PDA

View Full Version : On Direct Democracy and Universal Suffrage



jar
April 3rd, 2016, 08:27 AM
In another thread one of the posters said that he wanted Direct Democracy and later Universal Suffrage but he would never explain why he thought either would produce a better government.

They are important concepts though and so well worth exploring.

Universal Suffrage became the law of the land in the Russia in 1917 and the basic premise of Communism is of course Direct Democracy, individual soviets vote directly on almost everything. The workers in the plants vote on what the company should do and how it should be done.

In theory, that's a great system, IF the voters actually have the knowledge to make correct choices.

The earliest modern example of Universal Suffrage I know of is New Zealand which adopted it in 1893.

The US only adopted Universal Suffrage in 1965 but even then there were (and still are) many governmental and social practices that prohibited implementation.

The first point though is that the existence of Universal Suffrage still does not assure everyone actually votes and so some States have taken the next step and even made voting mandatory.

So this thread is a place to examine both Universal Suffrage and Direct Democracy and their relative desirability, prerequisites and possible consequences.

Flounder
April 3rd, 2016, 11:17 AM
For interesting light background reading on this topic, I recommend "Democracy, Sea Power and Institutional Change: An Economic Analysis of the Athenian Naval Law".

The survival of Athens, with consequences that would set the course of European civilisation, stemmed from a unlikely decision made via direct democratic vote, in the face of strong opposition from the nobility.

The state silver mines had struck it rich. "The royalties reached the unheard figure of 100 talents per year (or 600.000 ancient drachmae), at a time when one drachma was a middle-class day’s income. This amount was enough to pay for all regular state expenditures, with a large surplus to be distributed at a flat rate of ten drachmas to every citizen [emphasis added]." How about a show of hands?

As an alternative, there won't be any hand outs at all - Persia is getting restless again.

Instead, the money will be used to construct a hugely expensive fleet of 100 extra triremes - warships faster than any sailboat, by the simple expedient of having three banks of rowers to outrun the wind (and requiring a tremendous amount of upkeep). By dint of their numbers, the poorest voters in society, previously barred from holding public office and exempt from military service, will man the oars come times of war. Sounds a poor exchange - especially in light of the freeforall mentioned above - but the poorest in society will gain full political rights.

The vote went in favour of Themistocles' new fleet, fortuitously enough for the battle of Salamis!

SIR
April 3rd, 2016, 11:27 AM
In theory, that's a great system, IF the voters actually have the knowledge to make correct choices.

The big point which connects direct democracy and universal suffrage is that no individual, group, or state has the right to determine who has or does not have the right to participate meaningfully in decision making.

You seem to think that education and demonstration of quantifiable intelligence are the most important grades by which one should be judged as fit to contribute to decision making; what about the kids who have had to help care for family members or work to pay the household bills and have therefore had to sacrifice some or all of the time they could invest in their own academic personal development? Do you also want to take away the right to vote from veterans who are suffering from depression or PTSD?!

Curiously, Switzerland does have a directly democratic system but didn't actually give women the right to vote until 1959 for local level ballots and 1971 for those at the federal level!

jar
April 3rd, 2016, 11:50 AM
In theory, that's a great system, IF the voters actually have the knowledge to make correct choices.

The big point which connects direct democracy and universal suffrage is that no individual, group, or state has the right to determine who has or does not have the right to participate meaningfully in decision making.

You seem to think that education and demonstration of quantifiable intelligence are the most important grades by which one should be judged as fit to contribute to decision making; what about the kids who have had to help care for family members or work to pay the household bills and have therefore had to sacrifice some or all of the time they could invest in their own academic personal development? Do you also want to take away the right to vote from veterans who are suffering from depression or PTSD?!



Stop trying to misrepresent my position and instead support your position.

SIR
April 3rd, 2016, 12:18 PM
In theory, that's a great system, IF the voters actually have the knowledge to make correct choices.

The big point which connects direct democracy and universal suffrage is that no individual, group, or state has the right to determine who has or does not have the right to participate meaningfully in decision making.



Stop trying to misrepresent my position and instead support your position.

So what, now you're saying you are willing and happy to accept votes on national and local community decisions by all regardless?
Because what you said before was that certain people shouldn't be allowed votes because they haven't been well enough educated; I then extended that to cover anyone who might, temporarily or otherwise, be considered relatively less able to rationally apply their mental judgment capability, because that was what you were you by argument inferring.

You see where this is going, right?

http://www.clker.com/cliparts/9/1/4/3/11954240631366265927liftarn_Anti-Nazi_Symbol.svg.hi.png

Empty_of_Clouds
April 3rd, 2016, 12:49 PM
Some choices that are presented to government defy any kind of exact analysis, and often represent a case of 'we think this is the best way forward'. Plenty of uncertainty.

Not every (I would say very few) member of a society understands even a fraction of the ramifications involved with governmental choices. What I do see touted around the various media outlets is an awful lot of amateurs who seem to think that every decision is a simple choice. Obviously I am slightly exaggerating here, but not by much I think.

It is highly unrealistic to expect to have an properly informed electorate. Pie in the sky quite frankly. To give a more limited example just look at medical services. Patients are expected to give informed consent for medical procedures. Research, however, has shown conclusively that patients - on the whole - do not understand the information that is given to them, even when it is explained in lay terms. How then can anyone expect the average person to understand local and global fiscal policy (for example)? Unless of course by 'informed' one simply means that the information was provided, irrespective of whether anyone actually understands it.


New Zealand (where I live) is indeed the first country to have universal suffrage.

There are 22 countries where voting is compulsory -and that there are penalties for not doing so - but only 10 of these actually enforce this ruling.

jar
April 3rd, 2016, 02:02 PM
In theory, that's a great system, IF the voters actually have the knowledge to make correct choices.

The big point which connects direct democracy and universal suffrage is that no individual, group, or state has the right to determine who has or does not have the right to participate meaningfully in decision making.



Stop trying to misrepresent my position and instead support your position.

So what, now you're saying you are willing and happy to accept votes on national and local community decisions by all regardless?
Because what you said before was that certain people shouldn't be allowed votes because they haven't been well enough educated; I then extended that to cover anyone who might, temporarily or otherwise, be considered relatively less able to rationally apply their mental judgment capability, because that was what you were you by argument inferring.

You see where this is going, right?



Again, stop misrepresenting my positions.

Try supporting your position.

SIR
April 3rd, 2016, 02:37 PM
In theory, that's a great system, IF the voters actually have the knowledge to make correct choices.



Again, stop misrepresenting my positions.

Try supporting your position.

Perhaps you'd like to be denied a vote because you can't quote the ten commandments in Latin?

You're an elitist bigot, admit it.

jar
April 3rd, 2016, 02:41 PM
Some choices that are presented to government defy any kind of exact analysis, and often represent a case of 'we think this is the best way forward'. Plenty of uncertainty.

Not every (I would say very few) member of a society understands even a fraction of the ramifications involved with governmental choices. What I do see touted around the various media outlets is an awful lot of amateurs who seem to think that every decision is a simple choice. Obviously I am slightly exaggerating here, but not by much I think.

It is highly unrealistic to expect to have an properly informed electorate. Pie in the sky quite frankly. To give a more limited example just look at medical services. Patients are expected to give informed consent for medical procedures. Research, however, has shown conclusively that patients - on the whole - do not understand the information that is given to them, even when it is explained in lay terms. How then can anyone expect the average person to understand local and global fiscal policy (for example)? Unless of course by 'informed' one simply means that the information was provided, irrespective of whether anyone actually understands it.


New Zealand (where I live) is indeed the first country to have universal suffrage.

There are 22 countries where voting is compulsory -and that there are penalties for not doing so - but only 10 of these actually enforce this ruling.

When I have used the terms informed and educated I to make it clear that it means that the person has been taught the techniques of thinking, the methods and practices not what to think.

In a post above it was suggested I want to take away someone's right to vote and of course that is simply nonsense. What I advocate is that we should have a goal preparing people to have the tools needed to vote. The silly examples mentioned were kids that had to leave school to support a family and people suffering from PTSD. Look though at what I have actually suggested. Teaching the techniques of critical thinking and evidence based decision making should happen at least by Middle School age but the evidence is that it seldom happens at least in the US. Middle school children are already excluded from voting for other reasons. People suffering from PTSD should be receiving help and treatment and hopefully beyond just the physical side but also to address emotional and cognitive needs.

You do bring up a really good point that illustrates the issue in the Medical issue. Patients are supposed to give informed consent and the evidence does show that many simply can't understand the information given to them.

But the question is "Why can't they understand the information?" In the US at least a big part of the reason is that the information is deliberately presented in a fashion designed to make it difficult to understand. In the US medical decisions are based on profitability and so the evidence is presented in a format designed to maximize the profit.

When you combine that with a population that has never been taught how to think you cannot really expect actual informed consent to result.

The evidence is certainly clear though that neither Universal Suffrage or Direct Democracy offer any real assurance of a good government. More is needed.

There are other major factors that make Direct Democracy a poor choice and you touch on a couple, local and global fiscal policy. There are other major reasons as well.

For example, there is the issue of the whole versus the part.

Back in the 50s when Ike pushed for the creation of a National Interstate Highway system we already had a pretty extensive US Highway system. Each segment of the system was designed, designated, built and maintained locally. The same concept of local control was initially planned for the Interstate system. The result was that many states simply did not fund the roads and in fact even today there are sections of the US Interstate Highway system that does not include overpasses and exchanges but instead local roads just enter from the sides, often with only a two-way stop sign. And vast parts of our infrastructure that are not being maintained because there is no direct immediate pressure to do long term planning.

To build and fund the system it was necessary to create a source of revenue that was NOT simply controlled at the local level through Direct Democracy.

This is also true of so many other things, civil rights, environmental protection, National parks, minimum safe working conditions, child labor laws and many other areas.

So what is needed to try to assure a good government?

SIR
April 3rd, 2016, 03:01 PM
When I have used the terms informed and educated I to make it clear that it means that the person has been taught the techniques of thinking, the methods and practices not what to think.

Teaching the techniques of critical thinking and evidence based decision making should happen at least by Middle School age but the evidence is that it seldom happens at least in the US.

When you combine that with a population that has never been taught how to think you cannot really expect actual informed consent to result.

The evidence is certainly clear though that neither Universal Suffrage or Direct Democracy offer any real assurance of a good government.


You really do underestimate your fellow being's potential contribution and overestimate the importance of 'philosophy'; I feel you value exclusivity more than inclusivity.
Direct democracy is simply the right, the correct way to govern/make community decisions; success comes not from not making mistakes but from not making the same mistakes, that is how you will get 'good' government.

jar
April 3rd, 2016, 03:23 PM
When I have used the terms informed and educated I to make it clear that it means that the person has been taught the techniques of thinking, the methods and practices not what to think.

Teaching the techniques of critical thinking and evidence based decision making should happen at least by Middle School age but the evidence is that it seldom happens at least in the US.

When you combine that with a population that has never been taught how to think you cannot really expect actual informed consent to result.

The evidence is certainly clear though that neither Universal Suffrage or Direct Democracy offer any real assurance of a good government.


You really do underestimate your fellow being's potential contribution and overestimate the importance of 'philosophy'; I feel you value exclusivity more than inclusivity.
Direct democracy is simply the right, the correct way to govern/make community decisions; success comes not from not making mistakes but from not making the same mistakes, that is how you will get 'good' government.


Please stop misrepresenting my position.

SIR
April 3rd, 2016, 03:41 PM
Please stop misrepresenting my position.

You know Jar, your picture is really very appropriate - scaredy cat.

:lazy:

Empty_of_Clouds
April 3rd, 2016, 03:56 PM
You do bring up a really good point that illustrates the issue in the Medical issue. Patients are supposed to give informed consent and the evidence does show that many simply can't understand the information given to them.

But the question is "Why can't they understand the information?" In the US at least a big part of the reason is that the information is deliberately presented in a fashion designed to make it difficult to understand. In the US medical decisions are based on profitability and so the evidence is presented in a format designed to maximize the profit.

Let me just add something to this. When I talk about the inability of the average person to understand medical procedure I am not saying anything about their capacity for critical thinking. What I am talking about is that in a specialist subject that is not one's own, there will always remain a lack of understanding. For example, I could explain - as simply as I know how - a medical procedure and the risks, benefits and so on, to an aeronautics engineer and that person will likely not be able to understand it to a degree that I would call informed, anymore than I would be able to understand an aeronautics discussion.

General principles can only take one so far, and in my opinion that is not even near far enough to be able to make policy decisions within any specific subject area.

jar
April 3rd, 2016, 04:08 PM
You do bring up a really good point that illustrates the issue in the Medical issue. Patients are supposed to give informed consent and the evidence does show that many simply can't understand the information given to them.

But the question is "Why can't they understand the information?" In the US at least a big part of the reason is that the information is deliberately presented in a fashion designed to make it difficult to understand. In the US medical decisions are based on profitability and so the evidence is presented in a format designed to maximize the profit.

Let me just add something to this. When I talk about the inability of the average person to understand medical procedure I am not saying anything about their capacity for critical thinking. What I am talking about is that in a specialist subject that is not one's own, there will always remain a lack of understanding. For example, I could explain - as simply as I know how - a medical procedure and the risks, benefits and so on, to an aeronautics engineer and that person will likely not be able to understand it to a degree that I would call informed, anymore than I would be able to understand an aeronautics discussion.

General principles can only take one so far, and in my opinion that is not even near far enough to be able to make policy decisions within any specific subject area.

But without the basic techniques of "How to think" it is unlikely any reasonable decisions could be made and your point applies to all aspects of Direct Democracy.

Empty_of_Clouds
April 3rd, 2016, 04:21 PM
And this is where employing experts in a given field is appropriate, together with the requirement to actually trust their expertise over one's own generalised critical thinking. I guess this was the point I was heading toward.

SIR
April 3rd, 2016, 04:31 PM
Jar, do you not realise that direct democracy is the next logical evolution of democracy?

You will not convince the masses to give up their ideal, even if at this time representative democracy is actually undemocratic and not far removed from feudalism. Requiring any qualification for rights to involvement in decision is a step backwards and to a system we have already been thru, further progress along that path will take you to a time of human sacrifice as it did in Nazi Germany.
I know you're scared, but it is normal to fear the unknown.

jar
April 3rd, 2016, 04:32 PM
And this is where employing experts in a given field is appropriate, together with the requirement to actually trust their expertise over one's own generalised critical thinking. I guess this was the point I was heading toward.

So let's carry this forward specifically about government.

How can we best determine who the experts might be when it comes to the field of governance?

What types of expertise should we look for other than trying to judge how they go about making decisions?

Empty_of_Clouds
April 3rd, 2016, 06:51 PM
That I don't know. I presume that at some point in your life you have visited a doctor. Did you think to yourself at that time "Is this doctor really an expert"? There already exist a number of methods for peer validation within numerous disciplines. I don't believe you can make a case for governance as a single discipline when it clearly is not.

jar
April 3rd, 2016, 07:12 PM
That I don't know. I presume that at some point in your life you have visited a doctor. Did you think to yourself at that time "Is this doctor really an expert"? There already exist a number of methods for peer validation within numerous disciplines. I don't believe you can make a case for governance as a single discipline when it clearly is not.

I ask myself that every time I visit a doctor.

And yes, that is the point. There are some certification standards in some disciplines that are supposed to protect the clients, but none for a position like politician that requires a generalist as opposed to a specialist.

As a voter, the person electing the people selected to act as a representative in governing, are there questions we should ask before choosing that "doctor"?

Again, looking at this current US election cycle over half of the candidates for President have a record of making non-evidence based decisions. A significant number of the candidates have repeatedly lied in their speeches. Many have shown total ignorance about even basic factual recent events.

Yet those candidates have garnered actual votes.

SIR
April 3rd, 2016, 08:50 PM
Nice example,

I guess we all generally take our physicians' supposed expertise for granted, until they demonstrate otherwise... I had cause to suggest to one of my NHS doctors that I might benefit from an mri scan, he suggested otherwise - fortunately, my insurance for a personal injury claim backed me to get an mri scan anyway, and behold my suspicions were proved to be correct and my NHS doctor promptly admitted he had been wrong.

Which goes to show, your elected representatives might talk the talk and walk the walk but they might actually be less expert than yourself when it comes to doing the job.

Empty_of_Clouds
April 3rd, 2016, 09:05 PM
Having read through Jar's last post I have had a minor revelation: I don't know what a politician actually does. What is their job description? Never really thought about it before. Hmm ...

SIR
April 3rd, 2016, 09:25 PM
You'd think it'd be an ability to formulate solutions from and for disparate and often conflicting values, motivations, and agendas.

Assessing the situation dispassionately but rather cynically, one might estimate by the current spread, that an over inflated sense of self worth would be high on the list of essential/desirable character attributes.

In recent times usual must haves have appeared to be family oriented (including ability to manage multiple concurrent intimate relationships), experience in business and finance (particularly negotiation, facilitation, and ability to ensure agreement in advance), sporting but with good academic references too, and well connected (like a puppet);

but mostly just an everyday John or Jane, mass appeal is a necessity - I'll leave Jar to explain why that ain't necessarily such a good thing.

jar
April 4th, 2016, 08:18 AM
Having read through Jar's last post I have had a minor revelation: I don't know what a politician actually does. What is their job description? Never really thought about it before. Hmm ...

And that is I fear a fairly common revelation. People don't think much about what the politicians talents and capabilities should be.

I think I can provide at least a basic list but all the items on the list come back to the point of learning how to think.

Maybe a conversation I had with one of our politicians may help clarify. The conversation was a few years ago (and he is no longer in office anyway) so it is paraphrased from memory.

The subject was Global Warming and he did not believe global warming was happening. When I pointed to all the evidence he changed his position (without realizing he had actually changed) to man made global warming. He was willing to admit that global warming was happening but denied it was caused by humans.

So I said we would assume that he was correct and see where that led us. He agreed that the result of global warming would be rising sea levels and changes in water availability and storm patterns.

Some progress.

I then asked if global warming is caused by nature which of those processes could we control, could we change the solar contribution? He said we can't control such processes.

So next I asked him which factors that might lead to global warming could we control.

There was silence. Then, and this I definitely remember word for word, "I don't like that answer!".

We continued talking over the coming months and eventually his position turned to the worst case scenario for humans would be if global warming was totally natural since there is absolutely nothing we can do to really change that and our only recourse is triage, prepare for dealing with the consequences.

And then he campaigned on that new position that we needed to curtail as much of the human contribution as possible and also prepare for the consequences ...

and was soundly defeated.

So back to the question of what we want in a politician.

Too often it seems we want a politician who tells us what we want to hear.

But is that what we need?

SIR
April 4th, 2016, 08:52 AM
Global Warming is somewhat unavoidable; the Milankovitch cycles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles) means that the Sahara was once, and will again be, a lush and fertile savanna.

jar
April 4th, 2016, 08:54 AM
Global Warming is somewhat unavoidable; the Milankovitch cycles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles) means that the Sahara was once, and will again be, a lush and fertile savanna.

The Milankovitch Cycles are irrelevant even for long term human planning.

Empty_of_Clouds
April 4th, 2016, 02:45 PM
Irrelevant in what way? That we cannot affect them, or because in your statement "long term" still relates to human lifespans? I say this because we have never had a truly long term human plan. My definition of long term is not bounded by my life expectancy. Unfortunately it would seem that a lot of politicians behave as if it does. Or to put it another way, they do not see their work proceeding beyond their own term in office. That's just my opinion of course, but I have yet to meet a politician (and I've met a few) who think or behave further than their own limited view.


I am reasonably confident that most politicians - despite many of them being well-educated and possessing good thinking skills - have no real understanding of any issue beyond their own areas of expertise. Essentially, if you're not a scientist then you will be most unlikely to properly understand scientific rigour and the true import of evidence-based research. People say that they understand but in extended conversations it becomes abundantly clear that they really only have a rudimentary understanding.

A typical example, if I may be allowed a digression, is the theory of evolution. Many, many people, including some apparently very smart ones, think that evolution is a process. It is not. Understanding that it is not is a profound realisation. So people may say that they understand but they are really deluding themselves. This does happen to all of us quite frequently. We really are quite limited in our true understanding of a great many things, despite our own protests.

What hope then can we have that any mere politician is able to make an informed decision? And what, then, is their ultimate function?

jar
April 4th, 2016, 06:40 PM
Irrelevant in what way? That we cannot affect them, or because in your statement "long term" still relates to human lifespans? I say this because we have never had a truly long term human plan. My definition of long term is not bounded by my life expectancy. Unfortunately it would seem that a lot of politicians behave as if it does. Or to put it another way, they do not see their work proceeding beyond their own term in office. That's just my opinion of course, but I have yet to meet a politician (and I've met a few) who think or behave further than their own limited view.


I am reasonably confident that most politicians - despite many of them being well-educated and possessing good thinking skills - have no real understanding of any issue beyond their own areas of expertise. Essentially, if you're not a scientist then you will be most unlikely to properly understand scientific rigour and the true import of evidence-based research. People say that they understand but in extended conversations it becomes abundantly clear that they really only have a rudimentary understanding.

A typical example, if I may be allowed a digression, is the theory of evolution. Many, many people, including some apparently very smart ones, think that evolution is a process. It is not. Understanding that it is not is a profound realisation. So people may say that they understand but they are really deluding themselves. This does happen to all of us quite frequently. We really are quite limited in our true understanding of a great many things, despite our own protests.

What hope then can we have that any mere politician is able to make an informed decision? And what, then, is their ultimate function?

Irrelevant because the Milankovitch Cycles are on the order of 20,000 + year fluctuations.

Human planning, reasonable planning, is whether or not we like it based around funding cycles and not Milankovitch Cycles.

The function of politicians is to make decisions, but as you rightly point out, they are unlikely to be prepared to really make reasoned decisions on many subjects.

And that may let us return to the topic which is "On Direct Democracy and Universal Suffrage".

A limited universal suffrage has already been achieved in much of the world. I say limited because there are still age restrictions on voting as well as limits on certain felons; perhaps other restrictions as well. There are also the unacknowledged restrictions, Gerrymandering, requirements of getting registered, intentionally slowing voting to discourage a segment, selective locations for registering or voting and other tactics.

So Universal Suffrage should not be an issue.

That leave Direct Democracy.

If the prospect of having politicians qualified to make decisions is unlikely, what would be the likelihood of a Direct Democracy doing so?

So we return to what qualification for a politician would increase the likelihood of making informed decisions?

Imagine someone actually trained in decision making techniques; a person trained to seek out the sources of knowledge and then make decisions based on the evidence; trained in using the scientific method and critical thinking and peer review and the actual techniques science uses to arrive at conclusions.

Instead of a person having any given set of facts, imagine a person trained to gather those people who do have the facts and then make decisions based on what they present.

Look again at the current US Presidential campaign. Over half of the candidates deny the earth is old, that evolution happened, that humans are simply one primate species, that global warming was proven.

How can we expect someone who demonstrates that they make decision based solely on their beliefs or the beliefs of some group to make any reasonable, rational decisions?

bluesea
April 5th, 2016, 05:50 PM
Irrelevant in what way? That we cannot affect them, or because in your statement "long term" still relates to human lifespans? I say this because we have never had a truly long term human plan. My definition of long term is not bounded by my life expectancy. Unfortunately it would seem that a lot of politicians behave as if it does. Or to put it another way, they do not see their work proceeding beyond their own term in office. That's just my opinion of course, but I have yet to meet a politician (and I've met a few) who think or behave further than their own limited view.


I am reasonably confident that most politicians - despite many of them being well-educated and possessing good thinking skills - have no real understanding of any issue beyond their own areas of expertise. Essentially, if you're not a scientist then you will be most unlikely to properly understand scientific rigour and the true import of evidence-based research. People say that they understand but in extended conversations it becomes abundantly clear that they really only have a rudimentary understanding.

A typical example, if I may be allowed a digression, is the theory of evolution. Many, many people, including some apparently very smart ones, think that evolution is a process. It is not. Understanding that it is not is a profound realisation. So people may say that they understand but they are really deluding themselves. This does happen to all of us quite frequently. We really are quite limited in our true understanding of a great many things, despite our own protests.

What hope then can we have that any mere politician is able to make an informed decision? And what, then, is their ultimate function?

Irrelevant because the Milankovitch Cycles are on the order of 20,000 + year fluctuations.

Human planning, reasonable planning, is whether or not we like it based around funding cycles and not Milankovitch Cycles.

The function of politicians is to make decisions, but as you rightly point out, they are unlikely to be prepared to really make reasoned decisions on many subjects.

And that may let us return to the topic which is "On Direct Democracy and Universal Suffrage".

A limited universal suffrage has already been achieved in much of the world. I say limited because there are still age restrictions on voting as well as limits on certain felons; perhaps other restrictions as well. There are also the unacknowledged restrictions, Gerrymandering, requirements of getting registered, intentionally slowing voting to discourage a segment, selective locations for registering or voting and other tactics.

So Universal Suffrage should not be an issue.

That leave Direct Democracy.

If the prospect of having politicians qualified to make decisions is unlikely, what would be the likelihood of a Direct Democracy doing so?

So we return to what qualification for a politician would increase the likelihood of making informed decisions?

Imagine someone actually trained in decision making techniques; a person trained to seek out the sources of knowledge and then make decisions based on the evidence; trained in using the scientific method and critical thinking and peer review and the actual techniques science uses to arrive at conclusions.

Instead of a person having any given set of facts, imagine a person trained to gather those people who do have the facts and then make decisions based on what they present.

Look again at the current US Presidential campaign. Over half of the candidates deny the earth is old, that evolution happened, that humans are simply one primate species, that global warming was proven.

How can we expect someone who demonstrates that they make decision based solely on their beliefs or the beliefs of some group to make any reasonable, rational decisions?



I'm going to say corporate and banking interests, including the all powerful arm of the lobbyists, have superseded your questions of democracy and suffrage. The U.S. as a democracy is at this time entering a new and irreversible stage. The people over time will have less and less ability to make any kind of fundamental change. Really, fundamental change is currently the only kind that can make any difference to the path of American democracy becoming basically a sham--a political metaphor of reality TV. We are living science fiction.

At that I will leave the sidelines of this thread.

jar
April 5th, 2016, 07:21 PM
I'm going to say corporate and banking interests, including the all powerful arm of the lobbyists, have superseded your questions of democracy and suffrage. The U.S. as a democracy is at this time entering a new and irreversible stage. The people over time will have less and less ability to make any kind of fundamental change. Really, fundamental change is currently the only kind that can make any difference to the path of American democracy becoming basically a sham--a political metaphor of reality TV. We are living science fiction.

At that I will leave the sidelines of this thread.

That is not a new issue and in fact Theodore Roosevelt warned about just that issue.

There is one possible glimmer of hope (although I will admit I find it really faint) and that is if a significant change in the Supreme Court could be made that would reverse the decisions that Corporations have a voice and that money is speech and if corporate lobbying could be made illegal then possible. just possibly the US can avoid become the next mainstream fascist state.

HughC
April 6th, 2016, 09:57 PM
Universal suffrage is a key stone of modern democracies. Does it produce better Govt. ? Probably not simple because many don't understand or can foresee the longer term implications of decisions but this would be an issue in every system. On the other hand it probably doesn't make Govt. worse either. What it does do is encourage policies to be better explained so more can get a basic grasp of the situation. I prefer representative democracy over direct democracy because it works in practice. Again direct democracy requires many to have a sound knowledge of the issues, now so many to render it impossible. The role of a politician under such a system is to ensure he/she seeks the best possible knowledge from various sources as to be able to determine the best action to take.

bluesea
April 7th, 2016, 08:17 AM
I'm going to say corporate and banking interests, including the all powerful arm of the lobbyists, have superseded your questions of democracy and suffrage. The U.S. as a democracy is at this time entering a new and irreversible stage. The people over time will have less and less ability to make any kind of fundamental change. Really, fundamental change is currently the only kind that can make any difference to the path of American democracy becoming basically a sham--a political metaphor of reality TV. We are living science fiction.

At that I will leave the sidelines of this thread.

That is not a new issue and in fact Theodore Roosevelt warned about just that issue.

There is one possible glimmer of hope (although I will admit I find it really faint) and that is if a significant change in the Supreme Court could be made that would reverse the decisions that Corporations have a voice and that money is speech and if corporate lobbying could be made illegal then possible. just possibly the US can avoid become the next mainstream fascist state.


Agree, although it appears I'm less hopeful than you.

bluesea
April 7th, 2016, 08:28 AM
Universal suffrage is a key stone of modern democracies. Does it produce better Govt. ? Probably not simple because many don't understand or can foresee the longer term implications of decisions but this would be an issue in every system. On the other hand it probably doesn't make Govt. worse either. What it does do is encourage policies to be better explained so more can get a basic grasp of the situation. I prefer representative democracy over direct democracy because it works in practice. Again direct democracy requires many to have a sound knowledge of the issues, now so many to render it impossible. The role of a politician under such a system is to ensure he/she seeks the best possible knowledge from various sources as to be able to determine the best action to take.



To answer your rhetorical question, universal suffrage as an historical political evolution *did* produce a better government, and I believe it *did* produce a better society. Of course this is speaking in the past tense.

pengeezer
April 7th, 2016, 07:29 PM
Universal suffrage is a key stone of modern democracies. Does it produce better Govt. ? Probably not simple because many don't understand or can foresee the longer term implications of decisions but this would be an issue in every system. On the other hand it probably doesn't make Govt. worse either. What it does do is encourage policies to be better explained so more can get a basic grasp of the situation. I prefer representative democracy over direct democracy because it works in practice. Again direct democracy requires many to have a sound knowledge of the issues, now so many to render it impossible. The role of a politician under such a system is to ensure he/she seeks the best possible knowledge from various sources as to be able to determine the best action to take.




I'd prefer the term "public servant" or "statesman" to politician.........but of course those are scarcer than hen's
teeth today,to put it mildly.



John

bluesea
April 7th, 2016, 10:25 PM
Universal suffrage is a key stone of modern democracies. Does it produce better Govt. ? Probably not simple because many don't understand or can foresee the longer term implications of decisions but this would be an issue in every system. On the other hand it probably doesn't make Govt. worse either. What it does do is encourage policies to be better explained so more can get a basic grasp of the situation. I prefer representative democracy over direct democracy because it works in practice. Again direct democracy requires many to have a sound knowledge of the issues, now so many to render it impossible. The role of a politician under such a system is to ensure he/she seeks the best possible knowledge from various sources as to be able to determine the best action to take.




I'd prefer the term "public servant" or "statesman" to politician.........but of course those are scarcer than hen's
teeth today,to put it mildly.



John



Rightly so unfortunately, because in praxis the public servant is viewed correctly, as more politician than anything else. Guess I can say I'd rather the politician be a public servant instead.

RNHC
April 8th, 2016, 06:44 AM
"Public servant," to me, means people who works for the government, people who carry out various policies and directives of the government, i.e., bureaucracy, if you will. "Politicians" are elected to represent and lead. They are more of "public master."

pengeezer
April 9th, 2016, 04:58 PM
"Public servant," to me, means people who works for the government, people who carry out various policies and directives of the government, i.e., bureaucracy, if you will. "Politicians" are elected to represent and lead. They are more of "public master."


Problem is,they tend to abuse the "master" part.....way beyond belief.



John