntarily give up their right to control their own elections? And what country would push for others to surrender their control, if it means they have to do it as well?).


*Depends heavily on the circumstances, but I'm not sure it would be worse, overall, than local control.


@PHH: You'll notice that, in everything I have posted so far against voting tests, not once do I invoke the notion that all people are equally smart or wise. The argument runs along different tracks.

[PosthumanHeresy]

Ya see, PHH, the thing about such tests is that while they look good on paper, in practice, they'll be abused to hell and back by the wrong people.  The wrong people are already abusing a system that's riddled with more holes than a block of Swiss cheese, your idea, when put into practice, would just add that many more holes for the worms to crawl thru.  You view all our opponents as idiots; the reason they've had such success until recently is because many of them are not.  Being able to manipulate people requires intelligence, you have to know how people work before you can make them do what you want.  The ones at the very top know how to keep those below them stupid, misinformed, and generally apathetic.  Inventing bogeymen for them to fear helps quite a bit, as well.

What we need is to not keep the stupid from voting, but to turn those stupid voters into more well-informed ones and get the ones that are already intelligent and well-informed to the voting booths in larger numbers.  That's a lot easier, and doesn't evoke images of "holier than thou" (except replace "holier" with "smarter") bullshit AND doesn't trample on one of our most basic freedoms: the right to have a say in hour our nation operates.  Like it or not, its the idiots' nation, too, and they have as much of a right to have their voices heard as we do.

We need better education, not to get so caught up in some moronic superiority complex that we end up creating 2nd class citizens out of otherwise normal, well-meaning people.  We are not better than they are.  We might be smarter, but that doesn't mean we're superior beings, and that its our place to tell them what their place should be.  Because that's basically what you're doing.  You're telling misinformed, ill-educated people to shut the fuck up and know their place.  People tried that before, and those people got brutally killed by violent uprisings.  Suppressing people only pisses them off, and will ALWAYS bite you in the ass in the long run.

I don't think it is actually easier to educate voters. Education, unlike religion, is not a forceful dogma. It's easier to get people to ignore knowledge than faith, because we have no threat to use. We have nothing to argue with besides for facts. Unfortunately, facts are not as powerful as fear. So, when both sides are telling you how it is, and one is threatening that if you don't listen to them, you'll suffer for eternity, people are more likely to go to that side, because it might be right in their minds. De-brainwashing and educating the fundies is also similarly impossible, due to how latched on to their faith they are.

[R. U. Sirius]

Here's my dumb idea: Raise both the voting age and the age at which people become eligible for political office. While I understand the arguments that originally led to the voting age being lowered from 21 to 18, I honestly don't think enough people in that age range have the knowledge or life experience to make good policy decisions, and I'm including myself in that assessment.

I think that, in theory, it would be a semi-decent idea to raise the age for both voting and political office to 45 or so; it's true that people in that age range tend to be more conservative than those younger, so progress may be slowed, but on the other hand, it would also entail convincing fewer people of the rightness of one's cause. After all, even if you're too young to vote, you can still participate in protests and strikes.

The only thing that troubles me about this idea is that, at least for the nonce, people 45 and up tend to be significantly more religious than others. While I don't think religion is an inherently bad thing in itself, in the political arena it tends to lead to wanting to make laws and policies based on your religious beliefs, regardless of the beliefs of others, and we've all seen how that song and dance goes.