Democratic Process

[Sasun]

Is the democratic process flawed? Yes, many would agree, the democratic process is not perfect.

 

What could be done to improve it? First of all, it would be very helpful if all agreed to treat the principles of democracy as areas that are subject to constant experimentation and improvement, rather than fixed dogma that is to be fiercely protected.

 

Millions of average Joes in this country and around the world have the privilege to vote but they do not care to do so. Yet there are intelligent people who care about the future of their country dearly, but unfortunately they have only one vote.

 

Hence, there seems to be a need to rethink the one person-one vote principle which is one of the most fundamental principles in the idea of democracy that we know today.

 

It is a plain fact of life that some people are short, and others are tall, some people are fat, and others are skinny. Some people are talented, and others are talentless, some people are smart, and others are not so smart. When it comes to smarts, stupid people are not allowed to be in charge of positions where intelligence is required. No one will argue with that, and no one will cite a democratic need to place an inept person for an important position. It is like requiring a tall person to wear short pants for sake of equality. That would not make sense.

 

Then why is it that people who don't care to vote have the same voting rights that people who care? And what about people who are simply not educated and informed enough to make an intelligent choice when electing representatives or presidents? Would anyone argue that an intelligent person will make a better choice than a not intelligent person?

Why is it that people have the right to choose a president who conducts international politics and wars, yet the same people do not know the world map, not to speak about the politics that goes on in the world.

 

To keep it short, here are some suggestions. I won't say that I am wholeheartedly for these suggestions. I am suggesting them as a starting point for a discussion.

• Citizens who care about the country more should have more say in its governance

• Many people should be disenfranchised because they do not have a meaningful participation in the democratic process. People who repeatedly don't go to vote should be stripped of voting rights so they are not included in the general headcount.

• Kids do not have voting rights for a good reason. People who lack basic intelligence are essentially as good for elections as kids, therefore they should be disenfranchised

• The intellectual, business, cultural and scientific elite of the country should have a lot more say than a single vote. Perhaps ten votes or so for each such person

• War heros and citizens who have volunteered putting their life at risk for their country should have at least ten votes.

This is it for now.

[Sip]

Excellent post. I think at the very least there should be a basic reading comprehension test and a very basic logical reasoning test to check the people who are voting are not complete morons. Something basic from a highschool or SAT test will do. Also, in the US, I think they should eliminate the political affiliations next to the names of people. And most definitley, they should get rid of the "blanket" votes like "all democrat" or "all republican". If you don't know the people, leave the fricking ballot blank

[Shahan Araradian]

Is the democratic process flawed? Yes, many would agree, the democratic process is not perfect.

 

What could be done to improve it? First of all, it would be very helpful if all agreed to treat the principles of democracy as areas that are subject to constant experimentation and improvement, rather than fixed dogma that is to be fiercely protected.

 

Millions of average Joes in this country and around the world have the privilege to vote but they do not care to do so. Yet there are intelligent people who care about the future of their country dearly, but unfortunately they have only one vote.

 

Hence, there seems to be a need to rethink the one person-one vote principle which is one of the most fundamental principles in the idea of democracy that we know today.

 

It is a plain fact of life that some people are short, and others are tall, some people are fat, and others are skinny. Some people are talented, and others are talentless, some people are smart, and others are not so smart. When it comes to smarts, stupid people are not allowed to be in charge of positions where intelligence is required. No one will argue with that, and no one will cite a democratic need to place an inept person for an important position. It is like requiring a tall person to wear short pants for sake of equality. That would not make sense.

 

Then why is it that people who don't care to vote have the same voting rights that people who care? And what about people who are simply not educated and informed enough to make an intelligent choice when electing representatives or presidents? Would anyone argue that an intelligent person will make a better choice than a not intelligent person?

Most people make their decisions based on advertisements (paid or unpaid) that they see on television. Only people who are massively connected and have power can afford air time or know someone who knows Larry King. You think that a billionaire cares how the average Joe in the U.S. lives?

 

Most people end up making their choice based on rational ignorance created by campaign advertisements.

 

Why is it that people have the right to choose a president who conducts international politics and wars, yet the same people do not know the world map, not to speak about the politics that goes on in the world.

The president would have gone to war regardless, because of the presence of LOBBIES. (In fact, it would have been worse if Joe Lieberman -- a Zionist -- was elected VP of the U.S.) Indeed, it's NOT Americans' votes that control U.S. foreign policy, and not even domestic policy!!!

 

To keep it short, here are some suggestions. I won't say that I am wholeheartedly for these suggestions. I am suggesting them as a starting point for a discussion.

• Citizens who care about the country more should have more say in its governance

How can you possibly determine if someone "cares"?

 

• Many people should be disenfranchised because they do not have a meaningful participation in the democratic process. People who repeatedly don't go to vote should be stripped of voting rights so they are not included in the general headcount.

Is that considered a democracy anymore if you're stripping citizens of their right to vote???

 

• Kids do not have voting rights for a good reason. People who lack basic intelligence are essentially as good for elections as kids, therefore they should be disenfranchised

Therefore, EDUCATE instead of "disenfranchising" them. Your same argument has led to 100s of thousands of prisoners in California jails, instead of addressing the REAL problems of society. (Jail them when they're "bad"; disenfranchise them when they're "dumb".)

 

• The intellectual, business, cultural and scientific elite of the country should have a lot more say than a single vote. Perhaps ten votes or so for each such person

The "elite" already have enormous power via LOBBIES. They simply bribe their way into getting what they want. If anything, the AVERAGE Joe needs to be given more voting power to offset the lobbying power of the "elite".

 

• War heros and citizens who have volunteered putting their life at risk for their country should have at least ten votes.

The median salary of a U.S. soldier is $14,000 -- that's how much soldiers are valued in the U.S. Before we give them more votes, they at least deserve more pay.

 

--------------------

 

In my opinion, it's not by giving the "elite" more voting power (which they ALREADY possess by being able to control the government via Lobbies) but rather by educating "the masses." As is, "the masses" today are anyway "controlled" by the elite via the corporate media that the elite control.

 

I think for a more sustainable country and society, we should promote greater quality public education and quality public television and radio broadcasting.

[Yervant1]

Even though what you suggest makes sense but implementing it, that is another matter. I'm all for compulsory voting if you don't like the candidates then void your vote as protest.

Giving ten votes for certain people will open the door for bribery as Shahan suggested and the common folk will be more marginelised and neglegted. Giving simple literacy tests to decide is not a solution we all know people who made it and became so successful with no or very little education.

Life is not fair and it can't be fair otherwise society will stop functioning as we know of.

[Zartonk]

Overthrow it.

[Anonymouse]

Is the democratic process flawed? Yes, many would agree, the democratic process is not perfect.

 

What could be done to improve it? First of all, it would be very helpful if all agreed to treat the principles of democracy as areas that are subject to constant experimentation and improvement, rather than fixed dogma that is to be fiercely protected.

 

Millions of average Joes in this country and around the world have the privilege to vote but they do not care to do so. Yet there are intelligent people who care about the future of their country dearly, but unfortunately they have only one vote.

 

Hence, there seems to be a need to rethink the one person-one vote principle which is one of the most fundamental principles in the idea of democracy that we know today.

 

It is a plain fact of life that some people are short, and others are tall, some people are fat, and others are skinny. Some people are talented, and others are talentless, some people are smart, and others are not so smart. When it comes to smarts, stupid people are not allowed to be in charge of positions where intelligence is required. No one will argue with that, and no one will cite a democratic need to place an inept person for an important position. It is like requiring a tall person to wear short pants for sake of equality. That would not make sense.

 

Then why is it that people who don't care to vote have the same voting rights that people who care? And what about people who are simply not educated and informed enough to make an intelligent choice when electing representatives or presidents? Would anyone argue that an intelligent person will make a better choice than a not intelligent person?

Why is it that people have the right to choose a president who conducts international politics and wars, yet the same people do not know the world map, not to speak about the politics that goes on in the world.

 

To keep it short, here are some suggestions. I won't say that I am wholeheartedly for these suggestions. I am suggesting them as a starting point for a discussion.

• Citizens who care about the country more should have more say in its governance

• Many people should be disenfranchised because they do not have a meaningful participation in the democratic process. People who repeatedly don't go to vote should be stripped of voting rights so they are not included in the general headcount.

• Kids do not have voting rights for a good reason. People who lack basic intelligence are essentially as good for elections as kids, therefore they should be disenfranchised

• The intellectual, business, cultural and scientific elite of the country should have a lot more say than a single vote. Perhaps ten votes or so for each such person

• War heros and citizens who have volunteered putting their life at risk for their country should have at least ten votes.

This is it for now.

 

I think the problem that I have with this proposition is it's implicit assumption of democracy is a good thing. My question is, why should it be improved at all? In other words, it is by default accepted that there is a democracy and the question is how to improve it. No where are we allowed to question and be critical of the underlying assumption itself, namely, whether democracy is a good thing. As Alexis de Tocqueville posited in his classic Democracy in America, a democracy can be just as tyrannical as a dictatorship once the voters decide to vote themselves money from the treasury. Democracy is a method of deciding who shall rule. It does not determine the morality of the resulting government.

 

For example, the history of the United States is a perfect example of a transition from a representative republic, i.e. Federalism, to a democracy. It's also interesting to note that the none of the Framers of the Constitution had any positive views of democracy and in fact, none of the early documents of this country has anything at all mentioning the word 'democracy' as they recognized the danger it posed.

Edited July 8, 2007 by Anonymouse

[Anonymouse]

Even though what you suggest makes sense but implementing it, that is another matter. I'm all for compulsory voting if you don't like the candidates then void your vote as protest.

 

Why? Who are you or anyone else to decide what others should or should not do? Do people not have the right to abstain from voting? Not much of a democracy when you have to force people into the voting booths, is it?