OT - is Democracy the right way to go?

I know giving everyone a right to vote is "morally" the right thing, but should people who have low intelligence really be trusted with decisions that can fundamentally make or break an entire nation?

Should we move to an Epistocratic method? Essentially, exactly the same set up we have now (elected MPs, etc) but the electorate would consist of people that actually have the required intellectual levels needed to make a reasoned decision...I'm not saying only university educated folk get to vote either, before anyone jumps on the elitist bandwagon.

At the moment our current political system has been smashed to bits due to the fact that our elected representatives are too scared to act in a reasoned manner, because they don't want to go against the wishes of their constituents, most of who (let's be honest) are utterly clueless as to what leaving the EU actually means...

If I went for an engineers job at the European Space Agency they'd refuse my application on the grounds that I'm not smart enough for that role, and I'd be fine with that. Same rationale applies to Epistocracy, if you're not smart enough to make a sensible choice then you're not allowed to.

I know this will ruffle a few feathers, but I think it's a genuine alternative option to what we have now...

I walk across Peel square everyday and it breaks my heart to see the state of the people on there and then realise they are allowed to influence the direction my country is going.

 

I read a fascinating article by an Iranian journalist, who postulated that democracy in a developing country is essentially useless, as poorly educated people usually vote for an authoritarian government, who will then get rid of democratic freedoms.

 

So i guess we need people to sit an "election" exam? What type of subject matter should this include?
Bit of an Aryan way of looking at things.

 

Interesting concept and I get where you're coming from, however, the fundamental flaw is that those in government would define the criteria for deciding who gets to vote and they would be able to manipulate the result in their favour. Imperfect as it is, democracy has to be the way, but to make it work properly we need more information to be disseminated to the masses in a way that people can understand.

We also need to get rid of the people who run newspapers/web sites like The Daily Mail.....

 

How is it an Aryan way of looking at things? I'm not saying anything about race, religion or physical capacity.

Going back my Space Agency analogy, I understand the basics of how to get a rocket into space but could I actually build a rocket that is able to get 7 people into space without killing them? No, so I'm not allowed to.

 

That would be a no from me because your describing the politics of the last 30 years as the way forward ( neo liberalism or third way politics) . That we have left political decisions to supposed intellectuals has left us in the state we are . High debt levels , lack of homes , run down infastructure etc etc . If it's any consolation this is not just a UK problem , it's a European problem too .

 

But wouldn't a more competent electorate demand more competent politicians?

 

Fair play for making a brave point. I honestly don't believe there is a perfect political system that's immune to manipulation by the unscrupulous or ill informed. The one we have is about the least bad I guess though I'd like to see PR rather than first past the post.
This is neither a pro or anti brexit statement but I never again want to see a referendum used to decide a complex issue. The reason we elect MPs is to study issues and make those decisions on our behalf.
What I will say is that we ought to be turning out school leavers with a far higher level of political and social awareness than we have done in my lifetime. I'm an old git so maybe we now are. I'd hope so.

 

So are you are saying people of low intelligence and should be denied the vote? Removing universal suffrage? Wow!! Dangerous ground that. How do you determine low intelligence? Someone who disgrees with your PoV? Someone who goes against the general consensus?

I would suggest lack of intelligence is not the main reason but rather lack of /misleading information (propaganda) preventing people from making an informed ''correct' decision. By and large, if you take, for example, 50m people who have been provided with sufficient accurate information and NOT propoganda, the likelihood is that they will come to the correct decision as a group. You will obviously get a proportion who, for whatever reason will come to a different conclusion based on personal prejudices, background political viewpoint etc but the majority will hold sway .

You only have to look at '20s and '30s Germany to understand that it was not lack of intelligence on the part of the population but clever manipulation over a period of time time through ntimidation, subtle a(nd not so subtle) propaganda, bribery, corruption and rewards.

WHilst I totally disagree with removing the vote from sectors of society, I would agree that certain criteria should be met to enable someone to stand for public office. MPs, particularly those in high office - Cabinet Ministers , PMs Depouty PMs etc need have absolutely NO quaifications and yet they have the power, as demonstrated by the current situation, to make or break an economy and impact on the prosperity of an entire population. I am not necessarily talking about qualifications like university degrees (we have all worked with people with degrees and dipòlomas who don't have an ounce of common sense or the ability to think rationally) but some method of determining whether or not they are fit to hold office.

I am sure, that the current situation has finally exposed the truth that most of our MPs (on both sides of the house9 are there through who they know and not what they know.) Which country-Sweden is it'??- where ministers have to have a background in the Ministry they are assigned? When you had someone like Gove in charge of Education and dictating policy to Teaching Professionals, similarly Hunt dictating to Medical Professionals when neither had any background in either field it becomes self evident that it will fail especially as there is no consensus between the two main parties. Both change tack if they gain power regardless of whether what they are changing is bad or good. Neither will acknowledge the bits the previous Government did right.

 

Perhaps the "Aryan" thing was a little strong. However, denying people of their right to self-determination through the ballot box is frankly Orwellian.

The idea that someones' rights be denied based on ONE factor of their being is a frightening idea, the next step logically would be to deny certain ethnic groups or religious groups from voting. Then you start saying that only people below a certain age can vote because by the time the vote is implimented a large percentage of the old people who voted will have died etc...

In the end, the people making these draconian decisions on who can and cannot vote will end up only allowing "people like themselves" to vote and then that, at that point would be "an Aryan idea".

It is a very dangerous proposition.

 

The suggestion is sound in theory, but ignores the fact that you're not allowing for political ideology, which is actually the real issue.

Edit : maybe to early for me, I was referring to the qualifications for being an mp.

Education, education, education.

 

I'd agree. It is very dangerous. However, it's equally dangerous to churn out an uneducated and easily manipulated electorate. You look at places like Hungary, Turkey even America and worry about the way things can go.

 

The issue at the moment is the MP’s don’t want to follow the constituents wishes. This adds value to your question to be fair, should the public be allowed or should the elected be trusted and therin lies the issue with Politics today in that the public generally don’t trust them.

 

Problem is we teach people what to think, not how to think...

 

I’m with you, I’m sick of idiots who think we should go back to hunting rabbits in fields and growing our own potatoes having the same amount of influence as someone that actually has a clue what’s going on. I’d make everyone do a test at the ballot box so they can show they know enough about the subject to make a reasonable decision, with a pass/fail mark and if you fail your vote doesn’t count.

This isn’t an intelligence test btw, it would be a test on the subject. So for the referendum it would be about the actual impacts of the EU relationship rather than the guff spouted out by Boris etc

 

You are right. The use of propaganda in todays society is there for all to see, and the rise of far-right ideology is on the rise (Although I would argue to a degree that what we today call far-right is nowhere near as far as it used to be. It seems to me that the political spectrum of "acceptable" beliefs seems to be shrinking and anyone remaining at the edges is now being labelled as far-right when probably 10/15 years ago they would have been called right of centre)

It is my belief that we are being pushed (through propaganda) into a much more concentrated and strangely, polarised political system.

People are so determined to be right these days that debate no longer serves a purpose. You can offer facts and statistics to people and they will still stand by their beliefs.

When was the last time anybody watched say, QuestionTime and someone conceeded an argument and changed their views simply by debating with someone who has an opposing view? facts presented or not.

That is the worst thing that has happened to our society in my opinion, the idea that a persons "lived experience" or feelings on a subject is now of equal intellectual weight as fact, so nobody is EVER wrong, so nothing gets unilaterally agreed as nobody will concede ground anymore.

 

Actually, growing your own potatoes is a good idea. People did that in the war and lots of allotment holders still do

 

Democracy works perfectly well, if it allowed to without influence from money.

We now live in a non democratic, fundamentally corrupt, and media driven system.

It’s actually not the voters fault, it’s the fault of large multi national corporations that have been allowed to infiltrate and basically run governments around the world which is actually the opposite of democracy.

There’s actually quite a lot of evidence to show that democracy was actually flawed when it was invented 100s of years ago. Noamh Chomsky often suggests that democracy cannot be truly initiated in a capitalist structure.

This is a trailer to his film but it basically gives the gist of his thoughts on democracy and how it was actually created in the US to protect the rich and control the masses. Hardly democratic as we think it is.

 

Totally correct! while ever wealthy individuals and big corporations are allowed to fund....sorry....donate to political parties we will have the corrupt system that we do now.

Businesses are all about the bottom line, why on earth would they give money away unless they knew that that money bought them the ear of those in power?

Ban private donations to political parties and we may start to get something resembling "real democracy" back.

 

Some great debate going here, maybe the BBS should form a political party?