Is 'Democracy' like 'Equality' ?

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

On the contrary, nobody should be allowed to vote until they comprehend the rules,

Why?

[Genady]

The pets should vote as well.

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Genady said:

The pets should vote as well.

Give them a pen, and see how well they do. Simples... 🖖

Edited September 7, 2023 by dimreepr

[Peterkin]

43 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Why?

It's just my crazy, irrational notion that government isn't democratic unless the people understand what they're voting for.

[iNow]

https://americanhistory.si.edu/democracy-exhibition/vote-voice/keeping-vote/state-rules-federal-rules/literacy-tests
 

Quote

Proponents of tests to prove an applicant’s ability to read and understand English claimed that the exams ensured an educated and informed electorate. In practice they were used to disqualify immigrants and the poor, who had less education. In the South they were used to prevent African Americans from registering to vote. The Voting Rights Act ended the use of literacy tests in the South in 1965 and the rest of the country in 1970.

In Mississippi, applicants were required to transcribe and interpret a section of the state constitution and write an essay on the responsibilities of citizenship. Registration officials selected the questions and interpreted the answers, effectively choosing which applicants to pass and which to fail.

 

[Peterkin]

Yes, I'm familiar with that abuse of power. There are many - voter suppression, intimidation, redistricting, changing the eligibility requirements and registration without notice, placing the polling stations where poor people can't reach them, refusing employees time to vote, misinformation, etc., etc. Democracy is fragile and corruptible - especially when it runs on money. 

The answer to abuse is not simply to rely on public ignorance and gullibility. This is why I didn't just advocate a state-administered test for voter registration, but an elementary-school course in civics (thus, no great intellectual attainment is required, and all legal school-leavers would have had the same course.) Immigrants are often better informed than born citizens, because they have to take a test. This relegates naturalized citizens to second-class: they have to earn their voting right while a born citizen has it as an unquestioned  prerogative. 

An informed electorate is all that can possibly prevent abuses becoming the norm for all governance. Voters need a better-founded knowledge of their system of government and more reliable - factual, rather than sensational - information.

It's not impossible. 

Edited September 7, 2023 by Peterkin

[iNow]

I’m all in favor of an informed electorate, as well as growing the number of informed critical thinkers more broadly.

Allowing partisan hacks with private funding overlords to arbitrarily set thresholds which prevent “lesser informed” citizens from voting, however, I not only do NOT support, but actively oppose. 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

llowing partisan hacks with private funding overlords to arbitrarily set thresholds which prevent “lesser informed” citizens from voting, however, I not only do NOT support, but actively oppose. 

Fine. Could you also figure out a way to stop those same hacks preventing people of African and Latin origin and people who live below the poverty line from voting? 

The thing is, the American political system - as well as many others, obviously - could benefit from some major reforms, because the way matters stand, these democracies are not living up to their name.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

some major reforms

Such as?

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Such as?

A whole overhaul, I should think. I'd start with proportional representation. Then remove the money: prohibit lobbies and patronage; stop fundraising and give each candidate the same travel voucher. Liberate the judiciary from the ignominy of political election and appointment, determine heads of government departments and agencies by merit, not political favour. Disband the electoral college, take district delineation and voter registration away from the states, ban rallies and media advertising, reduce campaign events to 2 months prior to the election. Then we could review what else needs fixing. 

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

A whole overhaul, I should think. I'd start with proportional representation. Then remove the money: prohibit lobbies and patronage; stop fundraising and give each candidate the same travel voucher. Liberate the judiciary from the ignominy of political election and appointment, determine heads of government departments and agencies by merit, not political favour. Disband the electoral college, take district delineation and voter registration away from the states, ban rallies and media advertising, reduce campaign events to 2 months prior to the election. Then we could review what else needs fixing. 

And then write a whole new set of arbitrary limits, to be exploited; politics is like water seeping through rock's, every crack will be widened.

The fundamentals have to be water-resistant, everyone has to vote (privately), to the best of their ability; something along those lines, perchance.

If individual intelligence is so important for accuracy, then how can a crowd of people with random guesses be, more often than not, more accurate at guessing the wieght of a cow than an expert? (I'm sure there's study out there somewhere, don't make me find it, please).

[Peterkin]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If individual intelligence is so important for accuracy,

Who said it was?

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

then how can a crowd of people with random guesses be, more often than not, more accurate at guessing the wieght of a cow than an expert?

If they were - and I don't see it demonstrated - it would be because the crowd submitted a hundred guesses of which the average was used, while the expert had only one guess. 

 

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

(I'm sure there's study out there somewhere, don't make me find it, please).

I'll wait for a court to assign that experiment as your sentence for some misdemeanour. 

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The fundamentals have to be water-resistant, everyone has to vote (privately), to the best of their ability; something along those lines, perchance.

I doubt the US citizenry will go along with that. Some of their factions work hard to disallow the votes of their fellow citizens.

[iNow]

21 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Then we could review what else needs fixing. 

You sound a bit like a fascist authoritarian. Was that your intent?

14 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If individual intelligence is so important for accuracy, then how can a crowd of people with random guesses be, more often than not, more accurate at guessing the wieght of a cow than an expert?

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wisdom-crowds.asp

[Peterkin]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

You sound a bit like a fascist authoritarian. Was that your intent?

Not exactly. I would like to see democracy in name operate as democracy in action.

You asked what reforms might accomplish that and I made some suggestions.

I didn't realize reforming a long-abused, corrupted and deformed system would come across as fascist. 

So, never mind; just let things run their course.

Edited September 9, 2023 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Not exactly. I would like to see democracy in name operate as democracy in action.

You asked what reforms might accomplish that and I made some suggestions.

I didn't realize reforming a long-abused, corrupted and deformed system would come across as fascist. 

So, never mind; just let things run their course.

Fascist, is just another word among many, that points to the same mistake; I know better...

I'm not saying your intentions are evil, that's just the yin-to your-yang...

All I'm saying is, the fundamentals have to be as free as possible from the potential bias of anyone/thing.

9 hours ago, iNow said:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wisdom-crowds.asp

Thanks, that was a good read.

Edited September 9, 2023 by dimreepr

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I'm not saying your intentions are evil, that's just the yin-to your-yang...

Very magnanimous, I'm sure.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

All I'm saying is, the fundamentals have to be as free as possible from the potential bias of anyone/thing.

I understood that's what a constitution was for, and supreme courts were set up to adjudicate whether a newly introduced law conforms to those principles. But maybe I was wrong about that, too, just as I underestimated the wisdom the crowd that has produced such stellar governance.

[TheVat]

In democracy the reforms would need to encourage more wisdom in those we elect as our representatives, as well as civic education of the voter. (it's easy to say the latter would lead to the former, but you can have wise voters faced with a candidate field of sociopaths, showbiz hucksters, and the clueless wealthy (not mutually exclusive sets)) 

Equality factors in as equality before the law - in voting that means access and fair districting, as others point out.  Any voting system with a single type access point will favor some over others.  Probably a wide menu is best - online, mail-in, brick/mortar polling stations, mall kiosks, etc.  

[iNow]

One obstacle is that the system requires changes which can only be implemented by those currently benefiting the most from the current state of that system. 
 

 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

One obstacle is that the system requires changes which can only be implemented by those currently benefiting the most from the current state of that system. 

Does that mean that you are in favour of reform, but see it as difficult, or that all attempts at reform are futile, or that reform is a bad idea? 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

all attempts at reform are futile, or that reform is a bad idea? 

Neither of these 

[studiot]

12 hours ago, iNow said:

One obstacle is that the system requires changes which can only be implemented by those currently benefiting the most from the current state of that system. 
 

 

 

Indeed so. +1

[dimreepr]

22 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Very magnanimous, I'm sure.

I understood that's what a constitution was for, and supreme courts were set up to adjudicate whether a newly introduced law conforms to those principles. But maybe I was wrong about that, too, just as I underestimated the wisdom the crowd that has produced such stellar governance.

A constitution is designed, by those that know better, to freeze the intention of those word's, which are inevitably forged in a biased system; yin-yang.

For any system to achieve equity, democracy et al has to mean that everyone gets a chance; even if they don't want too...

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

A constitution is designed, by those that know better, to freeze the intention of those word's,

Is that why they include and amending formula? Everyone has a right to walk on public roads, too - yet I wouldn't let my three-year-old out by himself, even if he wanted to. I guess that's because of my know-better fascist tendencies.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I guess that's because of my know-better fascist tendencies.

Maybe, did you question yourself???

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Maybe, did you question yourself???

I don't need to. I get plenty of external validation.