• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Democracy Overrated?

Kimpatsu

Illuminator
Kimpatsu
Joined
Jul 26, 2001
Messages
3,109
Location
Tokyo
Much is made of the fact that more people live under democracy than under tyranny for the first time in history. A quick glance around, however, demonstrates that most people, are want of a better term, just too dumb to exercise their votes wisely. I don't mena in the partisan sense (e.g., "those who don't vote Tory/Republican/Gaullist must be stupid"), but from the perspective that the majority are so woefully uninformed or misinformed, they can't possibly exercise their vote sensibly. A modern example is that the majority of Americans mistakenly believe that Saddam Hussain had something to do with September 11th. Boiled down, if six out of 10 voters are stupid, you'll get a stupid result. So why do we tolerate such an obviously flawed system? Wouldn't a benevolent democracy modelled on Singapore be a better option? After all, what people really care about is material comfort, isn't it? So long as they have their 200 cable channels, widescreen TV, Cher concerts and multiplexes with armrest cup holders for their beer or other poison of choice, they don't really care what a country's leaders get up to in their name, do they? Well, do they?
Your opinions, please.
 
"You don't know what you've got till it's gone". People do tend to take things for granted. When they feel enough pain, they will get motivated to ask "why?".

Also, make voting compulsory. It does induce at least a minimum of thought about the process, rather than being able to exist without any consideration of the process of Democracy at all.
 
a_unique_person said:
[BAlso, make voting compulsory. [/B]
Click to expand...
So, you do approve of tyranny after all? Compulsory voting is tyrannical. One of my democratic rights is the right not to vote; to abstain on the grounds that I support absolutely none of the candidates. This, of course, poses the question: why is there no "reopen nominations (none of the above)" option on the ballot paper?
 
You have a secret ballot, one of the options is to write exactly that on the ballot paper. No one can stop you, or prosecute you for doing so.

As for compulsory voting, the empirical evidence is in. Countries with compulsory voting have a higher participation rate in elections than those that don't. I think that justifies the 'tyranny' of making voting compulsory justified.

I think that people who classify compulsory voting as 'tyranny' don't know what a real tyranny is. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, Stalin and Hitler were tyrants.
 
So, you do approve of tyranny after all? Compulsory voting is tyrannical. One of my democratic rights is the right not to vote; to abstain on the grounds that I support absolutely none of the candidates.
Click to expand...
You can still exercise that right under a compulsory voting system...all it means is you have to turn up at the ballot box every few years. But on the actual ballot you can write "none of the above", draw a rude stickfigure or scrawl "politics sucks" all over it if you want. This is known as a *donkey vote*.

Tyrannical? I feel another seat-belt discussion coming on...


*bit of a cross-post there...
 
a_unique_person said:
You have a secret ballot, one of the options is to write exactly that on the ballot paper. No one can stop you, or prosecute you for doing so.

As for compulsory voting, the empirical evidence is in. Countries with compulsory voting have a higher participation rate in elections than those that don't. I think that justifies the 'tyranny' of making voting compulsory justified.

I think that people who classify compulsory voting as 'tyranny' don't know what a real tyranny is. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, Stalin and Hitler were tyrants.
Click to expand...
Forcing people to vote is tyrannical, full stop. If you included the option of RON on a ballot paper, I'd certainly exercise my right to vote more, but you should never force me to vote. Just because more people vote doesn't necessarily make it the best thing. After all, I started this thread with the observation that if six out of 10 people vote poorly, you get a poor result (in terms of quality of candidate). Given that the abstainers at present tend to be the Current Bun-reading type, getting them to vote will only result in the candidate with the biggest tits winning. And of what benefit to democracy would that be?
 
Jessica Blue said:
You can still exercise that right under a compulsory voting system...all it means is you have to turn up at the ballot box every few years. But on the actual ballot you can write "none of the above", draw a rude stickfigure or scrawl "politics sucks" all over it if you want. This is known as a *donkey vote*.
Click to expand...
But being compelled to cast that vote is tyrannical.
 
A new book by Judge Richard A. Posner, beloved conservative intellectual, apparently takes a similar position (though, probably not quite so crude).

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/fa03/rorty.htm

So long as they have their 200 cable channels, widescreen TV, Cher concerts and multiplexes with armrest cup holders for their beer or other poison of choice, they don't really care what a country's leaders get up to in their name, do they?
Click to expand...

That's not necessarily a free society, is it? If people value widescreen televisions and the accoutrements of a "rich" society over the ability to fashion dominant institutions that affect their lives, I guess that's the "correct" conclusion. The sedentary existence you describe, however, is neither moral, nor empowering. Is it okay for a society to be indifferent to leaders who engagein wars of aggression (so long as such acts of violence bring material comfort)? Of course not.

Another book you might find worthwhile is Robert Dahl's _Democracy and Its Critics_, probably the most influential contemporary defense of democracy (a term that needs defining in this thread).
 
Kimpatsu said:

But being compelled to cast that vote is tyrannical.
Click to expand...


Well, as I said, you are compelled to turn up...not to cast a real vote.

Interestingly, conservatives were the first to push for compulsory voting in Australia because they feared the trade unions organising their members to vote...now it is the conservatives who wish to see compulsory voting eradicated because too many poor and disenfranchised people vote against them.

If we did get rid of compulsory voting...many of these same people would tend not to vote, for various reasons. A sense of hopelesness, lack of education, general dissillusionment and lack of interest. It seems likely the wealthier tiers of our society would benefit. Also, compulsory voting gives more motivation to people to take an interest in issues...knowing they have to vote encourages people to form an opinion.

People seem so enthused about their *rights* in a society, but what about the responsibilities? Voting is one of them.
 
That was an interesting article, Cain, but I don't agree with it. I think concept 1 democracy can work--provided education is reshaped to instill an understanding of its importance. And in the article, both Posner and Rorty have missed the point: that Americans don't vote for the candidtae most likely to better their current condition, or even the candidate who promises to do so; they vote their social mobility aspirations. So the working class, who are struggling to feed their families thanks to inequitable tax cuts and who have no health insurance still vote Republican because they have dreams of one day working their way up the social ladder, and won't want to be paying hefty taxes when they do. Of course, the chance of them actually fulfilling this dream is about as good as my winning the lottery, but that's the whole point: Americans chase their dreams, not practical, boring old reality. Which brings us back to education. At present, the system is designed to turn out compliant workers for industry, rather than teach critical thinking or other intellectual (as opposed to vocational) skills. To change the education system wouldrequire a paradigm shift, one that we're not likely to get any time soon, as a compliant workforce benefits the ruling class. People don't vote because their rulers don't want them to. They would rather let the sleeping dog of democracy lie. And that's why I started this post to begin with.
 
a_unique_person said:
Like being compelled to have a driving license?
Click to expand...
False analogy. A liecence is only like a voter registration card: proof of eligibility to drive/vote. One can abstain from driving if one wishes. And just as drunk/drivers are banned from driving, criminals are banned from voting. But we don't tell people they have to drive.
 
Jessica Blue said:
If we did get rid of compulsory voting...many of these same people would tend not to vote, for various reasons. A sense of hopelesness, lack of education, general dissillusionment and lack of interest. It seems likely the wealthier tiers of our society would benefit. Also, compulsory voting gives more motivation to people to take an interest in issues...knowing they have to vote encourages people to form an opinion.
People seem so enthused about their *rights* in a society, but what about the responsibilities? Voting is one of them.
Click to expand...
Voting isn't a responsibility, it's a right. If you choose to exercise that right (as opposed to the right to abstain), the responsibility is to cast that vote wisely. People won't take any more interest in an issue if compelled to vote than if not; their heads will simply be full of resentment at being coerced when they go to the polling booth. (Ironically, this might work to have them vote the introducers of compulsory voting out of power, leading to greater democracy.) I'm disillusioned with voting because there are no candidates who represent my views and--and this is crucial--whom I can trust to implement the policies as promised. Look at Britain. The Labour Party has consistently fudged the most important issues: Lords reform, blood sports ban, higher education reform. They aren't listening, and the contempt of the Labour cabinet towards the electorate is palpable; only yesterday, John Prescott called a journalist "childish" for daring to ask an "impertinent" question. They don't want a healthy democracy, they want sycophants. But what does that leave? The Tories, who are in disarray and whose rump are still homophobic and anti-Johnny Foreigner? The Lib Dems, who have shown themselves consistently to be harbouring equally contemptuous views of the masses? Or the parties that, under a FPTP system, have no chance of power, such as the Greens or the Socialist Alliance? Maybe what I'm really arguing for here is a reform of the electoral system, but again, that would only be tinkering with the hardware. The software--i.e., the public consciousness regarding voting--would remain unchanged. And again, that requires a change in the education system, the possibility of which can be summed up in the same way as the likelihood of the Tories winning the next election: Fat chance!
 
Kimpatsu,

What about paying taxes? Is that tyranical? We're all compelled to do that (the legal exceptions are irrelevant to the vast majority of people out of necessity, not choice). From a purely rights perspective, how is mandatory voting any different ? Again, you can always cast a donkey vote - hell, you can even do it by mail, just like you pay taxes by mail.
 
Ziggurat said:
Kimpatsu,

What about paying taxes? Is that tyranical? We're all compelled to do that (the legal exceptions are irrelevant to the vast majority of people out of necessity, not choice). From a purely rights perspective, how is mandatory voting any different ? Again, you can always cast a donkey vote - hell, you can even do it by mail, just like you pay taxes by mail.
Click to expand...
No, again there's a vast difference. One of my choices is not to vote. Casting a donkey vote is merely a waste of time in going to the polling station, or applying for a postal vote. I can't choose to opt out of paying taxes, however. What I can do is vote for a party that reflects my views on taxation: too much, or not enough. Mandatory voting removes my right to be apathetic. Casting a donkey vote is differnt; it means I cared enough to register a protest. But apathy is still a right, even if you might find it morally wrong. Butthen again, you shouldn't be getting into other people's morals, anyway, should you?
 
False analogy. A liecence is only like a voter registration card: proof of eligibility to drive/vote. One can abstain from driving if one wishes. And just as drunk/drivers are banned from driving, criminals are banned from voting. But we don't tell people they have to drive.
Click to expand...

First, the post above the one quoted here -- I practically agree with everything you said.

Turning to the idea of required voting, I think Jessica and AUP are framing the proposition in a way that makes sense.

They argue, as I understand it, that voting is a responsibility for living under a democracy. You don't have to vote the same way you don't have to live in Australia (or any society that has "required" voting). You're not required to live there. But if you do so choose to call Australia home, and it is a choice, then you're obligated to vote. I'm not especially fond of the idea because it can justify nearly anything, but the safeguard is in demcoracy itself.
 
Cain said:


First, the post above the one quoted here -- I practically agree with everything you said.

Turning to the idea of required voting, I think Jessica and AUP are framing the proposition in a way that makes sense.

They argue, as I understand it, that voting is a responsibility for living under a democracy. You don't have to vote the same way you don't have to live in Australia (or any society that has "required" voting). You're not required to live there. But if you do so choose to call Australia home, and it is a choice, then you're obligated to vote. I'm not especially fond of the idea because it can justify nearly anything, but the safeguard is in demcoracy itself.
Click to expand...
What about my right to abstain from voting? Maybe I'm an anarchist who finds the very notion of voting abhorrant. And that is my right.
As to choosing to live in Australia, we are all stuck here on planet earth for the foreseeable future. Let's not get into this jingoistic nonsense about countries; one world, all the people. Everyone has equal rights. And one of those rights is the right to refuse to vote.
 
What about my right to abstain from voting? Maybe I'm an anarchist who finds the very notion of voting abhorrant. And that is my right.
Click to expand...

But this is a mere assertion. Okay, you have the right not to vote; I tend to agree in a restricted sense. What other rights do you have? Why can't you have the right to not pay taxes (to use Ziggaraut's example)?

From a prior posting:

I can't choose to opt out of paying taxes, however.
Click to expand...

Why? Because of your right to be apathetic? Well, that's exactly the same indifference argued for by people who wish to abolish all forms of taxation (I have a right not to give a ◊◊◊◊ about the welfare of society).

Casting an anonymous vote every two years isn't really my idea of a democracy, though.

As to choosing to live in Australia, we are all stuck here on planet earth for the foreseeable future. Let's not get into this jingoistic nonsense about countries; one world, all the people. Everyone has equal rights. And one of those rights is the right to refuse to vote.
Click to expand...

Again, I tend to agree. The criticism is best levelled at laissez-faire apologists who insist on a "free-market" and supposedly oppose the initiation of force. Well, there's a free-market of governments, and no one is forcing you to live here. It's not exactly compelling... but for someone who fanatically insists you're "free" to change employers, it just might prove convincing...
 
I'm not free to change countries on a whim; if that were the case, there would be far more Mexicans in the USA and far more Indonesians in Oz, and no such thing as illegal immigration.
Taxation is necessary to fund those projects that we need in common: education, street lighting, etc. I can't eductae my own children in all the branches required of an education (heck, I can't teach them much beyond the 3Rs), but experts in these fields can. Consequently, it behooves me to pay into a central fund from which school costs can be administered. This is the core purpose of taxation. If I want to see more tax money allocated where I think it should be, then I must get out and vote for the candidate who says, for example, that they'll fund more schools. (Unfortunately, this doesn't work in practice, as no politician is ever going to say they want to cut school budgets, though they may well do so all the same.) If I really don't care, though, then abstention owing to apathy is my right. I really shouldn't complain about the outcome, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom