Democracy 2.0

[Fredrik]

Everytime an election is coming up I'm noticing that a lot of people seem to be voting without having given much thought to any of the big issues, and even without really knowing what the party/candidate they're voting for stands for. That can't be a good thing for society, so I'm wondering if it's possible to do something about it (and why it hasn't been done already). How about for example making people prove that they know something about politics before they are allowed to vote? (This would certainly disqualify me ).

Yes, I can imagine ways to implement such ideas that are really bad. For example, it's not a good thing if a bad goverment can use this to increase their chances of getting re-elected. What I'm wondering is if there's someone who has taken the time to really think these things through. Maybe there are ways to make sure that a system like that doesn't get abused.

 

[DC]

taking away people right to vote is not a good approach i think.
you are however right that many people dont think into details of alot of things.
I think it is important to make Politics an interesting topic. More Political debates rather than debates about unimportant things like celebritys etc.
Also Media must search for ways to make politics more atractive, so people are more interested in it.

i think it would be important to give people even more to decide. they will soon realise how important it is to be well informed when you directly have to decide about political decisions. And they might change and take more time to inform themselfe about actual problems or elections and ballots, instead of enterteinment.

we should not give up our self-determination

PS: from the title i thought its a topic about this
http://www.positech.co.uk/democracy2/

 

[drkitten]

How about for example making people prove that they know something about politics before they are allowed to vote? (This would certainly disqualify me )

That has been tried in many forms.

The problem is, who writes the test? If I were writing the test, for example, I would be sorely tempted to write the test to eliminate Libertarians, on the grounds that they certainly know nothing at all about politics. Similarly, any of the anti-Fed raving nutters or anti-semitic conspiracy theorists obviously know nothing about politics and need not be allowed to vote.

I'd similarly be tempted to write a science graduation exam to eliminate young Earth creationists, because they demonstrably know nothing at all about science or even logic and reason.

Really, it's quite simple. If you're not me, you don't know enough to vote properly. So we'll just run the world on a one-kitten-one-vote system. I am The Kitten and I get The Vote.

And I vote for socialized health care, increasing funding for science research, and subsidized catnip-stuffed mice for all. As no doubt you would if you were intelligent enough to be able to vote.

 

[ZirconBlue]

And I vote for socialized health care, increasing funding for science research, and subsidized catnip-stuffed mice for all. As no doubt you would if you were intelligent enough to be able to vote.

I'd vote for that platform. Drkitten 2012!

 

[dann]

Voting for a guy to whom you have to be subservient for the next couple of years does not require much skill or insight, does it?

 

[GreyICE]

Everytime an election is coming up I'm noticing that a lot of people seem to be voting without having given much thought to any of the big issues, and even without really knowing what the party/candidate they're voting for stands for. That can't be a good thing for society, so I'm wondering if it's possible to do something about it (and why it hasn't been done already). How about for example making people prove that they know something about politics before they are allowed to vote? (This would certainly disqualify me ).

Yes, I can imagine ways to implement such ideas that are really bad. For example, it's not a good thing if a bad goverment can use this to increase their chances of getting re-elected. What I'm wondering is if there's someone who has taken the time to really think these things through. Maybe there are ways to make sure that a system like that doesn't get abused.

Define big issues. Please. I really cannot wait.

 

[drkitten]

Voting for a guy to whom you have to be subservient for the next couple of years does not require much skill or insight, does it?

The actual voting process? No.

Choosing whom to vote for? Of course it does. That's why we hold elections in the first place.

Candidate A promises an aggressive pro-business agenda focused on holding government costs down, cutting red tape, and minimizing regulatory interference. What does this really mean? Does this mean that he's going to "cut" costs by eliminating the people responsible for doing safety inspections, relying on the well-known good will of companies to spend money unnecessarily to make working conditions safe and pleasant for their part-time minimum wage workers?

Candidate B promises to bring the human touch back into the corporate environment. What does this really mean? Does this mean that he's going to create a nanny-state where businesses can't afford to take any decisions because they're going to be running up against some new damnfool regulation designed to preserve workers' self-esteem?

Candidate C promises nothing at all, but was a well-known professional athlete before he began his television career as a sitcom actor. He does, however, interview extremely well and has tremendous personal charisma. What does this mean? Do we have any rational basis to begin to evaluate whether or not we want to "to be subservient for the next couple of years" to this person?

I submit there's a tremendous opportunity for both insight (in trying to determine what these candidates really will offer) and skill (in selecting who the best candidate is).

 

[Prometheus]

What about lowering the voting age to, say, 12--and requiring a lot more current events/political science instruction in school. Try to get kids in the habit of taking an active civic role while they're still young. I'd also like to see the actual electoral process revamped to treat elections more like a scientific measurement of aggregate will, and less like a sporting event. Some version of Condorcet voting, with more and better-designed candidate debates instituted as a formal part of the process.

 

[drkitten]

What about lowering the voting age to, say, 12--and requiring a lot more current events/political science instruction in school.

That strikes me as about as sensible as lowering the drinking age and driving age to 12, but requiring all students to take driver's ed.

I'm not sure 12 year olds have the necessary perspective, judgment, and maturity -- which is why even driver's-ed trained 19 year olds still get way more than their share of DUI's. We've got lot of anecdotal evidence for this, aside from the volumes of psychological studies about the development of judgment.

There's also the simple fact that twelve year olds aren't in a position to address a lot of political questions. For example, since they don't typically work, they don't typically pay taxes (except for sales tax).

 

[Prometheus]

That strikes me as about as sensible as lowering the drinking age and driving age to 12, but requiring all students to take driver's ed.

I'm not sure 12 year olds have the necessary perspective, judgment, and maturity -- which is why even driver's-ed trained 19 year olds still get way more than their share of DUI's. We've got lot of anecdotal evidence for this, aside from the volumes of psychological studies about the development of judgment.

There's also the simple fact that twelve year olds aren't in a position to address a lot of political questions. For example, since they don't typically work, they don't typically pay taxes (except for sales tax).

In other words, 12 year olds are substantially the same as many (if not most) adult voters...

Seriously, though, I don't think the analogy with driving is even remotely apt. A twelve year-old accidentally voting for the 'wrong' candidate is unlikely to kill anyone in the process. And, allowing children to vote might just motivate more lazy adults to get out and vote themselves.

 

[drkitten]

Seriously, though, I don't think the analogy with driving is even remotely apt. A twelve year-old accidentally voting for the 'wrong' candidate is unlikely to kill anyone in the process.

Not directly, no.

Indirectly,.... how do you think wars get started?

And the fact that the negative consequences of uniformed voting are indirect and distant makes it MORE dangerous, not less.

And, allowing children to vote might just motivate more lazy adults to get out and vote themselves.

... which, as has been argued above, is not necessarily a good thing.

In particular, if your idea is to use an influx of uninformed voters as a lever to create an even larger influx of uninformed voters, I'm afraid I'm almost entirely opposed. We already have a tremendous problem with voter ignorance (witness the budget crisis in California).

 

[Prometheus]

Not directly, no.

Indirectly,.... how do you think wars get started?

And the fact that the negative consequences of uniformed voting are indirect and distant makes it MORE dangerous, not less.



... which, as has been argued above, is not necessarily a good thing.

In particular, if your idea is to use an influx of uninformed voters as a lever to create an even larger influx of uninformed voters, I'm afraid I'm almost entirely opposed. We already have a tremendous problem with voter ignorance (witness the budget crisis in California).

Okay, but my idea is not to use uninformed voters in order to attract more uninformed voters. The idea is that by allowing children--who are studying current events etc. in school--to voice their opinions on those matters and develop a habit of being civicly involved, this might spur more adults to become less ignorant. Perhaps, in order to lessen the chance perverse outcomes, kids could be given half a vote, or only allowed to vote on certain local offices, or simply be given their own seperate set of referenda on less vital issues, or something. I'm not advocating specifics here--just taking a general position that voter ignorance/apathy could perhaps be mitigated if we started working on them at a younger age.

Also, I really do think that the other suggestions in my first post are integral. I would not merely reduce the voting age, and leave it at that. Debates need to become a more important part of the process--perhaps with their structure/frequency determined by Constitutional amendment--and the voting method needs to be revamped as well. I particularly like Condorcet voting because it's actually a lot more difficult (in addition to its other well-known advantages)--voters would need to understand more just to fill out a ballot.

 

[Fredrik]

That has been tried in many forms.

It has? How? And where?

The problem is, who writes the test? If I were writing the test, for example, I would be sorely tempted to write the test to eliminate Libertarians, on the grounds that they certainly know nothing at all about politics.
...
Really, it's quite simple. If you're not me, you don't know enough to vote properly.

Yes, that's the obvious argument against what I suggested, but I don't find it entirely convincing.

Before I go on, let me just say that I'm not saying that the system I'm asking about is better than the "everyone gets a vote" system. I'm just trying to find out if it is.

It seems to me that it should be possible to at least make it difficult to abuse this system. How about letting the people (i.e. everyone) vote on what the test should be like? That ensures that the people will always be able to get rid of bad leaders. The test wouldn't be as good as if I wrote it (), but it might still be better than nothing.

Define big issues. Please. I really cannot wait.

Lol, there's always someone who decides to focus on something completely irrelevant. I'm not going to define "big", but feel free to interpret my OP as if the words "any of the big issues" had been "many issues".

Condorcet voting

I had to look that up. That's how igorant I am. But I like the idea already. I have actually been thinking that something like that would be a good idea.

 

[quarky]

Children's sufferage could happen through a system that gave an extra vote to the mother of each dependent child. Of course there would be exceptions and legal quagmires, but children should have some sort of representation.

 

[drkitten]

It has? How? And where?

Literacy tests in the Jim Crow South are the most obvious example.

 

[rjh01]

In Australia it is compulsory to vote. People have been fined for failing to vote. One of the side effects of this is that the parties do not try to get you to vote, they inform people of the issues instead. So anyone who wants to can easily find out what the parties are campaigning about.

Educating children is only part of the answer. They may forget about it after leaving school. Or things may change. Adults need to educate themselves.

 

[GreyICE]

Lol, there's always someone who decides to focus on something completely irrelevant. I'm not going to define "big", but feel free to interpret my OP as if the words "any of the big issues" had been "many issues".

How is it that you wish to limit the process of voting based on the understanding of big issues, but cannot even propose a working definition of said 'big issues?'

It makes one think that your proposal is ill-conceived. Nothing could possibly be more relevant to a voting restriction based on knowledge of big issues than the very definition of said issues. Suggesting it is irrelevant makes this entire thing look very silly - a kind of 'people are not voting HOW I WANT THEM TO' type of issue, which is rather the point of the entire democracy idea.

 

[dann]

The actual voting process? No.

Choosing whom to vote for? Of course it does. That's why we hold elections in the first place.

Because it requires skill and insight? What a weird concept!

Candidate A promises an aggressive pro-business agenda focused on holding government costs down, cutting red tape, and minimizing regulatory interference. What does this really mean? Does this mean that he's going to "cut" costs by eliminating the people responsible for doing safety inspections, relying on the well-known good will of companies to spend money unnecessarily to make working conditions safe and pleasant for their part-time minimum wage workers?

Did you consider why candidate A does not simply say so?

Candidate B promises to bring the human touch back into the corporate environment. What does this really mean? Does this mean that he's going to create a nanny-state where businesses can't afford to take any decisions because they're going to be running up against some new damnfool regulation designed to preserve workers' self-esteem?

And we all know that preserving workers' self-esteem is a major issue for many candidates, right? Still, why does candidate B not simply say outright what he intends to do?

Candidate C promises nothing at all, but was a well-known professional athlete before he began his television career as a sitcom actor. He does, however, interview extremely well and has tremendous personal charisma. What does this mean? Do we have any rational basis to begin to evaluate whether or not we want to "to be subservient for the next couple of years" to this person?

Which makes it fairly obvious that the only decision you participate in is which guy you have to be subservient to for the next couple of years. The one you get to be subservient to is the guy voted into office by a majority (well, more or less).

I submit there's a tremendous opportunity for both insight (in trying to determine what these candidates really will offer) and skill (in selecting who the best candidate is).

Thus the guy who is elected was the best candidate: He persuaded enough voters to vote for him - whatever the reason. And you have the glorious freedom of obeying his rule for the next four years, which was the purpose of the election in the first place.
Then you get to vote for him again - or for another one.

Democracy

 

[drkitten]

Because it requires skill and insight? What a weird concept!

Not at all. If were obvious who should lead us (for example, if we simply needed a tape measure to select the tallest one, or we could simply have a footrace to determine the fasted one), we wouldn't need all those pesky and expensive year-long election cycles.

Did you consider why candidate A does not simply say so?

I did, yes. That's part of the "skill and insight" involved -- identifying when you're being fed doublespeak and discerning the real meaning under it (and why the doublespeak is used instead).

 

[Ryokan]

Ah, Plato's Republic.