|
This forum: Pool our thoughts (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| est |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
The easiest example I can think of is the following:
If I have ZERO knowledge about economics and I am given the choice of choosing between the following three choices to spur the economy:
a) "lower corporate taxes"
b) "lower personal income tax"
c) "lower sales tax"
How do I choose? If I have no idea of the implications or the logic behind any of them then I might as well roll a die or flip some coins.
That's democracy in its current form to me.
At the end of the day, *I* don't want to flip coins. I don't want my neighbours to flip coins. I think asking people to take tests (figuring out how to make those tests useful and reasonable is a secondary issue) to demonstrate that their choice is based on an knowledge seems reasonable to me. |
Yes, but the whole point in a democracy is fairness, where everybody gets a say in who should be running the country for them. I agree with the principle that it's good for people to a knowledge background to a decision. But to stipulate that one person's vote is more valuable than another's is incredibly elitist and smacks of a Police State.
Even after the problems of designing a valid test had been overcome, I would predict a mass manifesto ignorance of those groups of people that are less likely to do well in the test, such as those with learning difficulties, those educated at poorly performing schools, and those with lower socio-economic status.
Although the underlying idea of this system is good, it wouldn't work in reality because it would defeat the purpose in a democracy. |
|
|
| Aquarian |
| quote: | | Originally posted by est Voters have their reasons for their decisions, and it's not really up to anybody else to say their opinion isn't valid. |
As it is, no, but why shouldn't it be? The whole idea of 'all opinions are equal' is great to get little kids in the schoolyard to get along, but it holds no reality. The fact is, when two opinions differ, they cannot be equal. One of them is always more truthful or more intelligent than the other. If you keep considering the inferior opinions, then you don't get anywhere, and that's the problem with democracy. There's no need to turn it into a police state. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but only the best ones are considered.
| quote: |
Similar thougts on the knowledge test idea. Those who are likely to do badly in the test (e.g. those with learning difficulties) would get increasingly ignored and manifesto attention would bias towards those groups of people stereotyped to do well in the test. So, altogether, this kind of a system might worsen an already biased system. |
Their opinions would get ignored - and that's the idea. However there would be no division of classes as everyone would be affected by the same decisions. |
|
|
| est |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aquarian
As it is, no, but why shouldn't it be? The whole idea of 'all opinions are equal' is great to get little kids in the schoolyard to get along, but it holds no reality. The fact is, when two opinions differ, they cannot be equal. One of them is always more truthful or more intelligent than the other. If you keep considering the inferior opinions, then you don't get anywhere, and that's the problem with democracy. There's no need to turn it into a police state. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but only the best ones are considered. |
Right, so instead of a majority rule democracy, you're for an intelligence rule. Like I said, I can see the logic behind this, but I think in practise there would be a lot of difficulties. It would make people whos vote is deemed less important angry as their contribution to society would become an objective. Even if that's a good thing in principle, it's not very nice for the other person. Surely one thing worse than an uneducated population is uneducated vigilantes :toothless (jk)
| quote: | | Their opinions would get ignored - and that's the idea. However there would be no division of classes as everyone would be affected by the same decisions. |
OK - look at the UK election campaign just gone. The campaign, as usual, focussed on those groups most likely to vote, with youth culture, for example, being virtually ignored as only a minority of those people are voters. Politicians aren't interested in the population - they're interested in the VOTING population. A system that gives chosen people more whack in the election would surely worsen this. |
|
|
| Aquarian |
| quote: | Originally posted by est
Right, so instead of a majority rule democracy, you're for an intelligence rule. Like I said, I can see the logic behind this, but I think in practise there would be a lot of difficulties. It would make people whos vote is deemed less important angry as their contribution to society would become an objective. Even if that's a good thing in principle, it's not very nice for the other person. Surely one thing worse than an uneducated population is uneducated vigilantes :toothless (jk) |
I can see why you think it might devellop into somesort of class system, which is why I think that, like communism, this a good system on paper, but due to human nature it would be near impossible to implement.
I got the basic idea from something we already do on a smaller scale. Consider that you're amongst a small group of people. One of them is an old grandmother who believes in old wives' tales, one of them is a religious fanatic, and another is a doctor.
You're experiencing back pain. The current democratic system could be compared to you asking everyone about it, and considering all their opinions equally. The old woman tells you something completely absurd and unrelated like "your back hurts because you drink too much milk". The religious fanatic will tell you your back hurts because you need to accept christ as your personal savior and let the power of god heal you. The doctor tells you your back hurts because you have a strained muscle. Who are you going to believe?
The point is: When your back hurts, you go see a doctor because he's a specialist. The other people can think whatever they want - they're entitled to their opinions. But there's no reason why they should have a say in this matter.
It's a form of descrimination, but one with positive effects.
| quote: |
OK - look at the UK election campaign just gone. The campaign, as usual, focussed on those groups most likely to vote, with youth culture, for example, being virtually ignored as only a minority of those people are voters. Politicians aren't interested in the population - they're interested in the VOTING population. A system that gives chosen people more whack in the election would surely worsen this. |
Not nessessarily, because then the people who do vote and the people who get elected would probably have similar opinions and perspectives. For the most part, the people who'd get ignored are those who didn't pass the voting test - and those are the opinions that the system was meant to disregard anyways. But I do see your point. |
|
|
| est |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aquarian
I can see why you think it might devellop into somesort of class system, which is why I think that, like communism, this a good system on paper, but due to human nature it would be near impossible to implement.
I got the basic idea from something we already do on a smaller scale. Consider that you're amongst a small group of people. One of them is an old grandmother who believes in old wives' tales, one of them is a religious fanatic, and another is a doctor.
You're experiencing back pain. The current democratic system could be compared to you asking everyone about it, and considering all their opinions equally. The old woman tells you something completely absurd and unrelated like "your back hurts because you drink too much milk". The religious fanatic will tell you your back hurts because you need to accept christ as your personal savior and let the power of god heal you. The doctor tells you your back hurts because you have a strained muscle. Who are you going to believe?
The point is: When your back hurts, you go see a doctor because he's a specialist. The other people can think whatever they want - they're entitled to their opinions. But there's no reason why they should have a say in this matter.
It's a form of descrimination, but one with positive effects. |
Yes, this makes sense to me. But if people are so worried about uneducated people voting, then instead of denying them their vote which would result in upset and confusion over how much and what a person must know, why don't we just tackle the problem at its root and provide a better education?
Or, even if that were acheived, would you still argue that the most intelligent should still be creamed off? i.e. no matter how much education improves, those of a lower than average level just shouldn't get a say?
| quote: | | Not nessessarily, because then the people who do vote and the people who get elected would probably have similar opinions and perspectives. For the most part, the people who'd get ignored are those who didn't pass the voting test - and those are the opinions that the system was meant to disregard anyways. But I do see your point. |
But it's not just their opinions that would get ignored, but their existence as members of society would begin to fade away to the forgotten. When deciding what to advertise for an election campaign, parties would ignore the needs of these people - after all their vote doesn't matter, so considering their needs wouldn't make them any more likely to win votes, would it?
Regardless of whether they should have a say or not, these people still have needs. Becuase votes are so crucial to politicians, I'm worried that by lowering these peoples' status as voters, they would be quickly be forgotten by our countries' leaders. |
|
|
| Aquarian |
| quote: | Originally posted by est
Yes, this makes sense to me. But if people are so worried about uneducated people voting, then instead of denying them their vote which would result in upset and confusion over how much and what a person must know, why don't we just tackle the problem at its root and provide a better education? |
Well firstly because it's not just a problem of education. But even if it were, how would you force everyone to suddenly take interrest? Make it mandatory in high school perhaps? Doesn't that simply achieve the exact same thing as the test itself? After all, if people want to get educated, what's to stop them from taking external courses?
| quote: |
Or, even if that were acheived, would you still argue that the most intelligent should still be creamed off? i.e. no matter how much education improves, those of a lower than average level just shouldn't get a say? |
Well education doesn't have anything to do with intelligence. Education is nessessary to make the decision, but the idea is that the most intelligent make the decisions, not just the most educated. Trust me, I've known people who were extremely knowledgable about a great number of things, and at the same time they were some of the biggest idiot's i'd ever known.
| quote: |
But it's not just their opinions that would get ignored, but their existence as members of society would begin to fade away to the forgotten. When deciding what to advertise for an election campaign, parties would ignore the needs of these people - after all their vote doesn't matter, so considering their needs wouldn't make them any more likely to win votes, would it?
Regardless of whether they should have a say or not, these people still have needs. Becuase votes are so crucial to politicians, I'm worried that by lowering these peoples' status as voters, they would be quickly be forgotten by our countries' leaders. |
How do their needs differ from the rest? In the end, everyone has the same fundamental needs. What differs are opinions and beliefs. |
|
|
| Subey |
The only thing I would add to Aquarian's arguments with Est would be the following.
The system in its current form doesn't seem to be interested in having an electorate that is very aware. I have no interest in marginalizing the poor or in taking power away from them.
Suppose the following was implemented. What if there was an inverse financial incentive for the poor to pass these tests. Ex. implementation based on income.
1) lowest quartile: $50 for passing the test
2) second lowest quartile: $30 for passing the test
3) second highest: $20
4) highest: zero
I illustrate this example for 2 reasons.
1) If humans can put a person on the moon, then we can probably think up a way that improves the political IQ of everyone.
2) $50 for passing a test isn't enough to change someone's life but its still $50 bucks and having 20 million poor people who have taken a test and are now more keen/knowledgable about politics is more likely to turn them into an active political force that politicians have to address, so it should benefit them from all angles.
**
And add it to High School |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| Anyone who actually believes intelligence makes you more politically savy should observe the radical beliefs of US academia. |
|
|
| Spin Doctor |
Nice ideas. However 1 wouldn’t work - you’d need some sort of executive department which controlled budget to each of these departments, plus to settle inevitable disputes over spheres of influence, what would happen if the actions of one department directly influenced another without their consent? If they are different parties, there will be problems. Then it would just boil down to a vote over this executive branch.
2 has been done before in this country, university graduates used to get two votes. It wasn’t right then, and it still isn’t. We need to try an make peoples votes more equal, not more unequal. |
|
|
| kush paintings |
| Testing wouldn't be fair. Although I like the idea, you have to realize no test can provide an unbiased assesment of intelligence. This problem has been proven with the ACT and SATs in America, and of course would be present in a test to determine how informed you are. How do you score certain topics? What questions to include? What if you weighed Healthcare more importantly than Education not intentionally, but because you included more questions that tested Healthcare knowledge. Also, as is brought up time and time again, what is true to one party is false to another. So then what is a correct answer. Even statistics seem to never hold universal truth, at least in the mind of some political party members. Therefore, while I believe that the public needs an incentive to educate themselves, testing would not be a good method. |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spin Doctor
[COLOR=#999999]Nice ideas. However 1 wouldn’t work - you’d need some sort of executive department which controlled budget to each of these departments, plus to settle inevitable disputes over spheres of influence, what would happen if the actions of one department directly influenced another without their consent? If they are different parties, there will be problems. Then it would just boil down to a vote over this executive branch.
|
1) You've clearly identified the issue of conflict resolution in a chimeric government. I agree with you.
2) An executive branch is a logical body to resolve those issues. I agree with you.
Assuming an elected executive branch that resolves issues only in its parties favour would that happen often enough to nullify the advantages of this form of government?
What percentage of the education branches policies would realistically be involved in such conflicts? 5% 10%? 20%?
But more importantly than a raw % question, how much control would you have over the CORE of your branch? If the people elected have control over the CORE then I think it would still work really well.
**
Here's what I would also add. During the initial formation of the branches areas of overlap would be placed specifically under one branch or another in advance to avoid conflict.
ex. is sex ed an education issue or a health one?
Also, whenever a conflict arrises over jurisdiction then a precedent would be set, so that it wouldn't neccesarily be a partisan decision who wins since the next election you may lose control over a specific branch.
ex. the issue of physical activity in school arises. Health wants to have control over it. Education wants to have control over it. The executive makes a decision, and the precedent is set. So the next time this issue arises there is less of a need to arbitrate the issue. |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by kush paintings
Therefore, while I believe that the public needs an incentive to educate themselves, testing would not be a good method. |
Suggestions :D?
I think the testing can still work if the purpose of the testing is to teach concepts and not biases.
If you teach the difference between economic approach X, and economic approach Y without worrying too much about which is better then the quality of the national debate will increase, because the politicians will do the job of arguing which is better.
I ain't no economist. But I could certainly teach someone the difference between Conflict Theory and Functionalism in 10 minutes in Sociological theory without introducing any bias about which I thought was better. |
|
|
|
|
