Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 14th, 2012, 03:15 AM   #41

Panthera tigris altaica's Avatar
In latrine Rex
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: Texas
Posts: 5,641
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
You mean zombies? I don't think they should be able to vote...
Me neither. So it's unanimous.

Click the image to open in full size.

Whose going to tell them?
Panthera tigris altaica is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 14th, 2012, 05:26 AM   #42
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by philosopher View Post
The economic crisis in Europe has shown that the ordinary working people, the workers/laborers are getting angry at those who recieve money from the government due to unemployment, disability and old age.

In Britain, the vast majority of extreme law proposals (such as re-instating the death penalty) comes from the Lower House/House of Commoners, and are being rejected by the House of Lords.
I read about it some time ago, unfortunatly I don't have the article right now.

These two examples are my basis of questioning the Universal Suffrage.
Ordinary people have no insight in political decision making or the society as a whole.

In all places where the ordinary working people have taken the power, we have seen the extremes of dictatorship - Russia, Spain, Italy, Germany, Cuba, China, I could go on and on.

Just look at the French Revolution of 1789.

They have caused mass-slaughter and chaos and after that, it caused brutal dictatorship, because the masses can't lead itself. It needs a leader.

That's why I suggest something in-between: Parliamentary Nobility. It should be elected only by the most influential members of society. Which includes the royal family (if there exists such a thing in the particular country) and various other people who have lots of experience in state & government. Other electors could be people who have such a good private economy that they don't really need to work to provide for themselves.

That would exclude more than 95 % of the entire population in a particular country from voting. Just to get it in place: I'd certainly lose my right to vote too, so I'm not trying to impose such a change just to get power.

Of course the people should be able to vote on issues not involving the economy, or to vote on priority on how to distribute a certain amount of money which the Noble Parliament has chosen. In both cases, universal suffrage should be in place, but not in regards on how to run the country as a whole.


HOWEVER I am willing to change my opinion on this subject IF you can present me with decent counter-arguments.
Maybe because the empirical millennia-long experience with illustrated undemocratic despots like Ghadaffi or Mussolini has objectively & overwhelmingly been so incredibly successful?

Anyway, as this shouldn't be any democracy, guess no one should care for your opinion, right?
(Or mine, for that matter)

Anyway, IMHO if the critical problem that you are rightly pointing out is that the people taking the decisions may be a bit unprepared, just IMHO preparing such people would seem a more logical approach.

IMHO making the critical decisions entirely dependent on the lack of preparation of a single despot instead of the average preparation level of all the people would only make things exponentially worse.

Ultimately, Mr. Churchill is still empirically absolutely right about democracy.

It's still the worst possible political system, aside of absolutely any other ever tried.

Just IMHO, and just because you asked.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 05:34 AM   #43

Gudenrath's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Denmark
Posts: 2,510
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulun View Post
the same is true about dictatorships, they only work properly if they can give the panem et circenses to the plebs.
And of course they don't work at all for all those that are deemed to be "enemies of the state", enlightened despotism or not. This in my book is enough to give democracy an advantage of any authoritarian state.

Not to mention that despotisms, enlightened or not, are usually fraught with nepotism, corruption and incompetence in the administration, simply because through their hierarchical structure, the level of meritocracy are way lower than in democracies (democracies are far from perfect in this regard either, but they usually have a lot more checks and balances built-in to prevent the worst cases).

And the ultimate problem of despotism is the succession issue. You may have a semi-competent ruler, but you can't ensure his successor is. In democracies governments voluntarily step down after their term is finished, restricting the time one incompetent government can rule (that they are often replaced by another incompetent government is another matter, at least the theoretical possibility to replace them is present).
Gudenrath is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 05:42 AM   #44

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 8,961
Blog Entries: 12

The point is that among the principals of democracy there is the one which says that the political class has to be the expression of the electors [citizens interested in electing the political class, to vote is not a duty in mature democracies ...], not that the electors have to be the expression [or the synthesis] of the idea of electorate in the heads of the legislators.

By paradox we can imagine that in a democracy where the entire population is made by silly individuals, it's absolutely democratic, ethically correct [and obvious, I would add] that the elected political class will be made by silly individuals ...

This said, in democracy limitation of vote for citizens exist, but it's connected with a trial and the decision of judge [or an entire court, depending on the kind of trial]. And it's a case by case matter, not the effect of a general rule.
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 05:56 AM   #45

Gudenrath's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Denmark
Posts: 2,510
Blog Entries: 1

Historically speaking voting limitations has been the norm in democracies. In classical Athens the voters was limited to around little more than half the male population of the city-state. It wasn't until 1884 that UK reached a similar percentage of voters of the male population, and of course not until the first decades of the 20th century that women was accepted as voters in most Western democracies.

However in modern democracies there are still around 5-20% of the resident adult population who doesnt have voting rights for one or other reasons (no citizenship, penal restrictions, other disenfranchisement laws. Denmark 5,5%. Switzerland 20%).
Gudenrath is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 05:58 AM   #46
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Guess everyone here is already well aware that asking for impossible perfection is a paradigmatic Nirvana Fallacy, right?
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 12:45 PM   #47

annelouise17's Avatar
Colonial Savage
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: Hanover In
Posts: 4,185
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorian View Post
Once again, drugs... what percentage of people are you cutting out?
Are you happy to PAY for mass drug tests of an entire adult population all in one, already busy, day?
Are you happy to cut out the wealthy voters who have had a bit of a castor sugar sniff?
That wasn't thought out.
annelouise17 is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 12:48 PM   #48

annelouise17's Avatar
Colonial Savage
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: Hanover In
Posts: 4,185
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
What about people on medication that causes them to be unable to think clearly? Should they be deprived of the vote too?
Like I said earlier I did think that one out.
annelouise17 is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 01:01 PM   #49

infestør's Avatar
Surprise pølse!
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Ẍ
Posts: 3,830
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by philosopher View Post
The economic crisis in Europe has shown that the ordinary working people, the workers/laborers are getting angry at those who recieve money from the government due to unemployment, disability and old age.

In Britain, the vast majority of extreme law proposals (such as re-instating the death penalty) comes from the Lower House/House of Commoners, and are being rejected by the House of Lords.
I read about it some time ago, unfortunatly I don't have the article right now.

These two examples are my basis of questioning the Universal Suffrage.
Ordinary people have no insight in political decision making or the society as a whole.

In all places where the ordinary working people have taken the power, we have seen the extremes of dictatorship - Russia, Spain, Italy, Germany, Cuba, China, I could go on and on.

Just look at the French Revolution of 1789.

They have caused mass-slaughter and chaos and after that, it caused brutal dictatorship, because the masses can't lead itself. It needs a leader.

That's why I suggest something in-between: Parliamentary Nobility. It should be elected only by the most influential members of society. Which includes the royal family (if there exists such a thing in the particular country) and various other people who have lots of experience in state & government. Other electors could be people who have such a good private economy that they don't really need to work to provide for themselves.

That would exclude more than 95 % of the entire population in a particular country from voting. Just to get it in place: I'd certainly lose my right to vote too, so I'm not trying to impose such a change just to get power.

Of course the people should be able to vote on issues not involving the economy, or to vote on priority on how to distribute a certain amount of money which the Noble Parliament has chosen. In both cases, universal suffrage should be in place, but not in regards on how to run the country as a whole.


HOWEVER I am willing to change my opinion on this subject IF you can present me with decent counter-arguments.
i would advocate a point system rather than a restriction. you take a test and according to your score you are assigned votes. if you don't take the test you have 1 vote by default. if you do 20% then 2, 30% then 3 and so on.
the test should asses people's knowledge of economics, politics, their foreign languages etc. i mean questions like:

-what is d'hondt method?
-what is inflation?
-what is budget deficit?
-why is secularism beneficial?
-if 1 lira is 44.42 japanese yen, does that mean that our economy is stronger?
-differences between federation and confederation?
-what is a unitary state?
-for crying out loud, what is a republic?
etc.

the one that does know and the one that does not know are not equal. (someone said this a long time ago)
infestør is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 01:01 PM   #50

Sicknero's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Here to Eternity
Posts: 4,369

This is a terrible terrible idea. Restricted suffrage is a slippery slope that can only ever lead to further repression and alienation of various social groups.

A system that judges a person's fitness or ability to vote by any criteria is just open to abuse and corruption, as well as unfairness.

Is anybody here going to suggest that any distinct social group (regardless of how they're selected) could ever be trusted to vote for the general good...?

Weighted voting is little better. Might as well call it Fascism Lite.
Sicknero is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
limited, vote


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why was the right to vote limited for so long? philosopher European History 13 April 8th, 2011 02:24 AM
Freedom of limited information corrocamino Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 0 August 16th, 2010 06:36 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.