5 ms·
I'll tell you what would actually work: Education. The problem with American politics is that everyone has a vote, not that this is bad of course, but since th
by mixmax 18y ago
I'll tell you what would actually work: Education.
The problem with American politics is that everyone has a vote, not that this is bad of course, but since the average American is so poorly educated he is easier to trick with talking points, fancy rhetoric and downright lies. As a consequence of this any politician that wants to stand a chance of winning must adress the people in simple language and with simple messages - even if they're stretching the truth or are outright lies. Lowest common denominator.
I come from a country with an excellent education system, which means that the lowest common denominator is much higher, and thus politicians can start talking about the issues, and still appeal to the broad masses. A candidate that lied would instantly be held accountable by the press and by the people.
- dangoldin 18y agoThanks for voicing my thoughts! The problem is that there is an incentive for the politicans in power to keep people stupid. It makes them easier to control and manipulate. But, I see you are from Denmark so at the same time it seems that it is easier to have a higher level of education for a more homogenous population.
- noonespecial 18y agoPoliticians need people to be sick, uneducated, and poor. This way they can promise to fix those three things forever, never really intending to actually deliver, but always having a "platform". Politicians simply have nothing to offer people who are wealthy, educated, and in good health.
- huherto 18y agoThey can offer not to screw up the economy.
- jonas_b 18y agoI agree that education is vital to improve democracy, but I think you're making an unfair comparisson, comparing Denmark to the US. It'd be more relevant to compare the US to the European Union. How many Danish people hold the European Parlaiment accountable, or the Commission, or the Council, or the lobbyists in Brussels, or god knows what. My suggestions is more subsidiarity. There isn't really a reason for the US President to handle healthcare or education when the states can do it (which most of them already do). Thus, if there's less to do for the president, the people would only have to hold him accountable on a smaller budget, on fewer issues. Something that's considerably easier than the gigantic thing they have to administrate right now.
- omouse 18y agoYou know what else could work? Having to enlist in the military to earn your full citizenship and voting rights. If you had to go through a year or two of intense physical and mental pressure, you would value your vote a hell of a lot more. (Starship Troopers ftw)
- rcoder 18y agoYou would also ensure that every voting member of the populace had been exposed to military discipline and doctrine during their impressionable post-adolescent years. Much of the message of military training is that you should accept orders, respect the chain of command, and resist the urge to second-guess the motivations of your superiors. It's a great way to keep a bunch of heavily-armed people trained to efficiently kill other people from turning on each other, but it's not necessarily the thinking you want out your voting populace, unless you want to make sure that society never moves forward. The military attitude also strikes me as being pretty much anathema to hacking. Now, if you want to talk about mandatory public service, where that two years can be spent doing social work, student teaching, etc., then I can get behind the idea.
- DanielBMarkham 18y agoPlease stop the stereotyping of military service. It's shoddy and it's inaccurate. For most of our country's history, large portions of the population have been exposed to military service sometime in their lifetime. This is the longest period (since the 1970s) where the greatest percentage of people have not had that experience. It's a great social experiment, one that's not generally acknowledged. I'm not going to argue your stereotype. Suffice it to say I have several concrete examples that each of your points are wrong. "Not even wrong" would be a better characterization.
- rcoder 18y agoI'm not trying to perpetuate a stereotype, by any means. My family has a long history of military service, and while I may have overstated the potential social ossification that could arise from only veterans being able to vote, I very much stand by the assertion that military service affects your thinking in fundamental and powerful ways. There are of course other obvious problems with making voting rights dependent upon military service. Specifically, I doubt that same-sex marriage and civil unions laws would have passed in even the smattering of states where they did, if only because few of those most directly affected (i.e., homosexuals) would have been allowed into the military, and therefore, allowed to vote.
- pixcavator 18y agoI wish people stop using "least common denominator" outside its original context. I think the term "median" would be appropriate here.