Should Democracy Be Modified?
Democracy was founded in Greece under the perspective that the government should be formed by the people, for the people. However, this title was originally limited to include only people with a certain class, economic, or social level. Through the last 2000 years, the system evolved considerably, and today, democracy is a political system in which decisions are taken by the public. In theory, this system works well. It is the people, and not the minority, that make decisions. However, recent presidential elections and political issues and governments around the world have opened the possibility of reflecting on the idea of whether this system actually works or not. Around the world, rulers that may not necessarily be the best rulers available are elected by the people due to issues that have little to do with their actual ability as rulers. They are elected more on the basis of physical appearance, and politically created images that lure in people who have little education or criteria for making a conscious choice.
There is a political theorem called "The Ship of Fools" that explains that, if a ship is navigated through the seas by a group of people who don't know how to navigate a ship, the vessel will crash and founder. However, if people who actually do know how to navigate are those opperating it, the ship will move adequately and survive.
The same applies to democracy. If everyone is allowed to vote then the government will elect a leader that may or many not be what that country needs at any given time. What mental or education capabilities does someone with little education have in order to make an adequate decision up to who will be the leader of a country? Why should the vote of an expert on politics have the same value as the vote on someone ignorant of the subject.
The issue here is: Should democracy be modified so that only a few people who fit certain profiles be allowed to vote?
Democracy Should be Modified
Side Score: 16
|
 |
Democracy Shouldn't Change
Side Score: 14
|
|
|
|
|
Our representative republic has already been changed for the worse. First everyone was allowed to vote, irregardless of their ability to make an informed decision. Second the US Senate was changed to be elected by popular vote, rather than state legislatures. These two changes have created the unbalance we see today. Our founders rightly knew that an informed electorate is essential to a successful democracy. Side: Democracy Should be Modified
Enfranchisement extended voting rights that had previously been denied on the basis of sex/gender, race, and social class; voting has never been extended on the basis of knowledge or intelligence in this country. Had the U.S. Senate continued to be appointed by state legislature rather than elected by the people through the electoral college, we would have what I consider to be one of the lesser attributes of some of our European counterparts. A system such as that effectively ensures an even greater dominance of partisan politics, particularly within a bipartisan system, and decentralizes power away from the people into a political elite. That mode of appointment was a remnant of the distrust the founding generation of politicians held towards the general populace. Many of the founders did not consider an informed electorate possible, rather holding the intelligence of the general population is poor regard. This is why we have an electoral college and representative republic, rather than an actual direct democracy. The ability of ignorant, intellectually inferior populations to influence government is one of the fundamental weaknesses of a democratic system of governance. The best counter-rationale being that the damage they cause will generally be less than that of a more authoritative governmental system. Side: Democracy Should be Modified
Voting has never been extended on the basis of knowledge or intelligence in this country Though it would have been more prudent than "just everyone" regardless of their preparedness, or lack if it. Had the U.S. Senate continued to be appointed by state legislature rather than elected by the people through the electoral college, we would have what I consider to be one of the lesser attributes of some of our European counterparts. A system such as that effectively ensures an even greater dominance of partisan politics, particularly within a bipartisan system, and decentralizes power away from the people into a political elite. That mode of appointment was a remnant of the distrust the founding generation of politicians held towards the general populace. Awareness of reality is a better term than distrust. The founders knew the same reality we know today, that tens of millions of citizens do NOT understand the issues during elections and consequently make uninformed choices. Many of the founders did not consider an informed electorate possible, rather holding the intelligence of the general population is poor regard. This is why we have an electoral college and representative republic, rather than an actual direct democracy. Again the founders understood reality. By expressing their perception as in some way being negative, suggests a missunderstanding of a less than flattering truth about people. The ability of ignorant, intellectually inferior populations to influence government is one of the fundamental weaknesses of a democratic system of governance. The best counter-rationale being that the damage they cause will generally be less than that of a more authoritative governmental system. I must disagree. The best counterbalance being to provide the benefits of freedom to all citizens by continuing the limited federal government needed to protect these freedoms. Side: Democracy Shouldn't Change
1
point
Except our founder's never set it up so that one was only allowed to vote if they were informed. They set it up so that one could not vote unless they were Caucasian, and owned land. One could be a woman, be incredibly informed, and not be allowed to vote, or be a racial minority, be well informed, and not allowed to vote. The only change was taking away the requirement of land ownership. As for changing the electoral methods of the U.S. senate, why do you believe that was a negative thing? Side: Democracy Shouldn't Change
1
point
For the empire! Plus, look at the Roman Empire and how it was held together from immediate collapse via the five good emperors. Side: Democracy Should be Modified
1
point
1
point
1
point
Yes, that is if not ditched entirely. Believing that (sometimes all) people are equally capable (and willing to) make informed, intelligent decisions with the best interests of the country at heart, is hopelessly optimistic at best, and recklessly foolish at worst. Side: Democracy Should be Modified
|
There will likely always be a majority populace that is easily confounded, controlled, and generally ignorant. Similarly, there will likely always be a minority populace that manipulates those attributes and these constitute the governing body (through government or its affiliated agencies). Benevolence is not an especially prevalent attribute among that minority, nor does inheritance of power equate an aptitude for wielding it well regardless of intent. The guise of democracy is one of equality and empowerment, but that is neither its reality nor its true virtue. Democracies retain the political elite associated with more authoritarian systems (e.g. Bush, Clinton, etc.), while permitting the ascension of newer persons who prove themselves especially adept in political power ascension (e.g. Obama). Democracies are also more responsive to those shifts in majority culture and perspective that cannot be controlled for under any system, with a lack of responsiveness resulting in unrest and open revolt. Democracies also ensure that while power remains concentrated among a relatively small part of the population, there is still a rotation of power among parties that can occur with considerably unrest than in more authoritative models. This prevents stagnant leadership, or inept leadership established simply on the basis of familial inheritance within one family. Restricting enfranchisement on the basis of qualifying criteria is an impractical and unnecessary effort to modify democracy. There is no reliable standard for determining who qualifies and who does not, virtually every form of assessment we have developed has been discredited, and the process would be easily manipulated to serve the interests of established powers to prevent the very responsiveness and turn-over that are the strengths of a democratic system. Side: Democracy Shouldn't Change
1
point
Should democracy be modified so that only a few people who fit certain profiles be allowed to vote? In theory this seems reasonable. What value does an uninformed mob add to any national discourse? The problem though is how it would work in practice? Who decides what makes a person eligible to vote? Who would look out for the interests of disenfranchised? How would the disenfranchised react? (I know how I would react). Until I hear of a solution to these issues I would not support such a change. Side: Democracy Shouldn't Change
1
point
I definitely and wholeheartedly agree!! And how could this "modification" even begin? There are certainly no legal grounds with which to catalyst such a change. And I am sure that this country would never pass legislation which discriminates against certain groups, ethnicities, or profiles in respect to voting (except Alabama, which just passed a bill which discriminated against same-sex couples. Obviously, they would no doubt pass another bill illegalizing voting for gay people if they could get away with it.) Side: Democracy Shouldn't Change
|
