Is the voting system of Democracy flawed?

L31mr0d

Yesterday at lunch a heated debate sparked because one of the guys at the table said they'd be voting No to Lisbon, when asked for his reasons he said "because my father told me to"

I then proposed that a better voting system would consist of a vetting process whereby the individual would have to go through a free course, then a test and then be allowed to vote once they have proven they have an understanding of how to vote and why they should be voting.

This was met with pretty much unanimous objection, even though most agreed that the person should not be voting merely because his parent said so they then accepted that it was the individuals right to vote because of whatever reasons they want.

This, I believe, is a flawed system.

My reasoning was this, the government already imposes limits on our societies voting rights. People under a certain age aren't allowed to vote, people with certain psychiatric impairments and in places felons and ex-felons aren't allowed to vote. We accept these restrictions for the majority.

Also, there are rights in society that we have to be tested for before being allowed to exercise them, such as driving a vehicle.

In my opinion a person who votes on sentiment, prejudice, peer pressure or the mere aesthetics of a person is more dangerous to society then a person who drives a car without a license.

It has lead to the culture we currently live in where a nominee must profess to believe the religion that is most acceptable to the populous, showcase a nuclear family and have photo ops with babies and the poor to show they are "in touch" and care for everyone. This is the case because it works. People will vote for someone merely because he has a nice smile, or goes to church on a Sunday or has been fortunate enough to have a wife and children.

If people where educated about politics and what to pay attention to on manifestos we would have none of these tactics, because they wouldn't work. Instead candidates would have to sell themselves on their plans to help society and their image or personal life would not be of relevance.

Also, I'm not saying that this vetting process would be perfect, there are still a lot of intelligent people out there who are also bigoted and superstitious about a persons religion. But at least it would be better than a persons mere age being a good enough sign that they are worthy to vote.

You opinions on my argument are appreciated.

DadaKopf

The premise for your question is wrong.

I agree that elections and referenda are flawed in terms of how they communicate voters' intentions as individuals and a political community. Our PR-STV voting system to one side: it is informationally very rich in terms of how voters decide on their preferences - do they vote for individuals or parties, national or local issues, or for reasons not to do with the party manifesto? A referendum on a complex issue like the Lisbon Treaty presents the opposite problem: it's informationally poor - with such a wide spectrum of opinion on a wide range of issues, how should a 'yes' or 'no' vote be interpreted?

This only leads to the conclusion that 'democracy' cannot be equated with voting. This is why your argument falls apart. Democracy is much deeper than this: it is about the values, norms, institutions and procedures that distribute power in an open and participative way. Voting (referenda and elections) is just one, imperfect, mechanism to achieve this.

However, voting is one of the least worst ways to establish legitimate public decision-making on certain issues. It is through engaging the political system as citizens by meeting your TD, getting involved in a campaign, working in public life etc that democracy flourishes.

The only better alternative, in my opinion, is to embrace deliberative (or direct) democracy.

L31mr0d

but would instituting a system whereby everyone has to pass a basic course before being allowed to vote make the system worse? Maybe even having a mandatory class in schools? My premise is that if you know where to look and what to look for you will be able to find the needed information on a given referendum or election and make an educated decision.

Boston

Who gets to decide what the right criteria is? Is "because my father told me" any better then "because my father taught me the principles and Ideals I believe in and therefore I vote according to those ideals and principles."? Who gets to decide what motivation is valid?

You really want to give the government the power to decided who can and cannot vote based on whether or not their thinking is in step with the governments view of the world?

I also note that you presume you would be able to pass such a course, that the way you think and vote is the right way.

L31mr0d

Boston wrote: »

Who gets to decide what the right criteria is? Is "because my father told me" any better then "because my father taught me the principles and Ideals I believe in and therefore I vote according to those ideals and principles."? Who gets to decide what motivation is valid?

You really want to give the government the power to decided who can and cannot vote based on whether or not their thinking is in step with the governments view of the world?

I also note that you presume you would be able to pass such a course, that the way you think and vote is the right way.

Your comment is assuming a lot of evils. First, I don't know how you have come to the conclusion that I believe I would pass this test and second that the government is already so corrupt that they would create a system whereby people would be always thought to vote for them.

Just as we trust organizations to teach our children an unbiased world history, we should trust these same organizations to put together a course that would train an individual in the basics of politics and motivations to vote.

Captain Ginger

I see where you're coming from and agree with parts, but if people are forced into doing some kind of course I think you would loose a lot of potential voters due to them not being bothered to go through all that.

Then again on the flip side at least the few people who would go through it all would be voting while knowing exactly what they're voting for.

I was going to vote no to the Lisbon treaty due to my family voting no and some of the things I had been told, but it wasn't until I read a thread on here and noticed so many people were voting yes that I sat down for a couple of hours and did all the research to find why both options are good and bad, and in the end I decided that I would vote yes.

L31mr0d

Captain Ginger wrote: »

Then again on the flip side at least the few people who would go through it all would be voting while knowing exactly what they're voting for.

this is my point exactly. We have the mandatory driving test in place so that it filters out people who either a) aren't skilled enough to drive or b) can't drive without knowing the rules of the road. This makes driving in this country a lot safer than if there where no requirements to pass a test.

Putting in place a course for people to pass will mean that people who want to vote for frivolous reasons and who aren't motivated by an educated opinion will not vote. The only people who will vote will already have passed the course and would have the know how to research before a given referendum or election, ergo just as we assume a certain level of training for people to operate a vehicle we should assume a certain level of training for people making decisions about this countries future and leadership.

Boston

L31mr0d wrote: »

Your comment is assuming a lot of evils. First, I don't know how you have come to the conclusion that I believe I would pass this test and second that the government is already so corrupt that they would create a system whereby people would be always thought to vote for them.

So are you saying you wouldn't pass the type of test your propose?

I think any such test would be biased along certain political and moral lines, yes.

Just as we trust organizations to teach our children an unbiased world history, we should trust these same organizations to put together a course that would train an individual in the basics of politics and motivations to vote.

Such courses exist already, its called civics and all secondary level school children do it. The problem is requiring people to pass a civics exam in order to have a vote. People are free to have any opinion they like, even one which runs against what the majority view as acceptable.

Btw you ignored all my questions. Who determines what criteria should be used and what makes that criteria valid.

brianthebard

we already have a test for people before they can vote-c.s.p.e on the junior cert! and just about everyone I know who's ever done the exam has passed, so they must be eligible to vote!

L31mr0d

Boston wrote: »

So are you saying you wouldn't pass the type of test your propose?

How should I know if I would pass. No such test exists. I'm not proposing what should be in the test rather that a test should exist. A seperate, unbiased, organization would set the test

Boston wrote: »

I think any such test would be biased along certain political and moral lines, yes.

Why do you think this?

Boston wrote: »

People are free to have any opinion they like, even one which runs against what the majority view as acceptable.

So you think it is acceptable for an individual to vote for someone because they part their hair to the left instead of the right? Do you not think such individuals are a detriment to the progression of our society

Boston wrote: »

Btw you ignored all my questions. Who determines what criteria should be used and what makes that criteria valid.

No I didn't. I already said the people who would set the test and criteria would be an organization as unbiased as the people who write our history books. If we can trust that our children are being thought an unbiased history we can also trust that they are being thought an unbiased view of politics and how and why to vote.

redfacedbear

I think it is shocking that an adult would vote based on what their parents told them to do. There is a voice in my head that says that they shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.

However, I think in reality it would be dangerous to introduce any restrictions to who could vote (apart from the current basic ones - Adult, Citizen, Resident). Introducing the precedent that Voting is a privilege to be earned rather than a right would be unacceptable to me.

Education is the only way to influence people to vote for 'valid' reasons and hopefully the generation who have undergone CPSE in schools will be better informed as they come of age.

L31mr0d

redfacedbear wrote: »

I think it is shocking that an adult would vote based on what their parents told them to do. There is a voice in my head that says that they shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.

same here... but then the more I thought about it the more I realized that this is pretty much an accepted norm. The reason why there is such a thing as the "photo op" is that it works. Peoples opinions can change about a candidate by a mere photograph of them and because people aren't educated to ignore these electioneering tactics they can be easily swayed.

All to often the public will be swayed in their opinion by the dressing and not the meat. A prime example is the current US presidential election. People are talking more about the sex of the person or the color of their skin and not about the changes that person will bring to the country.

Boston

I'm not going to get into this multiple quotes nonsense, if you need to do it you've missed the point of a post.

I believe not only that someone should have a right to vote on issue based on criteria as trivial as appearance but also on criteria such as race, gender, sexual preference etc etc. Taking away someone vote because their not smart enough to use it wisely sets a very bad precedent. One might ask, since you're so for trusting in the higher powers to be unbiased and better able to decide then we ourselves, why bother with elections in the first place?

You've rightly pointed out the main flaw with democracy, that sometimes people are stupid and people in groups are especially stupid, but thats the system we have.

brianthebard

L31mrod you are even more naive than i thought if you think history books are unbiased.to assume they are and that the people who write them would be capable of creating an unbiased exam for voters shows how ill judged your proposal is.

L31mr0d

Boston wrote: »

I'm not going to get into this multiple quotes nonsense, if you need to do it you've missed the point of a post.

I believe not only that someone should have a right to vote on issue based on criteria as trivial as appearance but also on criteria such as race, gender, sexual preference etc etc. Taking away someone vote because their not smart enough to use it wisely sets a very bad precedent. One might ask, since you're so for trusting in the higher powers to be unbiased and better able to decide then we ourselves, why bother with elections in the first place?

You've rightly pointed out the main flaw with democracy, that sometimes people are stupid and people in groups are especially stupid, but thats the system we have.

I wasn't multiple quoting, I was merely splitting up your post to reply to each part of it because you where previously under the impression I wasn't properly answering all your questions. Splitting up your post to reply seemed the best way to keep my replies clear for you.

But regardless, so you are saying that if Obama does not get elected and it was found that there was a huge movement of racists that came out to vote against him that you believe this is a just and fair system. Where does it stop? You are saying it should be allowed for people to judge an individual on their appearance alone and make a judgment on their character based on this information.

What you are basically condoning is racism and you are saying it should be an individuals right to be racist when voting for an individual. I believe this is wrong.

I never said the government should be the ones to set the test. You keep assuming this as well as assuming a completely corrupt establishment. But you keep ignoring my statements that there are a lot of establishments that we trust to be unbiased. It's like saying "who should judge in the courts if all judges are biased" or "who should teach our children history if all the teachers are biased". You can't go through life assuming everyone in a position of power or authority is biased.

Akrasia

Look L31mr0d, There are flaws in the democratic process, but your ideas are not the right solution.

Forcing people to take a test before they can vote has so many obvious flaws that it's just not funny.

first of all, it would be extremely discriminatory against the poor and minority groups who are more likely to have literacy problems. This would mean the democratic system would be dominated by middle and upper class opinion which would leave the most vulnerable people without any representation.

Secondly, the tests and the course can easily be designed so that those who are inclined to vote for the ruling party are more likely to pass. The course could become a propaganda campaign for a particular political ideology and the test could 'fail' people who have alternative political beliefs. There would be an 'official truth' that would be decided by a quango appointed by the political elites.

Lets say McDowell was in charge of setting up the test/course. He is vehemently anti republican and rabidly pro market. He could design the 'free course' in such a way as to promote those aims and 1. influence the open minded and 2. exclude those who are politically opposed to his ideologies.

L31mr0d

much like brianthebard has already said, there already is a course in place, the c.s.p.e, which children are thought in school. Do you imagine the government has already twisted this so that it serves as brainwashing and propaganda to be fed into our childrens minds?

The test would be free so the poor would not need to pay for it. Also I think the voting system is already dominated by middle and upper class opinion because the lower classes aren't thought as to why they should care about voting. They also aren't thought how to make a decision between who to vote for.

I personally don't believe this test would be beyond anyone, if a person doesn't have the intelligence to read/listen to the policies of someone they are voting for should they really be allowed to vote for that person? Regardless if the person is illiterate, they can still listen and answer questions on their knowledge. There could be an aural version of the test for the illiterate.

brianthebard

there are many historical precedents for the test you are proposing and all have been done away with,because universal suffrage is a key tenet of our democracy.in every case those tests have been used to exclude people from voting.therefore my question to you L31mrod is why you want to exclude people from democracy?
Posted via Mobile Device

L31mr0d

brianthebard wrote: »

there are many historical precedents for the test you are proposing and all have been done away with,because universal suffrage is a key tenet of our democracy.in every case those tests have been used to exclude people from voting.therefore my question to you L31mrod is why you want to exclude people from democracy?
Posted via Mobile Device

people are already excluded from democracy. We have decided that a 17 year old is unfit to have an opinion but an 18 year old is. People with certain mental disabilities are unfit to vote and in places felons and ex-felons are unfit to vote. Democracy already limits freedom to vote and its accepted.

I am not looking to exclude anyone from voting, rather get everyone up to a level of competence whereby the reasons for voting are valid. Plato and Socrates knew of these problems with the democratic system centuries ago but nothing has been done to change it.

Here is why I believe it hasn't change and probably will never change. People inherently want unlimited freedom, as long as it agrees with their own personal opinion of freedom and most people feel they should be free to judge an individual on whatever merits they see fit. The government in turn allows this because it benefits them. They need not concern themselves with making huge leaps in improving the standard of living for society as all they have to do is show they are caring, passionate and religious people in front of the camera and they know the politically uneducated majority will vote for them. This freedom of voting scratches the backs of both the government and the people so it will probably never change.

Is it beneficial though to the progression of society? I don't believe so.

Akrasia

L31mr0d wrote: »

much like brianthebard has already said, there already is a course in place, the c.s.p.e, which children are thought in school. Do you imagine the government has already twisted this so that it serves as brainwashing and propaganda to be fed into our childrens minds?

I haven't seen the course but I doubt very much they include much of a criticism of capitalist liberal democracy or an objective view of socialist politics.

Also, its not manditory to agree with what is taught in CSPE to be allowed to vote.

The test would be free so the poor would not need to pay for it. Also I think the voting system is already dominated by middle and upper class opinion because the lower classes aren't thought as to why they should care about voting. They also aren't thought how to make a decision between who to vote for.

The test would need to be difficult enough that it excludes the 'wrong' kinds of voters otherwise what would be the point in having it?

The middle class 'teaching' working class people who they should vote for is patronising and not far away from political indoctrination.

I personally don't believe this test would be beyond anyone, if a person doesn't have the intelligence to read/listen to the policies of someone they are voting for should they really be allowed to vote for that person? Regardless if the person is illiterate, they can still listen and answer questions on their knowledge. There could be an aural version of the test for the illiterate.

But you would still fail people if they give the 'wrong' answers to the questions?

Can you give a sample of some of the questions you would like to see on the test?

L31mr0d

It wouldn't be about teaching people "who" to vote for but "how" to vote. A person can be thought to drive without being told where they can and cannot drive.

Teaching people about the history of politics in Ireland, what they should look for in candidates voting, the processes they should go through to make a decision and what political tactics to ignore could be on the course. It might not be a case actually that someone has to actually pass a test, rather the course itself is mandatory before being allowed to vote.

Boston

L31mr0d wrote: »

I wasn't multiple quoting, I was merely splitting up your post to reply to each part of it because you where previously under the impression I wasn't properly answering all your questions. Splitting up your post to reply seemed the best way to keep my replies clear for you.

But regardless, so you are saying that if Obama does not get elected and it was found that there was a huge movement of racists that came out to vote against him that you believe this is a just and fair system. Where does it stop? You are saying it should be allowed for people to judge an individual on their appearance alone and make a judgment on their character based on this information.

What you are basically condoning is racism and you are saying it should be an individuals right to be racist when voting for an individual. I believe this is wrong.

I never said the government should be the ones to set the test. You keep assuming this as well as assuming a completely corrupt establishment. But you keep ignoring my statements that there are a lot of establishments that we trust to be unbiased. It's like saying "who should judge in the courts if all judges are biased" or "who should teach our children history if all the teachers are biased". You can't go through life assuming everyone in a position of power or authority is biased.

Why did you highlight racism, are you sexist and homophobic? Yes I believe its an individuals right to how whatever opinion they like, even hateful ones.

Also, it is human to be biased.

L31mr0d

Boston wrote: »

Also, it is human to be biased.

I won't even respond to your nonsensical opening to that post.

I know humans are inherently biased. But the more you educate a person the less likely they are to be affected by irrational forms of bias which aren't applicable when considering which candidate is better to vote for.

DadaKopf

L31mr0d wrote: »

I won't even respond to your nonsensical opening to that post.

I know humans are inherently biased. But the more you educate a person the less likely they are to be affected by irrational forms of bias which aren't applicable when considering which candidate is better to vote for.

I think women shouldn't vote. Period. They often become dominated by their emotions, they become hysterical, prone to irrationality, and who wants someone like that with their finger on the button?

Even if you did educate them, they'd only be interested in cakes and babies.

L31mr0d

DadaKopf wrote: »

I think women shouldn't vote. Period. They often become dominated by their emotions, they become hysterical, prone to irrationality, and who wants someone like that with their finger on the button?

Even if you did educate them, they'd only be interested in cakes and babies.

Are you trying to prove my point with that post? If you are trying to somehow, loosely, draw a parallel between educating people to vote and generalizing a group of people because of bigotry then you are mistaken because there is none.

An educating system would filter bigots from being allowed to vote. Do I believe bigots shouldn't be allowed to vote? Most definitely yes. Their opinion does nothing but slow the progress of society. The same way bigotry slowed the equalization of women.

AngryHippie

L31mr0d wrote: »

Teaching people about the history of politics in Ireland, what they should look for in candidates voting, the processes they should go through to make a decision and what political tactics to ignore could be on the course. It might not be a case actually that someone has to actually pass a test, rather the course itself is mandatory before being allowed to vote.

If there was an honest and open course, teaching people about the history of politics in Ireland, then it may be a good thing, but considering the number of people with a vote who cannot read and write beyond a primary school level, it would restrict access to those who already have been educated to a point where they can read enough to inform themselves, And most of them still made the same decision on Lisbon, so I think it would be a waste of money....mostly

DadaKopf

An educating system would filter bigots from being allowed to vote. Do I believe bigots shouldn't be allowed to vote? Most definitely yes.

I was illustrating the absurdity of your view. Shamefully, it was a commonplace view until very recently.

I agree absolutely with akrasia: not only would your system be open to abuse, it would be a form of abuse. Universal suffrage has been very hard won and I can't see any argument for going back.

I'm 100% behind critical political education, and I'm 100% behind innovating new forms of democracy to increase citizens' participation in decision-making. We're living in a new world and it's clear that industrial revolution political forms are not compatible with post-industrial society.

But if education were tied to voting rights, it'd just lead to elite rule. The system would be so open to abuse and lead people to question the validity of the whole democratic system. In a country complaining about the distance between politicians and voters (the Lisbon treaty being a case in point), this would only make things worse. So much worse.

brianthebard

L31mr0d wrote: »

much like brianthebard has already said, there already is a course in place, the c.s.p.e, which children are thought in school. Do you imagine the government has already twisted this so that it serves as brainwashing and propaganda to be fed into our childrens minds?

I dunno if you did civics/cspe when you were in school but I did, and while it doesn't go so far as to say that all other political systems but FF are bad, its by no means impartial.

The test would be free so the poor would not need to pay for it. Also I think the voting system is already dominated by middle and upper class opinion because the lower classes aren't thought as to why they should care about voting. They also aren't thought how to make a decision between who to vote for.

I personally don't believe this test would be beyond anyone, if a person doesn't have the intelligence to read/listen to the policies of someone they are voting for should they really be allowed to vote for that person? Regardless if the person is illiterate, they can still listen and answer questions on their knowledge. There could be an aural version of the test for the illiterate.

What you seem to be suggesting is a test which no one will fail. What then is the point of the test? You are arguing for education, which while admirable does not always require a test to prove it has been taken in by the student. Also as Akrasia has already pointed out this test/educational course will by its very nature be biased. It will contain elements that are seen as good for the society we live in and keep out elements deemed subversive. Finally, when i pointed out that there are historical precedents both in this country, Britain, and America (and probably others) did you look it up to see what I meant? Or did you ignore it? Or a third option, did you realise that these precedents proved your plan was fatally flawed and decide to avoid the argument altogether?

L31mr0d wrote: »

An educating system would filter bigots from being allowed to vote. Do I believe bigots shouldn't be allowed to vote? Most definitely yes. Their opinion does nothing but slow the progress of society. The same way bigotry slowed the equalization of women.

In case you hadn't noticed, dividing a group/society into bigots and non-bigots, is actually bigotted. The irony hurts me greatly.

L31mr0d

brianthebard wrote: »

What you seem to be suggesting is a test which no one will fail. What then is the point of the test? You are arguing for education, which while admirable does not always require a test to prove it has been taken in by the student. Also as Akrasia has already pointed out this test/educational course will by its very nature be biased. It will contain elements that are seen as good for the society we live in and keep out elements deemed subversive. Finally, when i pointed out that there are historical precedents both in this country, Britain, and America (and probably others) did you look it up to see what I meant? Or did you ignore it? Or a third option, did you realise that these precedents proved your plan was fatally flawed and decide to avoid the argument altogether?

I think the logger heads we seem to be hitting here continually is one of an optimists argument versus a pessimists argument. I will agree that with a corrupt government that a course implemented by such a government would be biased towards their ideals.

I'm assuming a system whereby this course is designed and agreed upon by the people before being implemented. I'm also assuming a society that knows its rights from its wrongs and wouldn't implement a course that it would know to be biased.

Also, yes, it could be a course that no one would fail. But it would be mandatory before voting. So at least by taking the course they will be educated in politics and how to logically make a decision between a number of given candidates.

brianthebard wrote: »

In case you hadn't noticed, dividing a group/society into bigots and non-bigots, is actually bigotted. The irony hurts me greatly.

Please don't start arguing semantics, it debases an argument. Yes thinking bigots shouldn't be allowed to vote is a form of bigotry, the same way thinking that rapists/murderers should be sent to jail is a form of bigotry. Myself and society aren't accepting of the lifestyles of these people so are we all bigots now?

Also, can I ask one question. Do you think it is right that a 17 year old not be allowed to vote and why do you think so?

brianthebard

As I already pointed out, even the least corrupt government will not include subversive politics in a course about politics. It wouldn't make sense. Do you really expect this course would include elements like anarchy, fascism and socialism? There's optimism and there's naivety.

I will answer your question on 17 year olds when you address the historical precedents issue. This is the second time you have ignored it which leads me to believe that you know you don't have a leg to stand on in this debate.

L31mr0d

brianthebard wrote: »

As I already pointed out, even the least corrupt government will not include subversive politics in a course about politics. It wouldn't make sense. Do you really expect this course would include elements like anarchy, fascism and socialism? There's optimism and there's naivety.

I would fully accept that a society which chose democracy to be biased towards democracy as its form of government. Your reasoning is moot. It's like arguing that a science course should teach creationism.

brianthebard wrote: »

I will answer your question on 17 year olds when you address the historical precedents issue. This is the second time you have ignored it which leads me to believe that you know you don't have a leg to stand on in this debate.

Which particular "historical precedent" would you like me to respond to? I am not ignoring it, rather you are being nonspecific with your argument.

brianthebard

Not allowing Blacks in america to vote, bringing in literacy tests, having to own land to be eligble, being the wrong gender, there's dozens. I don't care which one you pick.

L31mr0d

brianthebard wrote: »

Not allowing Blacks in america to vote, bringing in literacy tests, having to own land to be eligble, being the wrong gender, there's dozens. I don't care which one you pick.

How are you drawing these parallels? In none of these instances was a course put in place to educate people before allowing them to vote? Most of these restrictions where put in place FOR the people rather than BY the people. I am not proposing a test so as to filter those not already educated, I am proposing an education system before allowing a person to vote.

I don't see what is such a hard sell with this. We allow this country to educate the impressionable minds of our children in everything from deciding what is right and wrong to the history of where we come from. Yet an education in politics is some how the beginning of the thought police?

To draw an analogy. Would you allow a person who knows nothing about aviation to decide who is fit to fly the plane that you will be traveling on? If not then why would you allow a person who knows nothing about politics decide the politician that will rule the country you live in.

Again I'll reiterate the question... do you believe it is fair that a person that's 17 years old is not allowed to vote?

Boston

L31mr0d wrote: »

I won't even respond to your nonsensical opening to that post.

I know humans are inherently biased. But the more you educate a person the less likely they are to be affected by irrational forms of bias which aren't applicable when considering which candidate is better to vote for.

You come across as an elitist.

L31mr0d

Boston wrote: »

You come across as an elitist.

Far from it. A perfect democratic system for me would be one where every individual with the ability to vote has enough knowledge to make an educated decision. I do not believe in an elite ruling the uneducated.

DadaKopf

Would you allow a person who knows nothing about aviation to decide who is fit to fly the plane that you will be traveling on?

You're right. I've changed my mind. I think Government should be run by a giant super-computer like them passenger airlines. Govern-by-wire.

L31mr0d

DadaKopf wrote: »

You're right. I've changed my mind. I think Government should be run by a giant super-computer like them passenger airlines. Govern-by-wire.

sarcasm? really? and not even logical, do you really think all airplanes are flown by a super-computer. Been on any cessna's recently? Using reductio ad absurdum to rebut an analogy really does not help your argument.

Anyway, this is getting off topic. The real question I'd like the opponents of implementing such a course to answer is whether they think it is fair that people under the age of 18 can't vote?

DadaKopf

L31mr0d wrote: »

sarcasm? really? and not even logical, do you really think all airplanes are flown by a super-computer. Been on any cessna's recently? Using reductio ad absurdum to rebut an analogy really does not help your argument.

Anyway, this is getting off topic. The real question I'd like the opponents of implementing such a course to answer is whether they think it is fair that people under the age of 18 can't vote?

No, just absudity.

Richard Dawkins made an absurd argument a few years back that 16 year-olds shouldn't vote because they're too immature and emotional. Who'd want those types infecting the British parliament?

Personally, I see no reason to prevent 16 year-olds from voting. A line has to be drawn somewhere, though. It does seem to be that basic arguments against voting are down to entitlement to citizenship, and/or immaturity.

As I said, if you're merely proposing political education, that's fine. I'm in favour of that. If you're linking an entitlement to vote to attending a course, well, that's just school, isn't it - voters are currently of school-leaving age. If you're linking an entitlement to vote to attaining a certain grade, it's just a proposal that has so many flaws that no committed democrat could accept it. Again, these systems have already existed and have been, rightly, toppled.

Going back to the issue of political education, it would also be necessary to implement a new pedagogy. Education, like theory, is always by someone, for someone. It's never neutral. Therefore, political education would reverse the dynamic whereby students exchange their own opinions under the guidance of an educator that leads them to share perspectives and views rather than regurgitating the dogma of the elite of the day. I'm specifically talking about the pedagogy of Paolo Friere and the emergence of 'development education'.

L31mr0d

DadaKopf wrote: »

Richard Dawkins made an absurd argument a few years back that 16 year-olds shouldn't vote because they're too immature and emotional. Who'd want those types infecting the British parliament?

Personally, I see no reason to prevent 16 year-olds from voting. A line has to be drawn somewhere, though. It does seem to be that basic arguments against voting are down to entitlement to citizenship, and/or immaturity.

The point I'm making by highlighting the restrictions on people under the age of 18 is that the majority of people here seem to be saying that anything that restricts universal suffrage is wrong, when in fact universal suffrage is not universal at all in that it denies voting rights to people whether it be because of citizenship, age, mental capacity or criminal convictions.

Also, you said yourself "A line has to be drawn somewhere". Why not draw the line at education instead of age? Would not a 17 year old that had studied politics for 5 years be better capable of understanding how and why to vote than a 37 year old who had lived an isolated and uneducated life?

DadaKopf wrote: »

As I said, if you're merely proposing political education, that's fine. I'm in favour of that. If you're linking an entitlement to vote to attending a course, well, that's just school, isn't it - voters are currently of school-leaving age. If you're linking an entitlement to vote to attaining a certain grade, it's just a proposal that has so many flaws that no committed democrat could accept it. Again, these systems have already existed and have been, rightly, toppled.

Going back to the issue of political education, it would also be necessary to implement a new pedagogy. Education, like theory, is always by someone, for someone. It's never neutral. Therefore, political education would reverse the dynamic whereby students exchange their own opinions under the guidance of an educator that leads them to share perspectives and views rather than regurgitating the dogma of the elite of the day. I'm specifically talking about the pedagogy of Paolo Friere and the emergence of 'development education'.

I'm personally all for this. I would see no problem with implementing the course under the pedagogy of Paolo Friere if it would lead to a more level and neutral education. My main goal though would be to make this course mandatory prior to voting. There need not be a grading system or test, rather just a mandatory course before being allowed to vote.

DadaKopf

people here seem to be saying that anything that restricts universal suffrage is wrong

They're not. They're saying your idea is bad. It's not our fault your're going all cry baby on us for not liking your idea.

Would not a 17 year old that had studied politics for 5 years be better capable of understanding how and why to vote than a 37 year old who had lived an isolated and uneducated life?

What would a 17 year-old really know about what it's like to be a socially-isolated, uneducated 37 year-old (I take it this is you comparing yourself to the 'uneducated inner-city underclass). What qualifies the 17 year-old to speak on the 37 year-old's behalf? By that token, what qualifies crusty old politicians to speak on the behalf of today's young adults?

The strength of democracy is diversity.

Here's a very simple, genuine question I'd like you to answer: what would be the political and social pros and cons of making voting conditional on completing this course?

Akrasia

L31mr0d wrote: »

Also, you said yourself "A line has to be drawn somewhere". Why not draw the line at education instead of age? Would not a 17 year old that had studied politics for 5 years be better capable of understanding how and why to vote than a 37 year old who had lived an isolated and uneducated life?

You really really don't understand democracy do you?

Its not about being achieving the most efficient decision making, or even making the best decisions, its about allowing everyone the opportunity to represent their own interests whatever they might be. (it does this on a fairly superficial level, but that's a different debate)

If people were only allowed to vote based on political theory or based on what is best for the country as a whole then why bother having elections at all. Why not appoint a philosopher king who is educated to the highest level in political philosophy and has a clear and unfaltering vision for how the country should be governed?

L31mr0d

DadaKopf wrote: »

They're not. They're saying your idea is bad. It's not our fault your're going all cry baby on us for not liking your idea.

What would a 17 year-old really know about what it's like to be a socially-isolated, uneducated 37 year-old (I take it this is you comparing yourself to the 'uneducated inner-city underclass).

Why are you trying to make this personal by assuming things about me that are incorrect? It shows a very immature approach to proving your point in an argument.

DadaKopf wrote: »

What qualifies the 17 year-old to speak on the 37 year-old's behalf? By that token, what qualifies crusty old politicians to speak on the behalf of today's young adults?

I don't know where you got this from. My point is not that a 17 year old is speaking FOR the 37 year old. But rather, who, in your opinion, between them would be able to make a better decision when choosing an individual to serve in government?

DadaKopf wrote: »

Here's a very simple, genuine question I'd like you to answer: what would be the political and social pros and cons of making voting conditional on completing this course?

Pros:
* Public opinion that isn't as easily swayed by propaganda, sentiment, prejudice or peer pressure
* A greater onus on the leading party to act for the people rather than perform in front of the people
* A greater saturation in the understanding of the political system and the ramifications of the vote they submit
* Reduction in the state of apathy towards the political system and a narrowing in the mindset differences between those who lead this country and those who vote these individuals into power

Cons:
* Exclusion of voting rights for those who do not want to take the course
* Cost to the tax payer to run the course for free

L31mr0d

as usual, someone a lot more eloquent than me has already summed up my idea in one sentence, this is exactly the ideal that I'm trying to get across.

H.L. Wayland - "Universal suffrage without universal education would be a curse"

DadaKopf

don't know where you got this from. My point is not that a 17 year old is speaking FOR the 37 year old. But rather, who, in your opinion, between them would be able to make a better decision when choosing an individual to serve in government?

I think the 'socially isolated, uneducated 37 year-old' is uniquely qualified to represent the opinion of a socially isolated, uneducated 37 year-old. I also think the relatively educated 17 year-old is uniquely qualified to represent the opinion of a relatively educated 17 year-old.

Are you getting this?

L31mr0d

DadaKopf wrote: »

I think the 'socially isolated, uneducated 37 year-old' is uniquely qualified to represent the opinion of a socially isolated, uneducated 37 year-old. I also think the relatively educated 17 year-old is uniquely qualified to represent the opinion of a relatively educated 17 year-old.

Are you getting this?

sarcasm, absurdity, personal attacks and now patronization, wow you really have all the lowest forms of argument in your arsenal. Yes you could also reason that a "KKK racist" is uniquely qualified to represent the opinion of a "KKK racist" but it still doesn't answer the question as to whether the opinion of this person will be a valid reason to vote someone into office.

DadaKopf

Both cases you cited were were 'normal people', so I responded to it. If the 37 year old is educationally disadvantaged (and probably therefore economically disadvantaged), isn't that a failing of government to assist people to access the same opportunities the 17 year old did?

Preventing the 37 year-old from voting (if he/she wishes) on the basis of social disadvantage, then reinforcing that by saying that not only can you not vote, but it's your fault for being an excluded member of society would result in even greater inequality. Politicians, for example, would ignore disadvantaged people even more than they do now. That's reality. It's their ability to vote that makes politicians listen to them. That's democracy, isn't it.

It would also reinforce already-existing political inequalities. Women represent at least 50% of the population. On average, one-third of political party members of women, but only 17% of Dáil seats are held by women; fewer in the Senate; the civil service is around 50% but the majority of senior ranks are held by men. There's also a 13% gender pay gap (women earn less), fewer women than men reach top ranks in the employment sector, and the only group for whom poverty increased in the last 5 years are single mothers. This situation skews government policymaking and state action in ways that discriminate against women.

Now, take single mothers. They must work and look after a child, but many find the responsibilities of looking after a child, so huge, and childcare so expensive, that at least one-third cannot work full-time or enter full-time training in order to get a higher-paying job. So, you're asking that, because the government has time and again failed single mothers, that you'd exclude them further from society by preventing them from voting because they're too busy making ends meet because the government has failed them?

I know you think your idea makes perfect logical sense, but there's the little tricky problem called reality. And even against abstract democratic theory, I fundamentally disagree with your proposition.

Akrasia

I think he's also missed a fundamental flaw with his proposal.

A large reason why voters are so often uninformed is down to the tactics the political parties use in their election campaigns. What is the point in teaching people 'how to vote' if the politicians all use lies misinformation and propaganda in their election campaigns?

Ireland is nowhere near as bad as the U.S. in this regard (yet) but all the main political parties based their campaigns on blatantly unrealistic economic forecasts in an attempt to buy votes.

Presumably your course would tell people to go out and read all the manifestos and weigh up the pros and the cons of each party and vote according to what you agree with. That's all fine and good, but where's the restriction on politicians lying through their teeth at election time?

One of the reasons why people vote for the wrong reasons is because when it comes to the issues, most of the candidates promise the exact same things (they're all in favour of protecting jobs, they're all for the health service, they're all for the environment.....)

There is widespread mistrust of anything politicians say at election time, so people vote for other reasons.

If you want to propose a law that would hold parties legally responsible for the promises they make in their manifestos then I would probably support you, and our democracy would be much stronger than it would be under your proposals.

Jim_Are_Great

L31mr0d, I doubt anyone opposes better political education, in school or otherwise. But making sufferage contingent on success in an exam is a fairly irrational restriction on voting rights.

I agree with you when you say that many people vote for reasons that are objectively unconnected with representative democratic choices. I also agree that this can be seen as a problem, and a highly undesirable element of the status quo of our democratic makeup. In addition, I agree that if there was some permissable way to dissuade people from voting on these bases, it would be for the common good. However, there are problems with your exam-based sufferage model.

Firstly, even if such a system was implemented, people could still vote however they liked, irrespective of their newfound educational credentials. How would your method eliminate hereditary party voting, or voting on the merits of a photograph? You can't force them to vote along the "right" lines.

Secondly, your method is fundamentally incompatible with what democracy is. I'm not going to throw out the tired old "marketplace of ideas" lines, but you have to accept that if your policy of exclusion based on education is adopted, then you have to reject the core democratic principle of freedom of choice. In other words, at the risk of repeating what has been said here over and over, who is to say what the correct criteria are for voting? Is there even such thing as a "correct" way? You seem to believe that decisions that are not made based on manifestoes and principles are unacceptible. Personally, I think that such decisions are not admirable, and are responsible for a lot of the problems in Irish politics. But what makes the decision of a man who votes for the candidate with the nicest tie wrong? What is the yardstick you're using? If someone can't use their vote in whatever way they'd like, why allow them to vote at all?

brianthebard

L31mr0d wrote: »

How are you drawing these parallels? In none of these instances was a course put in place to educate people before allowing them to vote? Most of these restrictions where put in place FOR the people rather than BY the people. I am not proposing a test so as to filter those not already educated, I am proposing an education system before allowing a person to vote.

For the people rather than by the people? What does that even mean? You've descended into soundbites. And you weren't proposing an education system to begin with, so you've already had to cede your position. btw we already have an education system and a civics course, so why do you think that this one would be better?

To draw an analogy. Would you allow a person who knows nothing about aviation to decide who is fit to fly the plane that you will be traveling on? If not then why would you allow a person who knows nothing about politics decide the politician that will rule the country you live in.

Again I'll reiterate the question... do you believe it is fair that a person that's 17 years old is not allowed to vote?

This is a stupid analogy and has nothing to do with politics. but I will answer your question, even though you didn't answer mine. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with setting the voting age at 18.

L31mr0d wrote: »

Pros:
* Public opinion that isn't as easily swayed by propaganda, sentiment, prejudice or peer pressure
* A greater onus on the leading party to act for the people rather than perform in front of the people
* A greater saturation in the understanding of the political system and the ramifications of the vote they submit
* Reduction in the state of apathy towards the political system and a narrowing in the mindset differences between those who lead this country and those who vote these individuals into power

Cons:
* Exclusion of voting rights for those who do not want to take the course
* Cost to the tax payer to run the course for free

Propagande, sentiment (wtf is that supposed to mean in this context?), prejudice and peer pressure are all taught and discussed in schools already but still exist.
We already have an education system that teaches how the political system works.
reduction in apathy-this is the biggest joke of them all. They teach shakespeare in the leaving cert but the vast majority of people are still apathetic to it. Just teaching something does not open peoples third eye or anything else exciting.

You said in an earlier post that you were an optimist but you are just naiive.

Jim_Are_Great

brianthebard wrote: »

we already have an education system and a civics course, so why do you think that this one would be better?

In fairness, that course is a joke. Nothing useful whatsoever is taught in it.

Belfast

L31mr0d wrote: »

Yesterday at lunch a heated debate sparked because one of the guys at the table said they'd be voting No to Lisbon, when asked for his reasons he said "because my father told me to"

I then proposed that a better voting system would consist of a vetting process whereby the individual would have to go through a free course, then a test and then be allowed to vote once they have proven they have an understanding of how to vote and why they should be voting.

An interesting idea.

This sounds like, The people are stupid to vote. They must be told by an elite who know better.

Democracy is a relatively new idea and the idea that an educated elite should hold lead as ordinary people cannot be trusted to make rational decisions and trusting ordinary people will lead to an irrational mob controlling power leading to chaos in the end.

I take a different view.

I think it is the power of the political parties and elites that cannot be trusted.

I suggest the following changes to limit the power of politicians instead that of voters.

Adopt the a system similar to the American system of government.

Executive President limited to 2 terms of 4 years directly elected by the people.

Vice President to be elected on with Executive President.

Executive President can veto laws.

Congress and Senate can over turn veto by 2 third majority of all members in each house.

All laws must be written in simple and clear language independently checked the same body that checks enforcement of laws.

independent body to check the enforcement of all laws independently checked.

If a law is not enforced it becomes null and void and cannot be reinstated for a period of 5 years.

Cabinet appointed by the Executive President approved by congress and senate

Cabinet members cannot be members of congress or senate.

Cabinet members limited to 2 terms.

2 year terms for congress limited to 2 terms

6 year terms for senate limited to 1 term

No member of senate or congress or Cabinet OR can be an MEP or other elected body.

Fixed time elections

One third congress and Senate to be up for elections every 2 years

Congress members limited to 2 terms

Senate members limited to 1 term.

All laws must are limited to 5 years and must reviewed by the senate at this point.

if law is to be renewed it must be passed by congress and senate.

Each constituency would have an equal number of male and female members.

Men run for Male seats and Women for the female seats.
same as the Olympics have a hundred meters for men and a separate one for women.

This means that there is always a gender balanced congress and senate.

Member of Congress or Senate only to be paid when they attend congress or senate.

Attendance at congress and senate compulsory while in session.

Compulsory voting

None of the above option in elections,
if none of the above wins and new ballot must be held, none of the failed candidates are not allow to run again in the new ballot.

Senate and congress to be directly elected

Elector register must be kept up to date and accurate by an independent body.

Political parties can only be funded by membership fees.