Limited Democracy

[OnlyAmbrose]

At the request of radiojake:

Not much you can do about it. Well, I guess there are two options:

1) Limited democracy, or
2) Make everyone think

#2 is never going to happen. Personally, I'm starting to become a fan of the concept of limited democracy, but that's another thread...

Limited democracy? Can't say I've heard of that concept. Care to explain? Start another thread if you wish, to stop the thread jack cries

To explain fairly briefly, limited democracy is a system of "democracy" under which only certain people can vote. The United States was, at one point, a limited Democracy; the right to vote was limited to people of a certain race and gender. We are still a limited Democracy, although less so- now the only real restriction is age.

Now, when I said I'm warming up to limited Democracy, I'm not saying I want to return to the old ways of suffrage based on race, gender, etc. I think that everyone should have to right to earn their right to vote. My thoughts on this have been inspired by a few factors.

First, I've been studying recent elections in my history class, and I've been following this one very carefully. More and more I'm starting to see people vote for someone based on race, gender, or something similar that they can identify with. Selfish voting, I guess you could call it. Voting based on people's own interests as opposed to people voting with the interests of the country at heart. Black people vote for a black candidate, for instance. Evangelicals vote for an evangelical. Policy becomes less and less of an issue.

These fairly independent observations I've been making have been coupled by a book I recently read: Starship Troopers, the Heinlein novel, not the crummy movie series. Aside from being an interesting read, it contains ideas about government which I found interesting. I'll have to summarize for now, because I need to leave for school soon, but basically the idea is that ANYONE can vote... as long as they have spend two years in the armed services.

This is bound to be a controversial idea, but I think it's pretty well-founded. Here's the reasoning: Anyone who is willing to put their life between a society and its enemies is clearly willing to put that society above their own interests.

This is not limited democracy where the right to vote is based on intelligence. It is limited democracy where the right to vote is based on a person's sense of social responsibility.

And theoretically, once you join the military, it's very easy to drop out without fuss if you find it too physically or mentally challenging. This weeds out those who figured they'd just join up to get their right the vote and sail smoothly through their two years.

Further, the right to vote is the ONLY right afforded to veterans that's not afforded to other people. Everyone else has all the same rights, but sovereignty lies solely in the hands of the people who have shown they value it, because these people have demonstrated through their service that they can and will put the larger group before themselves.

Of course, no system is perfect, and this one has its flaws, but it makes more sense to me than the current one. People just take the right to vote as a given, and do nothing to earn it. As such, they take it for granted. When the people are sovereign, the fact that the people take their sovereignty for granted is dangerous.

And a key note: active duty military personnel can't vote. Only after they have completed their time of service are they allowed to do so. This means that sovereignty is not with the military.

[got tonkaed]

i guess although i understand some of the attractive elements of a system where responsible voters are the only voters, i shirk away from systems that take away the right to vote. Though of course any group of people could be the ones who are given that right to vote in the system for a variety of reasons, a service based one isnt the worst one.

However, when i think about all of the organizing power denying the right to vote gives to people i tend to wonder if taking it away from people who already have it would be a good idea in any circumstance. Certainly at first there probably would be some kind of phasing out process and apathetic people probably wouldnt mind. But after a while, when things dont get better, people get upset, and then you have a situation where a whole lot of people feel like someone else has put them in the place they are in.

Also i dont think theorectically people voting for identification reasons is a bad thing given that we have something of a representative system as is.

[F1fth]

Firstly, how dare you insult the Starship Troopers movies? Well, ok, I'll admit the second one sucked... but I liked the first one!

And secondly and more seriously, instead of calling the U.S. a limited Democracy, the proper term is republic. We are not a democracy in any way and never have been. In the constitution, it says we are a republic. In the Pledge of Allegiance, it says we are a republic.

And the fact of the matter is, we do not directly vote on anything in this country. We elect representatives who make the decisions for us. For example, in the presidential race, we elect representatives (district), who elect more representatives (county), who elect even more representatives (state), who send delegates to the national convention, who vote of which candidate to NOMINATE. Then, in the actual race, we elect more representatives (electoral college) to actually vote on the two choices we have, no matter how little both are liked.

How much more indirect can this process be?

Secondly, 70% of U.S. citizens think we shouldn't be in Iraq. As you know, we are clearly are. Does the sound like the people have the power? No, we just elect senators who have six years to run the country as they deem fit, or (indirectly) elect the president for four years. We can't stop them if we don't like what they are doing. We can only wait until their term is up and not vote for them again.

The people do not have the power. The people do not run the country. This is not a democracy, and never has been. Please stop calling it that.

Sorry about that, but I've been wanting to say something of this sort for a while now.

[heavycola]

F1fth - how would a true democracy work? By calling a referendum on every single issue? What we have is not perfect, but it's practical. Four years in the US or five in the UK - we DO have the opportunity to change our local representatives, our national leader and our mayor (i live in london) if we want. But you have to put some faith in the national or local consensus to elect politicians with the most popular programme of policies.


Ambrose:
Interesting argument.
But:
Can you really describe black people voting for obama, or women voting for hillary, as selfish? If you were black, and you felt obama was going to better represent a group that you belong to, why wouldn't you vote that way? I think you are implying motives that might not exist to great swathes of people.
National service: is the army the best place to adopt a balanced world view? Won't restricting voting to veterans skew policy towards the military anyway? Does the army really churn out socially responsible citizens? Should pacifists be denied the vote because they don't hold the correct opinions? I am not a pacifist, but there is no way in hell i would join the army in peacetime because I am not a patriot. I do, however, have a strong vested interest in shaping my country's direction for the good of me, my fellow brits and the world at large. Am I a selfish voter? Socially irresponsible? Should i be disenfranchised because of my political opinions?

Sorry, i just asked a load of questions But i think your plan is dangerous. Our countries' societies are made up of wonderfully broad spectra of people and it is a basic tenet of our political systems that they are ALL represented. I DO think that political apathy is perverse and pathetic, but, hey, it's still a free country. A restriction of the right to vote - of ANY sort - is a curtailment of that freedom.

[Frigidus]

At the request of radiojake:

Not much you can do about it. Well, I guess there are two options:

1) Limited democracy, or
2) Make everyone think

#2 is never going to happen. Personally, I'm starting to become a fan of the concept of limited democracy, but that's another thread...

Limited democracy? Can't say I've heard of that concept. Care to explain? Start another thread if you wish, to stop the thread jack cries

To explain fairly briefly, limited democracy is a system of "democracy" under which only certain people can vote. The United States was, at one point, a limited Democracy; the right to vote was limited to people of a certain race and gender. We are still a limited Democracy, although less so- now the only real restriction is age.

Now, when I said I'm warming up to limited Democracy, I'm not saying I want to return to the old ways of suffrage based on race, gender, etc. I think that everyone should have to right to earn their right to vote. My thoughts on this have been inspired by a few factors.

First, I've been studying recent elections in my history class, and I've been following this one very carefully. More and more I'm starting to see people vote for someone based on race, gender, or something similar that they can identify with. Selfish voting, I guess you could call it. Voting based on people's own interests as opposed to people voting with the interests of the country at heart. Black people vote for a black candidate, for instance. Evangelicals vote for an evangelical. Policy becomes less and less of an issue.

These fairly independent observations I've been making have been coupled by a book I recently read: Starship Troopers, the Heinlein novel, not the crummy movie series. Aside from being an interesting read, it contains ideas about government which I found interesting. I'll have to summarize for now, because I need to leave for school soon, but basically the idea is that ANYONE can vote... as long as they have spend two years in the armed services.

This is bound to be a controversial idea, but I think it's pretty well-founded. Here's the reasoning: Anyone who is willing to put their life between a society and its enemies is clearly willing to put that society above their own interests.

This is not limited democracy where the right to vote is based on intelligence. It is limited democracy where the right to vote is based on a person's sense of social responsibility.

And theoretically, once you join the military, it's very easy to drop out without fuss if you find it too physically or mentally challenging. This weeds out those who figured they'd just join up to get their right the vote and sail smoothly through their two years.

Further, the right to vote is the ONLY right afforded to veterans that's not afforded to other people. Everyone else has all the same rights, but sovereignty lies solely in the hands of the people who have shown they value it, because these people have demonstrated through their service that they can and will put the larger group before themselves.

Of course, no system is perfect, and this one has its flaws, but it makes more sense to me than the current one. People just take the right to vote as a given, and do nothing to earn it. As such, they take it for granted. When the people are sovereign, the fact that the people take their sovereignty for granted is dangerous.

And a key note: active duty military personnel can't vote. Only after they have completed their time of service are they allowed to do so. This means that sovereignty is not with the military.

Military service? But what about pacifists? I, personally, never want to kill another living creature. This sort of thing might work (heck, does work) in a place like Israel, but that's only because they constantly face the threat of invasion. Can we honestly say that fighting in Iraq is in the best interests of our country? It hurt our economy and world standing, took away the majority of the country's faith in our leaders, and continues to bring death to Americans. This would only work if our country's wars were just. You'd think that wouldn't be too tough to pull off, but reality says otherwise.

Plus, this still wouldn't stop the veterans from frittering away their votes. We'd just see more war heroes and generals getting elected. I've spent a lot of time trying to think of a way to weed out the remedial portion of the population that you mentioned earlier, and I'm stumped. The best I've come up with is "Name (some number) things that you like about this candidate's policy", but that doesn't ensure those are the actual reasons that they are voting for that person. The only conclusion that I can come to is that democracy, like all other systems of government, is flawed. You just can't get around the fact that a lot people will vote who really shouldn't.

Hm...maybe we could start a movement, something along the opposite lines of that "Vote or Die" thing. "Please Don't Vote Unless you Actually have a Reasonable Grasp on our National and Foreign Policy".

[MeDeFe]

Military service does not necessarily indicate a person's willingness to die for his or her country. In many countries, military service is simply "what you have to do", I read an article about civilian service in Russia, apparently the military there has come to be seen as the institution that makes "men of boys". Apart from the obstacles people who want to do civil service instead are facing the social pressure is huge.
In Finland it's similar, though there's no political pressure, the vast majority chooses military over civilian service. For me it was a pragmatic choice, 6 months military service at best, most probably no more than 9, or a year of civil service and I can't be 100% sure of where I end up doing it. I was a pacifist before the army and even more so afterwards, I still went there.
I know you currently don't have to chose between civil or military service in the US, but what you are proposing amounts to an even more drastic choice, you're either kept out of the all political processes or you have to do military service. And in my experience the army is not a place that churns out freely and critically thinking individuals.
My point is that simply serving in the army is not at all a reliable indicator for how much a person "loves" the society in his country, nor for this person's willingness to risk his life in order to defend it. You're presented with a choice and you weigh the consequences against each other. At the moment the choice in the USA is serving in the army or not. There it really can be an indicator of how patriotic a person is, but add negative consequences to the "not" and the indicator fails, completely.

I already indicated this and Frigidus also mentioned it in his post, even if you somehow manage to make sure that only the patriots who want the best for their country are allowed to vote, this does not mean that they will vote for what is the best course. As I said, the army is not a place that encourages creativity and critical thinking, it's a highly hierarchic structure that relies on lower ranking people's willingness to obey orders. If a platoon is told to "go in there and secure that hill" they're not supposed to have a discussion about the pros and cons, the chance of success, any alternative strategies that might be better and about the moral issues of killing other people. They're supposed to obey the order or die trying until told differently. I'm not saying that people who have served in the military cannot be intelligent and critical thinkers as well, I'm saying that the army is not the place for honing those skills. And when it comes to being able to tell which one of any dozen of policies is preferable those skills will beat the wish to vote for the best one every time.


Tell me, why not go the opposite way and only let the "thinkers" vote? Say, everyone who's at least been to college at some point, maybe 3 or 4 semesters or so and can show that they didn't spend the whole time partying but also attended courses and wrote some papers. Of course, if your system of Bachelors and Masters is anything like what it's here, even a B.A. in philosophy is no guarantee of a person's ability to think critically, I fear international standards might turn out to be the doom of the intellectual, but that's just by the by. Of course, this would require state-sponsored colleges and no or at least very low tuition fees, or it would turn into an oligarchy, the rich rule because only they can afford to get their children educated and able to vote.

[Colossus]

To me, the ideas that OnlyAmbrose has proposed suggest an inherent lack of appreciation for the foundations of American society (sorry Ambrose). The beauty of our society is that we have the freedom to do as we choose. Inherent in the idea that one subset of people knows what is best is the implication that some people are incapable of making their own choices. That is the opposite of freedom and liberty and smacks very much of an elitist viewpoint.

I don't think that a person who votes for the government representative that they believe will do them the most good is being selfish, I think they are voting exactly the way that they should be expected to vote. American society is not built around an us-first mentality. The good of the nation does not come before the good or the rights of the individual. It never has, and it shouldn't. In an ideal world, it would be great if everybody thought of everybody else, but that's contrary to the nature of things.

Our governmental system was set up to be of, by, and for the people, not just certain people, but all people. In the US, our inherent rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are honored and protected. Installation of any system where one subset of people has more say than any other subset of people over how our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are regulated is to make the system no longer a system of equality. Over the course of the last 200 years, our country has been struggling to find a government that really represents the noble ideas put forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The struggle for women's suffrage and for civil rights were a battle for equal representation.

Now, just was we are on the brink of possibly seeing the first non-white male face in the highest office of our land, you want to change the system to eliminate that progress? You want to replace the current system, which has more equality built in than ever before, to a system that once again puts extreme restrictions on who gets to rule? I don't care what criteria anyone suggests; limitations on who gets to vote are directly contrary to the foundations of American society.

It seems to me that anyone who thinks that certain folks shouldn't be allowed to vote because they aren't voting for the right reasons has an over-inflated opinion of his own judgment. Who are you to say that someone else's motives for voting the way that they do are wrong?

[Neoteny]

I think you guys have all caught word vomit from me. Take six shots of vodka and call me in the morning...

[muy_thaiguy]

In short Ambrose, such a system (even though we are a Constitutional Rpublic and it really wouldn't work in that aspect to begin with) would be undoing what others tried to make a reality. Especially Andrew Jackson. He was able to get the every day man the ability to vote, and not just restricted to those who owned property.

[Snorri1234]

Sorry, i just asked a load of questions But i think your plan is dangerous. Our countries' societies are made up of wonderfully broad spectra of people and it is a basic tenet of our political systems that they are ALL represented. I DO think that political apathy is perverse and pathetic, but, hey, it's still a free country. A restriction of the right to vote - of ANY sort - is a curtailment of that freedom.

I agree. The plan sounds good in a way because stupid decisions are made less, but it takes away a whole lot of what this country (and every free country) is about.

[suggs]

Ambrose, there is a taxi here waiting for you.
Its heading for Berlin, 1933 i believe.
Hop in-you'll fit right in.

YOU FOOL_LIMITED DEMOCRACY IS FASCISM.


Get a grip.

[CoffeeCream]

We are still a limited Democracy, although less so- now the only real restriction is age.

Aren't certain level of criminals also prohibited from voting? What about people with mental illnesses?

[suggs]

Its one of the dumbest ideas ever to have been proposed in these forums.
Come back Tobasco, all is forgiven.

What Ambrose is suggesting is just an inversion of 2000 years of history, nothing more, nothing less.
Christ, even the Greeks with their ludicroussly unfair, restrictive so called "democracy" had a better clue than Ambrose.

[nmhunate]

Well, I really have no problem with what the original poster said in theory... The Idea that people are being elected by dumb asses is correct. I imagine that there people whose only issue is to have the 10 commandments in courthouses. These people who do not care about any other thing than the 10 commandments

They vote for people who could be fascist or communist or who want to overthrow the rule of law, as long as they put the 10 commandments into courthouses. I do not think that it is good for the republic to let people whose only issue is to have the 10 commandments in courthouses. or any other silly reason that people go out to vote. Silly trivial reasons.

Oh and giving the vote just to veterans is just a plain silly idea. Sure they served the community and the nation, but that doesnt make them any smarter.

Maybe only giving suffrage to those with a 4 year degree or to those who can show applied knowledge of the electoral process should get to vote.

[suggs]

NO! Democracy is NOTHING to do with how "smart" people are-who said the smart people always make the right decision.
If you want a democracy, then you give the people what the people want-and if thats more MacDonalds and Disneyland then so be it. Of course, most people ARE smarter than given credit for-look at the abject failure of extreme right wing parties across the world since post 1945.

Trust the man in the street-he's got us where we are today, and in the UK and the USA at least, it aint such a bad place to be.

[nmhunate]

Of course people are smarter then they look... however it is just plain silly to let the guy who only wants mcdonalds resturants to be allowed to vote. this guy will vote for someone and corrupt the democratic process just because the guy running for office promises more mcdonalds. Like I said what if that guy is a facist? but the guys that want more mcdonalds, vote in a facist because he promises more mcdonalds.

[nmhunate]

And another example is in the middle east... the countries there are being run pretty well under benevolent dicatorships, and limited democracy. Witness palastine, when offered democracy, the first thing that they did was elect into power Hebozla... A terrorist orgnization. What do you think is going to happen in Iraq when the colliation of the winning pulls out with a democracy in place? I would imagine that they would elect someone would would ecact shira Law... when for the last 30 years Iraq was one of the most secular state in the middle east.

There are good arguments for limited democracy

[got tonkaed]

for what its worth....arguments about giving voting out based on intelligence measured by academic achievement are some of the least palatable arguments you could make about anything to my tastes. And im usually pretty open to a number of ideas.

[Frigidus]

for what its worth....arguments about giving voting out based on intelligence measured by academic achievement are some of the least palatable arguments you could make about anything to my tastes. And im usually pretty open to a number of ideas.

Agreed. Money issues aside education doesn't "prove" that you're smart anyways. Besides, intelligence shouldn't be the issue. As I said, the only way I can see limited democracy working is if you asked someone to list a few things of substance about the candidate you're voting for. It weeds out the "he's a devout Christian" or "she's a woman" or "pork chop sandwiches, lol" crowd but still leaves everyone the possibility of voting (assuming they get their act together).

[muy_thaiguy]

for what its worth....arguments about giving voting out based on intelligence measured by academic achievement are some of the least palatable arguments you could make about anything to my tastes. And im usually pretty open to a number of ideas.

Money is not the only key issue when it comes to higher intelligence, but also what people study. For example, someone could be a Math Wiz, and know pretty much everything about math in general, but if asked a History question, they might come off as a complete dunce. Not saying it's true in all cases, but it does happen quite often.

[Hologram]

I rather like this idea. I'm 17 and have for the most part been a cynical pessimistic teenager. I've been rather disgusted at the way Americans have thrown away their vote nonchalantly, either out of complete apathy, or rigid, illogical loyalty to parties, no matter how those parties have changed their policies.

I have always wanted a kind of intelligence test, but that would hearken back to the days of poll taxes, grandfather clauses, and literacy tests, so I began to throw away that idea as I became more knowledgeable in the world.

With this idea, there's a possible enfranchisement to everyone, so everyone can vote, versus back in the civil rights or women suffrage where there was absolutely no chance for blacks and women to vote.

The only problem I have with it is the people who for whatever reason can't serve in the military (for instance, my father was not able to join the Air Force because of his psoriasis, a genetic disorder), so perhaps it could be any kind of service to the state for whatever time period.

Also, there the fact that the franchise has been extended so far that it would be political suicide to even hint at reeling in the franchise in any way.

[Grooveman2007]

And another example is in the middle east... the countries there are being run pretty well under benevolent dicatorships, and limited democracy. Witness palastine, when offered democracy, the first thing that they did was elect into power Hebozla... A terrorist orgnization. What do you think is going to happen in Iraq when the colliation of the winning pulls out with a democracy in place? I would imagine that they would elect someone would would ecact shira Law... when for the last 30 years Iraq was one of the most secular state in the middle east.

There are good arguments for limited democracy

The biggest reason that the middle east has very few democracies is culture. The people in the middle east have spent hundreds of years under shira law and totalitarian leaders, while the west has been bred for democracy for 2500 years. That's why imposing democracy on other cultures wont work.

[got tonkaed]

i guess in as far as people believe (and probably rightly so) that there should be something done about the voting population it would seem the answer must always be to do more to inform voters and bring new voters to the polls rather than anything to limit the numbers who are already there.

Even the best of solutions from the latter perspective seems misguided as it doesnt follow the rather simple notion above it.

[F1fth]

F1fth - how would a true democracy work? By calling a referendum on every single issue? What we have is not perfect, but it's practical. Four years in the US or five in the UK - we DO have the opportunity to change our local representatives, our national leader and our mayor (i live in london) if we want. But you have to put some faith in the national or local consensus to elect politicians with the most popular programme of policies.

Oh, don't get me wrong here. I have no problem with the system we have because, as you said, it's the most practical option we have. I was just making the point that the U.S. is not a democracy because the people do not rule. We elect representatives to rule, making us a republic. It's a big difference because one way, the people take responsibility for the actions of the country. The other way, the officials we elect do.

Maybe I'm arguing semantics, but meh. I don't think I am.

[Neoteny]

2500 years?