Is universal suffrage the right thing to do?

[Olga]

Why do you need to pass an exam to drive a car, but you don't need to be smart or knowledgeable to choose the country's leadership? Maybe we should introduce a voting exam?

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Everyone has a stake in who decides, whether they be smart or not so smart. The problem is more with those who wish to decide than with the voters.

 

[Olga]

Everyone has a stake in who decides, whether they be smart or not so smart. The problem is more with those who wish to decide than with the voters.

Почему люди, которые ничего не понимают ни в экономике, ни в политике, которые не знают географии, истории, основ психологии, и пр., должны принимать решения о том, кто и как будет управлять государством? Такой выбор в лучшем случае становится случайным. Кто то голосует "за того парня, который похож на моего дядю", кто то "потому что в моей семье все так голосуют", кого то просто обманывают пустыми обещаниями. Разве это не безответственно позволять таким людям голосовать? Почему бы не ввести специальный экзамен на знание хотя бы базовых вещей, успешно пройдя который, человек сможет приобрести право голосовать?

 

[C C]

Why do you need to pass an exam to drive a car, but you don't need to be smart or knowledgeable to choose the country's leadership? Maybe we should introduce a voting exam?

Differing political orientations would be accusing the standards underlying the exam of being biased toward them, and thereby filtering out or excluding their potential voters. Or forcing the latter to have to conform to _X_ ideological positions in order to pass it. Although academia is constituted of more left-center and far-left intellectuals than right (mocking elements of the establishment occasionally even overtly declare the idea of a right-wing scholar or pedagogue to be a contradiction or joke), a situation like the current administration would be an example of a rival camp still seizing authority of voter qualifications. Where the residing government power could subvert whatever gauntlet of vetting requirements that had been formerly set up by institutions of social science and the humanities.
_

 

[Olga]

Differing political orientations would be accusing the standards underlying the exam of being biased toward them, and thereby filtering out or excluding their potential voters. Or forcing the latter to have to conform to _X_ ideological positions in order to pass it. Although academia is constituted of more left-center and far-left intellectuals than right (mocking elements of the establishment occasionally even overtly declare the idea of a right-wing scholar or pedagogue to be a contradiction or joke), a situation like the current administration would be an example of a rival camp still seizing authority of voter qualifications. Where the residing government power could subvert whatever gauntlet of vetting requirements that had been formerly set up by institutions of social science and the humanities.
_

Эти вопросы(или тесты) на экзамене можно составить совместно с представителями всех партий, или сообществ, представленных в парламенте. Можно даже привлечь к этому ИИ. И ещё: не помешало бы составить психологический портрет кандидатов, возможно с привлечением независимых экспертов, или тоже ИИ, чтобы избиратели видели с кем имеют дело. Почему бы и нет? В 21м веке живём всё-таки. Новые времена, новые технологии.

 

[C C]

These exam questions (or tests) could be developed jointly with representatives of all parties or communities represented in parliament. Artificial intelligence could even be involved. And furthermore, it wouldn't hurt to create a psychological profile of the candidates, perhaps with the involvement of independent experts, or again, AI, so that voters know who they are dealing with. Why not? After all, we live in the 21st century. New times, new technologies.

Seems like naiveté that such an appearance of cooperation would satisfy the perpetual dissatisfaction of pundits, or that it could be soundly organized to begin with. And, again, especially that the outputted and supposedly balanced criterion would be invulnerable to subversion over time. But that said, sometimes the world does work in mysterious ways against the expectations of the cynic.
_

 

[TheVat]

Why do you need to pass an exam to drive a car, but you don't need to be smart or knowledgeable to choose the country's leadership? Maybe we should introduce a voting exam?

Possible that it is better to have citizens select representatives who are smart and knowledgeable and can pass an exam on how government and law functions. Ordinary people are capable of discerning character, if it is not hidden by propaganda, and can vote out politicians who show poor character. Reduce propaganda and elevate fact checking and transparency, and ordinary people could probably do better at selecting representation with their best interests at heart. The first step, as our Senator sage Bernie Sanders notes, is getting rich donor money out of campaign finance. Second step: replace all political advertising with public debates. Everyone must show up for the debate, and that is where they may offer their policy ideas. Our nation banned cigarette ads, we can ban political ads, since they are just as toxic as cigarettes.

 

[exchemist]

Possible that it is better to have citizens select representatives who are smart and knowledgeable and can pass an exam on how government and law functions. Ordinary people are capable of discerning character, if it is not hidden by propaganda, and can vote out politicians who show poor character. Reduce propaganda and elevate fact checking and transparency, and ordinary people could probably do better at selecting representation with their best interests at heart. The first step, as our Senator sage Bernie Sanders notes, is getting rich donor money out of campaign finance. Second step: replace all political advertising with public debates. Everyone must show up for the debate, and that is where they may offer their policy ideas. Our nation banned cigarette ads, we can ban political ads, since they are just as toxic as cigarettes.

Yes. Getting the insane amounts of money out of US politics would be a great move. There are strict limits on campaign expenditure in many western democracies.

 

[Olga]

Possible that it is better to have citizens select representatives who are smart and knowledgeable and can pass an exam on how government and law functions. Ordinary people are capable of discerning character, if it is not hidden by propaganda, and can vote out politicians who show poor character. Reduce propaganda and elevate fact checking and transparency, and ordinary people could probably do better at selecting representation with their best interests at heart. The first step, as our Senator sage Bernie Sanders notes, is getting rich donor money out of campaign finance. Second step: replace all political advertising with public debates. Everyone must show up for the debate, and that is where they may offer their policy ideas. Our nation banned cigarette ads, we can ban political ads, since they are just as toxic as cigarettes.

У нас тоже запрещена реклама сигарет. Думаю, дело не в рекламе. Простые люди часто бывают наивны, их легко обмануть красивыми обещаниями. Кандидат должен не просто предлагать свои идеи, но также предлагать пути их реализации (прямо, как в науке). И объяснять, в чём польза от этих идей, причём не только сиюмоментная, но и в переспективе на будущее.

 

[Olga]

Seems like naiveté that such an appearance of cooperation would satisfy the perpetual dissatisfaction of pundits, or that it could be soundly organized to begin with. And, again, especially that the outputted and supposedly balanced criterion would be invulnerable to subversion over time. But that said, sometimes the world does work in mysterious ways against the expectations of the cynic.
_

У вас гражданская война на горизонте маячит. Трамп не уйдёт добровольно. А его противники не будут это молча терпеть. Раскол в обществе уже налицо.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

You could just raise the voting age to 65, where people have more life experience to judge things.

 

[C C]

You have a civil war on the horizon looming. Trump will not leave voluntarily. And his opponents will not tolerate it silently. There is already a split in society. ..... У вас гражданская война на горизонте маячит. Трамп не уйдёт добровольно. А его противники не будут это молча терпеть. Раскол в обществе уже налицо.

I don't know about that. He might croak before then, or maybe even he's feeling one leg wriggling about in the grave, and time to hang it up three years from now. And any internal war would likely happen prior to that stage.

Like MAGA, Marxism itself was a populist movement. All the qualifications were there, like an oppressive elite (the bourgeoisie) to rebel against and concoct conspiracies about, with the overall anti-establishment placeholder filled by villainous capitalism. Humanities scholars would argue against such slotting, but that's just the motivated reasoning of any school of thought outputting apologetics for itself, which logic charitably accommodates via the selected premises plugged into it, or choice of standards (biases) for interpreting data. Populism can be viewed as a hypernym or broader category for subsuming narrower, particular ideologies like that. The roots of fascism were also born in the French Revolution -- in terms of intellectual genealogy they are different sides of the same historical coin.

With respect to civil war, though... During the era of the New Left, militant groups were armed (Symbionese Liberation Army, Weather Underground, etc). But since then, an anti-gun mentality has dominated even in collectivist and anarchist clubs.

So MAGA potentially has the weapons. As illustrated by both recent successful and failed assassination attempts, reciprocal anger is dependent upon swaying unstable older independents and young Gen-Z members who have strayed from their family roots. Or the "politically confused" one might say, those who could contingently flit about anywhere on the spectrum.

If a desire for armed revolutionary conflict was revived, it's unclear where the funding would come from. The USSR no longer exists, and it's difficult to picture China relating to a contemporary Western left that ironically cares little for the "bigoted" proletariat anymore (championing marginalized population groups instead). Iran is engulfed in its own existential problems, and likewise a tad bizarre that it would take an interest in even supporting the pejorative idea of a Regressive Left that adores or worships Muslims (especially rival Sunni Muslims).

Of course, there is much entertaining of a facade or silly myths here. Many progressive celebrities, office-holders, ex-service people, and business magnates (perhaps even some academics) are actually well armed. It is the non-elite hoi polloi or now morally bankrupt proletariat that must be lectured with respect to their irresponsible fascination with weapons and desire for non-restricted access to them. And as a facetious film like One Battle After Another seems to exemplify, the far-left could easily resurrect the 1960s/1970s passions of "equipment" being used to deter the "enemy", if necessary.
_

 

[billvon]

Why do you need to pass an exam to drive a car, but you don't need to be smart or knowledgeable to choose the country's leadership? Maybe we should introduce a voting exam?

Because the qualification of who can vote for any such system would immediately become "anyone who supports the republicans" as soon as republicans won an election. (Same for any other party.)

Why should people who understand nothing about economics or politics, who don't know geography, history, basic psychology, etc., be the ones making decisions about who will govern the country and how?

Because the decisions made by those leaders will affect them even if they are stupid/ignorant/uninformed.

Why not introduce a special exam that tests at least the basics, and by successfully passing it, a person could gain the right to vote?

Like:

"Does the natural world operate via the laws of science, or does a God determine what happens?"
"Does reducing taxes help ordinary Americans make ends meet?"
"Should women be in control of their bodies?"
"Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?"

Better answer correctly! And the correct answers will change depending on who is in power.

 

[Olga]

I don't know about that. He might croak before then, or maybe even he's feeling one leg wriggling about in the grave, and time to hang it up three years from now. And any internal war would likely happen prior to that stage.

Like MAGA, Marxism itself was a populist movement. All the qualifications were there, like an oppressive elite (the bourgeoisie) to rebel against and concoct conspiracies about, with the overall anti-establishment placeholder filled by villainous capitalism. Humanities scholars would argue against such slotting, but that's just the motivated reasoning of any school of thought outputting apologetics for itself, which logic charitably accommodates via the selected premises plugged into it, or choice of standards (biases) for interpreting data. Populism can be viewed as a hypernym or broader category for subsuming narrower, particular ideologies like that. The roots of fascism were also born in the French Revolution -- in terms of intellectual genealogy they are different sides of the same historical coin.

With respect to civil war, though... During the era of the New Left, militant groups were armed (Symbionese Liberation Army, Weather Underground, etc). But since then, an anti-gun mentality has dominated even in collectivist and anarchist clubs.

So MAGA potentially has the weapons. As illustrated by both recent successful and failed assassination attempts, reciprocal anger is dependent upon swaying unstable older independents and young Gen-Z members who have strayed from their family roots. Or the "politically confused" one might say, those who could contingently flit about anywhere on the spectrum.

If a desire for armed revolutionary conflict was revived, it's unclear where the funding would come from. The USSR no longer exists, and it's difficult to picture China relating to a contemporary Western left that ironically cares little for the "bigoted" proletariat anymore (championing marginalized population groups instead). Iran is engulfed in its own existential problems, and likewise a tad bizarre that it would take an interest in even supporting the pejorative idea of a Regressive Left that adores or worships Muslims (especially rival Sunni Muslims).

Of course, there is much entertaining of a facade or silly myths here. Many progressive celebrities, office-holders, ex-service people, and business magnates (perhaps even some academics) are actually well armed. It is the non-elite hoi polloi or now morally bankrupt proletariat that must be lectured with respect to their irresponsible fascination with weapons and desire for non-restricted access to them. And as a facetious film like One Battle After Another seems to exemplify, the far-left could easily resurrect the 1960s/1970s passions of "equipment" being used to deter the "enemy", if necessary.
_

Финансировать не обязательно должны из-за рубежа. Маск профинансировал избирательную кампанию Трампа, будучи внутри страны.

 

[Olga]

Because the qualification of who can vote for any such system would immediately become "anyone who supports the republicans" as soon as republicans won an election. (Same for any other party.)


Because the decisions made by those leaders will affect them even if they are stupid/ignorant/uninformed.



Like:

"Does the natural world operate via the laws of science, or does a God determine what happens?"
"Does reducing taxes help ordinary Americans make ends meet?"
"Should women be in control of their bodies?"
"Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?"

Better answer correctly! And the correct answers will change depending on who is in power.

Это неправильные вопросы. Вопросы должны быть простые, и касаться общих знаний. Например: знаете ли вы, какие функции выполняет парламент? Что такое законадательные, и исполнительные органы власти? И т.п. У нас в России, многие понятия не имеют, чем парламент отличается от правительства. Не думаю, что на Западе люди намного лучше в этом разбираются.

 

[TheVat]

Questions should be simple and relate to general knowledge. For example: do you know what functions parliament performs? What are the legislative and executive branches of government?

This will result in government by the educated class. The problem with that is that usually means affluent people deciding what poor people need. The only way that works is if affluent people decide poor people need excellent public education and economic support so kids can stay in school. Then almost everyone could pass the test.

 

[Olga]

This will result in government by the educated class. The problem with that is that usually means affluent people deciding what poor people need. The only way that works is if affluent people decide poor people need excellent public education and economic support so kids can stay in school. Then almost everyone could pass the test.

Бедный не означает малообразованный. Тем более в наше время интернета, когда можно научиться чему угодно, не выходя из дома. Вы же не сядете в самолёт или поезд, которым управляют не специально обученные профессионалы, а случайные люди с улицы, просто потому, что они понравились большинству пассажиров? А почему управлять государством могут доверить кому попало, наобум? Ну да, попробуйте представить себе такую дикую ситуацию, где водителя выбирают большинством голосов, только доверившись его обещаниям, причём делают это люди, далёкие от управления транспортом. Конечно, их легко обмануть. А вот того, кто хотя бы примерно знает, как пилотировать самолёт, вы уже так легко не обманете.

 

[TheVat]

Olga, we don't elect random people. The whole point of representative democracy is choosing people who do have the expertise in issues and how government works and creates policies. We don't have a referendum democracy, where every issue is voted on. That would be crazy, for a large nation.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Olga, we don't elect random people. The whole point of representative democracy is choosing people who do have the expertise in issues and how government works and creates policies. We don't have a referendum democracy, where every issue is voted on. That would be crazy, for a large nation.

I don't think we've ever elected a majority of qualified people, maybe a lot less considering their performance.

 

[C C]

I don't think we've ever elected a majority of qualified people, maybe a lot less considering their performance.

Well, again, a general conception of RD that allows any well-funded yokel to run has to be refined down to some subcategory like meritocracy, technocracy, scientocracy, etc. With such actually being put into effect as qualification requirements, rather than window dressing. And that's when the latter are indeed construed as hyponyms of "representative democracy", and not galloping off the path to treating them like they can only be systems of governance wholly independent of elected proxies. (Which is to say: "Hail to the Philosopher Kings! Long live the Scholarly Oligarchy! Blessed be the hereditary Lords of Expertise! We bring offerings to the 33rd Council of the Intellectual Elite!")

As it stands, the parties serve as a poor(?) substitute for opening/closing the gate to and vetting candidates -- via vocal slash financial support (or denunciation).
_