That is why you need a king…
I did muddle the distinction.
The idea is that if you limit voting to rational voters; They will probably elect rational leaders. I’m not advocating creating another legal restriction on politicians.
You don’t need to eliminate it from the equation for it to be better than a system where it’s already part of the equation. You just need to reduce it.
It is less representative to the individual than what we have currently, but that level of representation is part of the problem. As an example; In my home state gay marriage was recently legalized, but some county judges still deny granting marriage licenses in the face of public disapproval. This is an issue that doesn’t really affect the majority of people that have a vote, and yet those people’s votes count just as much, and are made mostly on the basis of emotional appeal, or religious adherence.
(post shortened)
What percentage of the Latino community do you intend to relieve of their burden of voting? 30%? 50%?
What percentage of the woman’s voting block do you intend to relieve of their burden of voting? 20%? 40%?
What percentage of the gay community do you intend to relieve of their burden of voting? 10%? 60%?
How many of the current voting-block groups will allow your “rational voters only” bill to become law?
Why do you think this will make for better governance? Serious question, because I think you are thinking of government in the abstract sense where decisions are made by wise, distant rulers. Governing is dirty, difficult, and conflict ridden - some people will get upset no matter how wise the decision is and if they don’t feel that they have a hand in the process they will become ungovernable.
IMO, emotion is critical in good government. Otherwise you have no connection between the governing and the governed. That will lead to rebellion.
I just don’t think the OP has yet provided a clear picture of who would be chosen and how they would be chosen. Right now turnout among those currently eligible to vote is woefully low. One could say we are already governed by leaders chosen by only half of those eligible – or less. Would you start by officially removing those who have already removed themselves from the process? And what if your selection process determined that a good number of non-voters were the ones who would be chosen? Would your so-called rational, logical individuals be compelled to vote? I’ve got to agree with others who have said that a more important goal would be to educate the masses. I just can’t conceive of any way of determining the criteria for your preferred voters and then finding a way to filter the populace to see who passes muster. And another question – is this a lifetime appointment or would the chosen be re-tested at intervals? It’s just way too murky for any rational discussion at this point.
My interpretation of the hypothetical that I’m arguing about is that of voters being required to demonstrate a basic knowledge of the issues they’re voting on. I don’t think this is feasible but it’s an interesting argument and that’s the one I’m hypothetically discussing – not a scenario of a one-man dictatorship or some tiny elite in total control of everything. In an ideal world, this vote-qualified group would in fact include everyone. Which also answers your “accountability” argument.
You’ve got to be kidding. “Business-unfriendly”? Your first example basically just prohibits outright thievery, and the second one is trivial and not even an act of legislation but a minor executive order by a federal agency. Why don’t we look at the big picture of reality instead, like the continuing ongoing fiasco of giving big tax breaks for corporations while simultaneously cutting aid for the poor and unemployment coverage – tax breaks that exceed the costs to the government by an order of magnitude more than the paltry savings they get by screwing the poor. Or how about this story on how tax lobbyists help businesses reap windfalls.
These aren’t isolated incidents. It’s endemic. This is exactly why the US, the richest country in the world, is still the only industrialized nation on earth without universal health care, with no prospect of ever having it – unless there is some miraculous sea change in the public opinion that’s been entirely manufactured by the insurance industry and the ruling oligarchy. This is why some dozen or so states turned down Medicaid expansion even though most of it would have been federally subsidized. It’s an attitude that permeates all of society. It’s why the US was able to enact draconian legislation like the DMCA on behalf of the entertainment industry at just about the same time that other countries were enacting stronger privacy legislation on behalf of their citizens – an excellent demonstration of where the priorities lie. And it’s enabled that industry to threaten and harass grandmothers and small children for allegedly downloading a song, obtaining their identities without warrant and shaking them down for financial settlements without due process. And your argument in support of all this is that someone passed legislation prohibiting credit card companies from engaging in grand larceny?
That sounds magnanimously fair-minded, but such an assessment applies only to a minority of moderate conservatives, some of whose ideas I might even agree with and would certainly understand the rationale for them. But it’s hard to get away from the belief that the named individuals really are lunatics (I had forgotten Joni Ernst’s name and had to Google “sandwich bags on feet” :D) or that a large segment of their base is spectacularly uninformed, as evidenced by the many attempts I’ve seen at engaging them in conversation – or just watching Fox News.
Intellectuals are to a significant extent complicit with the current oligarchic system, especially the creation and dissemination of plausible sounding non-sense and more conventional propaganda. This goes all the way back to WWI at least. I wouldn’t look to them for answers.
If by intellectual you mean something like giving special privileges to the college educated, you’re basically shutting out large sections of the populace, especially ones on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder. If you want to see a real right wing anti-intellectual backlash that’d be one way to go about it.
I think the best, though most difficult situation to maintain is one where mass movements keep the leaders in check from their darker impulses. I think it was Chris Hedges who opined that Nixon was our last liberal POTUS, not because he was some secret progressive but because he was still afraid of the huge crowds gathering on the White House lawn.
Granted, this hasn’t happened in recent history. The Tea Party was co-opted instantly. Occupy was destroyed. One imagines if things continue to get worse that popular anger will swell in one direction or another. There’s plenty of tinder waiting for a spark. Which is probably why the elites have gone to such lengths to militarize the police. Interesting times.
Say what you will about my trade-your-vote-for-a-lottery-ticket proposal, but at least it’s clear. (And, as per Stewie Griffin: whether you think that’s what your vote is worth, or not – you’re right!)
Why woefully?
A lot of those not voting are, as I think you allude to elsewhere in your post, are among those who lack knowledge to make a good choice. Nothing wrong with that. Maybe they are more interested in opera, or dance, or baseball, than in what’s on the inside news pages of the Washington Post. That’s not me, but it is a reasonable life choice.
While I vote in every election, sometimes I fail to vote on a particular local race – say, for protonotary, or register of wills – because I don’t know much about the duties of the office and/or relevant campaign issues. It makes sense for me to defer to those who know more – by my not voting.
While I don’t like the OP idea, I think we can and should go about 5 percent in the OP direction by stopping the moaning about low voter participation. The one and only good way to reduce voting by the ill-informed is for them to voluntarily stay home from the polls (or just vote for the races they know most about). Let’s stop trying to make people feel guilty about not voting.
That assumes that those not voting are the ones who are not knowledgeable and the ones who do vote, are. Unfortunately that’s not how it often works out. It’s been shown that the wealthy are much more politically engaged than those less well off, presumably because they have all kinds of interests to protect and advance, whereas the poorer demographic is often resigned to believing that they have no voice in the political process and nothing they do makes any difference – a self-fulfilling prophecy if ever there was one. On top of all that, low voter turnout empowers all the fringe activists – like the teabaggers convinced that Obama is Hitler reincarnated, that Obamacare is a socialist plot, and who go around with protest signs offering astute political insights like “keep the government out of my Medicare!”. Those guys always vote.
Ok, that’s a different animal from the OP, which indeed posits rule by an elite (how tiny was unclear) to be determined by personality tests. I object to your proposal as well, on human-rights grounds, but it’s a different idea than the OP’s sure.
Two examples off the top of my head (I work in finance, and both affected my job). The point is, if the oligarchy is running everything, why did Congress outlaw practices you characterize as “blatant thievery”? Seems like the big banks would love to see that money train keep rollin’. Thing is, no one is running everything. Some groups are able to get the laws they want passed. Some are more effective than others, but no one has a monopoly.
As you note yourself, [most Americans are happy with what they pay and what they receive for health care.](As ACA Takes Effect, Majority OK With Personal Health Costs Care&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=tiles) You can scold them for having the wrong opinions, but that’s democracy working: the people getting what they want. If the U.S. went to UHC without Americans wanting it, that would be a failure of democracy.
It’s not that simple, the full subsidy was just for 2014-16, then it drops from there. I’m sure political goals were a major factor, but it wasn’t just free money forever.
My argument is that a nation’s government should reflect the attitude that permeates its society, that’s what democracy is. If one doesn’t like the outcome, the answer is to change the attitudes, not strip away the franchise, like a parent yanking a toy from an unruly child.
Many are un/underinformed, sure, but in my experience, people seek out the message that accords with their values, rather than the message shaping their values. That is, if you made them switch to the BBC instead of Fox News for their information, their views might not shift as much as you think. I don’t know if that’s a testable idea, though.