[Kerrigan]

Democracy, properly speaking, is a system of voting in which citizens have the supreme power to elect their representatives.

In a democracy, groups of citizens, through their voting actions, can exert control over other groups. Group A, for instance, can elect more representatives, and pursue a legislative path that Group B does not want. Alliances can also be formed to this effect.

In a country like the US, the vast majority of residents are citizens. In elections with wide turnouts, the majority of voters are only going to have an average capacity to reason. Still more, you have people whose capacity to reason is below average.

Is it right that people of average and below average competence can vote? In voting as groups, they have the ability to exercise control over more competent citizens.

Is this right? In something as important as a presidential election, should incompetent people, or people with merely average competence be allowed to vote?

On the basis of this uncertainty, do you think that the presidential election process would benefit by disenfranchising those voters who cannot make reasonable judgements about candidates?

[BadKosh]

OK, So what about a Representative Democracy?


I still like the idea of a test. You have to PASS the test and show an understanding of US Civics. (not the car) 18 and older. CITIZEN, and can prove it. No felons either.

[BRussell]

How would you implement this competency test? An IQ test? I'm not at all sure that intelligence is what's needed to evaluate politicians for office.

How about this: We look at your past voting history. If you voted for shitty politicians in the past, you lose your right to vote. We could use objective measures, like the economy, world stability, etc. If the guy you voted for has bad statistics, you lose the right to vote.

Or to make it democratic, we can use public opinion to evaluate past politicians: If you voted for a politician who now has a sub-50% approval rating, you lose the right to vote.

[Dork.]

Stupid people don't deserve to have politicians pretend to listen to them while taking money from lobbyists? A President is President of all people, no matter what their IQ. Just because there might be a cause that only stupid people embrace (like, maybe, the state of John Edwards' hair) doesn't mean it's not valid!

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Just because there might be a cause that only stupid people embrace (like, maybe, the state of John Edwards' hair) doesn't mean it's not valid!

The sad thing is, that stuff is the focus of the allegedly "sophisticated" political analysis. All the news, the pundits, the sunday shows, and the other sources that "knowledgeable" people pay attention to wallow in crap like Edwards' haircut and similar minutiae.

Click on this and chuckle, then cry a bit because of its truth.

[MacosNerd]

So who are you to decide who's competent to vote. Sounds like some sort of elitist attitude that some people are note qualified to vote by some pre-conceived test - that's not democracy,

Abraham Lincoln said it nicely in the Gettysburg Address

and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

When you start excluding people based on a certain metric, you lose the whole concept of democracy. What's next people who have a different color, or gender?

[Zeeb]

Just by posting this question, the OP implies that a test should be required because there are people out there he/she believes have voted for the "wrong" candidate. The only reason a person could possibly vote for a candidate other than the one he supports is because they are stupid. That is exactly what the test would be used for--to keep people from voting for the "wrong" candidate.

It's a shame that many ill informed people end up voting for candidates that end up hurting them but a test would be almost certainly be misused. It would completely undermine representative government.

If a better candidate didn't win an election its because they failed in some way to get their message out and understood--or they made the mistake of ignoring all those stupid people.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

Just by posting this question, the OP implies that a test should be required because there are people out there he/she believes have voted for the "wrong" candidate. The only reason a person could possibly vote for a candidate other than the one he supports is because they are stupid. That is exactly what the test would be used for--to keep people from voting for the "wrong" candidate..

I was thinking the same thing but could not put it down as well as you did.

Gee they're voting for the "wrong" candidate so that means they're stupid and should not have the right to vote.

So what if a person is not educated or truly ignorant, as an American, its not only a right but a duty to vote. Beside, I've known plenty of highly educated people who are considered smart say the dumbest things and are totally clueless when comes to real life. Just because you have a high IQ doesn't mean you're wise.

[BadKosh]

The idiots, senile, retarded, and criminals shouldn't get the right to vote.
Illegals, or those just here on a visa, NON-Citizens, shouldn't have the vote.
Those who can't pass a simple government/civics/history quiz should be excluded.
It would tend to remove those who are clueless anyway.
Stupid and clueless are bad traits for voters.

[TETENAL]

Francis Galton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In 1906 Galton visited a livestock fair and stumbled upon an intriguing contest. An ox was on display, and the villagers were invited to guess the animal's weight after it was slaughtered and dressed. Nearly 800 gave it a go and, not surprisingly, not one hit the exact mark: 1,198 pounds. Astonishingly, however, the average of those 800 guesses came close - very close indeed. It was 1,197 pounds."

An individual does not have to be competent for this to work. All it needs is a group as heterogeneous as possible. Democracy relies on this effect. So making the group more homogeneous, by some competence test or something, actually harms democracy.

[Sven G]

And what about politicians and corrupted business people, the worst of all maybe?

No, no, no: direct democracy would be much better!

But that would require some kind of (free) cultural evolution, of course - not exactly today's (rather non-existent from a political point of view) society...

[nonhuman]

Also, what was described in the OP is not democracy, nor is the US a democratic nation...

[TETENAL]

Yes, they are.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Yes, they are.

I'll assume you're replying to me...

Democracy, properly speaking, is a system of voting in which citizens have the supreme power to elect their representatives.

That is simply untrue. What is described here, which is essentially the system that the US uses, is a republic not a democracy. In a true democracy there is no government other than the people, everyone gets a vote and that vote directly determines law; in our system, a republic or representative democracy, everyone gets a vote and that vote determines which select few with then go on to determine law.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

a republic not a democracy.

[…]

a republic or representative democracy

I reply once you made up your mind.

[RAILhead]

If you have a Voter ID card that can be verified in a US Citizen Database, then I say you can vote. Otherwise, please step into the other line to begin application your Voter ID Card -- and come prepared in the next election.

[Shaddim]

M1: "I think the Eloi are doing a great job of running things."

M2: "Shut up, bitch, and keep shoveling."

M1: "Ok, ok. But I'm startin' to get hungry, wanna go up and grab some dinner?"

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

I reply once you made up your mind.

What? Seriously?

There are democracies. There are republics. Republics are also known as representative democracies, a name which explicitly distinguishes them from democracies because they aren't the same thing, but are related.

It's like the way there are bikes and there are motorcycles, and motorcycles are sometimes called motorbikes: they're still different things even though they're related.

[TETENAL]

There is no dichotomy democracy <-> representative democracy that you are making up. A representative democracy is one of several possible types of democracy.

[nonhuman]

From a technical sense that's true. However in a discussion such as this it's important to understand the differences and make it clear which you're talking about. A direct democracy is very very different from a representative democracy, and, in the interest of concision and clarity, the two terms are most usefully shortened to democracy and republic.

From a philosophical point of view there is also a lot to be said for the argument that a representative democracy is not actually a democracy. They are not the same systems, they do not embody the same values, and they are functionally very different.

[Shaddim]

direct democracy = mob rule

Such a system would probably be ok for a small city, but would be disastrous on a larger scale.

Athenian democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peeb]

The term democracy just means 'rule by the people'. From this perspective communist revolutionary governments have called themselves democratic because the revolution was orchestrated by the people. There are as many ways of putting meaningful power into the hands of the people as there are nations, some work well for a while, others don't.
As Marx and Jefferson pointed out, the only way to keep power in the hands of the people is constant revolution.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

A direct democracy is very very different from a representative democracy, and, in the interest of concision and clarity, the two terms are most usefully shortened to democracy and republic.

No they are not. Republic and representative democracy are not equivalents at all! There are representative democracies who aren't republics and there are republics who aren't representative democracies. Republic and (representative) democracy are orthogonal concepts!

And democracy and direct democracy aren't synonyms either for obvious reason.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

However in a discussion such as this it's important to understand the differences and make it clear which you're talking about.

The original poster made absolutely clear what he is talking about since he opened his post with a definition.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Those who can't pass a simple government/civics/history quiz should be excluded.

Ooooh. Then we can start a No Voter Left Behind program, and get people who know nothing about civics to pass the test.

[peeb]

It seems that BadKosh does not know much about the illustrious history of using testing to exclude people from voting.... Of course everyone should be aloud to vote - once you begin to exclude anyone, that will be exploited for political reasons.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

No they are not. Republic and representative democracy are not equivalents at all! There are representative democracies who aren't republics and there are republics who aren't representative democracies. Republic and (representative) democracy are orthogonal concepts!

And democracy and direct democracy aren't synonyms either for obvious reason.

In popular usage, they often are... Which is exactly my point.

The original poster made absolutely clear what he is talking about since he opened his post with a definition.

Actually, no. He tried to claim that 'Democracy, properly speaking, is a system of voting in which citizens have the supreme power to elect their representatives'. Even you have to admit that this is simply not true. That's only one particular form that democracy can take, while the use of 'properly speaking' seems to say that it is the only possible acceptable way in which democracy can exist.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

On the basis of this uncertainty, do you think that the presidential election process would benefit by disenfranchising those voters who cannot make reasonable judgements about candidates?

i think the question then becomes where do you draw that line and who makes the call?

for example, i might think that neighbor a is a wise and trustworthy voter but neighbor b is a clueless fool ready to vote for any old liar (there's some truth to this comparison in my neighborhood, btw).

[nonhuman]

The issue of restricting the vote is a classic example of why people shouldn't be so quick to try and legislate their ideology. The minute you make it possible to deny certain people the vote, you also make it possible for the 'other side' to deny you the vote.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The issue of restricting the vote is a classic example of why people shouldn't be so quick to try and legislate their ideology. The minute you make it possible to deny certain people the vote, you also make it possible for the 'other side' to deny you the vote.

well said. not to mention accurate.

[Chongo]

SSRN-How Dramatically Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government? by John R. Lott

The views in the above paper do not reflect those of the poster

[Chongo]

The voting age was lowered to 18 from 21 because that is the age males are eligible for the draft. Then the drinking age is boosted to 21from 18/19 because 18/19 year olds are not mature enough to drink? Either raise the draft/voting age to 21 or lower the drinking age to 18

[peeb]

It is amazing that the 18 year olds who can vote don't organize to lower the drinking age - they could swing any election.

[Buckaroo]

Not Insane
Not in prison or parole
18 Years or older
Speak English
US Citizen

[peeb]

All of those criteria are bogus and lead to abuse. Some more than others, of course.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

Just by posting this question, the OP implies that a test should be required because there are people out there he/she believes have voted for the "wrong" candidate.

Actually, that is just your take on it, as there are multiple indications of "competence". For instance, competence could be understood as it was in earlier centuries and delineated by class or property ownership.

Anyways, I am not actually advocating that the electorate be restricted, as I cannot think of any time when a country has done this with good results. Nevertheless, it is worth investigating the effect on our political system of an electorate who cares more about meaningless factors like weight, makeup (in the case of Nixon), wrinkles (in the case of Kerry), etc, which are broadcast to passive couch potatos via TV news.

Perhaps the internet will create an environment where people care more about the substance of politicians than the soundbites which they get from television. Perhaps, thanks to the internet, literate, savy citizens will act as a filter, separating the good ones from the junk, as we often do when reviewing products on the net (the average person spends 15 hours on the net researching TVs before they buy).

However, since the advent of the net, we have elected and reelected a rather incompetent president. And somehow Huckabee, arguably the worst potential nomination to gain widespread support in a mainstream party, is getting uncritical support nationwide. So perhaps the net is having no effect on the quality of candidates in the US.

[Shaddim]

Well, if the country were a corporation the people with most shares would have the most votes. If that were the case, would that mean the people with the most land or those with the most money? I suppose the wealthiest 5% own more property than anyone else.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Well, if the country were a corporation the people with most shares would have the most votes. If that were the case, would that mean the people with the most land or those with the most money? I suppose the wealthiest 5% own more property than anyone else.

Or possibly you would get a number of votes proportional to the size of your family, so that the larger the portion of the population you represent the more say you have.

[Kerrigan]

Just to make things clear, I think one vote per person is the best system for western nations. But I don't take it as gospel; I don't see modern democracy as culminating in some utopia where universal enfranchisement has led to universal happiness and prosperity. I think that there are potential pitfalls, whereby the quality of governance declines in accordance with a decline in the quality of the electorate. If the quality of the electorate declines, then what happens?

[Shaddim]

civilization declines, crashes, and then starts over. We'd end up with the Dark Ages v.2.0

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Or possibly you would get a number of votes proportional to the size of your family, so that the larger the portion of the population you represent the more say you have.

Damn, if that happened we'd all better learn Spanish.

[peeb]

Sounds good!

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Damn, if that happened we'd all better learn Spanish.

I dunno, the mormons might give them a run for their money. The Irish too.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

If you have a Voter ID card that can be verified in a US Citizen Database, then I say you can vote. Otherwise, please step into the other line to begin application your Voter ID Card -- and come prepared in the next election.

I'm with Maury.

[peeb]

Nonsense - that's a license for abuse. A 'citizen's database'? Yeah, that's exactly what the founding fathers had in mind.

[Sherman Homan]

The Founding Fathers did have the census in mind. In fact, the first census of 1790 enumerated the names, family members and addresses of every family in what was the United States of America.

[peeb]

No, it didn't - and here's why it was not a good idea - for a start, it did not include native americans. Any kind of 'database' like that is an invitation to abuse. Once you start to define who can vote, you get into the same kind of problems that earlier americans did - white men who hold property can vote etc.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by peeb 

No, it didn't - and here's why it was not a good idea - for a start, it did not include native americans. Any kind of 'database' like that is an invitation to abuse. Once you start to define who can vote, you get into the same kind of problems that earlier americans did - white men who hold property can vote etc.

given the times, and the many faults found with electronic voting machines, i think we need to re-examine our voting policies and practices. it's in the best interest of democracy and election integrity.

[peeb]

I agree - what did you have in mind?

[art_director]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I agree - what did you have in mind?

here in mn we have a system that has a paper trail to accompany the electronic vote. by law a certain percentage of votes must be hand-counted. the paper tallies are then checked against the computer tally. if all looks legit then the vote stands. if a certain (low) percentage is off there's a hand recount of the paper ballots.

i do not suggest it's perfect but it does offer some checks in the system. perhaps a modification of such a system would be in order.

[peeb]

You know, the UK has an absolutely outstanding system. When you go into the booth, you get a pencil, and you mark an X next to the name of the candidate you want. There are deliberately spoiled ballots, but no ambiguous ones. Voting machines of all types must die.