Frankly, I don't think the general public should govern itself. (America, myth)

[Neo-Logic]

Originally Posted by mball1297

I agree that it is one of the better systems that has been tried. That doesn't mean it's the best that we can do, though.

You my friend, are having the perfectionist fallacy - that if something doesn't perfectly solve all problems, that it is not a sensible solution.

Keep in mind the say "don't let GREAT be the enemy of GOOD"

[doppelgänger]

Is it actually "democracy" if the voting public is uninformed or misinformed?

[Neo-Logic]

Originally Posted by mball1297

You have a point. Although, we hadn't actually mentioned this country...yet.

Jerry, my main reason for saying that the public should not govern itself is that the majority of them are either not intelligent enough, or lack other qualities, like benevolence for their fellow person leadership, common sense, or probably others that I'm forgetting.

The argument that intelligence is show how a pre-requisite for ones ability to vote is flawed. If we start placing barriers on voting based on intelligence, who would make that split? A smart person? As we often know, the smartest people aren't exactly the best leaders, most qualified, or most intuitive. What who would define "smart enough" to be able to vote? The smart people - that is circular logic.

[Alceste]

Originally Posted by mball1297

I made this comment in another thread, and it was suggested that I should start another thread with it, so here it is. Any thoughts?

I think democracy works pretty well in Europe. I suspect Europeans share a few key qualities of effective democracy, such as a commitment to education and a tradition of critical thinking. It helps that people are engaged in the process - willing to fight for good governance between elections or take to the streets en masse to voice their disapproval of unpopular decisions or policies. They also have smaller countries with dense populations and limited resources. They have had to balance these factors effectively for longer than "New World" countries have existed.

In short, if countries were people, France, Germany, Switzerland etc. would be worldly, cautious and responsible adults, whereas the US, Canada and Australia would be rash, idealistic teenagers. :P

[Magic Man]

Originally Posted by Alceste

I think democracy works pretty well in Europe. I suspect Europeans share a few key qualities of effective democracy, such as a commitment to education and a tradition of critical thinking. It helps that people are engaged in the process - willing to fight for good governance between elections or take to the streets en masse to voice their disapproval of unpopular decisions or policies. They also have smaller countries with dense populations and limited resources. They have had to balance these factors effectively for longer than "New World" countries have existed.

In short, if countries were people, France, Germany, Switzerland etc. would be worldly, cautious and responsible adults, whereas the US, Canada and Australia would be rash, idealistic teenagers. :P

Democracy changes from one culture to the next. If it really is run by the people, then when the people are different the government's going to be different.

I don't ascribe to any one label. There are elements of pretty much any philosophy that are worth trying.

[Neo-Logic]

My posts, I believe, will answer your many questions.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Neo-Logic

The argument that intelligence is show how a pre-requisite for ones ability to vote is flawed. If we start placing barriers on voting based on intelligence, who would make that split? A smart person? As we often know, the smartest people aren't exactly the best leaders, most qualified, or most intuitive. What who would define "smart enough" to be able to vote? The smart people - that is circular logic.

Intelligence and "uninformed or misinformed" are two very different matters.

[Magic Man]

Originally Posted by Neo-Logic

The argument that intelligence is show how a pre-requisite for ones ability to vote is flawed. If we start placing barriers on voting based on intelligence, who would make that split? A smart person? As we often know, the smartest people aren't exactly the best leaders, most qualified, or most intuitive. What who would define "smart enough" to be able to vote? The smart people - that is circular logic.

Do you think that everyone, or even most people, would make a good president?

[Alceste]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Intelligence and "uninformed or misinformed" are two very different matters.

At the very least aspiring leaders should be required to pass some kind of exam that assesses whether are not they are competent and informed enough to lead.

What other administrative position can you get where your basic comprehension of the issues related to the job aren't tested? :P

[Neo-Logic]

All right - I gotta say. This assumption that our presidents are now inherently stupid or less intelligent than us is very condescending and rather stupid. Even our stupidest presidents are smarter than most of the people - although Bush may have changed that idea for many Americans.

Presidents do past many tests - none of which is or should be a written exam. Majority are ivy school or college graduates. Majority of our presidential candidates and presidents are experienced in foreign affairs and real life situations outside of knowledge itself.

The idea that "informed" or "uninformed" people should be defined and separated to allow for different voting weights is barbaric. If we based voting on intelligence or informed-ness, we would set a dangerous precedence when our current legal system already works better than every other that's been tested on this scale.

I don't even believe these questions are being asked with sincerity.