Throughout my childhood and teenage years, one of my favorite thought exercises for sleepless nights or long showers has been imagining a perfect society. Perhaps the most important component of that concept was the political structure of the society, and this is something I've even written about in my college application essays. Despite the apparent flaws in a representative
democracy, it is a generally accepted ideal that it is the only viable form of
government in today’s world, a conclusion which isn’t entirely inaccurate based
on the repeated failures that authoritarian governments have suffered. Monarchies, dictatorships, oligarchies, etc. have all revealed fundamental flaws that prevent them from working. And yet, democracies have their own issues. We just have to look at the current Republican front runner for a "real life situation." Winston Churchill, the legendary Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, made two famous quips that come to mind.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
To add on to the second quote, one of my personal favorites from one of the greatest comedians in history, George Carlin:
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."
It is clear that the only system that works is democracy, and yet it has flaws that stem from the issues with the people that vote. Widespread ignorance, an overpowering media and propaganda machine, and multibillion dollar political lobbying all play roles in what some people call "the excesses of democracy."
As a result of this situation, some people have bought up the idea of limiting voting rights. The world's first ever democracy, that of Ancient Athens, only granted free, adult, male landowners the right to vote, who represented roughly 15% of the population. Some people believe that only "special" citizens should be allowed to vote; those who've demonstrated intelligence, an understanding of sociopolitical, governmental, and economic theory, an awareness of the current candidates and parties that represent them, etc. On the other hand, voting is mandatory in certain countries, and not voting can cost citizens a heavy fine. Some decry the idea of limiting voting rights, reminding us that our forefathers died bravely to defend our freedom, and that voting is an essential right of every free citizen. One can discuss the moral and philosophical arguments on all sides for a lifetime, but I would like to offer my personal opinion.
I think that mandatory voting is sheer idiocy, since you are actively encouraging low-information voters to offer their views on an issue they have no understanding of. Why on Earth should someone who doesn't even know what the difference between the Democratic and Republican Party (to use an Americentric example) be forced to choose a candidate from the two? You're simply asking for people to vote based on what name sounds more interesting, or on ignorant biases such as gender or ethnicity. Research and real life examples have shown that a Mark gets more votes than a Sally, or a Gary Smith gets more votes than a Juan Pablo, even if the voters have no clue what policies the candidates represent. On the other hand, one could argue that forcing everyone to vote encourages citizen participation and leads to an entire populace being more well-informed and invested in their democratic process. The "protest vote" argument also doesn't work since people could simply vote for "No preference" or "Unsatisfactory Candidates." Let's also not forget "low-information voters" is a dog whistle phrase used to justify racial discrimination against minorities. However, I'm still against such substantial governmental intervention in fining non-voters, if only due to my personal belief in limited governmental authority.
What about limiting voter rights? I also believe that is impractical and unethical. It is impossible to quantify intelligence, and I cannot even imagine a situation where citizens could only vote if they got a 1600 on their SATs. Who would administer the test? What variables would they test for? Most modern day intelligence tests tend to place focus on factors like memory retention, reading comprehension, arithmetic ability, etc. none of which indicate how well-versed a citizen could be in political theory. On a more abstract level, I would consider that an unethical breach of freedom. However, the idea of a brief and extremely basic 10 question test with questions like "How long is a presidential term" or "Which of the following options best represents the system of socialism?" seems very tempting, if only to root out the lunatics who think Obama is a socialist Jew or the Antichrist. I doubt it will ever happen, but I would be open to the idea.
Most importantly, I believe that voting issues are tied more closely to larger problems, which are educational deficiencies, money in politics, and media bias. In my ideal world, a democracy would have 95% of voters willingly turn out (the others could be sick or having a personal emergency), who would all be sufficiently informed and aware of the political climate. All candidates would be funded by small donations, and super PAC-esque organizations wouldn't exist.
Of course, we still have a long ways to go. If I had to choose a system for right now, I would recommend one where voters aren't forced to vote, but any citizen can choose to do so.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
To add on to the second quote, one of my personal favorites from one of the greatest comedians in history, George Carlin:
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."
It is clear that the only system that works is democracy, and yet it has flaws that stem from the issues with the people that vote. Widespread ignorance, an overpowering media and propaganda machine, and multibillion dollar political lobbying all play roles in what some people call "the excesses of democracy."
As a result of this situation, some people have bought up the idea of limiting voting rights. The world's first ever democracy, that of Ancient Athens, only granted free, adult, male landowners the right to vote, who represented roughly 15% of the population. Some people believe that only "special" citizens should be allowed to vote; those who've demonstrated intelligence, an understanding of sociopolitical, governmental, and economic theory, an awareness of the current candidates and parties that represent them, etc. On the other hand, voting is mandatory in certain countries, and not voting can cost citizens a heavy fine. Some decry the idea of limiting voting rights, reminding us that our forefathers died bravely to defend our freedom, and that voting is an essential right of every free citizen. One can discuss the moral and philosophical arguments on all sides for a lifetime, but I would like to offer my personal opinion.
I think that mandatory voting is sheer idiocy, since you are actively encouraging low-information voters to offer their views on an issue they have no understanding of. Why on Earth should someone who doesn't even know what the difference between the Democratic and Republican Party (to use an Americentric example) be forced to choose a candidate from the two? You're simply asking for people to vote based on what name sounds more interesting, or on ignorant biases such as gender or ethnicity. Research and real life examples have shown that a Mark gets more votes than a Sally, or a Gary Smith gets more votes than a Juan Pablo, even if the voters have no clue what policies the candidates represent. On the other hand, one could argue that forcing everyone to vote encourages citizen participation and leads to an entire populace being more well-informed and invested in their democratic process. The "protest vote" argument also doesn't work since people could simply vote for "No preference" or "Unsatisfactory Candidates." Let's also not forget "low-information voters" is a dog whistle phrase used to justify racial discrimination against minorities. However, I'm still against such substantial governmental intervention in fining non-voters, if only due to my personal belief in limited governmental authority.
What about limiting voter rights? I also believe that is impractical and unethical. It is impossible to quantify intelligence, and I cannot even imagine a situation where citizens could only vote if they got a 1600 on their SATs. Who would administer the test? What variables would they test for? Most modern day intelligence tests tend to place focus on factors like memory retention, reading comprehension, arithmetic ability, etc. none of which indicate how well-versed a citizen could be in political theory. On a more abstract level, I would consider that an unethical breach of freedom. However, the idea of a brief and extremely basic 10 question test with questions like "How long is a presidential term" or "Which of the following options best represents the system of socialism?" seems very tempting, if only to root out the lunatics who think Obama is a socialist Jew or the Antichrist. I doubt it will ever happen, but I would be open to the idea.
Most importantly, I believe that voting issues are tied more closely to larger problems, which are educational deficiencies, money in politics, and media bias. In my ideal world, a democracy would have 95% of voters willingly turn out (the others could be sick or having a personal emergency), who would all be sufficiently informed and aware of the political climate. All candidates would be funded by small donations, and super PAC-esque organizations wouldn't exist.
Of course, we still have a long ways to go. If I had to choose a system for right now, I would recommend one where voters aren't forced to vote, but any citizen can choose to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment