Is universal suffrage the right thing to do?

[Sarkus]

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.

It's never really been about electing those with expertise, either in issues or in how government works. The civil service, at least in the UK, cover the latter, and you bring in specialists and experts to cover the former.
What we elect is really just a matter of personality in someone who claims to share the same values as you. Ideally you elect someone with passion and drive to make the changes you want to see, and someone capable of achieving it by having the right team around then.
In some countries the personality matters more. The more money there is in politics the more you're likely to get people with the right personality and drive and competence/team, but too much money and you get corruption. In the UK we have so little money and so our politicians tend to be the most boring people you can get. I don't mind that, personally, as it means you can focus on policies. But it's got to the point where I couldn't confidently name anyone in government other than out PM. I might know a few other names, but not necessarily the dept they are minister of.

 

[TheVat]

It's never really been about electing those with expertise, either in issues or in how government works. The civil service, at least in the UK, cover the latter, and you bring in specialists and experts to cover the former.
What we elect is really just a matter of personality in someone who claims to share the same values as you. Ideally you elect someone with passion and drive to make the changes you want to see, and someone capable of achieving it by having the right team around then.

Oh, I wasn't saying voters pick experts, just that the ideal of RepD is the elected can then access experts and wonks. What the US does is a poor version of RD, with personality contest winners who prioritize pleasing their donor base. They hire people to help them convince voters they have their best interests at heart. We're really inching towards oligarchy. My post was directed to Olga in distinguishing between rep Democracy and referendum (direct) democracy. If I had elucidated I meant in ideal form, not in reality, it would have helped.

 

[Olga]

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.

Тогда почему вам не нравится Трамп? Ведь это же вы сами его выбрали?

 

[Olga]

It's never really been about electing those with expertise, either in issues or in how government works. The civil service, at least in the UK, cover the latter, and you bring in specialists and experts to cover the former.
What we elect is really just a matter of personality in someone who claims to share the same values as you. Ideally you elect someone with passion and drive to make the changes you want to see, and someone capable of achieving it by having the right team around then.
In some countries the personality matters more. The more money there is in politics the more you're likely to get people with the right personality and drive and competence/team, but too much money and you get corruption. In the UK we have so little money and so our politicians tend to be the most boring people you can get. I don't mind that, personally, as it means you can focus on policies. But it's got to the point where I couldn't confidently name anyone in government other than out PM. I might know a few other names, but not necessarily the dept they are minister of.

Саркус, а кто формирует наши ценности? Кто научил немцев считать себя высшей расой? Кто научил советских людей ненавидеть буржуазию? Кто привил вам ваши демократические ценности? Просто некоторые умеют ловко играть на людских чувствах. Ты "маленький человек" от которого ничего не зависит? Нет, что ты! Ты часть великой государственной машины! Ты велик, ты американец! Или, в зависимости от времени и места, возможны варинты: ты истинный ариец! Ты свободный римлянин! И т.п.

 

[Tiassa]

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?

It never makes sense to save democracy by calling it off.

For instance, why not a psych exam? I would think the reasons are obvious; the definition of art is not a reason to diminish suffrage.

 

[Changeling]

Dumb people have rights too.

 

[TheVat]

It never makes sense to save democracy by calling it off.

You turn an elegant phrase, sir. May have to borrow that one later.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Everyone is going to vote what's best for them Take welfare, you are going to have votes for more, same, less, or none. Same with taxes. Whoever wins the election will vote the way the majority of his voters want.

 

[Randwolf]

Everyone is going to vote what's best for them Take welfare, you are going to have votes for more, same, less, or none. Same with taxes. Whoever wins the election will vote the way the majority of his voters want.

You might think so Wow, but you would, once again, be demonstrably wrong. People often vote against their own best interests, especially when identity politics are involved. Like, you know, "Trumpers" and their ilk:

---------------

"A central puzzle is why so many voters seem to vote against redistributive policies that would benefit them, such as more progressive income taxes, taxes on capital income or estates, or more generous transfer programs, and why voters have tolerated policies that have contributed to a stark rise in inequality over the past few decades."

https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/why-do-we-not-support-redistribution/

---------------

"Working-class Americans who voted for Donald J. Trump continue to approve of him as president, even though he supported a health care bill that would disproportionately hurt them."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/upshot/why-americans-vote-against-their-interest-partisanship.html

View article without paywall

removepaywalls.com

---------------

"Many low-education voters who embrace social welfare programs vote against their own beliefs, new UC Riverside research holds.

The mitigating factor is education: The more education one has, the more likely one is to stick to one’s policy preferences.

“It means candidates who employ tactics such as fear and attaching patriotism to certain concepts can persuade people to vote for candidates who are in opposition to their social beliefs,” Diogo Ferrari, a professor of political science at UC Riverside, wrote in his recently published paper, “Education, Belief Structures, Support for Welfare Policies, and Vote,” published in the journal Education & Society."

Why some people vote against their own beliefs

Many low-education voters who embrace social welfare programs vote against their own beliefs, new UC Riverside research holds. The mitigating factor is education: The more education one has, the more likely one is to stick to one’s policy preferences.

news.ucr.edu

---------------

Now that you have been presented with this evidence, you would agree that "everyone" is definitively NOT always "going to vote what's best for them," right, WoW?