Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[GE Morton]

Since the electors have only a proportion of knowledge, it is easy for the cunning and smart politicians to manipulate their minds, so then their votes.

Well, that is the classic objection to democracy. If voters' minds can be "manipulated," should they be allowed to vote? Doesn't that make democracy "Government by morons"?

morons.jpg (54.79 KiB) Viewed 2736 times

[Sushan]

Was it Plato who identified the one foreseeable problem with democracy: that anyone could become a politician.
He suggested, I think, to restrict the position of politician to philosophers.
Not sure how that would work. Apply to the general public for preselection? Pass an exam? Divulge IQ? A spread of all 73 gender identities - except males?
Then again, isn’t everyone a philosopher?

I'd settle for electors proving that they know the different functions of different levels of government. Not in detail, just to have some semblance of an idea to demonstrate that they can make at least a somewhat informed vote.

Hi Sy.
It is taught in schools in some place. Even I was paying attention that day.
The next step might be to educate generally in the ways of thinking rationally.
My great grand daughter aged 12 is very aware of the basics of philosophy without calling it that. She learned that from her school. We don’t discuss philosophy; we discuss ways of dealing with life in general. Hopefully she’ll grow into an adult with reason.

That is quite a good advancement. The change should be applied to the core and it is easy to be applied to a child rather than an adult whose mind and soul is already biased and corrupted due to lasting too long in this unfair world.

[Sushan]

Since the electors have only a proportion of knowledge, it is easy for the cunning and smart politicians to manipulate their minds, so then their votes.

Well, that is the classic objection to democracy. If voters' minds can be "manipulated," should they be allowed to vote? Doesn't that make democracy "Government by morons"?

morons.jpg

It may be the classic objection of those who are against democracy. But I think that is what have happened throughout the history, and those who are in power because of democracy know this and that is the only reason for them to fight for democracy.

[GE Morton]

Since the electors have only a proportion of knowledge, it is easy for the cunning and smart politicians to manipulate their minds, so then their votes.

Well, that is the classic objection to democracy. If voters' minds can be "manipulated," should they be allowed to vote? Doesn't that make democracy "Government by morons"?

morons.jpg

It may be the classic objection of those who are against democracy. But I think that is what have happened throughout the history, and those who are in power because of democracy know this and that is the only reason for them to fight for democracy.

So what remedy would you suggest?

[Sy Borg]

... cunning ... politicians to manipulate their minds, so then their votes.

AKA politics.

[ernestm]

Was it Plato who identified the one foreseeable problem with democracy: that anyone could become a politician.
He suggested, I think, to restrict the position of politician to philosophers.
Not sure how that would work. Apply to the general public for preselection? Pass an exam? Divulge IQ? A spread of all 73 gender identities - except males?
Then again, isn’t everyone a philosopher?

I'd settle for electors proving that they know the different functions of different levels of government. Not in detail, just to have some semblance of an idea to demonstrate that they can make at least a somewhat informed vote.

Hi Sy.
It is taught in schools in some place. Even I was paying attention that day.
The next step might be to educate generally in the ways of thinking rationally.
My great grand daughter aged 12 is very aware of the basics of philosophy without calling it that. She learned that from her school. We don’t discuss philosophy; we discuss ways of dealing with life in general. Hopefully she’ll grow into an adult with reason.

That is quite a good advancement. The change should be applied to the core and it is easy to be applied to a child rather than an adult whose mind and soul is already biased and corrupted due to lasting too long in this unfair world.

I thought the same thing for many years, but as I got older, I realized that removing rights of citizens to vote makes them likely future victims of elected powers. Too likely they would be persecuted. So it's a nice idea in some kind of Aritstotleian idealism, but in practice, as Aristotle does try to point out, it simply makes a new type of oligarchy of some form. Substantial modifications to the Constitution would be a minimum requirement for their protection, and again, as Aristotle also pointed out, it's still likely to result in revolution.

[Sy Borg]

What about excluding the bottom 5% - the very most clueless people?

We exclude highly intelligent and mature teenagers and include immature adults who can't analyse to save their lives.

[InfinityMuse]

When thinking about how people vote in elections nowadays in these [third-world] countries, many people just vote without any political literacy. And the politicians simply cheat the poor, less educated, less privileged people and rob their votes.

IMO, this would not have happened if people were filtered when giving the right to vote. What do you think?

You make 2 initial points:

1. That people cast their votes "without any political literacy".
2. That (elected) politicians "cheat the poor, less educated, less privileged people".

Only point 1 concerns your question. Corrupt politicians are relatively unaffected by who has the right to vote. I assume that the background to your question is a democratic political system, where a government is elected by vote.

Your question seems to say that people may vote unwisely, perhaps because of limited political understanding, and that this is a good reason why they should be denied a vote. I disagree.

All of us are responsible for our own actions. In the same way, but turned around: those who do the work, and bear the consequences, are entitled to their say — a vote. That's my argument, so I see no need to write more for now.

We are responsible for our own actions and we have to bear up the consequences. There is no argument. But if our actions lead to consequences that have to be faced as a group of people (a country), then I think the situation becomes more complex. Anyway, in a democratic system this is what happens. The majority will have the say in governing, and if their decision is wrong the consequences will be upon the minority who raised against that decision as well, which is quite unfair.

Most voters in the United States do not show any form of political literacy, either. Literacy would suggest research has a curriculum for the model of constituent to election result. One of the most frustrating ideologies for a democrat is the "I don't know what we believe- believe what you want- business is crisis as usual". Conservative bleeding and execution is really why we want to regulate specific attorney ideologies. The right to bear witness is an interesting movement because of the conciseness of counter intelligence and counter revolutionaries acting for the movement of voter suppression. Corruption is a problem because of the comparison and relativism of due process of interdisciplinary and proposition (example Vote for prop A to save our schools, libraries, and fund nursing education) in city politics. Speaking of wrong, I think the conversations are moving totally third way and absolutely the wrong way. I hope we can turn back.

[Sushan]

Was it Plato who identified the one foreseeable problem with democracy: that anyone could become a politician.
He suggested, I think, to restrict the position of politician to philosophers.
Not sure how that would work. Apply to the general public for preselection? Pass an exam? Divulge IQ? A spread of all 73 gender identities - except males?
Then again, isn’t everyone a philosopher?

I'd settle for electors proving that they know the different functions of different levels of government. Not in detail, just to have some semblance of an idea to demonstrate that they can make at least a somewhat informed vote.

Per the US Constitution as originally written the qualifications for voting for federal offices was left entirely to the States, with voters having the same "qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature." (Article I). The 15th Amendment (1870) prohibited states from denying anyone the right to vote on account of race, and the 19th Amendment (1920) prohibited them from denying the vote based on sex. In addition, the 14th Amendment (1869) prohibited the States from denying anyone within its jurisdiction "equal protection of the law." The Supreme Court has held that Amendment to prohibit States from requiring payment of a poll tax in order to vote, or requiring property ownership, or imposing lengthy residency requirements.

Apart from those restrictions the States are still free to decide who is qualified to vote. Nothing in the Constitution or subsequent Court rulings prevents a State from denying the vote on grounds of ignorance. Indeed, in the poll tax case (Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 1966), the Court said, "wealth, like race, creed, or color is not germane to one’s ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process."

So, presumably, the States remain free to determine who has the "ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process."

The problem of voter ignorance has been long lamented and debated in the poli sci literature. One journal to which I subscribed for several years devoted 2 years' of quarterly issues to that subject. Perhaps the most widely favored solution is requiring all would-be voters to pass the same "Citizenship Qualification Test" currently required of immigrants applying for US citizenship.

Thank you for the in-detail explanation of the historical background of the matter. I think what you are suggesting is quite a good way to determine who to vote and who not to vote. But I am not aware about the content of the particular examination that you mentioned. What I believe is it is difficult to determine the practical political literacy of a person simply by throwing an examination at him/her. But it should be done somehow to clean the political arena.

[Sushan]

In Australia it is mandatory for all people over the age of 18 to vote at all government elections, right down to council elections.

This may seem a bit harsh to some. We find it more of an inconvenience. Having to cue for our democratic responsibility can be tedious.
We don’t assume anyone is that ignorant they couldn’t identify a mug in a crowd.
So far we haven’t had the likes of Trump taking over. Australians are pretty good at identifying a bogan.

I cannot comment on how the Australians feel about their parliament representatives. But we see mixed news about them on the international news. But from what you said I got another problem. By making voting mandatory, have not your government violated the basic human rights (if violation is too much let's say disturbed)? Is there a punishment to those who do not participate in voting?

[Sushan]

In a democracy, voters get the government they deserve. Easily duped voters get corrupt governments. Sophisticated voters get governments that cater to the voters. Thus in order for democracy to represent the voter's interest, the population must have some education. So in the absence of strong public education it is an open question whether the population is better served, statistically by elected officials or whether a benign oligarchy ends up serving the population better.

Yes, the public should be educated. But our education systems are not made with the target of producing people with adequate political literacy. The general measures of literacy is quite misleading when it comes to political literacy. IMO, the educated and qualified officials would have done a better job than the politicians that are chosen by a public with less political literacy.

[Sy Borg]

In Australia it is mandatory for all people over the age of 18 to vote at all government elections, right down to council elections.

This may seem a bit harsh to some. We find it more of an inconvenience. Having to cue for our democratic responsibility can be tedious.
We don’t assume anyone is that ignorant they couldn’t identify a mug in a crowd.
So far we haven’t had the likes of Trump taking over. Australians are pretty good at identifying a bogan.

I cannot comment on how the Australians feel about their parliament representatives. But we see mixed news about them on the international news. But from what you said I got another problem. By making voting mandatory, have not your government violated the basic human rights (if violation is too much let's say disturbed)? Is there a punishment to those who do not participate in voting?

The previous federal government in Australia is the most dishonest, bumbling and ideologically-driven administration I have seen in my lifetime. It was only kept in power due to its climate change denial and largesse towards fossil fuel industries, which ensured support from the Murdoch media. You see, Australia is a vassal state of the US, and the US's mouthpiece that controls our polity is the Murdoch media, which has a much larger than 50% share in print and internet news media. In that way, Murdoch always ensures that Australia's policies do not stray to far from the US's right wing (which of course is dominant in the US, with huge gerrymanders, disproportionate vote values and control over the courts).

There are small fines for not voting, but the canny find them easy to avoid. Compulsory voting is far from a violation of human rights, unless one in libertarian and sees all regulation as a violation. Mandatory voting is well-known to reduce the likelihood of voting extremists into power. As Tommo noted, Australians are slightly better at identifying dangerous lunatics than Americans but I would trust them to get it right with voluntary voting, not with Murdoch in control. We saw the damage done by the Murdochs to the US with their Fox outlet, and they only backtracked on election fraud claims due to a few honest people (now sacked). That was a sobering example of how a nation can lose its democracy, as seen with Erdogan in Turkey and Lukashenko in Belarus.

[LuckyR]

In Australia it is mandatory for all people over the age of 18 to vote at all government elections, right down to council elections.

This may seem a bit harsh to some. We find it more of an inconvenience. Having to cue for our democratic responsibility can be tedious.
We don’t assume anyone is that ignorant they couldn’t identify a mug in a crowd.
So far we haven’t had the likes of Trump taking over. Australians are pretty good at identifying a bogan.

I cannot comment on how the Australians feel about their parliament representatives. But we see mixed news about them on the international news. But from what you said I got another problem. By making voting mandatory, have not your government violated the basic human rights (if violation is too much let's say disturbed)? Is there a punishment to those who do not participate in voting?

The previous federal government in Australia is the most dishonest, bumbling and ideologically-driven administration I have seen in my lifetime. It was only kept in power due to its climate change denial and largesse towards fossil fuel industries, which ensured support from the Murdoch media. You see, Australia is a vassal state of the US, and the US's mouthpiece that controls our polity is the Murdoch media, which has a much larger than 50% share in print and internet news media. In that way, Murdoch always ensures that Australia's policies do not stray to far from the US's right wing (which of course is dominant in the US, with huge gerrymanders, disproportionate vote values and control over the courts).

There are small fines for not voting, but the canny find them easy to avoid. Compulsory voting is far from a violation of human rights, unless one in libertarian and sees all regulation as a violation. Mandatory voting is well-known to reduce the likelihood of voting extremists into power. As Tommo noted, Australians are slightly better at identifying dangerous lunatics than Americans but I would trust them to get it right with voluntary voting, not with Murdoch in control. We saw the damage done by the Murdochs to the US with their Fox outlet, and they only backtracked on election fraud claims due to a few honest people (now sacked). That was a sobering example of how a nation can lose its democracy, as seen with Erdogan in Turkey and Lukashenko in Belarus.

Here in the US we have a time worn tradition of limiting the number of voters who can vote. Including passing laws to help accomplish this national goal.

[GE Morton]

There are small fines for not voting, but the canny find them easy to avoid. Compulsory voting is far from a violation of human rights, unless one in libertarian and sees all regulation as a violation. Mandatory voting is well-known to reduce the likelihood of voting extremists into power.

Well, that seems implausible. People who do not vote, or would not, if they had a choice, are typically people with little interest in politics and, as a result, not well-informed about it. You seem to be saying that forcing the ignorant to vote improves outcomes?

Highly counter-intuitive!

[Sy Borg]

There are small fines for not voting, but the canny find them easy to avoid. Compulsory voting is far from a violation of human rights, unless one in libertarian and sees all regulation as a violation. Mandatory voting is well-known to reduce the likelihood of voting extremists into power.

Well, that seems implausible. People who do not vote, or would not, if they had a choice, are typically people with little interest in politics and, as a result, not well-informed about it. You seem to be saying that forcing the ignorant to vote improves outcomes?

Highly counter-intuitive!

Actually, it brings out those who are apathetic and cynical about politics, and that is a grounded, sensible position. Many such people are highly informed and it's certainly been the case that compulsory voting tends to bring more moderate governance than voluntary voting.

Most people I know don't see going to a polling station less than once every year or so (taking into account federal, state and council elections) is a tiny imposition.