3 ms·
"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
by 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 agoIsn’t the US a democratic republic in practice?
- erulabs 2y agoYes, 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 agoThe 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 agoThere'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 agoA functioning democracy requires competent participants, how is this controversial? Otherwise we might as well just have RNG decide.
- wizzwizz4 2y agoIt's not particularly controversial. Also, my definition of "competent" is correct.
- lp0_on_fire 2y agoIn the United States tests of competency were historically used to prevent certain racial groups from casting the ballot. They were explicitly banned by the Voting Rights Act in 1965, rightfully so. It's far too easy to abuse.
- vFunct 2y agoNo one said equity was going be easy. Sometime you have to do the hard thing now to solve the problem in the long term. Not saying poll taxes or tests are the solution, but a much tougher standard for running for office could be, such as requiring a PhD to hold office - literally making the highest intelligence a requirement. There are also ways to eliminate corruption and other negatives in a system. But we have to decide what we value first.
- nradov 2y agoHolding a PhD has only a very loose correlation with intelligence. And there's no evidence that the most intelligent people make better political decisions. They tend to be overconfident.