Voting

Radical · Apr 21, 2015

Why should the average person be allowed to vote?

Is the average man's intuition fantastically accurate? Are we all experts in international politics or economics or domestic policy? The only principles I have ever seen used to support a democratic process are "People have the right to choose" and "It affects them, so they get a say". I think both of these are really weak points.

The first listed principle begs the question. "People have the right to choose, therefore they can vote" is exactly what I'm challenging. Why do they have this right to choose? I haven't seen any evidence that says this. In fact, I think that choice is only praised when someone chooses what is good. The reason people object to nationalized health care is because they think it would be better if they got to choose where their own money went, and these people praise those that vote with them. But the supporters of national healthcare would praise the opposite. Choice doesn't seem to be the good thing, but the right choice is good. Therefore, it doesn't seem to me that choice is good in and of itself. Because it isn't intrinsically good, I think the only ones that should be allowed to make political decisions are those that are most likely to make the right choice.

The second principle, "It affects them, so they get a say", also seems to beg the question in much the same way. Children do not get a say when it comes to the organization and leadership of the household. Why? They're immature, they don't know any better, parents are the authority, etc. But my claim is that many voters are like children in the world of politics. Many are immature and do not know any better, so why should they be allowed to challenge those people that do? The affect upon them is actually a negative reason to allow a vote. If the law affects them, they are more likely to choose selfishly. The law will benefit them, but it may not be the right choice for the nation. Let's say that a law would decrease taxes across the board by 1%. The average person would gladly support such a bill. But what are the affects of doing such a thing? Would that increase inflation? Would debt climb exponentially? Does the regular person understand the economic consequences of doing such a thing? No. The majority does not understand. The selfish vote is far more likely just because it affects them, and selfish votes are very likely not the right choice.

Both of these options seem unreasonable. Perhaps I don't know the real foundation for voting. Tell me where I go wrong.

CanadaJohn · Apr 21, 2015

It's a simple principle for me - no taxation without representation.

joG · Apr 21, 2015

Radical said:
Why should the average person be allowed to vote?

Is the average man's intuition fantastically accurate? Are we all experts in international politics or economics or domestic policy? The only principles I have ever seen used to support a democratic process are "People have the right to choose" and "It affects them, so they get a say". I think both of these are really weak points.

The first listed principle begs the question. "People have the right to choose, therefore they can vote" is exactly what I'm challenging. Why do they have this right to choose? I haven't seen any evidence that says this. In fact, I think that choice is only praised when someone chooses what is good. The reason people object to nationalized health care is because they think it would be better if they got to choose where their own money went, and these people praise those that vote with them. But the supporters of national healthcare would praise the opposite. Choice doesn't seem to be the good thing, but the right choice is good. Therefore, it doesn't seem to me that choice is good in and of itself. Because it isn't intrinsically good, I think the only ones that should be allowed to make political decisions are those that are most likely to make the right choice.

The second principle, "It affects them, so they get a say", also seems to beg the question in much the same way. Children do not get a say when it comes to the organization and leadership of the household. Why? They're immature, they don't know any better, parents are the authority, etc. But my claim is that many voters are like children in the world of politics. Many are immature and do not know any better, so why should they be allowed to challenge those people that do? The affect upon them is actually a negative reason to allow a vote. If the law affects them, they are more likely to choose selfishly. The law will benefit them, but it may not be the right choice for the nation. Let's say that a law would decrease taxes across the board by 1%. The average person would gladly support such a bill. But what are the affects of doing such a thing? Would that increase inflation? Would debt climb exponentially? Does the regular person understand the economic consequences of doing such a thing? No. The majority does not understand. The selfish vote is far more likely just because it affects them, and selfish votes are very likely not the right choice.

Both of these options seem unreasonable. Perhaps I don't know the real foundation for voting. Tell me where I go wrong.

I think it is in the fact that democratic vote makes a society and its economy more efficient under most situations. The fundamental idea is that nobody understands, what you do and want better than you do. Think of democracy as a mechanism that processes information from all parts of society and funnels it into decisions. No system has that capability.

brothern · Apr 21, 2015

Radical said:
Both of these options seem unreasonable. Perhaps I don't know the real foundation for voting. Tell me where I go wrong.

While the single individual may not be the brightest, throwing a decision out to the whole group usually(*) results in a the more coherent decision and as you put it, the "right choice."

*Exceptions may apply.

brothern · Apr 21, 2015

Radical said:
Both of these options seem unreasonable. Perhaps I don't know the real foundation for voting. Tell me where I go wrong.

I would also add Radical, that we humans tend to not like it when our own individual decision-making power is limited or nonexistent. I'll acknowledge that our view of choice is colored in the USA given that we're a SUPER individualistic culture; but even in the most collectivist societies (thinking of sliding-scale individual vs collective cultural attitude here) the inability to make choices or exert your own agency is frustrating and inflammatory.

So if we make choices that are obvious for their moral significance; or make choices on how to identify and express ourselves; or even make the simplest decision on what to eat for lunch, why shouldn't it follow that we make decisions on how to govern ourselves? If that's a no-go, what's to stop the inevitable anger ... and violence ... that follows?

Edit: And for the USA at least, our first-past-the-post vote lets us all have a "say", but still lets us choose a representative that espouses some coherent viewpoint. You can argue that other voting systems are better than ours.

brothern said:
While the single individual may not be the brightest, throwing a decision out to the whole group usually(*) results in a the more coherent decision and as you put it, the "right choice."

*Exceptions may apply.

Radical · Apr 21, 2015

CanadaJohn said:
It's a simple principle for me - no taxation without representation.

Ah, I should have anticipated this one. But I think the dismissal should be easily anticipated as well. If you're from Quebec (I'm assuming you're Canadian for obvious reasons), and the federal government of Canada is taxing you, then Quebec should be represented in proportion to it's contribution (population, economic gains, prestige, whatever). However, that doesn't mean all people in Quebec should have political power. It just means they need to be represented. I would promote that they be represented by the experts and the experts alone.

Also, I might actually dismiss the whole idea in the first place. If there were no Muslims in the elected federal government (there are 2), that wouldn't mean adherents to Islam get out of federal taxes. Although it isn't an injustice, I'll say "no taxation without representation" is an easy way to help ensure justice. I still don't think that all taxpayers inherently have the right to vote though.

joG said:
I think it is in the fact that democratic vote makes a society and its economy more efficient under most situations. The fundamental idea is that nobody understands, what you do and want better than you do. Think of democracy as a mechanism that processes information from all parts of society and funnels it into decisions. No system has that capability.

But does it? The Republic of Venice was one of the most wealthy states in Europe until Portugal and England dramatically changed the trade routes. In that specific Merchant Republic, there was a doge that ruled as a powerful executive for life, a senate that elected him, and a Major Council that was essentially a second, larger, less-powerful senate. The majority of people in Venice could not vote. Yet, Venice was one of the wealthiest places in the world in the 1400s.

brothern said:
I would also add Radical, that we humans tend to not like it when our own individual decision-making power is limited or nonexistent. I'll acknowledge that our view of choice is colored in the USA given that we're a SUPER individualistic culture; but even in the most collectivist societies (thinking of sliding-scale individual vs collective cultural attitude here) the inability to make choices or exert your own agency is frustrating and inflammatory.

So if we make choices that are obvious for their moral significance; or make choices on how to identify and express ourselves; or even make the simplest decision on what to eat for lunch, why shouldn't it follow that we make decisions on how to govern ourselves? If that's a no-go, what's to stop the inevitable anger ... and violence ... that follows?

This is more of a problem with Western Culture than with non-democratic systems. The west is egocentric. We shouldn't be egocentric. If we were less egocentric, I bet I wouldn't object so much to a democratic process. Our selfish culture is exactly what I don't want to have political power.

brothern said:
While the single individual may not be the brightest, throwing a decision out to the whole group usually(*) results in a the more coherent decision and as you put it, the "right choice."

*Exceptions may apply.

There's the real objection. But it's much the same as joG. Read what I wrote about Venice. Read about Venice from other people. No democracy, fantastic economy.

brothern · Apr 22, 2015

Radical said:
There's the real objection. But it's much the same as joG. Read what I wrote about Venice. Read about Venice from other people. No democracy, fantastic economy.

But is the economy the only measure by which a state is successful or not? I bet if you look at the other conditions present in Venice during it's hey-day, they'd not be as rosy. Especially for the underclasses. What about crime, educational achievement, social mobility, low unemployment and poverty rates, health care or general quality of life?

Radical said:
This is more of a problem with Western Culture than with non-democratic systems. The west is egocentric. We shouldn't be egocentric. If we were less egocentric, I bet I wouldn't object so much to a democratic process. Our selfish culture is exactly what I don't want to have political power.

Most all Muslim countries have a much more collectivist-oriented culture than the Western individualist-orientation. Whether that's Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Indonesia. In those countries its is more about family and community than it is the individual. Yet all of these countries befall violence as well. Young men blowing themselves up for political reasons, and for reasons that can very directly be related to the idea that these young men are usually of a repressed minority ethnic, religious or national group that does not get a say or vote in its own self-governance.

Therefore I have a hard time believing the argument that only egocentric people care about having a "say" or a vote in what impacts their own life in terms of governance. I believe that it is a part of the human psyche to want to believe they have a role in determining the course of their life; and if that's something that is denied, that is problematic.

joG · Apr 22, 2015

Radical said:
Ah, I should have anticipated this one. But I think the dismissal should be easily anticipated as well. If you're from Quebec (I'm assuming you're Canadian for obvious reasons), and the federal government of Canada is taxing you, then Quebec should be represented in proportion to it's contribution (population, economic gains, prestige, whatever). However, that doesn't mean all people in Quebec should have political power. It just means they need to be represented. I would promote that they be represented by the experts and the experts alone.

Also, I might actually dismiss the whole idea in the first place. If there were no Muslims in the elected federal government (there are 2), that wouldn't mean adherents to Islam get out of federal taxes. Although it isn't an injustice, I'll say "no taxation without representation" is an easy way to help ensure justice. I still don't think that all taxpayers inherently have the right to vote though.

But does it? The Republic of Venice was one of the most wealthy states in Europe until Portugal and England dramatically changed the trade routes. In that specific Merchant Republic, there was a doge that ruled as a powerful executive for life, a senate that elected him, and a Major Council that was essentially a second, larger, less-powerful senate. The majority of people in Venice could not vote. Yet, Venice was one of the wealthiest places in the world in the 1400s.

This is more of a problem with Western Culture than with non-democratic systems. The west is egocentric. We shouldn't be egocentric. If we were less egocentric, I bet I wouldn't object so much to a democratic process. Our selfish culture is exactly what I don't want to have political power.

There's the real objection. But it's much the same as joG. Read what I wrote about Venice. Read about Venice from other people. No democracy, fantastic economy.

As I mentioned, it depends on the circumstances.

CanadaJohn · Apr 22, 2015

Radical said:
Ah, I should have anticipated this one. But I think the dismissal should be easily anticipated as well. If you're from Quebec (I'm assuming you're Canadian for obvious reasons), and the federal government of Canada is taxing you, then Quebec should be represented in proportion to it's contribution (population, economic gains, prestige, whatever). However, that doesn't mean all people in Quebec should have political power. It just means they need to be represented. I would promote that they be represented by the experts and the experts alone.

Also, I might actually dismiss the whole idea in the first place. If there were no Muslims in the elected federal government (there are 2), that wouldn't mean adherents to Islam get out of federal taxes. Although it isn't an injustice, I'll say "no taxation without representation" is an easy way to help ensure justice. I still don't think that all taxpayers inherently have the right to vote though.

You seem to believe that representation requires likeness. You seem to believe that Muslims can only be represented by Muslims. Representation doesn't mean that a member of my clique or my tribe has to be part of government. It simply means that I had the opportunity to participate, both in the selection of candidates and the election of those who serve in government. My ideas, to the best of ability, are represented by those whom I vote for. That doesn't mean that my ideas always win, but it means that my ideas always get a hearing and if the majority agree then my ideas may rule. I'm not so arrogant as to assume that my ideas are always the best nor always the ones that must be represented.

spud_meister · Apr 22, 2015

Radical said:
Why should the average person be allowed to vote?

Is the average man's intuition fantastically accurate? Are we all experts in international politics or economics or domestic policy? The only principles I have ever seen used to support a democratic process are "People have the right to choose" and "It affects them, so they get a say". I think both of these are really weak points.

The first listed principle begs the question. "People have the right to choose, therefore they can vote" is exactly what I'm challenging. Why do they have this right to choose? I haven't seen any evidence that says this. In fact, I think that choice is only praised when someone chooses what is good. The reason people object to nationalized health care is because they think it would be better if they got to choose where their own money went, and these people praise those that vote with them. But the supporters of national healthcare would praise the opposite. Choice doesn't seem to be the good thing, but the right choice is good. Therefore, it doesn't seem to me that choice is good in and of itself. Because it isn't intrinsically good, I think the only ones that should be allowed to make political decisions are those that are most likely to make the right choice.

The second principle, "It affects them, so they get a say", also seems to beg the question in much the same way. Children do not get a say when it comes to the organization and leadership of the household. Why? They're immature, they don't know any better, parents are the authority, etc. But my claim is that many voters are like children in the world of politics. Many are immature and do not know any better, so why should they be allowed to challenge those people that do? The affect upon them is actually a negative reason to allow a vote. If the law affects them, they are more likely to choose selfishly. The law will benefit them, but it may not be the right choice for the nation. Let's say that a law would decrease taxes across the board by 1%. The average person would gladly support such a bill. But what are the affects of doing such a thing? Would that increase inflation? Would debt climb exponentially? Does the regular person understand the economic consequences of doing such a thing? No. The majority does not understand. The selfish vote is far more likely just because it affects them, and selfish votes are very likely not the right choice.

Both of these options seem unreasonable. Perhaps I don't know the real foundation for voting. Tell me where I go wrong.

By allowing all people to participate in democracy, it gives them a sense of power and encourages them to work within the system. Were you to exclude a group, they may feel inclined to circumvent the system to gain power, through civil intransigence or outright revolution.

Democracy works because it makes it easier to gain power working within the system than outside it, and it gives everyone a sense of power, even if their actual level of control is incredibly small.

humbolt · Apr 22, 2015

I think if you embrace the "all men are created equal" idea, then such subjective measures we love to employ for many things are dismissed, allowing the basic human right of existence to achieve some meaning. Denying humans an element of control in their individual destiny is the foundation for despotism and tyranny. "Too stupid to vote" is an excuse, except in the most extreme cases. Most people know enough to vote for what they perceive to be in their best interests. Therefore, don't blame the people - blame the politicians that exploit them.

Radical · Apr 22, 2015

brothern said:
But is the economy the only measure by which a state is successful or not? I bet if you look at the other conditions present in Venice during it's hey-day, they'd not be as rosy. Especially for the underclasses. What about crime, educational achievement, social mobility, low unemployment and poverty rates, health care or general quality of life?

Social mobility would be, when compared to western society now, considerably more difficult. However, Venice was considerably better than Vienna or Milan or Paris in the same time period. The only places that had the same kind of social mobility were Hannover 200 years after Venice's hey-day and Istanbul (if you maintained a good relationship with the sunni muslims, that is). Genoa was another Merchant Republic that had the same kind of economic success, but had considerable corruption for a long time.

As for the rest of the categories mentioned, they were comparatively better than we are today. Stable employment in shipping for all social classes, high education (especially for music), high quality of life/low poverty. It really was pretty awesome for a while.

brothern said:
Most all Muslim countries have a much more collectivist-oriented culture than the Western individualist-orientation. Whether that's Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Indonesia. In those countries its is more about family and community than it is the individual. Yet all of these countries befall violence as well. Young men blowing themselves up for political reasons, and for reasons that can very directly be related to the idea that these young men are usually of a repressed minority ethnic, religious or national group that does not get a say or vote in its own self-governance.

Therefore I have a hard time believing the argument that only egocentric people care about having a "say" or a vote in what impacts their own life in terms of governance. I believe that it is a part of the human psyche to want to believe they have a role in determining the course of their life; and if that's something that is denied, that is problematic.

I guess my problem is that egoism makes for poor votes. In the middle eastern countries you mention, I think democratic republics are a better form of government for them than the ones they currently have. For our society, I think that democratic republics are fueling a poor quality in our culture. You believe that taking away something that many believe is a right will be problematic. So do I. But I think there's a problem with people think they have this right, too.

It is nothing but arrogance, pure arrogance, that could make a person think that they are so awesome as to impose their own personal will on the rest of a nation with nearly no expertise except of their own lives. Sure, allow city governments to maintain popular vote. But what does my vote from Houston Texas have that gives it power over people in New York? Nothing.

akrunner88 · Apr 22, 2015

Radical said:
Why should the average person be allowed to vote?

Is the average man's intuition fantastically accurate? Are we all experts in international politics or economics or domestic policy? The only principles I have ever seen used to support a democratic process are "People have the right to choose" and "It affects them, so they get a say". I think both of these are really weak points.

The first listed principle begs the question. "People have the right to choose, therefore they can vote" is exactly what I'm challenging. Why do they have this right to choose? I haven't seen any evidence that says this. In fact, I think that choice is only praised when someone chooses what is good. The reason people object to nationalized health care is because they think it would be better if they got to choose where their own money went, and these people praise those that vote with them. But the supporters of national healthcare would praise the opposite. Choice doesn't seem to be the good thing, but the right choice is good. Therefore, it doesn't seem to me that choice is good in and of itself. Because it isn't intrinsically good, I think the only ones that should be allowed to make political decisions are those that are most likely to make the right choice.

The second principle, "It affects them, so they get a say", also seems to beg the question in much the same way. Children do not get a say when it comes to the organization and leadership of the household. Why? They're immature, they don't know any better, parents are the authority, etc. But my claim is that many voters are like children in the world of politics. Many are immature and do not know any better, so why should they be allowed to challenge those people that do? The affect upon them is actually a negative reason to allow a vote. If the law affects them, they are more likely to choose selfishly. The law will benefit them, but it may not be the right choice for the nation. Let's say that a law would decrease taxes across the board by 1%. The average person would gladly support such a bill. But what are the affects of doing such a thing? Would that increase inflation? Would debt climb exponentially? Does the regular person understand the economic consequences of doing such a thing? No. The majority does not understand. The selfish vote is far more likely just because it affects them, and selfish votes are very likely not the right choice.

Both of these options seem unreasonable. Perhaps I don't know the real foundation for voting. Tell me where I go wrong.

"Voting" and the ability to do so for all citizens has lead to the greatest amount of freedom seen since human conception.

You may not like it, and I sure as hell don't like it when some uninformed people (on both sides) cast ballots based on artificial issues like "HE'S BLACK!" or "HE/SHE SUPPORTS/DOESN'T SUPPORT ABORTION!!!", but I'll take this system any day of the week over other alternatives.

akrunner88 · Apr 22, 2015

humbolt said:
I think if you embrace the "all men are created equal" idea, then such subjective measures we love to employ for many things are dismissed, allowing the basic human right of existence to achieve some meaning. Denying humans an element of control in their individual destiny is the foundation for despotism and tyranny. "Too stupid to vote" is an excuse, except in the most extreme cases. Most people know enough to vote for what they perceive to be in their best interests. Therefore, don't blame the people - blame the politicians that exploit them.

"Too stupid to vote" also begs another question. Why are they too stupid to vote? That issue in it of itself is separate entirely from the voting system, and can usually be traced to some endemic failures in a particular community. Whether it be education, or poverty, or what have you. I'd rather address the "why" portion of too stupid to vote than limiting their ability to vote in the first place.

Radical · Apr 22, 2015

joG said:
As I mentioned, it depends on the circumstances.

Give me some circumstances that would make me think twice about my position against popular vote. You can't hold an reasonable opinion without being able to show some reasons. Come on, debate!

CanadaJohn said:
You seem to believe that representation requires likeness. You seem to believe that Muslims can only be represented by Muslims. Representation doesn't mean that a member of my clique or my tribe has to be part of government. It simply means that I had the opportunity to participate, both in the selection of candidates and the election of those who serve in government. My ideas, to the best of ability, are represented by those whom I vote for. That doesn't mean that my ideas always win, but it means that my ideas always get a hearing and if the majority agree then my ideas may rule. I'm not so arrogant as to assume that my ideas are always the best nor always the ones that must be represented.

But I don't think everyone should participate. You beg the question. Why does representation require personal vote? Why can't you be represented apart from your own choice? This is how the criminal justice system works. If you cannot afford your own attorney, one will be appointed to represent you.

spud_meister said:
By allowing all people to participate in democracy, it gives them a sense of power and encourages them to work within the system. Were you to exclude a group, they may feel inclined to circumvent the system to gain power, through civil intransigence or outright revolution.

Democracy works because it makes it easier to gain power working within the system than outside it, and it gives everyone a sense of power, even if their actual level of control is incredibly small.

So democracy is prudent? It allows the most stability because people are allowed in the government? While there is certainly some truth to that, I don't think that necessarily entails a democratic process. An analogy, if everyone was allowed to go to college regardless of income or grades or whatever, that wouldn't necessarily improve education. In fact, the more prestigious colleges are the ones that reject a lot of applications.

I would actually advocate an openness to government like you have understood as beneficial, but I want the base democratic system upgraded to a meritocratic system. The difference between the two is not that anyone is permanently restricted from government, but meritocracy requires a certain demonstration of skill/knowledge/characteristic to be permitted political power. I think that bits of this are already present. For example, felons are generally restricted from voting. So are non-citizens, people under the age of 18, etc. I simply want more restrictions, one of which being a basic understanding of how the government operates.

With a more meritocratic system, people aren't just encouraged to participate if they want, but it instead has the overtone that the right to vote must be earned.

humbolt said:
I think if you embrace the "all men are created equal" idea, then such subjective measures we love to employ for many things are dismissed, allowing the basic human right of existence to achieve some meaning. Denying humans an element of control in their individual destiny is the foundation for despotism and tyranny. "Too stupid to vote" is an excuse, except in the most extreme cases. Most people know enough to vote for what they perceive to be in their best interests. Therefore, don't blame the people - blame the politicians that exploit them.

I can't stop the politicians that exploit people because the majority doesn't even think they're being exploited.

Also, I don't think all men are created equal. I think that's either arrogant or idealistic, depending on the person. I would absolutely trust my brother to not spend my money if I gave it to him. My sister wouldn't steal from me, but she would likely use my money if she had access to it. My siblings are not equal. To pretend they are is a lie. I will say that all human beings are persons, but we already restrict certain persons from the government. Felons cannot vote. Children cannot vote. We already say those people are not equal. I think we're too generous in who we give political power to.

Radical · Apr 22, 2015

akrunner88 said:
"Voting" and the ability to do so for all citizens has lead to the greatest amount of freedom seen since human conception.

You may not like it, and I sure as hell don't like it when some uninformed people (on both sides) cast ballots based on artificial issues like "HE'S BLACK!" or "HE/SHE SUPPORTS/DOESN'T SUPPORT ABORTION!!!", but I'll take this system any day of the week over other alternatives.

I think that freedom is not good in and of itself. Freedom is only good insofar as people choose what is good. The Republic of the Netherlands was likely more free than many are now, but it didn't allow a decent chunk of the population to vote. I'm all for republics, but I don't think that people actually vote for their own freedom some of the time. Women vote against legal abortion. Minorities vote against affirmative action. Instead, I would want a government to promote the good. Bad things should be restricted, good things should be advocated. Occasionally, voting does not reflect this. This is my problem with the popular vote.

akrunner88 · Apr 22, 2015

Radical said:
I think that freedom is not good in and of itself. Freedom is only good insofar as people choose what is good. The Republic of the Netherlands was likely more free than many are now, but it didn't allow a decent chunk of the population to vote. I'm all for republics, but I don't think that people actually vote for their own freedom some of the time. Women vote against legal abortion. Minorities vote against affirmative action. Instead, I would want a government to promote the good. Bad things should be restricted, good things should be advocated. Occasionally, voting does not reflect this. This is my problem with the popular vote.

My problem with your line of thinking is that I believe good, bad, and morality are in many cases subjective. While I may be for abortions, for affirmative action, for gay marriage, etc I would rather let the system play itself out and let the citizenry suffer the consequences of their votes and lack or inability to decipher who and why they are voting. It all levels itself out eventually and fixes itself, as long as no outside forces (such as a military coup) are allowed to interfere. Which is the great thing about the American experiment. Change in our country is SLOW. And slow change is definitely not the worst thing in the world.

humbolt · Apr 22, 2015

Radical said:
I can't stop the politicians that exploit people because the majority doesn't even think they're being exploited.

I think the majority does know.

Also, I don't think all men are created equal. I think that's either arrogant or idealistic, depending on the person. I would absolutely trust my brother to not spend my money if I gave it to him. My sister wouldn't steal from me, but she would likely use my money if she had access to it. My siblings are not equal. To pretend they are is a lie. I will say that all human beings are persons, but we already restrict certain persons from the government. Felons cannot vote. Children cannot vote. We already say those people are not equal. I think we're too generous in who we give political power to.

"All men are created equal" is an aspirational statement - we should treat all humans as equal - I can't claim this in fact happens all the time. Note that we are speaking of government here, and not siblings. Some people are not equal by demonstration - but it's a distinction we make after the fact of their behavior - not before. It's very much like "innocent until proven guilty". We assume the best until evidence demonstrate otherwise. As much as I don't like some of the decisions the electorate makes from time to time, I believe I must be willing to let others chart the course they believe is best for them. It's a quid pro quo thing, because I reserve the right to select my own course as well, with or without government endorsement. I'm just looking for freedom.

joG · Apr 23, 2015

Radical said:
Give me some circumstances that would make me think twice about my position against popular vote. You can't hold an reasonable opinion without being able to show some reasons. Come on, debate!

I thought, I had, but maybe it was in another thread. Democracy is a method with which societies can process information from all levels and nooks and crannies. In this fashion the society can integrate information it would otherwise loose and the information is good quality as nobody knows better, what a given individual does and wants than he himself. In this way you do not get the same level of efficiency as with a market price, but much better, than where the information is prejudiced by minority interests and truncated by selective information measurement and flow. Using democracy correctly gets a society much nearer its welfare optimum than other methods.
That is the business as usual case. Under special circumstances like full out wars and such it can happen that other methods can be necessary.

NonConformer · Apr 23, 2015

For a politician in power, every vote is a "stamp of approval" over his actions. Start a war; raise taxes; increase spending; print more money; pass a pile of laws and regulations and enforce them harshly; spy on the citizens; etc. It's all Ok because the voters SAID it was Ok with their vote.

We voters need to be a lot more stingy with our vote. Many, many voters I talk to have the attitude that candidate such-and-such is the "lesser of two evils", or they really don't agree with a lot of the candidate's platform, but they "gotta vote for somebody", or they've "always votes for Party X", etc. etc.

My advice: unless you truly and actually AGREE with the MAJORITY of a candidate or party platform, DON'T VOTE for them. If you do then I GUARANTEE that this politician will eventually, once elected, do something you hate. But you have no recourse because - you VOTED for him!!

One option is to find a candidate that you truly agree with. Most elections have minor party candidates running. Research them; find out what they stand for. Don't be a sheep and worry about who EVERYBODY ELSE is voting for.

And if you cannot find such a candidate, then cast your "vote" by: not voting.

Radical · Apr 23, 2015

joG said:
I thought, I had, but maybe it was in another thread. Democracy is a method with which societies can process information from all levels and nooks and crannies. In this fashion the society can integrate information it would otherwise loose and the information is good quality as nobody knows better, what a given individual does and wants than he himself. In this way you do not get the same level of efficiency as with a market price, but much better, than where the information is prejudiced by minority interests and truncated by selective information measurement and flow. Using democracy correctly gets a society much nearer its welfare optimum than other methods.
That is the business as usual case. Under special circumstances like full out wars and such it can happen that other methods can be necessary.

But what do we do with Venice? I have claimed that Venice, which did not allow the majority to have political power, was more optimum than the western world today (minus the tech advances, of course). The contribution of the majority was not necessary, and actually it seems that the contribution has worsened the state of affairs.

joG · Apr 23, 2015

Radical said:
But what do we do with Venice? I have claimed that Venice, which did not allow the majority to have political power, was more optimum than the western world today (minus the tech advances, of course). The contribution of the majority was not necessary, and actually it seems that the contribution has worsened the state of affairs.

You mean in the Renaissance? The situation was too different and personally I know too few of the details about how the state was structured and run.

Radical · Apr 23, 2015

joG said:
You mean in the Renaissance? The situation was too different and personally I know too few of the details about how the state was structured and run.

Well read up!!! Sure, western democracy is the best form of government around today... But who says it's the best possible? What about elective monarchy? That existed in multiple spots. Or confederate monarchies? China is the one that did the most meritocratic organization. The two notable Republics before the US were Athens (which allowed all citizens to vote on all policies, but "citizen" was restricted to certain people) and Rome (whose Senate made every political decision until Julius Caesar became emperor).

All this history of practical political theory is prime evidence why our slow, inefficient, corrupted governments cannot be considered best. Everything is based upon the election, and so being a good politician isn't necessary. Just winning elections. May the best manipulator win!

joG · Apr 23, 2015

Radical said:
Well read up!!! Sure, western democracy is the best form of government around today... But who says it's the best possible? What about elective monarchy? That existed in multiple spots. Or confederate monarchies? China is the one that did the most meritocratic organization. The two notable Republics before the US were Athens (which allowed all citizens to vote on all policies, but "citizen" was restricted to certain people) and Rome (whose Senate made every political decision until Julius Caesar became emperor).

All this history of practical political theory is prime evidence why our slow, inefficient, corrupted governments cannot be considered best. Everything is based upon the election, and so being a good politician isn't necessary. Just winning elections. May the best manipulator win!

Yes, I could read the specifics. But I know a number of oligopolies with voting systems that are probably similar to the Venetian one. As I pointed out there are situations that make democracy comparatively less efficient and sometimes so much so that it is better to switch for a shorter or longer period. Examples of factors that influence this are transaction costs and times, travel and information time ans costs or external pressures like war.

Radical · Apr 24, 2015

joG said:
Yes, I could read the specifics. But I know a number of oligopolies with voting systems that are probably similar to the Venetian one. As I pointed out there are situations that make democracy comparatively less efficient and sometimes so much so that it is better to switch for a shorter or longer period. Examples of factors that influence this are transaction costs and times, travel and information time ans costs or external pressures like war.

I think the efficiency is necessary at all times. It would optimize the economy, social stability, transition to war, transition to peace, and everything else. The only fear is that increased centralization of power makes tyranny easier and easier. However, I strongly doubt that an advanced Western Nation would slip so quickly into a tyrannical state.

Voting

Radical

Well-known member

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative

joG

brothern

brothern

Radical

Well-known member

brothern

joG

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!

humbolt

Radical

Well-known member

akrunner88

akrunner88

Radical

Well-known member

Radical

Well-known member

akrunner88

humbolt

joG

NonConformer

Radical

Well-known member

joG

Radical

Well-known member

joG

Radical

Well-known member

Voting

Well-known member

Canadian Conservative

Well-known member

Canadian Conservative

Veni, vidi, dormivi!

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency