philosopher

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.

The merchant of Venice

And what would garantee that this new elite wouldn't just serve its own interests?

tjadams

I can see the merits in changing voting requirements.
That's all I'll say about it.

redcoat

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."

Foxglove

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.

Naomasa298

It should be restricted only to people of whom I approve.

Petyo

It should be restricted to the citizens with education.

philosopher

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

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.

Chancellor

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.


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.