Nelson Bunker Hunt argued that votes should be weighted by wealth because obviously those people were the engine of prosperity and, having the most to lose, would be the most wise in their choices.
No word on whether the RNC will formally adopt this as a plank in their next platform.
Gondor has no king. Gondor needs no king!
I can think of better.
What method do you use to disenfranchise the dim bulbs? And you know, the people who fall for the blatant lying aren’t necessarily the people with below average intelligence. Plenty of smart people believe totally weird things, because the human brain isn’t a truth-telling machine.
In other words, there’s a difference between dumb people and doofuses. Plenty of dumb people vote sensibly, and there are lots of smart or half-smart doofuses who vote for doofuses.
If you think people aren’t interested in the real issues, and are sidetracked by smoke and mirrors, how about education? And if that won’t work (because people are idiots), how exactly would disenfranchising the masses help? If people are naturally idiots, then democracy can’t work and authoritarian government is both wise and inevitable. Or alternatively, the smoke and mirrors is method our wise philosopher kings use to disenfranchise the masses, and so we have the authoritarian government you desire anyway.
Is it a secret?
I am also an oldish white person but would favor disenfranchising old people (regardless of color). Electoral decisions are about the future; older people are likely to be less forward-looking than younger people. But disenfranchising the old is unlikely to happen, and would only partially address OP’s concern.
I wonder if citizens’ understanding was better in the old mainstream-media days when most people tuned in to Walter Cronkite’s balanced news and read one of a few daily newspapers. The Internet Age of Information all too often resembles an Age of Disinformation.
Is it safe?
Obviously opinions will differ, but I think the two worst decisions by politicians during my life time was the invasion of Iraq and the large, deficit financed tax-cuts of the early Bush admin. Neither of those were caused by large popular movements of “stupid” voters pushing for them. They were projects of intelligent, well educated politicians backed by well informed belt-way insiders who followed the issues closely.
And to the extent the public was convinced, it wasn’t because they were stupid, it was largely because they were lied to. The Bush tax-cuts were supposed to be financed by a surplus that had dried up by the time they were passed and the Iraq war was sold as an answer to a threat that didn’t exist.
Moral of story, I don’t think the biggest problems in our political system are caused by stupid voters. I think they’re caused by intelligent people that get elected on one platform and then pursue stupid projects apart from the platforms they were elected on.
I don’t know. I think Obama pardoning those turkeys last Thanksgiving is pretty far up there on the list.
I don’t think there was any way to know it would be another Willie Horton thing. That turkeys cross-country spree of rape-and murder after he was released really caught everyone by surprise.
The usual way this is handled in countries that don’t want the idiots making decisions is to restrict political activity to a small, self-selected group. Membership in the party is by invitation, the current members of the party decide who to allow into the club. Only members of the party are allowed to stand for election, although the masses are allowed to vote they are only allowed to vote for party members. Since the party is composed of the aristoi, they are the best judges of who should be allowed to join the party. People with leadership skills, welath and connections join, troublemakers are isolated and re-educated. It is a self-perpetuating oligarchy that co-opts and brings in those who will help the party while still rewarding entrenched interests.
Note that in today’s world all authoritarian governments hold mass elections where everyone can vote. Who cares about restricting the franchise when the only choices on the ballot are those the powerbrokers approve? It’s a harmless ritual that provides a veneer of legitimacy to the government.
Correct. But I think the OP is asking if there is a better way than that to restrict voting to “knowledgeable” people. If you were tasks with that responsibility, how would you do it?
I think everyone is getting hung up on the consequences. And that’s certainly a valid discussion. But isn’t there a better way to accomplish this task than what one party states do?
You have to pass a test for him to tell you.
I’d only allow the 1%'ers to vote. Obviously they are thoughtful and intelligent because how else could they have gotten so rich? Even the ones who were born into the riches are smart enough not to sqaunder it away unlike most people that are scraping by relying on credit cards.
The Patrician strongly believes in “One man, one vote,” and aims to ensure that he is (and continues to be) that man.
I scoff at your elitism!
I’d only let people who earned their living through working materials with their hands vote: masons, bricklayers, sheet metal stampers, welders, plumbers, carpenters, and so on. Farmers, too, but only ones who could prove they worked the land themselves. No service-industry folks need apply.
Those are the real Americans, they have something you can’t learn in college: horse-sense and gumption. And there’s a fairly broad income range from a sheet-metal worker to a plumber, so there’d be a variety of experiences and circumstances represented. Plus, fewer dames voting.
Nitpick: it was also sold as the answer to a threat that did exist but had nothing to do with Iraq.
In a way, we already do this.
The unwashed masses vote for who they think is the most informed, thoughtful and intelligent voter, who is then given the power to vote in their stead. This “super voter” is then tasked with remaining well informed, and putting a lot of thought into his votes, which directly affect the actions our country takes.
Random selection. Select the house of reps by randomly picking a person from each district, in a random drawing. The house would then vote one of their members as president. One term only, once having served, cannot be selected again.
That’s truly representative democracy.
I submit that a system which could result in President Honey Boo Boo isn’t better.