Democracy or something else.....?

lost_lad

Can democracy work?
Is it working?
Can it be over-hauled?
Is there a better way all together?

I think personally think it needs an over-haul. People when voting
pick the guy who smiles the most and kisses the most babies.
People dont consider who they are really choosing to run the country.
Its a popularity contest for the pretty boy and anyone who is really trying to influence change for the better doesn't seem to get a look in.

I think a qualification in politics/philosophy/ethics should be at least requred so some sort of bar is set for who can run. Not any dick with money or friend to the property developers should be allowed.
By the people for the people just means that the peeps with money run the state.

seamus

lost_lad wrote:

I think personally think it needs an over-haul. People when voting
pick the guy who smiles the most and kisses the most babies.
People dont consider who they are really choosing to run the country.
Its a popularity contest for the pretty boy and anyone who is really trying to influence change for the better doesn't seem to get a look in.

That's not a problem so much with democracy, but with media. The media have the power to make or break an election. They have the power to (mis)educate the masses. Democracy is kind of a black-and-white process. You can't exclude certain people from voting because they're too stupid, or haven't passed a test about the candidates - that would be the opposite of democracy.

I think a qualification in politics/philosophy/ethics should be at least requred so some sort of bar is set for who can run. Not any dick with money or friend to the property developers should be allowed.

The people with power are more often than not the ones who will stay in power. Power and money are linked more often than not. If someone is successful enough to get voted in, then they are probably successful enough to make plenty of money, and vice-versa. You cannot stop rich people from holding office anymore than you can manage to get ordinary joes voted in without a lot of money behind them.

I would also think that only allowing people with qualification in certain areas to run kind of negates the whole point of "elected representatives". Would you have someone who's not an accountant do up a country's budget? Would you like a philosophy graduate to be in charge of education & science?

I do agree though that it may need to be studied in some serious fashion, to see if there's anything that can be done to improve democracy while maintaining it's spirit.

SkepticOne

lost_lad wrote:

I think a qualification in politics/philosophy/ethics should be at least requred so

That means, when I cast my vote, someone else has done some deciding for me. Someone has gone through the list of potential candidates and decided, on the basis of academic qualifications, who I am entitled to vote for. No thanks. At the moment, anyone can run for election and I can vote for anyone. That is the way I like it.

If the Irish people vote for the wrong people (e.g are conned by flashy campaigns), then tough **** the Irish people pay the price. This is the way it should be, imo. If we keep voting for the 'wrong' people, then whatever we get we deserve.

Zombrex

lost_lad wrote:

Can democracy work?

Define "work". Democracy works if the people have a voice, it doesn't depend on if you agree with that voice.

lost_lad wrote:

Is it working?

Yes it is. We have one of the fairest democratic systems in the world, where not just the majority get a voice but also the larger minorities.

lost_lad wrote:

Can it be over-hauled?

Do you mean "democracy" or do you mean our particular version (proportial representation, with a Dail, TDs and a seperate Legal system)

lost_lad wrote:

Is there a better way all together?

Than democracy? No.

lost_lad wrote:

I think personally think it needs an over-haul. People when voting
pick the guy who smiles the most and kisses the most babies.

Firstly, I don't think that is actually true. Secondly, how do you force someone to pick a person based on requirements you believe are worth while?

lost_lad wrote:

Its a popularity contest for the pretty boy and anyone who is really trying to influence change for the better doesn't seem to get a look in.

I think Mary Harney and Brian Cowen are proof it isn't a contest for the pretty boys or girls. Actually come to think of it name one attractive TD appart from Liz O'Donnell (ummm Liz, you can Progress my Democracy anytime ... grrrr)

lost_lad wrote:

I think a qualification in politics/philosophy/ethics should be at least requred so some sort of bar is set for who can run. Not any dick with money or friend to the property developers should be allowed.

That is totally unworkable, and totally undemocratic. And rather pointless I would imagine. Most TDs have a background in Law, it doesn't mean they are either a good or bad TDs.

lost_lad wrote:

By the people for the people just means that the peeps with money run the state.

It is possible to call for campaign donations to be limited without needed to totally change the nature of democracy. I think you many be getting the issues mixed up.

BlitzKrieg

democracy is the great comprimise...thats why it works.

unlike most other political structures which demand very specific ideals and structures (communism, fascism, anarchism) democracy varies greatly from nation to nation (see earlier posts about democracy in the constitutions) there are considered a basis of ideals at the centre of democracy but at most these are vague to allow alot of political freedom.

hence democracy is molded uniquely from nation to nation allowing it to appeal enough to the general mass and opposition groups to encourage them to work by common law.

Thats why that without an almost complete destruction of a nations entire infrastructure and social order it is near impossible for one nation to enforce a form of democracy on another nation, the most obvious examples being Germany and Japan which were both socially and physically burned to the ground.

pork99

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

Stabshauptmann

lost_lad wrote:

Can it be over-hauled?

Just in case anyone makes the point that the ancient greek system where every citizen can vote on every matter, the mob stoned socrates.
A system with elected representitives is more efficent and the common good is served better IMO by pandering to the populace than letting the populace have direct say.

The Ideal society is one where those who designed it didnt know where they would be in that society, impartiality is the key to good government and unfortunatly IMO we dont have that. So ys there is room for improvement, but I dont know what that is.

Macmorris

I think a qualification in politics/philosophy/ethics should be at least requred so some sort of bar is set for who can run.

The problem with Irish democracy isn't bad politicians, it's bad people being allowed to vote. Instead of allowing everyone the right to vote, everyone should be allowed to right to earn the right to vote. If I had my way, I would limit the franchise so that it discriminated in favour of the more intelligent people. Everyone who wants to register to vote should have to pass a test which would measure their knowledge of the basic issues they will be voting on. The test should include questions on general knowledge, economics, the constitution, history, law and current affairs. The better a person does in the test the more votes he will get. So that a person who just manages to pass will get one vote, while a person who gets a result of 60, 70, 80 or 90 percent, will get two, three, four, or fives votes respectively. Anyone who wants to stand for office must have at least three votes. The test should be long and fairly difficult to pass. People would be allowed to repeat the test every few years if they want to increase their number of votes. The result of this system would be not only more intelligent votes but it would also give people an incentive to improve their knowledge.

I like the idea of democracy but I think there are more important freedoms than the freedom to vote and Ireland needs better leaders. I believe that we should have a more aristocratic form of government, where the natural elite will rise to the top. The best form of government is government by the best people.

DadaKopf

Macmorris wrote:

Instead of allowing everyone the right to vote, everyone should be allowed to right to earn the right to vote. If I had my way, I would limit the franchise so that it discriminated in favour of the more intelligent people.

This topic was discussed in depth on the philosophy board. Democracy - 1, Meritocracy - 0.

MT

I couldn't disagree more with the views of MacMorris on this issue. Intelligence is no guarantor of good judgement, common sense, sound ethics, etc. Indeed, many of the most iniquitous deeds in the history of politics/governance have been instigated by the cleverest of minds. Take the Nazis as one infamous example. The minds that constructed the ideals of racial supremacy, the cult of the party and the extermination of Jews, gipsies, homosexuals and various other 'deviant' minorities were amongst the foremost in German society. The leading Nazis were not drawn from a collection of backwoods men but from the leading sons of Germany's middle class. I believe most were university educated.

Another group many would view as intelligient minds gone awry are America's neocons. Closer to home, just think of Charlie Haughey. An intelligent and gifted individual who turned out to be Ireland's most corrupt and duplicitous leader. No, just because someone's smart or has a phd doesn't mean they'll act with more propriety than a lesser individual. I mean, where might this logic lead. Will we restrict the credit options of those with low IQs? Will they be excluded from dury service?

MT

I think the problems with Ireland's democracy are not to be found in the system used, but in the weakness of the nation's civic society.

Just look across Europe, there really appears to be no correlation between the format of the democratic process in a country and the quality of governance. Where there is a link is between that governance and the strength of a nation's civic society's.

Compare the likes of Sweden and Italy. Regardless of the different directions in terms of left and right these two countries have taken over the years, one has consistently implemented its policies more rigorously than the other. Swedes adhere to their society's laws with much greater willingness than Italians. There's no large scale criminal conspiracy operating in the former. Corruption is virtually non existent in Sweden but seemly widespread in Italy - Western Europe's most corrupt nation. Swedes are far more likely to express comment, write to their representative and to engage in the affairs of their society than their Italian counterparts. The list of contrasts between what constitutes each state's civic society/awareness is as long as your arm. I mean, just pay a visit to either - Sweden is always tidy and well organised: Italy chaotic and slipshod.

In line with this example, I'm convinced that the lions share of Ireland's failings in the way in which it's governed stem from the weaknesses in its civic society. This, in somes ways amorphous thing, largely determines the tolerance for corruption in a country, the quality of representatives, whether they are parochial parish pump whores or concientious individuals who care about the greater good of society, etc. Its strength/weakness also results in how well laws and rules are adhered too. Whether people are prepared to engage with the democratic process through constructive criticism in the form of letter writing, etc. or just shrug their shoulders and mutter 'twas ever thus.

I think one of the major reasons for the improvements in the governance of Ireland over the course of the 20th century is the strengthening of its civic society. In one respect, as the memory of colonial rule recedes fear of the state has continued to dwindle resulting in greater active engagement by the citizenry. Parochialism too has diminished weakening the clientelism between voter and representative that was deeply ingrained in decades past. A stronger national and worldly outlook has been slowly taking route. This may, in years to come, see the emergence of socio-economic politics as the bedrock of voting decisions in this country. Fingers crossed.

Having said all this, with the cavalier attitude to rules and regulations in mind and the parish pump approach still evident in the Meath bye election, it'll be a while before we have the civic society evident in places such as the Netherlands and Sweden.

4Xcut

seamus wrote:

You can't exclude certain people from voting because they're too stupid

Yes you can its called dictatorship.
Cuba has 100% literacy, a good healthcare system and no drugs in the country.
Democracy doesn't work. people with a poor knowledge of the candidates should not be allowed to vote.
am i the only one who thinks it should be illegal to have media coverage and polls published. this sways the masses and doesn't force people to find out about the candidates policies, credibility and history on delivering what they promise.

TBH who wouldn't be willing to give up a little freedom to achieve a better ireland. its not like the government isn't signing it away to europe bit bit with the consent of the ignorent masses.

SkepticOne

4Xcut wrote:

Yes you can its called dictatorship.
Cuba has 100% literacy, a good healthcare system and no drugs in the country.

Yes but the people's spirits are crushed by the fist of Socialism. This is what you get when you deny people the vote.

utopian

4Xcut wrote:

its not like the government isn't signing it away to europe bit bit with the consent of the ignorent masses.

"The ignorent masses"

lost_lad

SkepticOne wrote:

Yes but the people's spirits are crushed by the fist of Socialism. This is what you get when you deny people the vote.

But the country has been isolted economically and socially by the US coz god for bid some one should beat them by simply still existing. Socialism does appear to work but outside influences who dont want it to seem to crash it alot economic and social isolation from the world is what the states does if they dont agree with what is going on. Not because it damages the US per se but because it shows that there are other systems that work. Not just capitalism. The fact that Cuba is doing as well as it is, is a tribute to Castro's resolve as a leader.

lost_lad

utopian wrote:

"The ignorent masses"

Hope lies in the proles....

Zombrex

Macmorris wrote:

Everyone who wants to register to vote should have to pass a test which would measure their knowledge of the basic issues they will be voting on.

Quite possibly the dumbest idea I have ever heard. So i guess that rules you out from voting ...

Macmorris wrote:

The test should include questions on general knowledge, economics, the constitution, history, law and current affairs.

Why?

You seem to be under the impression that voting is something someone does for you. Voting is a personal choice, you vote for the person you want to. The dumbest person in the world still votes for the person they believe in. What has intellegence got to do with it??

Macmorris wrote:

The result of this system would be not only more intelligent votes but it would also give people an incentive to improve their knowledge.

Intelliegent for who?? Again you seem to believe that people have a responsibility to other people when they vote. They don't they only have a responsibility to themselves.

Macmorris wrote:

I like the idea of democracy but I think there are more important freedoms than the freedom to vote and Ireland needs better leaders. I believe that we should have a more aristocratic form of government, where the natural elite will rise to the top.

Oh i really hope this is a troll or a piss take ... who are the "natural elite"?? Rich people?? Charlie Huaghy?? Yeah he was pretty elite :rolleyes:

Zombrex

4Xcut wrote:

am i the only one who thinks it should be illegal to have media coverage and polls published. this sways the masses and doesn't force people to find out about the candidates policies, credibility and history on delivering what they promise.

Er, how exactly are people supposed to find out about candidates if you ban all media coverage ... :rolleyes:

4Xcut wrote:

TBH who wouldn't be willing to give up a little freedom to achieve a better ireland. its not like the government isn't signing it away to europe bit bit with the consent of the ignorent masses.

Don't you just hate those ignorent masses (ie the Irish people) who constantly vote againt the way they should vote. You know what we need, our very own version of Stalin, to politely inform the ignorent masses what is best for them and how they really deep down want their country to be run.

lost_lad

Wicknight wrote:

You seem to be under the impression that voting is something someone does for you.

It is if we all live in a "democracy" and have to share the consequnces
of some muppet voting fo SF for example coz they'll build more social housing for people who dont want to work. Or knee cap a local 15 year old who robbed the wrong car....
Or the guy who votes FF coz he knows his mansion on the middle of the hill of Tara will get planing permission coz he did.

In a communal society it should the best choice for all not just your self.

Wicknight wrote:

Intelliegent for who?? Again you seem to believe that people have a responsibility to other people when they vote. They don't they only have a responsibility to themselves.

I think thats the problem with society today fu*k everyone else as long as i am happy.

Wicknight wrote:

Oh i really hope this is a troll or a piss take ... who are the "natural elite"?? Rich people?? Charlie Huaghy?? Yeah he was pretty elite :rolleyes:

I think the "natural elite" was meant as the educated. Which i would have to firmly agree with.

Zombrex

lost_lad wrote:

It is if we all live in a "democracy" and have to share the consequnces

Ok, from now on how about you vote for the person I want you to vote for, we can share my wisdom. I'll PM you at the next election

:rolleyes:

lost_lad wrote:

In a communal society it should the best choice for all not just your self.

And how do we decide what is the best choice for all

lost_lad wrote:

I think thats the problem with society today fu*k everyone else as long as i am happy.

1 person, 1 vote. That has been the basis for democracy since democracy was invented about 4000 years ago.

If you think someone else should decide who I should vote for then what the hell is the point of me having a vote in the first place.

lost_lad wrote:

I think the "natural elite" was meant as the educated. Which i would have to firmly agree with.

I think the irony that you would have to be pretty dumb not to realise the major flaw in that argument, is hilarious :rolleyes:

Firstly, define educated.

Secondly, show me any proof at all that "eductated" people will vote for the best interestes of the general population, or even that there is a way that a small minority can understand and know what the best interests of the population is.

What stops the educated from simply voting in there best interests and screwing over the rest of us.

A dictatorship is fine if you can guarentee that the dictator know how to, and will only, work in the best interests of all the people ... how often does that happen :rolleyes:

bonkey

Macmorris wrote:

If I had my way, I would limit the franchise so that it discriminated in favour of the more intelligent people.

Would you agree to this if it meant that you lost your right to vote?

I'm just curious...when you say "more intelligent people", do you implicitly include yourself in that, or would you actually support a system where it was determined that you were too thick to vote?

jc

bonkey

Cuba has 100% literacy, a good healthcare system and no drugs in the country.

Not to mention a human rights record that only nations like Afghanistan under the Taliban might be envious of, a virtually non-existant freedom of speech, and any number of other failings.

Democracy doesn't work.

I guess it depends what you base your determination on. IF all you want is liuteracy, healthcare and a lack of drug, then sure...Cuba demonstrates that democracy isn't the ideal. Of course, there's no shortage of other dictatorships which have massive literacy, healthcare and drugs problems, but don't let that stop you.

Conversely, I look at a nation like Switzerland and ask myself exactly how it shows that democracy doesn't work and has failed. .

people with a poor knowledge of the candidates should not be allowed to vote.

How about people who don't agree with democratic principles....y'know...people who believe democracy doesn't work (like yourself)??

I see no reason why someone who believes that the system is fundamentally unworkable should be allowed participate in it either.

I'd go so far as to say that their belief that democracy doesn't work is generally evidential of either an anti-democratic streak, or plain lack of education about the realities of other systems. Either reason should be sufficient to merit exclusion if we're gonna mvoe to a meritocracy. So do you support losing your right to vote in order to allow the system to work better???

No? Didn't think so. Funny that.

am i the only one who thinks it should be illegal to have media coverage and polls published.

I'm sure there's no shortage of other people also of the misguided opinion that less rather than more information is a better basis from which to form ones opinion from.

this sways the masses

Frankly, my dear, thats supposition. One oculd equally say that the masses choose to allow themselves to be swayed by putting credence in any propagandistic material.

and doesn't force people to find out about the candidates policies, credibility and history on delivering what they promise.

Ah yes...democracy....where we equate the freedom of choice with the notion that we should be forced to do it in a specific manner someone else has arbitrarily decided is the right way.

TBH who wouldn't be willing to give up a little freedom to achieve a better ireland.

Define better? What guarantees can you offer it will be better? What if I disagree that its a better overall solution? What if the majority decide its not a better solution?

Ultimately, all you're saying is that you think you know what is better for the masses then they are able to determine for themselves. Hardly a solid basis to undermine democracy for....."trust me...I know what you need better then you do yourself".

jc

Macmorris

MT wrote:

Intelligence is no guarantor of good judgement, common sense, sound ethics, etc.

Take a look at the most successful, afluent, peaceful countries in the world today as measured in GDP per capita, crime rates and political stability. Then take a look at the average IQ of the populations in those countries. You will notice that it's the countries with the highest average intelligence that come out on top - the countries in Western Europe, East Asia and North America. It's the countries with low average IQs (the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa for example) that perform the worst.

Another group many would view as intelligient minds gone awry are America's neocons.

The reason the neo-conservatives were so successful was because they knew how to manipulate an ignorant president and an ignorant electorate. I remember reading in the lead up to the war in Iraq that something like 20% of the population in America believed that Sadam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin were actually the same person. If it wasn't for the ignorance of the average American there might never have been a war in Iraq because the electorate would not have been as easily misled into believing that the war had something to do with September 11.

Macmorris

bonkey wrote:

Would you agree to this if it meant that you lost your right to vote?

Yes I would, because I wouldn't lose my right to vote. I would still be able to retake the test again and earn the vote. I don't believe that we should measure people's IQ or any other immutable trait as a basis for granting them the vote. The test would only measure people's knowledge, something they have control over. If they want to vote then they should take the time to educate themselves on the issues they will be voting on. No vote is better than an ignorant vote, in my opinion.

would you actually support a system where it was determined that you were too thick to vote?

Of course I would. There were several times when I haven't voted because I didn't know enough about what I was voting for. I would rather be out-voted by someone who was more intelligent than me than be out-voted by the idiots.

I hate this idea that a vote is something so important that we should use even if we don't know what the hell we're voting for. I agree with Thomas Jefferson who said that 'If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.'

ferdi

lost_lad wrote:

Can democracy work?
Is it working?

no and no. humans are so easily currupted that democracy can never work....but the same goes for all kinds of government. "no gods, no masters"

uberwolf

ferdi wrote:

no and no. humans are so easily currupted that democracy can never work....but the same goes for all kinds of government. "no gods, no masters"

surely the accountability that democracy provides is better measure against this corruptibility than any other system has produced?

bonkey

Macmorris wrote:

The test would only measure people's knowledge, something they have control over.

Actually...unless every vote required a questionnaire be filled out alongside it to show how well you understood the issue, the test would only measure a questionably relevant amount of knowledge, at a specific point in time, and have no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not that person would actually ever retain or use that knowledge in subseqent elections.

If they want to vote then they should take the time to educate themselves on the issues they will be voting on.

Look at any contentious issue of recent years, and its clear that neither side have an overwhelming majority of the clueless nor of the clued-in. This would tend to indicate that education doesn't necessarily have as large an impact as you seem to suggest

No vote is better than an ignorant vote, in my opinion.

And what gives you - or anyone else, for that matter - the right to determine the criteria which make a "non-ignorant" vote.

What commonality of education would a vote regarding the EU moving ot a more federalist model and, say, another vote in the ongoing abortion sage have? And how would both of those share commonality with elections of TDs to the Dail?

More important - who decides those issues? In referenda in recent years, I can't remember a single occasion when the pro- and anti- brigades even agreed within their own ranks, let alone with each other, as to which the significant issues were, and what one needed to consider.

So how do you test this? Force everyone to learn about everything someone thinks is relevant? Or tell people that because your elite selection-team have decided issue X isn't a relevant factor, the fact that they would base their vote on it means they can't vote?

There were several times when I haven't voted because I didn't know enough about what I was voting for.

Good for you....but unless you're advocating a test on each issue to test the voter's awareness of the issues (again - issues that some elite few have decided are the ones people need to know about...no chance for corruption or rigging there), your proposed "education test" wouldn't prevent someone from voting on an issue that they were clueless on. It wouldn't preclude people voting from a position of "I know the facts, but my religion says..." nor "I passe the test, but couldn't be ar5ed reading up on this issue" nor "there's no way I'm supporting those corrupt <insert Irish party here> bastids, and sure didn't de Daddy always vote for <insert other Irish party here>.

Exams don't stop people from making uninformed decisions. They simply show that people are capable of being informed for a short period of time.

I hate this idea that a vote is something so important that we should use even if we don't know what the hell we're voting for.

I've never suggested we should use it. I think the notion of mandatory voting is as poor a "solution" to the perceived problem as the notion of a meritocracy would be.

People should have the freedom to choose to vote, and to choose to vote how they wish, based on the criteria they wish.

I agree with Thomas Jefferson who said that 'If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.'

And your solution is to allow the ignorant to remain ignorant, but to remove their freedom (regarding voting) as a result?

jc

Zombrex

Macmorris wrote:

Take a look at the most successful, afluent, peaceful countries in the world today as measured in GDP per capita, crime rates and political stability. Then take a look at the average IQ of the populations in those countries. You will notice that it's the countries with the highest average intelligence that come out on top - the countries in Western Europe, East Asia and North America. It's the countries with low average IQs (the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa for example) that perform the worst.

Firstly that isn't true. The USSR and Soviet block countries have traditionally had higher than average IQ than western european countries and they were dictorships with corruption and crime, often allowed and carried out by the state.

Secondly IQ tests have long long been dismissed as a test of intellegence. People are not even sure the "intelligence" that IQ tests claims to measure, can be measured in a single form of test.

Having a high IQ test means you are good at IQ tests.

Macmorris wrote:

If it wasn't for the ignorance of the average American there might never have been a war in Iraq because the electorate would not have been as easily misled into believing that the war had something to do with September 11.

Very true, and the American IQ norm is higher than Ireland, Finland, Belgium and Greece. So there is a break down in your logic somewhere here :rolleyes:

If the average american voter is actually rather "intelligent" by world standards, then how can you claim that intelligence is a factor in pick a good government

Zombrex

Macmorris wrote:

Yes I would, because I wouldn't lose my right to vote. I would still be able to retake the test again and earn the vote. I don't believe that we should measure people's IQ or any other immutable trait as a basis for granting them the vote. The test would only measure people's knowledge, something they have control over. If they want to vote then they should take the time to educate themselves on the issues they will be voting on. No vote is better than an ignorant vote, in my opinion.

Firstly that is completely undemocratic, that people have to earn the right to vote in an election in their own country.

Secondly, who sets the standard required to be meet? What is "intelligence" SOme of the most intelligent (in the classical meaning of the word) people in the world have commited the most hidious crimes. Hitler was intelligent, and the population of Germany that voted him into power were intelligent. You can't easily define intelligence, and even if you could there is absolutly nothing in being intelligent that means you will vote for someone that will actually help the most people.

Thirdly, under this system each election in Ireland would cost billions of Euros. You would have to constantly assess each and every person in the country to determine if they passed a certain level of inteligence and awareness before they can vote. Completely unworkable.

seamus

Dictatorship is great, I would support it wholeheartedly and jump for joy if it was introduced in this country.

But only if I get to be dictator.

MT

Macmorris wrote:

Take a look at the most successful, afluent, peaceful countries in the world today as measured in GDP per capita, crime rates and political stability. Then take a look at the average IQ of the populations in those countries. You will notice that it's the countries with the highest average intelligence that come out on top - the countries in Western Europe, East Asia and North America. It's the countries with low average IQs (the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa for example) that perform the worst.

And what about North Korea, Vietnam, Burma, Indonesia, etc. All reputably have populations with high IQs and yet how developed or stable are they? In a similar light just cast a glance a Russia or Eastern Europe – hardly prosperous despite relatively intelligent populations. And furthermore, who’s to say supposed intelligence surveys of various nations are in any way accurate in their findings. In this respect, sub Saharan countries are most likely at a distinct disadvantage. They say much of what contributes to someone’s score in such a test is experience of education, exposure to a knowledge based environment, schooling etc. How can anyone living in an impoverished, war torn African country where civil society has collapsed avail of these factors?

To demonstrate the dangers of such thinking, just consider the plight of this country in the 19th century. One explanation frequently advanced for Ireland’s backwardness, lack of economic development, the famines of the 1840s was that the Irish – us – were in effect a collection of backward savages. We were deemed to have low intelligence, criminal instincts and an aversion to rational thought. Yet as the 20th century clearly shows this was utter hogwash. This is now one of the oldest democracies that’s been in continuous existence. It has also been remarkably stable and of late has outperformed all other economies in the developed world for well over a decade now.

You see, as with sub Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and so on, Ireland’s backwardness in the 19th century had nothing to do with the intelligence of the population. Other factors such as dislocation between governed and the government, unresponsive and repressive rule, historic legacies such as the destruction of the economy by Cromwell, hang-overs from the penal laws etc. were the real cause of Ireland’s relative stagnation. Problems of a somewhat similar hue are just as prevalent in the impoverished and unstable global black spots of today’s world.

With your disparaging views of sub Saharan African’s in mind, would you bar immigrants from these nations from voting in Irish elections or from acquiring citizenship in the first place?

Macmorris wrote:

The reason the neo-conservatives were so successful was because they knew how to manipulate an ignorant president and an ignorant electorate.

That one sentence really contradicts your views in the previous paragraph. How can American’s be intelligent on the one hand, resulting in an advanced state of national development, and yet so ignorant as to be easily manipulated by a bunch of foreign policy wonks?

Macmorris wrote:

I remember reading in the lead up to the war in Iraq that something like 20% of the population in America believed that Sadam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin were actually the same person.

As I said earlier, how accurate are national IQ statistics as reflections of genuine intelligence or awareness? If what you’ve written there is true, I’d say not very. So where does that leave your theory of intelligence as the basis of advanced development? Christ, in the days of imperial Rome the Germans must have been as thick as shít! Being backward barbarians to the north of the Rhine and all that.

Stabshauptmann

Stop insulting the intelligence of other ppl. I for one do think that there is merit to the notion of testing ppl on their understanding of a certain candidates policies even though its not something I feel should be done. Everyone can promise to turn led into gold, promises mean nothing in politics

lost_lad

ferdi wrote:

humans are so easily currupted that democracy can never work....but the same goes for all kinds of government.

I would have to agree.

bonkey wrote:

Actually...unless every vote required a questionnaire be filled out alongside it to show how well you understood the issue, the test would only measure a questionably relevant amount of knowledge, at a specific point in time, and have no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not that person would actually ever retain or use that knowledge in subseqent elections.

That would make sense rather then a general test because any sort of election or refendum could come up that the test would not always cover. Getting this to fit into a general Dail election would be more trickey but it could be done.

If say 3 or 5 yes/no questions beside each candidate they voted for. Asking about there policys.
E.G.
Does Person A support farm subsidies. YES?NO
Does Candidate B agree with an EU federal state. YES/NO?

If the voter gets the majority correct for each candidate correct the vote is counted else its spoilt.

The questions could be done up on an independant basis from speechs the candidate made in the run up to the election.

A general knowledge test would be biased on etnicity and background and would be quickly shown up as one. And the vote sytem would fail before it started.

Wicknight wrote:

1 person, 1 vote. That has been the basis for democracy since democracy was invented about 4000 years ago.

The whole point of this thread is to see if there is a better way then democracy. Not to say its not democratic so it cant be done.

seamus

lost_lad wrote:

If say 3 or 5 yes/no questions beside each candidate they voted for. Asking about there policys.
E.G.
Does Person A support farm subsidies. YES?NO
Does Candidate B agree with an EU federal state. YES/NO?

What if the voter was asked about certain policies that they're not interested in? For example, with your questions, I'm not interested in farm subsidies, they have no bearing on me, therefore a certain candidate's position on them would be irrelevant to me, and I wouldn't know about it. So I could be asked a few questions that have no relevance to the reason I'm voting - even though I know who I'm voting for an why - and my vote is spoiled, even though it's as valid as the next man's.

The whole point of democracy is that each voter votes for the person that will represent them the best, not serve the entire community best. By this, in theory you should come out with a Government representative of the entire country.

lost_lad

But a person should no all of there candidates public views. One bad one may off-set the good.
He could be pro abortion, social welfare increases and low taxes.
and against the local incinerator/dump, a new road.

If you didn't no all his policys and you liked all except abortion and you didn't no about it you may decide not to vote for him/her if you did.
I would never vote for someone based on they have one thing that i support. It would be silly.

Zombrex

lost_lad wrote:

The questions could be done up on an independant basis from speechs the candidate made in the run up to the election.

I think the flaws in the this system would out way any (very limited in my opinion) benefits you would get from it.

1) How do you decide what is relivent knowledge. Do you question on everything the politicion has said in what, the last 5 years, 10 years. How long is this questionaire supposted to be?

2) How do you really decide what a politicion is for or against? Charlie Hughy is official for not robbing the state blind. Do you have to answer "Yes he did not take bribes" or forfit your right to vote. If you force only people who agree with your assessment of a politicions speaches, actions and motives you do incrediable damage to the democratic process.

Zombrex

lost_lad wrote:

I would never vote for someone based on they have one thing that i support. It would be silly.

WHat if they supported it and no one else did. What if it was the only issue very important to you. For example a candidate may oppose abortion where all the others support it. If you really care about banning abortion you will want to vote for that person. Under your system you would be restricted from doing that if you don't know the fine detail about the persons economics plan. You might not care about their economics plan, it might be chinese to you and not effect you at all. Knowing or not knowing about the economics plan has no effect on your decision to vote for this person. But you are stopped from voting for them.

You, or anyone, has no right to decide what should be important to voters when casting a vote.

You also seem to believe that if we were all just a bit more educated about candidates we wouldn't vote for them. That is ridiculous. As I showed in my example, knowing or not knowing the ecomonics policy of an anti-abortion candidate doesn't effect how his supporters vote for him over the issue of abortion.

themurt

Macmorris, sounds like you're advocating a first step down the road proposed by Robert Heinlen in "Starship Troopers", where you had to earn the right to vote (in the book it was through military or 'Federal' service), do we really want to get to a situation where our society is even more divided then it already is? Do we really want "citizens" and "civilians"?

sovtek

bonkey wrote:

Would you agree to this if it meant that you lost your right to vote?

I'm just curious...when you say "more intelligent people", do you implicitly include yourself in that, or would you actually support a system where it was determined that you were too thick to vote?

jc

That was a very clever tactic used by my Jim Crow loving ancestors in keeping black people from the polls in the South. Luckily it was eventually found to be unconstitutional... although a similar version was brought back in 2004.
Personally I think apathy and a lack of knowledge of the issues stems from lack of mainstream access to good information.
I don't think people should be tested...but I do think that a media system should be set up with the above mentioned criteria.
I think Ireland (and Europe in general) has it pretty good compared to America in that respect, although it could still be better.

Boggle

There's alot of crap on this thread about diminishing the rights of others due to their apparent lack of 'intelligence'..... funnily enough I seem to remember seeing somewhere a study that showed that the more intelligent a person, the easier the person to con. (or something like that)

To my mind, the general democratic system is okay but the problem is that people have become disillusioned with the actual people who stand for election. My solution would be to introduce accountability into electioneering.

It would work as follows:
- Upon announcing a candidacy, the candidate/party would have to submit a list of what they hope to achieve during their term with actual quantifiable targets where applicable(i.e. x extra gardai).
- After each stint in office (or prior to the following election) each member should have to review their term, giving explanations of how they view their performance and listing all targets met. This should be accessible on-line and in every library so that all can view at the next election time.
- Also a panel should be set up of independent arbitrators who will monitor for apparent corruption and deceit. They can order immdiate investigations into a persons performance and have him/her summarily dismissed from office if the candidate found untrustworthy.
(Basically turn it into a private sector job where you start with a goal, finish with a review and have to answer to your manager...)

Maybe then people would start trusting politicians again...

Macmorris

bonkey wrote:

And your solution is to allow the ignorant to remain ignorant, but to remove their freedom (regarding voting) as a result?

No, I would prefer if everyone was educated enough to vote. As I said, that's one of the great benefits of the system, it would give people an incentive to educate themselves.

Zombrex

Boggle wrote:

They can order immdiate investigations into a persons performance and have him/her summarily dismissed from office if the candidate found untrustworthy.

Well, unoffically that is kinda how it works now, with the Press playing the role of investigator, if a TD is doing a crap job they will be dismissed from important cabinate positions in the government.

Making it an offical process brings with it a load of difficult problems what make a system like that unworkable and undemocratic, such as

How do you define a TDs performance as unsatisfactory? For example how do you define the smoking ban as satisfactory or unsatisfactory? It depends on who you ask.

Macmorris

Wicknight wrote:

Thirdly, under this system each election in Ireland would cost billions of Euros. You would have to constantly assess each and every person in the country to determine if they passed a certain level of inteligence and awareness before they can vote. Completely unworkable.

I didn't say that they would have to take the test for every vote. Of course, that would be completely impractical and wasteful. They would only have to take the test once, when they first register to vote. Maybe I should have been clearer in what I meant. The test would measure a person's general level of knowledge on the kind of things (economy, constitution etc) they will be voting on, rather than their knowledge of the topical 'issues'.

Macmorris

themurt wrote:

Macmorris, sounds like you're advocating a first step down the road proposed by Robert Heinlen in "Starship Troopers", where you had to earn the right to vote (in the book it was through military or 'Federal' service), do we really want to get to a situation where our society is even more divided then it already is? Do we really want "citizens" and "civilians"?

Although I think there's alot to be said in favour of that type of system, I think that would be a regression to a more militaristic and patriacharal society, which would be bad for this country.

I'm not opposed to democracy so much as the idea of universal suffrage. I don't like the idea that everyone should be allowed to vote, it cheapens the vote and turns it into a meaningless symbol of our 'freedom' rather than as a responsibility that is meant to be taken seriously.

Democracy was founded on the principle that most people were intelligent enough to elect their own leaders. I have no problem with this view but instead of assuming that people are intelligent enough why not have a test to make sure that they really are intelligent.

Zombrex

Macmorris wrote:

No, I would prefer if everyone was educated enough to vote.

Macmorris you still haven't shown any evidence, or even logic, to support the idea that educated people vote better ... how do you even define better anyway.

You seem to think that people in the past have voted the wrong way because of lack of education about what they were voting for, and if they were educated they would have voted the right way? Can you not see the problem in that? Who defines what is the right way?

Zombrex

Macmorris wrote:

I didn't say that they would have to take the test for every vote. Of course, that would be completely impractical and wasteful. They would only have to take the test once, when they first register to vote. Maybe I should have been clearer in what I meant. The test would measure a person's general level of knowledge on the kind of things (economy, constitution etc) they will be voting on, rather than their knowledge of the topical 'issues'.

How do you know what topics a person will be voting on when they register to vote? You would have to quiz them on a huge range of possible topics. And I have a masters in computer science. Does that mean that I will not be allowed vote in my local elections because I am pretty crap at ecomonics, where as my brother is vice vera, he has a masters in economics, but he knows f**k all about computers and telecommunications. He might have to vote on an issue to do with that (electronic voting for example) would he be barred from that vote because he does not know anything about computers??

The whole idea is ridiculous.

Macmorris

Wicknight wrote:

Macmorris you still haven't shown any evidence, or even logic, to support the idea that educated people vote better

I have given the evidence. Look at the difference between democracies where the average level of education is high compared with democracies where the level of education is low. If you honestly believe that education has no influence on the decisions people make then you should take a trip to a country like Zimbabwe.

how do you even define better anyway.

More rational and less emotional. I think we can we agree that education makes people more critical and less likely to be swayed by appeals to authority.

Macmorris

Wicknight wrote:

How do you know what topics a person will be voting on when they register to vote?

The test should focus mainly on general knowledge. It doesn't need to be too technical on subjects like economics, just enough for someone of average intelligence to pass.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

1 person, 1 vote. That has been the basis for democracy since democracy was invented about 4000 years ago.

Err... not really how it worked. The Roman Republic worked on a system of electoral colleges. Of course the size of a college vote was dependent on the social class of that block, so that the votes of a few hundred patricians was worth as much as a hundred thousand plebeians. Even more recently it wasn’t a question of one person, one vote – it was one man, one vote...

For this reason it would probably be a good idea not to glibly judge certain states that are often branded as undemocratic, because we are in reality judging them by our version of democracy.

A dictatorship is fine if you can guarentee that the dictator know how to, and will only, work in the best interests of all the people ... how often does that happen :rolleyes:

<Pedantry>Historically a dictator was someone who was given emergency powers in a time of national crisis for a limited period of time (although some did stretch this ‘limitation’). Modern dictators are more correctly autocrats or chairmen to an oligarchic junta.</Pedantry>

As for democracy, personally I consider it presently fundamentally flawed.

Unfortunately, the present alternatives are worse.

WHEELER4

Monarchy worked for thousands of years. The Russian Monarchy lasted from time immemorial to about 1917. Then it was a democracy under Kersensky for about seven years and then devolved into the dictatorship of the Herd called communism which lasted 80 years and now the dictatorship of Putin. What was better for the Russians? Monarchy or democracy?

See, Rousseau carried forward the Athenian democracy when he stated that the "General Will" is sovereign. Not the constitution, not the Law, not the Good, or the True. Hilter carried on the "General Will". He was the executor of it. All democracy is based on the "General Will". And all democracy leads to Tyranny. Athens had 11 changes of constitution and amongst those 11 changes where three or four tyrannies. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn writes that society is getting more complicated and submits that the Scita — the political, economic, technological, scientific, military, geographical, psychological knowledge of the masses and of their representatives — and the Scienda — the knowledge in these matters that is necessary to reach logical-rational-moral conclusions — are separated by an incessantly and cruelly widening gap and that democratic governments are totally inadequate for the job.

Nothing is more silly than watching some Afghan woman getting "her right to vote". Think about, what's the last book she read? Does she know anything about history, political science, and socialism? Nothing, but democracy is the "best" form of government. How can democracy be the best form of government when 90% of it is based on ignorance and manipulation of crowds?

Monarchy is the best government by far.

Zombrex

WHEELER4 wrote:

Monarchy worked for thousands of years. The Russian Monarchy lasted from time immemorial to about 1917. Then it was a democracy under Kersensky for about seven years and then devolved into the dictatorship of the Herd called communism which lasted 80 years and now the dictators

It was never a democracy, the first elections to the Duma were nullified by the revolutionaries a year after the revolution. Kerensky fled to London in 1918.

And I have no idea where you got the idea that the Russian people were well off under the Monarchy. The Russian monarchy were infamous for there mistreatment of the Russian people. Why do you think there was a revolution???