3 ms·

I'm astonished to hear this said so openly. Whom is a representative democracy supposed to represent - only educated, upper-class, "quality" folks? We rightly

I'm astonished to hear this said so openly. Whom is a representative democracy supposed to represent - only educated, upper-class, "quality" folks? We rightly consigned that idea to the dust bin, along with poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. If you want to improve the _citizenry_, a better approach would be to support civic education. edit: s/What/Whom/

kanox 8y ago
> I'm astonished to hear this said so openly. Increasing "voter apathy" is a 100% legitimate democratic tactic, even for foreign powers.
- moorhosj 8y ago
  Can you further explain what you mean by "legitimate" in this sentence? In it's context, it could be taken a number of different ways.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  No, it isn't. The whole point of democracy is to canvas opinion. If you influence opinion on an industrial scale using significant sums of cash that aren't available to most citizens, that's not true democracy - that's you buying power with money.
- drugme 8y ago
  even for foreign powers. Not in the view of U.S. campaign law.
andrewla 8y ago
Democracies are supposed to represent everybody, and I don't think the GP would disagree. The things you cite as being consigned to the dust bin are all structural remedies -- changes to how elections are run with the intent of removing voters from the rolls and preventing people from voting. Apathy-inducing speech is not that at all -- people have to make the choice to not vote; nothing is preventing them. Where there are things preventing them, we as a nation should be doing our utmost to remove those barriers. But not voting is a perfectly valid statement to make in a democracy. It can be a statement of lack of confidence in any of the candidates, or a statement of deferring to an electorate that you feel is more knowledgeable. For example, I will almost always abstain from voting for judgeships or DAs (I live in NYC); I have absolutely no means by which to judge the performance or resumes of these individuals except in very rare circumstances.
- pianoben 8y ago
  My take is that there is a civic, if not legal, obligation to participate in our democracy. The speech in question is working to suppress the mechanism by which we influence our own society. That it's an effort by a private party, and not the government itself, is immaterial to my point. I view this and similar efforts as direct attacks on the fabric of our society, aiming to reduce the influence of underrepresented people, to the advantage of the well-represented. In that respect, it's no different from disenfranchisement (or "structural remedies", as you so euphemistically put it).
PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>Whom is a representative democracy supposed to represent - only educated, upper-class, "quality" folks? I think there is an valid question to what extent should people and views be represented. The simplest idea is that everyone is equally represented, but every voting system I've ever heard of has a minimum age, meaning that we think you can be too young to be represented. Also, anyone who supports a non-mandatory system also supports, perhaps not knowingly or willingly, a system where the apathetic are not represented. So, we already have a system where we think it is okay that apathetic and young individuals aren't represented, is it really that astonishing to suggest that some people think other groups should be included or that they want to change the boundaries of the already excluded groups? In my mind, as soon as a society makes it acceptable to look at a 17 year old and say "You are too young/inexperienced/immature to vote", that society has legitimized unequal forms of representation.

kanox 8y ago

> I'm astonished to hear this said so openly. Increasing "voter apathy" is a 100% legitimate democratic tactic, even for foreign powers.

moorhosj 8y ago
Can you further explain what you mean by "legitimate" in this sentence? In it's context, it could be taken a number of different ways.
TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
No, it isn't. The whole point of democracy is to canvas opinion. If you influence opinion on an industrial scale using significant sums of cash that aren't available to most citizens, that's not true democracy - that's you buying power with money.
drugme 8y ago
even for foreign powers. Not in the view of U.S. campaign law.

andrewla 8y ago

Democracies are supposed to represent everybody, and I don't think the GP would disagree. The things you cite as being consigned to the dust bin are all structural remedies -- changes to how elections are run with the intent of removing voters from the rolls and preventing people from voting. Apathy-inducing speech is not that at all -- people have to make the choice to not vote; nothing is preventing them. Where there are things preventing them, we as a nation should be doing our utmost to remove those barriers. But not voting is a perfectly valid statement to make in a democracy. It can be a statement of lack of confidence in any of the candidates, or a statement of deferring to an electorate that you feel is more knowledgeable. For example, I will almost always abstain from voting for judgeships or DAs (I live in NYC); I have absolutely no means by which to judge the performance or resumes of these individuals except in very rare circumstances.

pianoben 8y ago
My take is that there is a civic, if not legal, obligation to participate in our democracy. The speech in question is working to suppress the mechanism by which we influence our own society. That it's an effort by a private party, and not the government itself, is immaterial to my point. I view this and similar efforts as direct attacks on the fabric of our society, aiming to reduce the influence of underrepresented people, to the advantage of the well-represented. In that respect, it's no different from disenfranchisement (or "structural remedies", as you so euphemistically put it).

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago

>Whom is a representative democracy supposed to represent - only educated, upper-class, "quality" folks? I think there is an valid question to what extent should people and views be represented. The simplest idea is that everyone is equally represented, but every voting system I've ever heard of has a minimum age, meaning that we think you can be too young to be represented. Also, anyone who supports a non-mandatory system also supports, perhaps not knowingly or willingly, a system where the apathetic are not represented. So, we already have a system where we think it is okay that apathetic and young individuals aren't represented, is it really that astonishing to suggest that some people think other groups should be included or that they want to change the boundaries of the already excluded groups? In my mind, as soon as a society makes it acceptable to look at a 17 year old and say "You are too young/inexperienced/immature to vote", that society has legitimized unequal forms of representation.