News & Politics

Rant

Fix the problem - eliminate universal suffrage

Posted 6 months ago|6 comments|217 views
Written by
Well, maybe it's time to get to the root cause of all our problems with government, the economy, the social system and just about every other societal issue. Democracy as we know it has failed!!

You got it right - DEMOCRACY HAS FAILED!

The democratic process as it has existed for about the past 200 years has finally proven itself to be a foolish error and needs to be radically reformed. In fact, it needs to be restored to its original form and concept.

One of the earliest treatises on democracy was found in the form of Plato's 'Republic'. In this historical classic, Plato theorized about a society where people voted to select their leaders. He did not, however, suggest that everyone should be allowed to vote. quite the contrary, he had somewhat narrow restrictions laid out as to who should vote and who should not.

For several thousand years after that, the democratic model existed in minor forms here and there and took shape in limited fashion in various forms of governments and institutions. One of the oldest consistently democratic processes can be found in the conclaves to elect the Roman Pontiff - hardly an example of universal suffrage.

The simple reality is that the entire intention was that people who had certain qualifications would be entitled to vote, not just anyone who met age and birth requirements. The requirements most often took the form of property ownership, sometimes class membership and sometimes even familial requirements. Whatever the mechanism, democracy was designed with the intention hat voters would meet certain requirements. Indirectly, those requirements usually ended up involving education. Those who owned property usually had education, the same was true for certain classes of society and and familial links often translated to being part of the nobility.

There was good reason for this and it was not simply to maintain power among the elite. It was not perceived as being reasonable to have people who had no understanding about the issues to be making choices about the leadership. The idea was that those who understood the issues that were facing the country would choose the leaders.

Well, where are we today? How many of us understand the economic troubles facing our country? How many truly fathom the complexities of the financial mechanisms that drive our economies and ultimately our individual situations? the answer - not many. And let me be crystal clear, I don't understand most of it either! I have a bachelor's and a master's degree, I consider myself to be relatively intelligent, and I try to stay current, but beyond the theoretical macro concept, I do not understand the complexities and the details of our economic situation.

Yet, I have the vote!!! I get to have a say in the choice of a leader!! so where does that lead us? Well, I think that has become obvious. It leads us to a place where the potential leaders don't have to talk about the real issues and their proposals and ideas, because most of us don't get it. So what do they talk about? Drivel! Pure, unmitigated drivel! They stand up and talk about oversimplified things that have little or no relevance to the real challenges facing us. After all, they have to talk to us about something that we will get, or think we get. Would we vote for them otherwise.

Imagine what the debates would sound like if only those who had a good understanding of the economy had the right to vote! Could you see any of the candidates saying 99% of what they have currently been saying. BTW this goes for both parties.

Our political system is broken because we have people making decisions who have no business making decisions - namely us the voters. The national issues are too complex for most of us to understand and fathom. Oh, I think most of us could handle local municipal elections because we all have a much better handle on the impact of putting a traffic light at the intersection of 3rd and Washington. Many of us, but not as many would be able to handle the State elections, because, again, the issues aren't as big and as complex. But federal elections!! $14 trillion dollar debt management! Multi-trillion dollar GDP! 300 million people to govern!! There aren't very many people who could possible understand the real issues that are involved. Consequently, there can't be very many people who are qualified to vote.

I'm just sayin'.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
6 months ago: I agree, there should be a test to make certain that the person voting has at least a basic understanding of some of the processes involved in governance. That will make it less likely that a politician could pull the wool over the eyes of the majority of the voters the way they try to do now.

I'm reminded of the woman who was so thrilled with Obama's campaign and exclaimed "Now I won't have to worry about the mortgage, or putting gas in my car. I helped him and now he's going to help me."
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
6 months ago: The United States are not/have never been a true democracy. It has/and is a representative republic. True democracy would be impossible in a country with 200 million people...having to vote on every issue would consume everyone's lives.
6 months ago: Circle today's date. For once Perfect Horizon and TCG can agree.

The United States is not and has never been a "Democracy". If that is what you have been told in college, I suggest you study some grade school history / civics books.

The United States is a "Representative Republic".
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
6 months ago: I honestly believe that you and I agree on a lot more than either of us usually want to admit
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
6 months ago: Instead of limiting the vote to the educated, as with the Jim Crow Laws, we should concentrate on educating everyone so everyone can understand the basic issues.

The United States is a Representative Democracy. The problem is not with the voters, the problem is the quality of the representatives. The entire system is so tainted by money that only the rich can run. Half the representatives are millionaires - 1% of the population are millionaires. Is that representative?

The political system is being sabotaged because the 1% can influence the vote by endless repetition by buying endless advertising, and by purchasing the media. The propaganda networks of the right became the main news source of the right so they can just make up nonsense and keep repeating it endlessly so the listeners think it is true.

The media used to be required to educate people on the issues and there was a fairness doctrine that prevented people from just making things up. Now it is just entertainment and people shouting their opinions passes for reporting.

We will soon become technologically able to do many of the government functions through direct democracy. To do that it would be necessary as Box said to demonstrate an understanding of the problem before being allowed to vote on it.

The same could be said for our representatives today. We select representatives based on charisma not knowledge, and they don't have time to study issues because they have to spend 85% of their time begging for money. We should require a basic understanding of the problem before representatives are allowed to vote on an issue.

The solution is not to limit the voters, but to limit the money in politics. Then representatives might have time to read the bills and maybe construct some that benefit the 99% and do what is right for the nation instead of just paying off the people that bribed them.

Most don't have a clue, so they are reliant on lobbyists to tell them how to vote. The 1% hire thousands of lobbyists to influence opinion so that is why they get all of the benefits. The voices of the 99% are lost because money talks.

This could be corrected by requiring a simple majority vote on whether something needed to be done. If yes then at least three proposals would be constructed. One from the right, one from the left and one composed by independents that are experts in that field. To retain their independence this team would be forbidden any money from special interests.

Then preference voting would be used to give their first choice (3 pts.) their second choice (2 pts.) and the proposal they liked the least (1 pt.). The proposal with the most points would win. This would usually be the independent expert version.
6 months ago: Jim Crow, 1%, Representative Democracy.

Wow. Those are some kinda meds your government is providing to you.

Hey Al. People which make the low sum of 50K per year are in the top 10% of your classes. Are they next? Are the 40K per year folks to be third in line?

You seem to be stuck on bringing the top down instead of raising the bottom up.

That is the fundemental difference in Liberal v: Conservative

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.