3 ms·

> they’re the problem because they vote You may want to rephrase that.

ReptileMan 2y ago
Let's be honest. He nailed on the head the main drawback of democracy. That the wrong people also get to vote. And the horror - even win elections and get their way sometimes. What he missed is that everyone has different ideas about who exactly the wrong people are.
- bdangubic 2y ago
  just like driver’s license there should be an age limit to voting rights. few question why you have to be 18 to vote. why 18? today’s 14-year olds are on average infinitely more mature than 14 year olds in say 1950. if someone was to say you are voter when you start high school half of this country would go batshit crazy. a different half would bark if we put an upper limit on voting rights but both make sense. take brexit for example - this was a decision that affect the FUTURE of UK. why would anyone sane say “lets have bunch of 80 year olds who are one foot in the grave make this decision for the people that will have to spend their entire lives with the consequences of that decision…” it is same for any election, elections matter and elections have consequences and old people shouldn’t be involved in making these decisions :)
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    People should be able to have a childhood free from the hostile information environment of the politicised world. I'm all for youth enfranchisement, but we need to ensure it doesn't come at the expense of childhood. That said, kids not having a say in things that directly affect them… I can't think of any arguments against kids getting to vote on "think of the children" measures.
- nradov 2y ago
  Democracy is at least partially a social "technology" for avoiding civil wars. You have to let the "wrong" people win elections occasionally. If they ever become convinced that winning elections is impossible then they'll fall back to violence to get their way. This is a general observation about human societies, not a dig at any specific US political faction.
  - anon-3988 2y ago
    > If they ever become convinced that winning elections is impossible then they'll fall back to violence to get their way Unfortunately, in reality, they believe the election is rigged, win the election, and still believe that elections are rigged so next time they don't win, its definitely rigged.
- vFunct 2y ago
  We didn’t miss that.
erulabs 2y ago
"democracy is sacred and there is no higher value" and "people who vote poorly shouldnt be allowed to vote" are said so often, and so closely together, that I think people just actively lie to themselves about what democracy is. If you want a smaller group of elite educated people doing the decision making, you're looking for a republic.
- pixelatedindex 2y ago
  Isn’t the US a democratic republic in practice?
  - erulabs 2y ago
    Yes, but if you think some vast swath of voters should be able to participate in the election of representatives, you're ditching the democratic part.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    The US is a federal representative loosely-democratic (but some-animals-are-more-equal-than-others) republic in theory, and a rough plutocracy in practice. Greater structural barriers to the franchise makes it less of any kind of democratic anything even in theory.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    There's nothing interesting about the "republic" part. All democracies have something things that make impossible-to-hard for majoritarian legislating to affect. The US is no different in that respect, other than the precise things that are deemed out of reach of the majority, and how hard it is to change that.
- anon-3988 2y ago
  A functioning democracy requires competent participants, how is this controversial? Otherwise we might as well just have RNG decide.
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
vFunct 2y ago
Direct Democracy was always a bad idea, because unqualified people exert influence. It’s why we are a Republic. The only influence one needs in government is through a representative. That’s it. You don’t need a representative to execute the laws. Why does the public even vote for a President? The President isn’t supposed to represent the public. That’s the job of the literal Representative. Senators shouldn’t represent the public as well. The founding fathers had it right when they created an electoral college that wasn’t decided by a popular vote. The electoral college should be a bunch of PhDs, of any field, selected by sortition. That’s it. That’s how you get smart people to design government.

Let's be honest. He nailed on the head the main drawback of democracy. That the wrong people also get to vote. And the horror - even win elections and get their way sometimes. What he missed is that everyone has different ideas about who exactly the wrong people are.

bdangubic 2y ago
just like driver’s license there should be an age limit to voting rights. few question why you have to be 18 to vote. why 18? today’s 14-year olds are on average infinitely more mature than 14 year olds in say 1950. if someone was to say you are voter when you start high school half of this country would go batshit crazy. a different half would bark if we put an upper limit on voting rights but both make sense. take brexit for example - this was a decision that affect the FUTURE of UK. why would anyone sane say “lets have bunch of 80 year olds who are one foot in the grave make this decision for the people that will have to spend their entire lives with the consequences of that decision…” it is same for any election, elections matter and elections have consequences and old people shouldn’t be involved in making these decisions :)
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  People should be able to have a childhood free from the hostile information environment of the politicised world. I'm all for youth enfranchisement, but we need to ensure it doesn't come at the expense of childhood. That said, kids not having a say in things that directly affect them… I can't think of any arguments against kids getting to vote on "think of the children" measures.
nradov 2y ago
Democracy is at least partially a social "technology" for avoiding civil wars. You have to let the "wrong" people win elections occasionally. If they ever become convinced that winning elections is impossible then they'll fall back to violence to get their way. This is a general observation about human societies, not a dig at any specific US political faction.
- anon-3988 2y ago
  > If they ever become convinced that winning elections is impossible then they'll fall back to violence to get their way Unfortunately, in reality, they believe the election is rigged, win the election, and still believe that elections are rigged so next time they don't win, its definitely rigged.
vFunct 2y ago
We didn’t miss that.

erulabs 2y ago

"democracy is sacred and there is no higher value" and "people who vote poorly shouldnt be allowed to vote" are said so often, and so closely together, that I think people just actively lie to themselves about what democracy is. If you want a smaller group of elite educated people doing the decision making, you're looking for a republic.

pixelatedindex 2y ago
Isn’t the US a democratic republic in practice?
- erulabs 2y ago
  Yes, but if you think some vast swath of voters should be able to participate in the election of representatives, you're ditching the democratic part.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  The US is a federal representative loosely-democratic (but some-animals-are-more-equal-than-others) republic in theory, and a rough plutocracy in practice. Greater structural barriers to the franchise makes it less of any kind of democratic anything even in theory.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  There's nothing interesting about the "republic" part. All democracies have something things that make impossible-to-hard for majoritarian legislating to affect. The US is no different in that respect, other than the precise things that are deemed out of reach of the majority, and how hard it is to change that.
anon-3988 2y ago
A functioning democracy requires competent participants, how is this controversial? Otherwise we might as well just have RNG decide.
- wizzwizz4 2y ago

vFunct 2y ago

Direct Democracy was always a bad idea, because unqualified people exert influence. It’s why we are a Republic. The only influence one needs in government is through a representative. That’s it. You don’t need a representative to execute the laws. Why does the public even vote for a President? The President isn’t supposed to represent the public. That’s the job of the literal Representative. Senators shouldn’t represent the public as well. The founding fathers had it right when they created an electoral college that wasn’t decided by a popular vote. The electoral college should be a bunch of PhDs, of any field, selected by sortition. That’s it. That’s how you get smart people to design government.