Political philosophy

Welcome to the POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY THREAD!

Every one of the hot issue topics sooner or later boils down to a philosophical discussion about one anothers views about the nature of Humanity and the best way to govern our affairs.

This is where we can hash it out.

I admonish everyone (especially me) to keep it clean and respectful. We can discuss ideas without discussing each other, if you know what I mean.

Thoughts expressed in these forums are often more stark than the actual thought and intent of the folks behind them, and softening shades of meaning are lost in the translation. Please give everyone the benefit of the doubt!

In a democracy, who should have the right to vote?

This isn't an easy question, even though we think so.

Some have already a part of their thoughts in other threads here in Entmoot's General Forum.
I'd like to hear them again, and elaborated.

For my part, I'll stay for now with the status quo, where any legal adult (18 years old and more) can vote, with the exception of prison inmates, psychiatric hospital inmates, and leprechons. (I'm not sure actually of the present exceptions, but for now i'll go with the above I mentionned).

In a perfect democraty you'd have to pass a test to get the roght to votem just to prove you understand the basis or care enough to get a little informed. Don't pass the test, don't get your little blue (or whatever color) card, don't vote. Once you pass the test, you'd earn the right to vote for your entire lifetime. The would have to be FREE for the forementionned squeegies and hobbos.

First of all, let me say that, like juntel, I do not favor a change to the status quo.

Having said that, I'm sure I will be pigeonholed, stereotyped, and misclassified by those who disagree with my opinions about the alternatives.

It would require a revolution to move to any better alternative, even if I were so inclined, and that would be worse than the present situation. My fear is that we can all too easily move to a worse alternative.

Many convicts in Alabama, having served their time and paid their debt to society, none-the-less remain disenfranchised. This is wrong.

Other than that caveat, the present Western fashion of universal sufferage is better than most of the alternatives.

...which alternatives we may discuss later!

Seems to me the best thing to do is to get people interested in politics at a young age. Maybe we should look at how civics is taught in school....find someway to get people involved at a younger age, so when they are of age, they would feel complelled to participate as an informed voter.

Anduin, I think you're statements are a little off. There is absolutely no way to teach political theories objectively. Even if the text itself is not bias one way, it's probable that the teacher will inject his/her own opinions into the class discussions. There's already a large amount of Humanistic propaganda being taught in the public schools, so if we stepped beyond basic American government and economics the opinions of the writers and teachers would win in the end, and that's not good. I'm not saying that the texts should be strictly Christian in public schools, even though I believe a society raised on Christian principles and morality would truly be a shinning city on a hill, despite the religious aspects of the faith.

I think the best way to teach politics to children is to ditch the public schools and let the parents teach them. That way the children would be infected by their parents views and not some professor's. Whichever way they decide to go in their political persuasion, it will still be completely their own decision.

David

New guy steppin in for a word (man im ashamed of my number of posts) anyway...

18 years old considered an adult, the thought sends shivers down my spine. You can't even legally buy alcoholic beverages at that age, but you can vote for say, a leader of a country. Hummm, its funny though think about how much of the population doesnt vote and how many people died for the chance that we could. Howeve r back on the subject Status quo be damned 18 is a tad young, many people this age still have a lot of growing up to do. People say we should introduce youth to politics, thats a good idea but the best way to learn is through experience in some way or another and in 18 years you won't have enough to make a extremely well educated decision. In most votes (presedential etc) the corruption involved is rather appalling anyway so in a sense the age is a rather less important factor of votes, while i believe it should be upped politics are quite sickeningly corrupt so I'll chose to think a tad more before i comment anymore. I have some other things to say about the US "democratic" government but that will have to wiat till this one is over

Shanamir

"In a perfect democraty you'd have to pass a test..."

What kind of questions would you have in mind to pass the test?

Usually, I think, someone votes primarily for a party, because he/she likes what the party says it will do if elected; also, someone may vote for a particular candidate in a riding (in Canada) because he/she likes that candidate for some reason.

Then, what would this test consist of, and to check what, specifically?

Let's say that I vote for some candidate, because I think he's better than the other, and that this is a hunch (en francais, c'est mon intuition).
Would that be considered a valid reason to vote according to your test?

Can a hunch, an intuition, about a candidate (or against the other candidates) be a valid reason to vote for that candidate (or against the other candidates)?

That's not necessarily easy to answer...

Should we ask that any voter be able to argue, debate with precision and flawless logic before he/she votes?
If so, then mostly intellectuals (or intellectual types) might be allowed to vote.

I ain't comfortable with that...

Beurk No!
The test I had in mind is more something like passing your driving license test. (Pour le permis temporaire disons...) So you'd have to pass your "voting license" test.

Question could be something to check that you know the basis about politics and showed an interest.

exemple of what I mean:

1: Name three of the five last prime ministers.
2: Name the three biggest parties.
3: Name the official opposition.
4: What was the year of the confederation?
5: ...

Could be harder or easier... depends of the % of people you want to get the cards.

And so the rabid old conservative joins in.

Down here in Alabama, not so very long ago, we had tests.

They were a part of the so-called "Jim Crow" laws. Blacks were required to pass very exacting tests. Whites were not.

Not as a matter of law, just practice.

But the law made the practice possible.

That's why I come down on the Left on this one and say that a political awareness test of this sort is too easily abused, though the idea does have some merit.

When we swear in a new citizen, he or she must first pass tests to demonstrate knowledge of American History. I personally don't have a problem with that being the standard.

A one time test, the same that immigrants must take, seems to have some potential. Is it fair to require an immigrant to take this test, and not some dullard who can vote only by an accident of birth?

But suppose you pass the test upon graduating High School. And then never pick up a book, or a newspaper, or a magazine ever again. Should you be allowed to vote in ignorance twenty years later?

(Do we not all use our intuition to some degree in casting each and every ballot?)

Limiting the vote is the entire idea behind a Republic. The Founders of this nation did not trust to a Democracy. They limited the vote to adult male property owners. Which may have been the most practical choice for their day. Not today.

I agree that in Shanamir's perfect government the vote should be limited. As I first posted, I don't think that an effort to accomplish this would have any good result.

Maybe we can try again after this one fails.

I have before posted a requirement of military service. Veterans (not active duty) would have the opportunity to vote and to run for office. All other rights and priviledges of citizenship would be maintained for the rest.

This would, by the way, disenfranchise me!

But what better way to earn a stake in the decisions of government than to actually risk your life for it. This would require a real commitment. The unfit would be washed out. The cowardly would disqualify themselves. The rest would be as Left and as Right as the military today and would continue as such in Government, but would have the education, discipline, and moral authority to govern. This would not discriminate against race, religion, ideology, or gender. Only against the unfit and the unwilling.

Naturally, it would hardly be perfect. But I believe it would be better than universal sufferage and a solution of this kind would restore the virtues of a Republic, eroded by the chaos of Democracy.

Maybe it would be a good idea, it kind of reminds me of greece where everyone had to do a military service and then had the right to vote... And their democraty was quite efficient I think...

Yeah Shanamir except the greeks had an Aristocracy not a true Democracy (were if you want to boil down to the point U.S. may have that too)but that military idea is a refreshing view, but of course any change would be very very hard to bring about. US residents taking a test in high school then never taking one again, not perfect but one test is better then none no?

The United States is not Aristocracy, since all citizens (no matter how rich or poor they might be) have the right to vote. It's true that wealthy persons have an immense influence in politics (with campaign contributions and support), but, even so, the rich certainly don't dominate our political system.

I think a test would be a fine idea, although the possibilities of a distortion or discrimination are pretty high. I can't stand people who simply vote for the tallest or best looking politician. Charisma certainly has its effects on people, but the candidates stances on the issues should really be the factor which decides who they vote for and not how they look.

David

Gwaihir I wasnt saying that the government is a full blown Aristocracy, you're right its just very very very influenced by the rich. Sorry for the misunderstanding

Oh one question, I don't understand what you mean by distortion and discrimination?

Gwaihir, I am only talking about teaching children how our voting system works and trying to find a way to get them more interested in politics, explain to them why we vote, not trying to influence them one way or another politically. Also, I don't see how someone would benefit from their parents influencing them one way or another. You say that it would still be up to the individual to decide, but a parent's influence could be overwhelming. Seems to me the best way for a parent to teach (or anyone else for that matter) would be to present each side equally, not to sway a person one way or the other. I think the key is interest not influence.

And despite what you have expressed Gwaihir there are teachers (parents included) that are able to teach without bias. Though the best are few and far between they do exist and it isn't that far fetched

RovingTurtle: "there are teachers (parents included) that are able to teach without bias"

I've never met one who can talk about politics beyond a very basic level without bias. I assume you have...

"Yeah Shanamir except the greeks had an Aristocracy"

From what I've heard, the Greeks had various governmental systems. The Athenians, after all, are the inspiration for the phrase "Athenian democracy" - voting on individual issues, I believe (feel free to correct me).

Yes Johnny Lurker
they are the Inspiration of that phrase but it wasn't neccesarily true, they did start the basis for a true democracy but didnt have one.(If you would like me to cite examples I will, but unless you want me to I'll refrain, I dont deem it neccesary)

Yes I have had during my years of school exceptional teachers (albeit very few a handful at best) who have despite thier own beliefs remaind unbiased while teaching all contreversial subjects, you may be right though if they were to go deeper into the subject then they did then they probably would have taken sides but they didnt and they remained without prejudice. One was a history teacher who said "history and opinions are seperate enities and must be seperated in my classroom, I will tell you the facts and you may divulge your own opinions, so there are no wrong answers in my class it is all opinion, but if the facts that are used to back up that opinion are incorrect then of course one would be wrong" I may be incorrect he may have just said this or I may be misinterpeting this but what I got out of it is that he would try (and in my mind he succeded) to present sensitive material without bias. Anyway I thank you for responding to me and opposition to what I think is welcome because I myself don't know enough about what I think at times and I'll try to be receptive of change (maybe the athenians did have a democracy)

OK ill stop now I lost myself a little, got a little ahead of things. People feel free to rip my arguements apart once again thanks for listening to the little guy and bye

By proposing other models of democracy, or of a voted government, one must also consider how the transition could be done from the one we have to the one we wish.

So my question here is just a sub-question: would the people, in the present democratic reality, be the ones who voted for or against a new way of democracy, or would the new voting scheme be imposed on the population?

Currently, the findings are...

Well, according to the Desk Encyclopedia I got with a really old copy of "Where in The World/Time is Carmen Sandiego"'s article on "Greece, Ancient", and I quote, "Athens became a democracy" in the 8th and 7th centuries BC.

And Philip of Macedon took over at 338 BC (The father of Alexander the Great).

Now, under "Democracy", I see that "Direct democracy, in which political decisions are made by the whole citizen body meeting together, is only possible where the population is small. (See Greece, Ancient). The direct democracy of some ancient Greek city-states..."

Do you see the implication?

No, they didn't have representative "democracy", and no, they didn't have universal suffrage. But then again, neither does the U.S. of A. - they "discriminate" against the incarcerated and the young.