Ignorance and Democracy

[dilettante]

The following series of posts in this other thread (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1312&page=44) struck me as an excellent jumping off point for a separate discussion. Here's the initial assertion:

A knowledgeable citizen is the bedrock of our democracy. An ignorant citizenry means 'goodbye democracy'. :shrug:

To rephrase as a question: is an ignorant citizenry a hindrance to, or even mutually exclusive with, democracy? If not, why not? If so, what can be done about the current situation?

Following the initial assertion, were a variety of responses:

For some reason I have a good enough faith in the system that it will survive stupid. It's not like it's a new development.

This seems like a good point: has the citizenry ever really not been relatively ignorant of things national and political?

Perhaps we should return to the days when one had to meet certain eligibility requirements, e.g., property ownership and literacy. I suggest we also add a passing grade on a basic civics exam.

Barring that, I'm afraid you can't fix stupid.

An intriguing and controversial suggestion. There's no doubt that most of America's "founding fathers" firmly believed that the power to directly shape government should only be given to a relatively small subset of the population and that the bulk of 'the people' were unfit for the franchise.

There are times when I wonder whether or not I myself am really fit to vote, or if my relatively ignorant contribution only adds to the sound and fury that is 'the voice of the people'.

We're fucked then.

Quite possibly.

[Americano]

I feel the ignorance, stupidity or apathy attributed to voters hasn't changed much over the decades I've been following politics. Politics is an insiders game, always has been, and few citizens, for whatever reasons, actually participate in the political process beyond casting their vote.

Regardless of political affiliation politics is a process dominated by special interests. Virtually every government action from a city council vote rezoning property to a congressional military contract is driven by money and power, nothing else.

From the OP:

"There's no doubt that most of America's "founding fathers" firmly believed that the power to directly shape government should only be given to a relatively small subset of the population and that the bulk of 'the people' were unfit for the franchise."

In my opinion, other than a relatively brief post-ww2 economic boom that temporarily redistributed wealth down to more of the uneducated and recently educated voters, not much has changed. As anyone can recognize wealth concentration, and power, is rapidly reverting back to that small subset of the population.

[Michael]

The first point I'd like to raise here is the fact that, in the USA at least, huge proportions (about one-third) of US citizens just don't vote at all - and these people overwhelmingly fall into the category of 'low-education, low-status, low-information' to begin with. Voting rates for the educated elites are comparatively very high.

That is to say, the USA already has a 'defacto' system where only the 'better' educated half of the citizenry actually votes. This is apparently voluntary.

In comparison, Australia and some European countries have mandatory voting laws and thus have some 95% voter turnout rates. Are these countries governed better or less than the USA? :ummm:

[Americano]

The first point I'd like to raise here is the fact that, in the USA at least, huge proportions (about one-third) of US citizens just don't vote at all - and these people overwhelmingly fall into the category of 'low-education, low-status, low-information' to begin with. Voting rates for the educated elites are comparatively very high.

That is to say, the USA already has a 'defacto' system where only the 'better' educated half of the citizenry actually votes. This is apparently voluntary.

In comparison, Australia and some European countries have mandatory voting laws and thus have some 95% voter turnout rates. Are these countries governed better or less than the USA? :ummm:

They don't seem to be spending over half their incomes on military forces, so I'd say yes.

[Michael]

They don't seem to be spending over half their incomes on military forces, so I'd say yes.

It will be interesting to research Australia's electoral system to see if they have the same "rural" bias built into the system that the USA uses. Fact is, the "majority" doesn't actually rule in the USA - not unless it includes a majority of small rural states!

Canada (for example) has been moving steadily away from our own 'built-in rural bias' that massively favors small rural places with weighted representation at the expense of high density population centers. With each census and expansion of the number of Parliamentary districts, the imbalance is reduced slowly over time (some 50% of all new parliamentary seats added in the last 20 years in Canada have gone to Toronto and Calgary, both of which have steadily increasing populations). The US Senate pretty much locks the USA into this 'rural bias' problem and prevents any resolution short of Constitutional change.

Btw, France and Japan are two other western nations that have the same kind of powerful political bias for rural districts built into the electoral system as the USA apparently does (which reduces the vote power of the urbanized majorities).

[Non Sequitur]

It will be interesting to research Australia's electoral system to see if they have the same "rural" bias built into the system that the USA uses. Fact is, the "majority" doesn't actually rule in the USA - not unless it includes a majority of small rural states!



That seems to be the intention of the Constitution. If you read the Federalist Papers, the authors of the Constitution were very upfront and clear about their intentions.

[MeMyselfAndI]

Ignorant citizens and democracy is impossible.

Here in Russia, who is keeping Putin power? University students and professors in Moscow? No. His 'Nashi' youth militia draws young people from the villages, who have always lived the way they do, have never seen the outside world. There are villages in Russia, plenty, in fact, where there is only one TV, for, say, 200 families, at the village head's house. It gets 6 channels, all government-owned propaganda ones, RTR-Rossya; NTV; ORT; etc. Newspapers, they only have their own little samizdat, taht writes about if whetehr is good for fishing or hunting; or if the road will be too muddy to get to the city tommorrow, things like that. Internet, no point even mentioning. If you ask a person there, they'll look at you like you are crazy, 'What is "Internet"?' They live the same way as they have 200 years ago. They have no money to travel around the country, let alone outside. So, they are easy to rule. They only see and hear what Putin wants them to. They listen to him.

When 1,000 young Muskovite marched for Solidarnost (Russian Opposition umbrella group based on the Polish one) in Moscow, Nashi brought trains and buses full of village youth, 50,000 of them, and they drowned us out, easily. Nashi give them money, vodka, hunting weapons, farming equipment. And that's all they want. They don't care about politics.

[Michael]

That seems to be the intention of the Constitution. If you read the Federalist Papers, the authors of the Constitution were very upfront and clear about their intentions.

And that my friend, is the glory of the unwritten British constitution! No carving in stone with 200 year old dogmas.

Around 1776, the Brits believed that a limited sufferage was a good thing (much like in America). In 1830, they changed their minds and had universal male sufferage. :shrug:

[Michael]

Ignorant citizens and democracy is impossible.

Here in Russia, who is keeping Putin power? University students and professors in Moscow? No. His 'Nashi' youth militia draws young people from the villages, who have always lived the way they do, have never seen the outside world. There are villages in Russia, plenty, in fact, where there is only one TV, for, say, 200 families, at the village head's house. It gets 6 channels, all government-owned propaganda ones, RTR-Rossya; NTV; ORT; etc. Newspapers, they only have their own little samizdat, taht writes about if whetehr is good for fishing or hunting; or if the road will be too muddy to get to the city tommorrow, things like that. Internet, no point even mentioning. If you ask a person there, they'll look at you like you are crazy, 'What is "Internet"?' They live the same way as they have 200 years ago. They have no money to travel around the country, let alone outside. So, they are easy to rule. They only see and hear what Putin wants them to. They listen to him.

When 1,000 young Muskovite marched for Solidarnost (Russian Opposition umbrella group based on the Polish one) in Moscow, Nashi brought trains and buses full of village youth, 50,000 of them, and they drowned us out, easily. Nashi give them money, vodka, hunting weapons, farming equipment. And that's all they want. They don't care about politics.
Russia isn't a democracy. And I think it is more than just the 'Nishi' that put Putin in power and keeps him there.

But your point is a good one, that Putin's security in power benefits from an ignorant citizenry. That's one of the main reasons that Russia isn't really a democracy at all right now.

Indeed, many fear that is exactly what is happening in the USA - an increasingly ignorant citizenry does benefit the ruling elites (who are apparently getting tired of having elections).

[dilettante]

Around 1776, the Brits believed that a limited sufferage was a good thing (much like in America). In 1830, they changed their minds and had universal male sufferage. :shrug:

What? Britain had nothing like universal male suffrage after the 1830s Reform Acts, to say nothing of 1830 itself. Even after Reform in '32 only about one man in seven could vote. There was wider suffrage than that in the northern (and possibly some southern) United States at the time. The UK didn't have universal male suffrage until 1918.

[Michael]

What? Britain had nothing like universal male suffrage after the 1830s Reform Acts, to say nothing of 1830 itself. Even after Reform in '32 only about one man in seven could vote. There was wider suffrage than that in the northern (and possibly some southern) United States at the time. The UK didn't have universal male suffrage until 1918.

Same difference. Things changed. That's my point.

[Non Sequitur]

And that my friend, is the glory of the unwritten British constitution! No carving in stone with 200 year old dogmas.

Around 1776, the Brits believed that a limited sufferage was a good thing (much like in America). In 1830, they changed their minds and had universal male sufferage. :shrug:

:lol: this might be where you and I disagree the most. I don't trust the "will of the people" any more than the founders did.

[Michael]

Same difference. Things changed. That's my point.

By way of explanation, the point here is that Britain can change the structure of their democracy with a mere act of Parliament. USA just can't do it that easily (at all).

Any US changes require a Constitutional amendment and that just isn't going to happen any more.

That being said, France has managed to flip through several constitutions, but I still think that's quite unlikely path for the USA.

Anyway, this is a digression and mostly beside the point. :shrug:

[Michael]

:lol: this might be where you and I disagree the most. I don't trust the "will of the people" any more than the founders did.

I find the "founders" to be far more scary than the "will of the people".

It would appear that the MIC needs the Founder-based elite rule system to perpetuate itself.

[evanescence]

:lol: this might be where you and I disagree the most. I don't trust the "will of the people" any more than the founders did.

Neither do I trust the will of the Elite.

I find the "founders" to be far more scary than the "will of the people".

It would appear that the MIC needs the Founder-based elite rule system to perpetuate itself.

Both are equally scary, imo.

[Non Sequitur]

Neither do I trust the will of the Elite.



Both are equally scary, imo.

If it's drivel, it will earn ratings or sell newspapers. People quit caring about the news a long time ago. They want info-tainment.

Watching sitcoms has more appeal than being informed, apparently.

with remarks like those it's hard to tell whether you trust the will of the people either...:D

[The Drunk Guy]

with remarks like those it's hard to tell whether you trust the will of the people either...:D
Who can trust something that is not there? :ummm:

[Americano]

with remarks like those it's hard to tell whether you trust the will of the people either...:D

Trust is an emotion of followers who are most often utilized for purposes benefiting leadership. The will of the people is commonly manipulated as repeatedly displayed by historical facts.

[evanescence]

with remarks like those it's hard to tell whether you trust the will of the people either...:D

I trust no one.

Who can trust something that is not there? :ummm:

Indeed. :lol:

Trust is an emotion of followers who are most often utilized for purposes benefiting leadership. The will of the people is commonly manipulated as repeatedly displayed by historical facts.

Politicians and prostitutes are both for sell.

[Americano]

Politicians and prostitutes are both for sell.

I've never been able to determine any difference between the two definitions.

[evanescence]

I've never been able to determine any difference between the two definitions.

:lol: Nor have I.