There were none.

So the next time a blind guy tells me he didn’t see something I should conclude that there was nothing to see, huh?

I’m the one that asked for solutions/alternatives on the previous article which spawned this one. I originally came to this site via digg.com and thought it might be informative. I thought ‘here is a site that is questioning even the basic building blocks of our society’. At the very least… it should address issues of great concern to all (greed, capitalism, unconstitutional behavior, etc). I say this with regard to what’s happening to our rights as citizens under this administration. I only just revisited since I commented on the original post (so this response is very late).

I needed to read this article a couple of times to make sure I understood even the nuances of what you were trying to convey with this post.

There were none.

You basically state that one possible solution to the ills that plague us today is to limit voting to those in our society that have been educated on the issues. You add that stupid people should not be allowed to vote. One can further infer that lazy people (those unwilling to educate themselves on either all issues or key issues) should also not be allowed to vote but it is not clear since the rant muddies your point and these people they may get a pass if they are ‘smart’ enough…

A logical progression of this train of thought would mean testing voters (presumeably by the ruling elite – hopefully they aren’t the corrupt, power-hungry types…) before each election to insure that they qualify for the right to vote.

Hypothetically speaking, in case one needs to make up for the all dummies that are voting… should Political Science majors be given more than a single vote to make up for all the dimwits (as judged by you)? How many more votes do History majors get over the uneducated? How about someone who is really great at Geography and can list all countries in order… by population?

And… after all of this… when the next politician says “Read My Lips….” does it mean that these new rules should be tossed out the window because the 50 year old uneducated person is no better a judge of character then a 22-year old art major with a bong in his pocket?

Sigh… I don’t run a website with a politcal theme. Given the number of posts on politics you have made, I might’ve expected a little more thought to the subject at hand instead of the criminal and hypocritical stance you have taken – which is to oppress others that don’t meet specific criterias. What has history and politics taught you in regard to oppression of even a small segment of the population?

Now, don’t get me wrong. This isn’t a flame job. I have read a few other recents post you have made and this topic really seems like an anamoly for you (including the nit-picking job on a baseball player)..

The original article re: ‘Jefferson/Constitution/Oppression’ was a good read with much potential. My comment was about solutions (or even amendments to the Constitution) to further solidify the continued long-term health of this country and its’ people. I pointed out issues that plague all societies – such as greed and power and had hoped that you might *segue* into other related topics intelligently.

I do understand your main point about the voting process 200+ years ago which you believe was a better method. If you have lived in those times, instead of seeing them through the comfort of your modern-age hollywood produced streams – you could very well be singing a different tune. History must not be one of your strong suits since the needs of the property owners hardly ever meshed well with the needs of all others even in those “good ‘ole days”…

I’ll leave this site with the following words. You live in a democracy. You do have the power to effect change. You are FREE to lead a march against the corrupt, organize a boycott group against an individual or corporation, point out the “who’s” who are working against the rights of the people in this country, write open letters to Homeland Security and so much more – much of which falls under the guise of educating those around you in an effective manner. You are empowered but not so much that you can take these rights from another.

This site is a testament to the rights you *still* have and allows you to speak to the entire world (save those countries that limit the rights of the individual).

Hell… you are even allowed to vote (thank the process that someone has not yet judged you unworthy despite what you might think of yourself).

Here’s another approach: inject education into the process at a different level. This could be done by formal legislation, or simply by one-offs until it becomes normative habit. Or, hell, as a platform plank by somebody, after a little initial momentum. The proposal: draft all legislation by deliberative methods.

Many variants on the theme are of course possible – perhaps we structure a “hearing” form of it where an initial statistically valid sample of citizens gets to listen to the pro and con sides of a pitch, and the amount of issue education they’re empowered (and required, and funded) to undertake for themselves is hardwired to the vote split in the hearing – the more contentious, the more education, with a minimum of some decent amount even if they thought it was a no-brainer.

Make it more prevalent, but also more advantageous than, jury duty.

Then you could reroute it back to the education proposal via the wallet hook. If you’ve taken an accredited course on the subject within (say) five years, you get a significant cash bonus if randomly selected as a deliberator on the subject. You might also get to skip part of the deliberators’ required education component, although that’d need testing. As a minimum, the course fees would be automatically reimbursed and your time during the course retroactively compensated at (say) the median wage.

Let the galoots vote. But by strengthening the troubleshooting at the drafting and legislating (etc) stages, decrease the potential for dumbassery as a result. Much less risk of abuse, I think, for a similar benefit.

Yes?

in a free society we should all have that right.

Why? By “free society” do you mean “free to use my ignorance to help screw everything up even worse than it already is”?

we need to encourage community interest as a virtue in our society, rather than self interest…..this is at the heart of voter/citizen apathy.

Why do you present this idea as though it’s an either/or, which it clealy isn’t. My own proposal included this very component.

i become so discouraged every november when i note that (of the few who vote) voters spend ten minutes picking the person who will make decisions that will affect not only their, but their childrens’ lives.

You become discouraged, but yet you wouldn’t support a proposal to fix the problem.

Interesting.

having said that, i will not deny that there is no small share of persons of limited intellect or knowlege who pull the lever.

in a free society we should all have that right.

entertaining the idea that all citizens, before voting, should get some sort of a quiz about the mechanizations of government will not change the fact that, by and large, people are too concerned with paying off their credit cards, asking twice that the bartender puts salt on the rim of their margarita and figuring out (with much discussion among friends) whether britney spears deserves to see her children.

when our citizens’ minds are consumed with the pablum that they are fed through our infotainment-mediastructure it is obvious that they will pay precious little attention to the minutiae of policy. ensuring that they know the total amount of electoral votes available in an election will not alleviate that fact.

we need to encourage community interest as a virtue in our society, rather than self interest…..this is at the heart of voter/citizen apathy. i become so discouraged every november when i note that (of the few who vote) voters spend ten minutes picking the person who will make decisions that will affect not only their, but their childrens’ lives.

okay. tirade over. i need a cigarette!

And I don’t see anything wrong with that.

My beelzebubbian friend (or is it just acquaintance?), I must insist that it all still boils down to what a government is for. Naturally, a minion of Hell would think it’s a good idea for some to rule and, presumably, do their very, VERY best for those who have no say in that rule. Others (and I assume I’m not completely alone) would think that the whole idea is to have a say in your own government because, after all, it IS supposed to be for you (and the others in your society).

But it is a lovely thought, isn’t it, Elwood Dodd’s fantasy? Having someone who is smarter, and wiser, and better than you take care of you.

All you have to do is give up any say in choosing those who get to help you.

Disqualify 33.33%. That’s not what you said. Here’s the quote from the original blog:

“In America, as elsewhere, 50% of all citizens are intellectually below average, statistically speaking, but they are nonetheless encouraged to vote about things they can’t possibly understand.”

Sounds like you’re talking 50% to me.

There are roughly 220 million Americans of voting age, if I understand the census statistics correctly. Now, let’s say that my proposal disqualified a full third of those eligible. That’s a huge number, but just say that’s how many failed the basic test of how government works. That means that roughly 145 million American citizens are now eligible to vote.

On Election Day 2004 roughly 122 million Americans cast votes. A full 23 million fewer than my plan would leave eligible.

In light of this, I’m not sure your “widespread suffrage” argument is as compelling as you think.

I’m pretty sure I asserted nothing even vaguely that ridiculous. I offered a modest suggestion that maybe encouraging idiots to vote wasn’t in your best interests. Have fun with “squid entrails” because that’s certainly easier than proving me wrong using, oh I don’t know, the results of the last couple major elections.

I will assert, however, that republics with widespread suffrage disproportionately produce the most wealth, highest technology, and least human rights abuses in the world at this time.

Can you point me to where I argued against “widespread suffrage”?

First, let me remind everybody that this post was in response to a demand that I state solutions for problems that I never asserted existed in the first place. Now, that out of the way…

There’s no attempt on my part to essentialize or to push things to any extremes, although I would suggest that the same flaw in the nature of the American public is part of the current situation you find yourselves in. Not that I’m recommending that only one person be allowed to vote, but even if I were that’s hardly more ludicrous than “let everybody vote,” is it. In fact, if those are my only two choices (and gods, you Americans LOVE the idea that there are only two choices, don’t you?), then I’ll take my chances with the most informed guy in the country.

The dictator things hardly works, nor does it remotely characterize my “solution,” which is nothing if not pluralistic. The experts on a given subject vary from subject to subject, and no one is excluded from that class by anything other than ability and effort.

Further, my proposal was that you set some BASIC standards for the franchise in place, not that you only allow Nobel Laureates to participate. You must understand the Constitution, your own laws, and a few basic things about the propositions before you. I don’t think that’s radical, but I mark how some of my detractors here are reacting.

I have no doubt that you can dismiss nearly any idea I might propose by distilling it down to its most extreme and implausible possible implication – I’m willing to bet I can do the same in return.

The whole point of widespread suffrage is not that it is the perfect form of government, but merely that it is the best devised so far. It is not the best because it always makes the best decisions, but because it is the form of government in which government’s purpose is to serve the people,and not to rule the people to its own benefit and their detriment.

It’s hardly the best devised so far, although it’s certainly easy enough to point to other systems of government out there (and really, why not point to the Stalin example instead of one of Earth’s more stable nations, since extremism appears to be the mode of the day?) and suggest that it’s better than many that have been tried. But until somebody takes a good-faith stab at the sort of meritocracy that Lippman hints at (especially if it also embodied a full-fledged Dewey-esque commitment to education) I’m unlikely to grant you “devised.”

Hey there, Bonehead. How’s it cookin’?

I’m going to decline to answer this question because it is a devilishly clever misdirection. The real issue lies in the nature of government and its relationship to the governed. This debate has been going on at least as far back as Plato (see “Republic, The”), and surely before then, if not always written down.

In its basic form, the issue is whether government serves the people, or people serve the government. In a tyrranny, the government is one person, and all serve him. In a pure democracy with universal, adult suffrage, the adults are the government, so the governed, therefore, serve each other (and God bless the child who’s got his own).

Take out universal adult suffrage, and you have a system in which some govern and others are governed. Plato thought that a philosopher king was most fit to govern, and that this would be the best form of government (he had little good to say about democracy, except that it was only slightly better than tyrrany). So, to Plato, everyone would serve the philosopher king who, being a philosopher, would make the best possible decisions, and always in the best interests of the governed (kind of a benevolent monarch on steroids as I recall).

This is why your question obfuscates the real issue. Certainly, it is best for issues to be addressed by those who know something about the issues. This increases the odds that appropriate solutions will be found. Carried to its natural conclusion, though, your question could be stated as, “”Please demonstrate that the Republic is well served when policy is decided by anyone who isn’t the single most talented policy maker in the nation.” Naturally, installing a dictator who is the single most talented policy maker in the nation would lead to better policies than spreading those decisions among others, regardless of how limited the ruling class might be.

But at what cost?

The whole point of widespread suffrage is not that it is the perfect form of government, but merely that it is the best devised so far. It is not the best because it always makes the best decisions, but because it is the form of government in which government’s purpose is to serve the people,and not to rule the people to its own benefit and their detriment.

Stalin’s government was surely very competent in most ways, but I wouldn’t trade in my bumbling democracy for him.

Please demonstrate that the Republic is well served when policy is decided by those who don’t understand the issues at all. If possible, illustrate with some examples.

If no one is willing or able to take this on, I suppose we’ll have our answer, won’t we?

I know he is…

When I first read his post Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged came to mind. It is a very long time since I read the book.