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 13th, 2012, 10:01 AM   #1
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Denmark
Posts: 1,582
Should the right to vote be limited?


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.
philosopher is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 13th, 2012, 10:06 AM   #2

The merchant of Venice's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: .
Posts: 1,942

And what would garantee that this new elite wouldn't just serve its own interests?
The merchant of Venice is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 10:13 AM   #3

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,369
Blog Entries: 6

I can see the merits in changing voting requirements.
That's all I'll say about it.
tjadams is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 10:17 AM   #4

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 4,593

Time to quote Churchill

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
redcoat is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 10:17 AM   #5

Foxglove's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 444

I have my doubts. Does the upper crust know any more than anybody else about how to manage an economy? In Ireland it was the upper crust that wrecked our economy.

It seems to me, too--though maybe somebody will correct me on this--that in a lot of countries parliaments are already composed of members of the upper crust. The masses elect them, and then often complain non-stop about how they're handling affairs.
Foxglove is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 10:18 AM   #6

Naomasa298's Avatar
Bog of the Year
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 21,351

It should be restricted only to people of whom I approve.
Naomasa298 is online now  
Old November 13th, 2012, 10:36 AM   #7

Petyo's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Bulgaria
Posts: 806

It should be restricted to the citizens with education.
Petyo is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 11:10 AM   #8
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Denmark
Posts: 1,582

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petyo View Post
It should be restricted to the citizens with education.
An education is many things. Just because you are an engineer or a school teacher, doesn't mean you have the competence to vote for the parliament deciding the fate of a country.
philosopher is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 11:11 AM   #9
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Denmark
Posts: 1,582

Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat View Post
Time to quote Churchill

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
I disagree with that. Enlightened Despotism is, sometimes, better than democracy.

The unfortunate thing about democracy is that it only works propperly when the economy is good and the people are feeling safe and happy.
philosopher is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 11:30 AM   #10

Chancellor's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: The far North
Posts: 882

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.
As Mandela put it sometime during the 1950s; a man (or a woman, we might assume) doesn't have to be able to read, much less anything more complex, to know what he wants. That doesn't give the majority the authority to act on everything - democracy must in every constitution be limited by law, if it is not going to commit suicide. But the reason we have rule of all (adult citizens, more or less) is not based on merit, but that the alternative would be to impose political power on those who had no say on it whatsoever, and may, for all we know, be more valuable, keen and, indeed, worthy to make those decisions than the ones who live up to the terms.

Two hundred years ago, yes, if yet reluctantly. Racial and sexual barriers, however, have no reasonable basis.


Quote:
Originally Posted by philosopher View Post
I disagree with that. Enlightened Despotism is, sometimes, better than democracy.

The unfortunate thing about democracy is that it only works propperly when the economy is good and the people are feeling safe and happy.
Perhaps so. But... who is to be the despot? As my standard question goes; without democracy, what sort of public policy would we adopt? When given an answer, it invariably cohers with the personal preferences of the person asked the question. That says a lot.
Chancellor 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.