Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 36

Thread: On Direct Democracy and Universal Suffrage

  1. #1
    Senior Member jar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Deep South Texas
    Posts
    4,045
    Thanks
    479
    Thanked 3,712 Times in 1,610 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default On Direct Democracy and Universal Suffrage

    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.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Flounder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    374
    Thanks
    285
    Thanked 402 Times in 161 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: On Direct Democracy and Universal Suffrage

    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!
    Latest pen related post @ flounders-mindthots.blogspot.com : '70s Pilot Elite pocket pen review

  3. #3
    Senior Member SIR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    GB
    Posts
    1,635
    Thanks
    725
    Thanked 732 Times in 466 Posts
    Rep Power
    10

    Default Re: On Direct Democracy and Universal Suffrage

    Quote Originally Posted by jar View Post
    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!

  4. #4
    Senior Member jar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Deep South Texas
    Posts
    4,045
    Thanks
    479
    Thanked 3,712 Times in 1,610 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: On Direct Democracy and Universal Suffrage

    Quote Originally Posted by SIR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jar View Post
    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.

  5. #5
    Senior Member SIR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    GB
    Posts
    1,635
    Thanks
    725
    Thanked 732 Times in 466 Posts
    Rep Power
    10

    Default Re: On Direct Democracy and Universal Suffrage

    Quote Originally Posted by jar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SIR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jar View Post
    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?


  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,118
    Thanks
    874
    Thanked 2,528 Times in 1,299 Posts
    Rep Power
    13

    Default Re: On Direct Democracy and Universal Suffrage

    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.

  7. #7
    Senior Member jar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Deep South Texas
    Posts
    4,045
    Thanks
    479
    Thanked 3,712 Times in 1,610 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: On Direct Democracy and Universal Suffrage

    Quote Originally Posted by SIR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SIR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jar View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member SIR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    GB
    Posts
    1,635
    Thanks
    725
    Thanked 732 Times in 466 Posts
    Rep Power
    10

    Default Re: On Direct Democracy and Universal Suffrage

    Quote Originally Posted by jar View Post
    In theory, that's a great system, IF the voters actually have the knowledge to make correct choices.
    Quote Originally Posted by jar View Post

    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.

  9. #9
    Senior Member jar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Deep South Texas
    Posts
    4,045
    Thanks
    479
    Thanked 3,712 Times in 1,610 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: On Direct Democracy and Universal Suffrage

    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_of_Clouds View Post
    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?

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to jar For This Useful Post:

    fountainpenkid (April 13th, 2016)

  11. #10
    Senior Member SIR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    GB
    Posts
    1,635
    Thanks
    725
    Thanked 732 Times in 466 Posts
    Rep Power
    10

    Default Re: On Direct Democracy and Universal Suffrage

    Quote Originally Posted by jar View Post
    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.

  12. #11
    Senior Member jar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Deep South Texas
    Posts
    4,045
    Thanks
    479
    Thanked 3,712 Times in 1,610 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: On Direct Democracy and Universal Suffrage

    Quote Originally Posted by SIR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jar View Post
    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.

  13. #12
    Senior Member SIR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    GB
    Posts
    1,635
    Thanks
    725
    Thanked 732 Times in 466 Posts
    Rep Power
    10

    Default Re: On Direct Democracy and Universal Suffrage

    Quote Originally Posted by jar View Post
    Please stop misrepresenting my position.
    You know Jar, your picture is really very appropriate - scaredy cat.


  14. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,118
    Thanks
    874
    Thanked 2,528 Times in 1,299 Posts
    Rep Power
    13

    Default Re: On Direct Democracy and Universal Suffrage

    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.

  15. #14
    Senior Member jar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Deep South Texas
    Posts
    4,045
    Thanks
    479
    Thanked 3,712 Times in 1,610 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: On Direct Democracy and Universal Suffrage

    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_of_Clouds View Post
    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.

  16. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,118
    Thanks
    874
    Thanked 2,528 Times in 1,299 Posts
    Rep Power
    13

    Default Re: On Direct Democracy and Universal Suffrage

    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.

  17. #16
    Senior Member SIR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    GB
    Posts
    1,635
    Thanks
    725
    Thanked 732 Times in 466 Posts
    Rep Power
    10

    Default Re: On Direct Democracy and Universal Suffrage

    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.

  18. #17
    Senior Member jar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Deep South Texas
    Posts
    4,045
    Thanks
    479
    Thanked 3,712 Times in 1,610 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: On Direct Democracy and Universal Suffrage

    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_of_Clouds View Post
    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?

  19. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,118
    Thanks
    874
    Thanked 2,528 Times in 1,299 Posts
    Rep Power
    13

    Default Re: On Direct Democracy and Universal Suffrage

    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.

  20. #19
    Senior Member jar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Deep South Texas
    Posts
    4,045
    Thanks
    479
    Thanked 3,712 Times in 1,610 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: On Direct Democracy and Universal Suffrage

    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_of_Clouds View Post
    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.

  21. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jar For This Useful Post:

    fountainpenkid (April 13th, 2016), SIR (April 3rd, 2016)

  22. #20
    Senior Member SIR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    GB
    Posts
    1,635
    Thanks
    725
    Thanked 732 Times in 466 Posts
    Rep Power
    10

    Default Re: On Direct Democracy and Universal Suffrage

    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.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •