One of the biggest problems with democracy the way its run today is who gets to vote?
I think that having a say on any matter should be something to earn. How can anybody vote without first understanding what is it that is debated. Shouldn’t at least the voter prove that he has at least a level of understanding that would allow him to?
I am not saying only doctors should vote on health care for example, i am saying that whoever wishes to have a say in the matter should prove that he knows enough of the current policies, the options around, the different opinions with their reasoning and then be allowed to vote.
Can you imagine a courthouse where each jury member is allowed to come as it may, ask for brief summaries about the court case at random from somebody in the courtroom and then give his vote based on that? How is this different from the way politics are run today?
Sadly well informed citizens have equal influence to the clueless and politicians ride on that.
Plato said:
Philosophers [must] become kings…or those now called kings [must]…genuinely and adequately philosophize
But it takes a philosopher to vote for a philosopher king so this is my quote:
philosophers [must] become VOTERS…or those now called VOTERS [must]…genuinely and adequately philosophize
Sadok Kohen
In truth, without deceit, certain and most veritable
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. “Knowing the policies” stone cold enough to make an informed decision is impossible for most people, and even those elites with a better idea of the policies than most don’t necessarily make an informed, reasoned choice. It’s neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to casting a successful vote.
The problem is your definition of “well informed.” How informed does a citizen need to be to know that they their taxes have been raised, that their roads haven’t been paved since the last election cycle, that their children’s school is falling apart, that they’re overall worse off than during the previous administration? Moreover, there are institutions to take the place of the super-political-genius you want all voters to be, like the media, the political parties, research organizations, groups of trusted elites who support our interests.
Finally, consider the alternative of our current political system, that which your suggesting- preventing those who can’t prove some sort of arbitrary “informedness.” You’d have an enormous class of people without the ability to legally and peacefully express their grievances with the people of power by voting them out of office. Imagine the consequences. What you’re suggesting is both crazy and medieval.
Now, a basic level of informedness before people are allowed to become BLOGGERS, and anonymously spout their drivel to the world without having to answer or be held accountable to their words…..that I support. Although judging from the lack of frequency with which you post and the lack of comments on those posts, I doubt I have to worry about you.
I am sorry you feel that strongly about a system that currently is proving not to be working.
You are looking at it from a bottom up perspective which obviously is the wrong direction, the real issue is that most people in the parliament don’t have a clue on most of the bills they are passing. This is how many laws are passed without even being noticed.
What i am suggesting is to take responsibility for the things going on around you and “care” enough to at least know the basics of what you are voting for. If you think that society “owes” you the right to vote then why shouldn’t society be entitled to your being informed about the basis of your decision.
It is because of the illiterate or whoever doesn’t make enough time to understand the issues that the media have such an obvious control over information (or should i call it misinformation) and people buy it.
Why do you think that a mandatory class of philosophical debate on state matters, based on facts and open forum is a bad idea for example? I am not suggesting to test people on technical knowledge, i am suggesting people to prove that they actually have articulate ideas, not their opinions but that there is some form of reasoning behind them, without judgement, and this from the top to the bottom. The opinion MUST be free, but we have to make sure that the TARGET of the opinion is not misinterpreted and well understood.
Its the only way to prevent a blind or a sheepish society.
I agree with Sadok. Whatever the issue, one has to know what they are “voting” for. If one were to believe anything that were seen in another persons eye, than would have no real perspective on his own. I think that’s the philosophy that you didn’t want to understand.
When people inform others of their opinion, they ought to suggest theirs. I am very curious, what is new to this system that you are suggesting, Rachel?
i completely agree with you sadok!
although everyone has right to vote should he really vote? what about his responsibility for the others?
let’s put this way:
he can vote.
he can also consume alcohol.
he can drive a car.
he can also consume alcohol.
can he vote drunk?
can he drive drunk?
not knowing what you are voting for is unconscious voting — same as unconscious driving.
the issue here is we are all in the same car and our driver is drunk. why do we let him drive just because he has right to do so?
voting irresponsibly is dangerous. it should be prevented.