3 ms·

What's the alternative? I can't think of one that is morally acceptable.

by mbreese 16y ago

axod 16y ago
Personally I would prefer a monarchy, or some merit based voting system - eg You get a vote if you can demonstrate you have the understanding to make informed decisions.
- ugh 16y ago
  Monarchy?! Sure, you might be lucky and get a good monarch – but their son could be a total douchebag (like Wilhelm II, the gaffe-emperor who led Germany into World War I). I think that on the whole, elections are less random and more merit based than monarchies.
  - michaelkeenan 16y ago
    But when monarchies work, they work so well! The richest (per capita) country in the world, Liechtenstein, is a monarchy. I think Qatar, also a monarchy, is second-richest, though that doesn't really count because it has so much oil.
  - axod 16y ago
    The difference isn't that great really though. If you look at the dynasties that win elections in the US - Bush, Kennedy, etc They may as well be a monarchy. Democracy typically only gives you 2 choices, and if they are both from dynastial families, it's pretty much a monarchy with the illusion of democracy anyway. > "Monarchy?! Sure, you might be lucky and get a good monarch – but their son could be a total douchebag (like Wilhelm II, the gaffe-emperor who led Germany into World War I)." Sounds like Bush Sr and Bush Jr to me,
    - ugh 16y ago
      You know what we should do? Determine officials by lot! That’s an age-old democratic instrument first (and only, I guess) employed by the ancient Athenians [+]. Now that I think of it, randomness actually lives on with the jury duty. [+] As always with ancient democratic Athens several caveats apply, e.g. you had to be rather rich to be eligible for that.
- random42 16y ago
  The latter is how democracy was supposed to work (in the ideal world).
- mbreese 16y ago
  A monarchy, when you have a good monarch isn't bad. However, you tend to end up with these bloody conflicts every now and again over who gets to be the monarch. Merit might work, but it has the capability to discriminate against certain classes (even those who might otherwise make informed decisions). I might be able to accept a system where you have to perform some level of service to the state in order to gain a vote. Something like military service, peace corp, teaching, being an EMT, etc... But then that starts to seem to Starship Troopers to me.
  - frobozz 16y ago
    How would it discriminate against people who might make informed decisions? The only qualification is that you have the understanding required to do so.
    - mbreese 16y ago
      These tests have been used to discriminate against various minority groups throughout the years. For example, you may have a perfectly good grasp of the issues and who best represents your point of view, but you suck at math. No votes for you. Or, you can't read. etc... that's why these tests have been been illegal for quite a while.
      - frobozz 16y ago
        "you may have a perfectly good grasp of the issues and who best represents your point of view" Yes, and this is all you need to prove - an example of such a test would be the ability to match up policy statements to candidates. No need for a maths test. Regarding the inability to read - If blind people can currently vote in your country, then the problem does not exist.
- hnal943 16y ago
  It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. -Churchill
steveklabnik 16y ago
Funny, I can't bring myself to vote because I can't find participating and legitimizing this morally acceptable.
- jamesteow 16y ago
  I think that's a weird and very popular position. So you don't vote allowing OTHERS to decide the process for you. Other people who say, elect leaders who nominate Conservative Supreme Court Judges, who then side with the FEC allowing corporations to fund political advertisements. This was quite preventable. I mean good on you for standing to your principles but with a whole collective of intelligent people abstaining, it's making it much easier for powerful people who want certain laws to happen... well happen.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    You're taking a single-issue view of this. No matter who I vote for, I will not be happy with the outcome. And it's roughly equal, all around. So the distinction is irrelevant. I am powerless to effect any kind of meaningful change. Asking me to vote is like asking me "Do you still beat your wife?" in some sense. There's no good way out. The best option is to not reply. That's not even getting into my philosophical issues with government in the first place.

What's the alternative? I can't think of one that is morally acceptable.

by mbreese 16y ago

What's the alternative? I can't think of one that is morally acceptable.

axod 16y ago

Personally I would prefer a monarchy, or some merit based voting system - eg You get a vote if you can demonstrate you have the understanding to make informed decisions.

ugh 16y ago
Monarchy?! Sure, you might be lucky and get a good monarch – but their son could be a total douchebag (like Wilhelm II, the gaffe-emperor who led Germany into World War I). I think that on the whole, elections are less random and more merit based than monarchies.
- michaelkeenan 16y ago
  But when monarchies work, they work so well! The richest (per capita) country in the world, Liechtenstein, is a monarchy. I think Qatar, also a monarchy, is second-richest, though that doesn't really count because it has so much oil.
- axod 16y ago
  The difference isn't that great really though. If you look at the dynasties that win elections in the US - Bush, Kennedy, etc They may as well be a monarchy. Democracy typically only gives you 2 choices, and if they are both from dynastial families, it's pretty much a monarchy with the illusion of democracy anyway. > "Monarchy?! Sure, you might be lucky and get a good monarch – but their son could be a total douchebag (like Wilhelm II, the gaffe-emperor who led Germany into World War I)." Sounds like Bush Sr and Bush Jr to me,
  - ugh 16y ago
    You know what we should do? Determine officials by lot! That’s an age-old democratic instrument first (and only, I guess) employed by the ancient Athenians [+]. Now that I think of it, randomness actually lives on with the jury duty. [+] As always with ancient democratic Athens several caveats apply, e.g. you had to be rather rich to be eligible for that.
random42 16y ago
The latter is how democracy was supposed to work (in the ideal world).
mbreese 16y ago
A monarchy, when you have a good monarch isn't bad. However, you tend to end up with these bloody conflicts every now and again over who gets to be the monarch. Merit might work, but it has the capability to discriminate against certain classes (even those who might otherwise make informed decisions). I might be able to accept a system where you have to perform some level of service to the state in order to gain a vote. Something like military service, peace corp, teaching, being an EMT, etc... But then that starts to seem to Starship Troopers to me.
- frobozz 16y ago
  How would it discriminate against people who might make informed decisions? The only qualification is that you have the understanding required to do so.
  - mbreese 16y ago
    These tests have been used to discriminate against various minority groups throughout the years. For example, you may have a perfectly good grasp of the issues and who best represents your point of view, but you suck at math. No votes for you. Or, you can't read. etc... that's why these tests have been been illegal for quite a while.
    - frobozz 16y ago
      "you may have a perfectly good grasp of the issues and who best represents your point of view" Yes, and this is all you need to prove - an example of such a test would be the ability to match up policy statements to candidates. No need for a maths test. Regarding the inability to read - If blind people can currently vote in your country, then the problem does not exist.
hnal943 16y ago
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. -Churchill

steveklabnik 16y ago

Funny, I can't bring myself to vote because I can't find participating and legitimizing this morally acceptable.

jamesteow 16y ago
I think that's a weird and very popular position. So you don't vote allowing OTHERS to decide the process for you. Other people who say, elect leaders who nominate Conservative Supreme Court Judges, who then side with the FEC allowing corporations to fund political advertisements. This was quite preventable. I mean good on you for standing to your principles but with a whole collective of intelligent people abstaining, it's making it much easier for powerful people who want certain laws to happen... well happen.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  You're taking a single-issue view of this. No matter who I vote for, I will not be happy with the outcome. And it's roughly equal, all around. So the distinction is irrelevant. I am powerless to effect any kind of meaningful change. Asking me to vote is like asking me "Do you still beat your wife?" in some sense. There's no good way out. The best option is to not reply. That's not even getting into my philosophical issues with government in the first place.