Democracy 2.0

[Fredrik]

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.

There are several misunderstandings here. I haven't said that I want this to happen. I started this thread to find out if there's a version of this idea that would be better for society than the current system. You're acting as if I'm saying "here's a great idea, let's implement it right away". If I had said that, it would make sense to demand that I explain the idea in detail, but I didn't say that. I'm just trying to find out what the arguments are, for both sides, and for many versions of this system. I mean, I can't be the first person to think about this. Maybe some philosopher or something has already analyzed different versions of this idea in depth.

However, even though I had no intention when I started this thread to try to come up with a specific system of this kind on my own, or to argue for any system of this kind, I will do some of that in this post. I'm not going to attempt a complete specification of a system of this kind. I will only elaborate just a little bit on what I've already said.

First of all, I want to make it clear that this idea isn't so much about "understanding of the big issues" as it is about knowing what the party or person that you're voting for wants to accomplish.

I'll give an example of a testing system that I think would be difficult to abuse. Suppose that we're electing a goverment, and that we require each party to choose 30 (or some other number) of issues that they think are important. Suppose e.g. that there are two parties, let's call them A and B, and that 15 of the issues on A's list also appear on B's list. Then we make a test that asks what the parties themselves have said that they want to do about the 45 distinct issues that appear on their lists. I don't see how either of the parties can abuse this to eliminate people who would vote against them.

The only problem I see is that someone could register new political parties just to make the tests absurdly long, but we can deal with that e.g. by having a preliminary election in which everyone can vote, just to determine two parties that get to participate in the main election.

Sometimes elections are not about electing leaders, but about deciding how to handle a specific issue. For example, in 1994 the people of Sweden voted about whether Sweden should join the EU or not. Would it have been a bad thing if people had been forced to prove that they know something about the EU before they are allowed to vote? I don't see how it can be.

In that specific election I voted that we should join. My reasons for doing so? I wasn't able to find any good arguments for either side. (Both sides had really crappy arguments. For example they both said that if you choose the other option, unemployment will go up, but neither side explained why they thought this would happen. Maybe they both felt that they didn't have any good arguments, or maybe one side felt that their argument would be too weak, and the other that people are too dumb to recognize a good argument). So I ended up voting that we should join, based on nothing more than the observation that the politicians who argued that we shouldn't join seemed a lot dumber than the ones who argued that we should.

Was that reason good enough? I don't think so. I don't see how it's a good thing that I was allowed to vote in that election. Of course, many people I know voted for one side or the other for even dumber reasons, so I'm not the only one who should have stayed home that day.

The way I see it, the downsides of this sort of system are a) that they are more expensive, and b) that some people would feel bad because they don't get to vote. The upside is that the ones who vote know a lot more about what they're voting for (and against).

 

[Eddie Dane]

In the Netherlands we have websites that lead you through a questionnaire about your political views.
At the end it reveals what party best fits your political views. From filling this thing out I've learned two things:
On many important issues I don't even have enough information to have a valid opinion.
I never end up with the party I was considering.

We do a lot of voting based on the politician, peer group, single issue, habit, old opinions that should be re-evaluated etc etc. etc.

It would be nice if people were forced to really think about their standpoint before casting a vote.

 

[Fredrik]

We do a lot of voting based on the politician, peer group, single issue, habit, old opinions that should be re-evaluated etc etc. etc.

I heard something recently that I thought was kind of funny. It might not even be true, and even if it is true, I have no idea how many people they asked, how they chose who to ask, etc. What I heard is that someone did a poll in France. People were shown pictures of Swedish politicians for a few seconds, and then they were asked who they would vote for. The funny part is that the candidates got roughly the same percentage of votes in this fake election as they did in the real one.

Again, this might all be BS, or the result of a bad testing protocol. But I wouldn't be shocked if someone did a really good test of this kind and came to the same conclusion.

 

[Eddie Dane]

I always vote for tall men who wear neck ties and appear on television a lot.

It's a real time saver.

 

[Skeptic]

How about for example making people prove that they know something about politics before they are allowed to vote?

In the Vicar of Dibley, the village council votes, with a 6-to-1 majority, to solve the vicar's depression by getting her a walking, talking, 3D holographic copy of her ex-boyfriend ASAP.

David Horton, the head of the council and the sole "Nay" voter, remarks dryly in the immortal words, which are quite applicable here, as well: "Does anyone else see the flaw in this plan?"

 

[mikeyx]

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.

I like my plans for impending World Domination much better.

 

[GreyICE]

I'll give an example of a testing system that I think would be difficult to abuse. Suppose that we're electing a goverment, and that we require each party to choose 30 (or some other number) of issues that they think are important. Suppose e.g. that there are two parties, let's call them A and B, and that 15 of the issues on A's list also appear on B's list. Then we make a test that asks what the parties themselves have said that they want to do about the 45 distinct issues that appear on their lists. I don't see how either of the parties can abuse this to eliminate people who would vote against them.

Quick:
Abortion
Iraq
Gay Marriage
Welfare
Universal Health Care
Tax Reduction
Balanced Budget
Reduced Military Spending
Increased Military Spending
Environmental protection measures

Name one issue, than name which side Democrats and Republicans are on. Remember, any counterexample of a Democrat who sides with your 'Republican' side or Republican who sides with your 'Democrat' side completely destroys your argument, since the person would be voting for a candidate that shares their belief, but does not match the 'party' of that belief.

Life is rarely as simple as you think it is.

 

[dudalb]

The whole idea of Compulory voting I find ridiculous and obnoxious.
Its' ridiculous because all you do is increase the number of badly informed people casting their ballots on things they know nothing about,and obnoxious because I feel that if someone wants NOT to vote for whatever reason that should be his option.
You cannot force people by law to become intelligent ,informed voters. The old adage about leading a horse to water applys here.

 

[dudalb]

We can't have a thread on voting without mentioned Robert Heinlein's "Earn your Franchise by Public Service " idea.
ALthough I an not conviced his idea of using the ability to solve a quadratic equation as a test of intelligence for voting is a good idea.....

 

[dahduh]

The whole point of democracy is to close the loop and ensure the people doing the governing are in some way regulated by the people being governed. If you disenfranchise any subgroup on any grounds at all you open the door to runaway abuse.

Secondly, 99.9% of the time we are all totally ignorant; when we need expertise - brain surgery for example - we delegate. Some people delegate by referral, others because they share a religion, others because the like the look of his or her face, and some even because they are able to judge that person's competence. When it comes to choosing politicians, knowledge of the issues themselves may be immaterial. Joe Schmo may know nothing about global warming or foreign affairs, but he may be perfectly capable of choosing a candidate who exhibits good leadership qualities and an apparent ability to attract and listen to the best a brightest advisors. Are you going to disqualify Joe because he is ignorant of the issues?

If you want to improve existing systems of democracy, I think it might be more fruitful to look for ways of improving that all-important negative feedback from the delegatees to the delegates.

 

[NewtonTrino]

I think we should at least start with the test that if you receive more services from the government than you pay in taxes and fees that you shouldn't be able to vote. Those who are taking money from the rest of us would at least have some kind of counter to keep them from continuing to vote themselves more money until there is no money left to give away. This includes people working for companies on the public dole like the banks, GM, military contractors etc. Pretty much anyone on welfare or other public assistant and probably even a good chunk of the lower middle class who pay very little in taxes.

 

[dahduh]

I think we should at least start with the test that if you receive more services from the government than you pay in taxes and fees that you shouldn't be able to vote. Those who are taking money from the rest of us would at least have some kind of counter to keep them from continuing to vote themselves more money until there is no money left to give away. This includes people working for companies on the public dole like the banks, GM, military contractors etc. Pretty much anyone on welfare or other public assistant and probably even a good chunk of the lower middle class who pay very little in taxes.

You forgot those on unemployment insurance, the mentally incompetent, disabled vets, little old ladies whose pension funds were invested on Wall Street, postgraduate students, and all government employees starting with the NHS.

Suppose you suddenly fell into the 'lower middle class' tomorrow - not impossible, times are hard, just look at some of the comments on these forums about people getting laid off. Would you still be singing the same tune? If not, then your ethics are informed more by your present circumstances than by your sense of social justice.

 

[Prometheus]

I think we should at least start with the test that if you receive more services from the government than you pay in taxes and fees that you shouldn't be able to vote. Those who are taking money from the rest of us would at least have some kind of counter to keep them from continuing to vote themselves more money until there is no money left to give away. This includes people working for companies on the public dole like the banks, GM, military contractors etc. Pretty much anyone on welfare or other public assistant and probably even a good chunk of the lower middle class who pay very little in taxes.

What makes you think that everyone on welfare wants to be there indefinitely? Those on unemployment should be disallowed from voting for leaders they feel are most likely to create more jobs? Sorry, but your idea is just dumb, and it completely flies in the face of why we want a democracy rather than an oligarchy in the first place.

 

[Dorian Gray]

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).

Part One of Dorian Gray's Devil's Advocate Strawman Series:

Yeah! In fact, let's go back to the way it used to be and only let college educated landowners vote. That will cut out all the campaigning to the poor, nonwhites, women, children and ignorant in one fell swoop. Clearly this system of government was successful in the past.

 

[Dorian Gray]

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.

Part Two of Dorian Gray's Devil's Advocate Strawman Series:

Yeah! In fact, let's allow students - who are studying economics in school - to do our taxes! Let's allow students - who are studying biology in school - to perform surgery and genetic research! Let's allow students - who are studying chemistry in school - to run the FDA! Let's allow students - who are studying physics in school - to operate nuclear reactors!

This is GUARANTEED to reduce ignorance amongst adults!

 

[Dorian Gray]

What can I say - I sell arms to both sides.

 

[Prometheus]

What can I say - I sell arms to both sides.

Don't you know that arms are for hugging?

 

[dudalb]

I think we should at least start with the test that if you receive more services from the government than you pay in taxes and fees that you shouldn't be able to vote. Those who are taking money from the rest of us would at least have some kind of counter to keep them from continuing to vote themselves more money until there is no money left to give away. This includes people working for companies on the public dole like the banks, GM, military contractors etc. Pretty much anyone on welfare or other public assistant and probably even a good chunk of the lower middle class who pay very little in taxes.

Is this guy's name really John Galt?

 

[Whiplash]

Yes, it's annoying that people who know little to nothing about issues, can't name the vice president, or find big countries on maps, or have more knowledge about American Idol than politics can vote.

But taking it away from them is not the answer. Believe me, I'd rather live in a world where everyone was informed and voted on the issues rather than whatever group they feel most "connected to" and so forth. There is a definate clique mentality for many in the masses. Just staying with whatever party their parents and grandparents were with. Or whatever group get's them less "heat" from friends.

But the answer is in education. Not limiting voting rights. We need to work harder to get people to actually learn and become responsbile adults. Something I feel we have been very, very bad at for a couple of generations now. A little too much focus on the individual and how they are special and what they deserve, rather than a little more giving people a sense of duty and responsibility to everyone else around them.

 

[GreyICE]

But the answer is in education. Not limiting voting rights. We need to work harder to get people to actually learn and become responsbile adults. Something I feel we have been very, very bad at for a couple of generations now. A little too much focus on the individual and how they are special and what they deserve, rather than a little more giving people a sense of duty and responsibility to everyone else around them.

But when were we ever GOOD at it? I mean its easy to point to some halcyon day of yore and state that it was when things were 'awesome' and 'great' and education taught us things and stuff, but Thomas Edison's mother had to homeschool him because the schools considered him unteachable. A genius, mind you.

And when were Americans good at knowing politics? Are we talking about the 1800s, and the succession of mediocre, worthless presidents who were selected by the miraculous process of consensus (don't do anything by consensus) and elected by people who just didn't care? The 1920s? That went well. The 50s? When people got angry at Truman for 'booting a war hero' despite the fact the man was dangerously insane (he wanted to nuke China... that would end well). The 60s? I admit there was a hell of a lot more participation, maybe they were a high point - but the Vietnam war forced the issue, and their high-minded ideals have come to very little. The 70s? The 60s with less idealism and more drugs. The 80s? No product of the 80s and generation X has ever been worth much more than the oxygen they consume.

Where are your educated men and ideal voters?

Whiplash, if you want such a thing, you cannot look backwards. You have to look forwards, progress past where the human race is now. Progress does not come by focusing on the rearview mirror.