Democracy is the worst form of government...

[Bradskii]

Apart from the present restrictions on voting? Yes, that would be you.

"How would you propose to implement? Restrict voting to only those who have advanced degrees?"
"Compulsory civics and critical thinking classes in secondary schools (aka high schools)."

That's not a restriction. I can imagine some schools not implementing it. I can see some citizens obviously not having the opportunity to learn it. The vast amount of the electorate would never have done anything like it.

I can't imagine that anyone might suggest that it's a bad idea to have the next generations more educated as to how democracy works in whatever country they live in. So as it surely must be considered a good idea then some education is going to be required. It's a required subject here up to year 8 and elective from there on. So no exam need be taken. No pass mark need be achieved.

 

[Bradskii]

Are you trying to be snarky?

Try helping yourself first. You've made the same grammatical error as your hero. I won't even mention your punctuation problems.

Now do you have any new thoughts you'd like to post on the topic?

There are obviously differences in opinions in a topic like this but the general tone has been reasonably polite. Can't we keep it that way?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Are you trying to be snarky?

No. I think you are reading it wrong. I hope it is from inattention, or sloppy reading, but I fear (and suspect) that you want to read his statement as a new requirement prior to voting. I don't think it is anything of the sort.

Try helping yourself first.

O_rlly?

You've made the same grammatical error as your hero.

There are no grammatical errors in the single sentence you quoted. I have no heroes. They're just not worth it.

I won't even mention your punctuation problems.

That"s a funny! way of not mentioning, them. (Now THAT was snark.)

Now do you have any new thoughts you'd like to post on the topic?

I have some old thoughts, but I'm keeping them to myself for the moment. It would run the risk of triggering more of yours.

 

[stevevw]

It's about who gets to vote. Not who who they get to vote for.

That doesn't seem right. We could have 100% of people allowed to vote but the government can make it so theres only 1 candidate or at least make it hard for other candidates through controlling information. Thats not democracy. I think its about both.

Quite often the choices available are all no good and it comes down to a choice between two bad candidates. If the system is producing poor quality candidates then whats the use of being free to vote. If the system allows for minority parties to hold the balance of power which most people disagree with then whats the use to being free to vote.

 

[Bradskii]

That doesn't seem right. We could have 100% of people allowed to vote but the government can make it so theres only 1 candidate or at least make it hard for other candidates through controlling information. Thats not democracy. I think its about both. Quite often the choices are all no good and it comes down to a choice between two bad candidates. If the system is producing poor quality candidates then whats the use of being free to vote.

Having bad choices means that whatever party is standing for election isn't worth voting for. It doesn't mean that you cancel the democratic means of voting. If someone wants to get elected then they have to appeal the electorate.

The other side of that coin is having some good candidates but the electorate is not educated enough to make reasonable decisions. You don't cancel their vote. You solve the problem by educating them.

 

[Aaron112]

If the system is producing poor quality candidates then whats the use of being free to vote. If the system allows for minority parties to hold the balance of power which most people disagree with then whats the use to being free to vote.

This appears to be one of the best posts regarding voting and whether or not it is ever actually real or helpful .... on the way , however slowly, to learning how things in government(s) are done....

 

[Bradskii]

This appears to be one of the best posts regarding voting and whether or not it is ever actually real or helpful .... on the way , however slowly, to learning how things in government(s) are done....

What's your solution, Aaron?

 

[Aaron112]

www.biblegateway.com › verse › en › Daniel 2:21

Daniel 2:21 - Bible Gateway​

ERV He changes the times and seasons. He gives power to kings, and he takes their power away. He gives wisdom to people, so they become wise. He lets people learn things and become wise. EHV He changes times and eras. He removes kings, and he brings kings to power. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have good judgment.

 

[Bradskii]

www.biblegateway.com › verse › en › Daniel 2:21

Daniel 2:21 - Bible Gateway​

ERV He changes the times and seasons. He gives power to kings, and he takes their power away. He gives wisdom to people, so they become wise. He lets people learn things and become wise. EHV He changes times and eras. He removes kings, and he brings kings to power. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have good judgment.

Some kind of dictatorship, then. Got anyone in mind?

 

[Aaron112]

Some kind of dictatorship, then. Got anyone in mind?

The Creator's Choice, as Always. HE sets up kings(and presidents, et al) , and HE brings down kings, as He Pleases.

 

[Bradskii]

The Creator's Choice, as Always. HE sets up kings(and presidents, et al) , and HE brings down kings, as He Pleases.

Biden is the guy in charge at the moment. I guess he was chosen.

 

[stevevw]

Having bad choices means that whatever party is standing for election isn't worth voting for. It doesn't mean that you cancel the democratic means of voting. If someone wants to get elected then they have to appeal the electorate.

But if the choices end up all being bad or that the government controlled information so that it influenced the outcomes then the democractic system is broken itself. It doesn't matter then that people are free to vote because the idea of democracy is about free speech and that is being denied by the system.

The other side of that coin is having some good candidates but the electorate is not educated enough to make reasonable decisions. You don't cancel their vote. You solve the problem by educating them.

Well yes that makes sense. But then the question would be 'what do we educate them about'? I know someone mentioned teaching people to critically think. That would allow people to question thinghs deeper to see what is behind policies and laws. Whats the motivation ect. But I also think this seems a little unreal because politics is not always about being rational.

Sometimes and perhaps often a parties policy may be bad for society and people know it but they support the idea based on their belief and allegence for their parties overall philosophy. Political opponents will also disagree for the sake of not giving up ground to their opponents or because of some vested interest.

Politics seems to often be about a worldview, a belief or philosophy about how we should order society. That is often a position taken beyond critical thinking and rather based on ideological beliefs.

Sometimes as we have seen the narrative can be controlled in a way that only certain information is allowed. Critical thinking can only work if all the information is available to find and evaluate things. I think transparency is the main ingredient which will allow people to make informed decisions.

 

[Bradskii]

But if the choices end up all being bad or that the government controlled information so that it influenced the outcomes then the democractic system is broken itself.

No, it doesn't mean the democratic system is no good. It means that you are starting with what is in effect a dictatorship. Assuming that you don't want a dictatorship that will limit the information that you have then we'll exclude it from what we think is a good system.

It seems that you want a democratic system where relevant information is available to all. Great idea, Steve. I'm with you there. So let's start making a list, shall we?

Assuming the democratic system is the least worse, then what we seem to have decided is:
01. Universal suffrage (with possibly some means to have criminals' right to vote reinstated).
02. Educated electorate - civics classes in schools (plus any further suggestions)
03. Access to relevant information about who we are voting for and what their policies are - so a free and independent press.
04. Possible limits on political party spending.

Add what you think might be included.

 

[stevevw]

Biden is the guy in charge at the moment. I guess he was chosen.

Yeah he was chosen alright by the real puppet masters behind the scene, Joes perfect for that. They just feed him with what to say and do and he just repeayts. Though he often forgets and fumbles his way through it lol.

But then the question is who is behind the puppet masters and then why is behind them. Its certainly not the people.

 

[Bradskii]

Yeah he was chosen alright by the real puppet masters behind the scene, Joes perfect for that. They just feed him with what to say and do and he just repeayts. Though he often forgets and fumbles his way through it lol.

But then the question is who is behind the puppet masters and then why is behind them. Its certainly not the people.

Oh, so God won't choose anyone with whom you disagree? Who cares...we aren't talking about which deity might pick which leader, so I won't be adding:

04. A deity to decide who will be in charge.

Deities don't vote. We do. Let's stick with democracy. You know...the people vote.

 

[o_mlly]

So as it surely must be considered a good idea then some education is going to be required.

If you mean required to vote then that was my point. If the political system requires a new qualification to vote then the political system imposes a new restriction. We only differ on what new restrictions would improve or, in the USA save from collapse, democracy.

 

[Bradskii]

If you mean required to vote then that was my point. If the political system requires a new qualification to vote then the political system imposes a new restriction. We only differ on what new restrictions would improve or, in the USA save from collapse, democracy.

You just quoted my whole post. It couldn't be any clearer. And I have said in a number of posts that I don't want any restrictions. In fact, as far as some restrictions go I'd like them to be lifted under certain conditions. As far as I can see you are the only person to want them. Oh, apart from one or two posts that think that God should make the decision. It wasn't explained as to how we'd know what it would be.

 

[o_mlly]

It couldn't be any clearer. ... And I have said in a number of posts that I don't want any restrictions.

You could have been clearer if you wrote "would be nice" instead of "is going to be required".

 

[Bradskii]

You could have been clearer if you wrote "would be nice" instead of "is going to be required".

Fair point. So I'll avoid saying that more effort on your part is going to be required in understanding simple propositions.

But it would be nice.

 

[o_mlly]

As far as I can see you are the only person to want them.

? If so then you ought to look farther than just to your (3-4?) liberal like minded friends in this forum.

Your collective wisdom thinks that increasing the number of voters by removing present restrictions would make democracy better. In the USA, the fact is that voters got us into this mess. So it's unlikely that the answer is to give us more of those voters.

An informed voter is good. However, an informed voter on how the political system works will not make democracy better. Does a voter in a culture that pushes the liberal notion that one must be allowed to do whatever, with whomever, whenever, and wherever they want likely to put the community-interest ahead of self-interest? No. Rather than taking a civics class, the voter of tomorrow would be better served if he were informed by taking a Christian ethics class.