And given the response to voter ID laws, I think we can expect less than enthusiastic support from at least one political party in the US.
If it is too much to ask for a voter to produce a driver’s licence, I don’t think passing a civics test is going to go down smoother. Not to mention “disparate impact” and things of that nature.
Regards,
Shodan
Your intention seems to be the development of a ruling class based only on a knowledge of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. No musicians, no sculptors, no athletes, no craftsmen, no trades people, no ranchers, no entrepreneurs, no stay-at-home spouses, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
In other words, a government of the people, by the people (who do not understand the basic problems of the governed but think that they do), for the people (who must be too stupid to know what their own problems actually are).
In fact that is, in practice, a choice we have in the Australian electoral system. Because it’s all pencil and paper, and scrutinised by humans, not computers, not only are you perfectly free to write YOU ALL SUCK! in big bold letters and leave it at that, you can be sure that representatives of the candidates will see that you did it.
Voting is not really mandatory - it’s only going to the polling place that’s required.
Or you could bring those unconstitutional literacy tests and voters taxes. Updated to reflect the major issues of each election, of course.
Actually, I agree. I happen to believe that qualifying voters by requiring them to demonstrate some understanding of the issues they are voting on would do a lot more good than harm, but that’s an unsubstantiated belief on my part, and unintended consequences are a constant peril of the best intentions. I could even argue that the undermining of democracy by a highly skewed power structure could hardly be worse than it is already. But it’s all moot because such qualifications are politically a non-starter. The ugly spectre of “literacy tests” used to disenfranchise blacks would be raised, and for good reason.
Not to digress from the topic because it’s a whole other issue, but the best that I think can be done is a determined legislative effort to get big money out of politics as much as possible, so that it’s harder for corporations and their lobbyists to own politicians, and harder for corporations, the wealthy, and their publicists to hoodwink stupid voters. And, heaven forbid that I should bring it up yet again, a well-funded national public broadcaster with a mandate to inform the public about national issues.
An excellent way of disenfranchising minorities. I assume that is not your goal, so are you OK with that as a result?
'Cause those minorities are just dumb as f*** amirite?
I mean…I love those minorities, so I wouldn’t insult their intelligence by arguing against a basic civics test and voter ID???
ARGHHH, liberal hypocrisy is killing my brain again. What does HuffPo say I should think?
I think that’s economically dubious.
Trade your vote to open a lottery, maybe.
I don’t follow you. What’s economically dubious about it?
Would that be a permanent trade or just for one election cycle? Because I’d surely trade my vote in an off-year election for Dodger season tickets. My wife can make up the vote in local races if necessary.
The incentives seem perverse. I’m hypothesizing that desperately poor people are probably more likely to play the lottery than rich people. In a society with extreme disparity in wealth and opportunity, this may be a stronger indicator of playing the lottery than basic rationality.
So you could have poor people giving up representation out of desperation. Sure, statistically, you won’t win, but someone will, right?
This is the opposite of what OP wants. Game theory people will snap this deal up, and traditionalist “it’s your civic duty to vote/if you don’t vote, you can’t complain” people won’t.
[QUOTE=Contemporary Logic]
I’m not referring to intellectuals as the hard leftist type on campuses that garner the most attention from the media. My definition of intellectual was one that did apply critical thinking, logic, and evidence based reasoning. People who adopt the term don’t necessarily qualify. I would expect to see more intellectuals in STEM fields, than I would in gender studies.
[/quote]
I don’t think I agree. I’ve seen a lot of STEM people argue about gender studies concepts they barely understand, but most gender studies people are smart enough to not argue about C++.
Here in Vermont everybody votes on the town and school budgets. What I hate are idiots who believe that “taxes bad, vote no”. And “fire the teachers, they get more vacation than I do”. That is what they base their vote on, nothing else. They even want to get rid of the fire and police departments to lower the taxes. They voted down a local gas tax of 1 cent per gallon to fix the roads, but then bitch about the roads.
That got me curious. In 2010, 16.9% of informal votes (0.93% of all votes) had “Scribbles, slogans or other protest vote marks”, but was outdone by blank ballots at 28.9%. So about 46% of informal votes (or 2.5% of all votes) might be deemed as deliberate.
Iran of course is a country that has been run by a dictatorship of intellectuals for several decades.
There is a word to describe people who love the idea of being ruled an intellectual elite.
Sheep.
No, I think gridlock is a separate issue. The United States has a government that was designed for one part of the government to be able to interfere with the others. We’re big on checks and balances.
But you can have a parliamentary style democracy where the legislature has clear primacy over the other branches. The Prime Minister is chosen by the majority in Parliament rather than being a separately elected official like the President. The court system is subordinate to the legislative system. There is no powerful state system to rival the federal government. And the head of state holds mostly symbolic powers.
When I envision somebody who I think would be good at governing a country, I don’t picture Sheldon Cooper.
I should point out that the statement about the court system and state powers in a parliamentary system is not an accurate characterization in the general case, though it may be true for some countries.
Where there is a formal constitution courts can and do overturn legislation on constitutional grounds in parliamentary systems. Indeed, the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada some years ago controversially declared that courts should go even further, saying that “judges should feel ‘emboldened’ to trump the written word of the Constitution when protecting fundamental, unwritten principles and rights”; that “the rule of law requires judges to uphold unwritten constitutional norms, even in the face of clearly enacted laws or hostile public opinion”; and that “… judges have the duty to insist that legislative and executive branches of government conform to certain established and fundamental norms …” – comments that I personally regarded as a rather radical advocacy of judicial activism.
It’s also not necessarily true that “there is no powerful state system to rival the federal government”; in Canada, provinces arguably have more power and autonomy than US states, at least in some important areas.
What is indisputably true is that in a parliamentary system, a majority government can in practice enact pretty much whatever legislation it wants. But if the elected government gets a plurality but not a majority, they can pass legislation only with the support of one or more opposition parties holding the balance of power. Some feel that this sometimes results in the best legislation, but more often it results in nothing at all, or extremely watered-down compromises. What is interesting is that the US system, by design, operates much like a permanent minority government, which is widely considered to be a “feature”, not a “bug”. It all comes down to whether one believes that an effective government advances the public interest, or whether it should be crippled to the point that you can eventually, to quote the inestimable Grover Norquist, “drown it in a bathtub” and be done with it.
Of course Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Jimmy Carter and Margaret Thatcher were all employed in STEM fields.
Perhaps they feel that the government is wasting the money that they already have and shouldn’t be given any more (through increased taxes) until they can figure out how to “do more with less” and fix the roads too.