The Problem With Democracy..

It assumes all people are equally educated about the issues, when they are not.

Everyone should have equal rights, but not everyone should have equal representation.

ok

i would absolutely love a poll test, where you would have to demonstrate reasonable knowledge of current events before you were allowed to walk in and pull the lever

Says who? How do you decide who shouldn't have "equal" representation? Whose standards do you use? -Yours-? I don't recognize your authority to make that kind of decision, so...now what?

Playing devil's advocate for a minute here...
Define reasonable.

Are you familiar with "Quiz Bowl"? It was an AG program back in middle school, where you would have to read that weeks time, newsweek, and us news. Then, that thursday, you would sit around a table and "buzz in" with the answers. The 6 highest scorers could move on to state and regional competition. I believe it even played on local tv. If you are familiar with it, i would say scoring 60% or higher on 30 questions at that level would be sufficient.

http://pewresearch.org/politicalquiz/quiz/

in case you arent familiar with quiz bowl...

requiring... say... 90% on something along these lines would also do nicely

Related Story

32% of Americans aren't even aware we have a trade deficit. I don't think it's rational to give people at that level of ignorance the power to make decisions that affect the future of the country.

So in essence, whomever is writing the questions gets to decide the level of intelligence required to vote?

Who gets to decide who writes the questions? I mean, it's one thing to write questions for middle school students...it's entirely different to give someone the power to decide who gets to vote and who doesn't...how do you keep the system from becoming corrupt, so that the questions aren't geared towards allowing mostly conservatives to vote, or geared towards allowing mostly liberals to vote?

To represent my lack of knowledge, are there any countries ruled by actual(True?) Democracy?

very carefully

edit: darn somebody beat me

I don't think that conservatives have access to secret pools of knowledge that liberals don't, and vice-versa. Intelligence and the willingness to stay informed are independent of political philosophy.

deciding who got to write the questions is indeed a tough question. Likely a congressional subcomittee with equal representation from republicans and democrats, with a sprinkling of third party canditates. i'm sure that someone smarter than me could come up with a better solution.

In any case, i think it would be very hard to slant an intelligence-based test in favor of a certain political party.

ancient athens was very, very close.

hmmm simple questions like who is your local rep and what is his campaign objective. prob toss in a few questions in regards to todays politics and issues and see if the person understands.


anyways true democracy doesn't exist the moment people finish voting they prob dont even bother to follow up on their candidate promises.

I am indeed familiar with Quiz Bowl. While this keeps you up to date on current events, it's a memorization game rather than one based on a fundamental understanding of issues facing the country, which leads me to say that a direct port of Quiz Bowl would not be sufficient. It would also be impractical since some information would cycle in and out of use fairly quickly. Further, there's still the base issue that your definition of reasonable is subjective. How do we determine who is truly deserving of the right to representation?
11/12, woohoo! I thought breaking a filibuster required a true majority >.< I agree that those who are that ignorant are less than ideal candidates for representation, but they represent an extreme. I'm more interested in how you draw the line when it's a little less clear.

Forms of democracy exist in many countries, but if you're referring to the democracy of ancient Athens then no. It's an impractical system given current populations, though modern technology makes it a bit more feasible.

soooo what has triggered u to be so pissy about this?

Fair enough, but really, why stop at an intelligence test?

I mean, let's face it...if they've ever had a speeding ticket, they obviously don't give a damn about the welfare of their fellow drivers, so why should someone who doesn't care about something as important as someone else's life get to vote?

If they do drugs, they don't deserve to be voting because they might be high.

If they're fat, they obviously don't have good judgment. Same with if they have bad credit.

Where does it end?

Actually, this isn't the first thread I've seen by the OP with an antagonistic-like statement. I think they just like to try and stir up debate. 8)

this argument is a textbook example of a logical fallacy in action, known as the slippery slope fallacy.

here.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

currently we arent even a democracy anymore, with obama's czarist regime, and the patriot act, our civil liberties and constitution are a way of the past... we have no say so in governmental affairs... and its just getting worse every day, i read today that, the information czar wants to ban conspiracy theorists, and re-write the 2nd amendment of free speech, saying that people can say what they want, as long as its not against the government, or anything to do with conspiracy against the government....what a world we live in

LOL...I know what a slippery slope logical fallacy is, but it is also a legitimate question. Why should intelligence be the only deciding factor in who gets representation?

When one right falls, others soon follow. That's my point. 8)

Oh, brother. Where where you during the Bush regime? Were you complaining then? Or are you one of those people who can't seem to find any fault with Republicans, only with Democrats?

Personally, I feel both OP and Silvaria have a point here.

The current system allows the opinions of "less informed people" to bear equal weight with those of "more informed people," which is considered an injustice to those who would... consider themselves "more informed people."

If some sort of "intelligence/awareness filter" were to be introduced, there would obviously be some uproar about the individual's right to vote, but the more pressing concern would be that the determining factor would have to be a standard by which everyone can agree on--and that's nearly impossible.

Still, there's something to be said about allowing "gullible" people whose hearts and votes can easily be swayed by rhetoric alone to vote.

I agree that requiring someone to demonstrate a fundamental understanding of the issues we face would be the best solution of all. I don't think it is practical, though. Demonstrating that level of knowledge would probably require response in an essay format. That would be: A. Cost-Prohibitive B. Much more vulnerable to corruption or favoritism than a machine detecting multiple choice answers.

If there is a practical way of determining fundamental understanding, i'm all for it. I just am not aware of any.

I agree that quiz bowl or pew research style questions are an imperfect solution, but i still think they are a better system than what we've currently got.

I'd draw the line at a simple scoring percentage, just like the line where people pass/fail school.

I got 11/12 as well. I missed the Afghanistan/Iraq question, of all things ><.

I agree with you that it doesnt equal freedom, however our way of life/government was created for the sole purpose of serving the people, its just not like that, and i think you would agree that more and more of our civil liberties are being taken away, with these people in our government scaring the american public to death with threats of terrorism and the like

the classic "where do we draw the line" question has been brought up in government as long as anyone can remember. It's the classic argument for doing absolutely nothing.

Since you can't draw the line in the perfect place, and create a perfect solution, let's do nothing at all!

The thing is, an imperfect solution is generally better than no solution at all.

i would bet my life that if the least informed, least intellegent three-fourths of america were barred from voting, we would have a lot more of our civil liberties than we have now.

Just out of curiosity, could you tell us which "civil liberties" are being taken away since Obama took office? (And jsyk, the Patriot Act was enacted while Bush was in office.)