Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Sheb]

Not really, the Congolese accent is closer to other French-speaking African accents than to the Belgian accent. A linguist may be able to find some links, but a layman like me certainly can't.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

i do believe democracy would gain much by instituting minimum requirements for voters; stuff like  participation in non partisan discussion groups, attending lectures, etc. just the bare minimum to insure voters are actually interested and informed and not just voting on the prettiest guy or their favourite sports team.

[10ebbor10]

Problem is, how do you prevent corruption of those who determine who votes and who doesn't.

I mean, if you get to plan those lectures, it's pretty easy to plan them in such a way that certain population groups won't easily get there.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

And of course, you will be the one writing these standards?

I swear, this "we need to have voter standards" idea that everybody seems to get on sooner or later is probably one of the most dangerous ideas in regards to maintaining a democratic society. Such limitations will ultimately only serve to disenfranchise the political opponents of whomever writes the standards.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

you make it sound like you're defending a minimally functional system, as if most conventional democracies aren't rampant with corruption and bias enforcing mechanics, and actually serve to manifest the will or the best interests of the people.
the problems you pose wouldn't be new to the system, and i can think of plenty of safeguards of the top of my head; many of them flawed sure, but i'm sure you yourselves could think up plenty of good ones too, and then we can compare notes and decide on a much better system than conventional democracy.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No, no thank you, I maintain an ardent democrat. I'm not going to accept the idea that you should focus on reducing the voter pool to "the right people".

[Askot Bokbondeler]

the thing is, i'm not demanding that voters adhere to a set of political values, just that they demonstrate a minimum of interest and effort to make an informed decision; fill out non-scored anonymous surveys, attend debates and political events organised by whoever, sign up for political newsletters, participate on internet forums, etc.
no ideological screening whatsoever, just checking if you're politically active.
the "right people" would simply be the ones who care, i maintain that their decision is more valuable that that of those who don't make the smallest effort to know what they're talking about or what they're voting for

[shadenight123]

Rather than limiting votes, it would be wiser to educate the entire population better.
Stupidity cannot fester and grow where there is logic and reason taught.
It's easy to look at the 'cut away the filth and the rot' way, the difficult route however is the most reasonable: institute hours of forced education in things that bring out free-thinking.
Teach people to reason, teach them to 'put themselves in other peoples' shoes' and teach them to critically think everything they can.
The moment that is achieved, there will be no need to cut on who can vote and who can't.

[XXSockXX]

the thing is, i'm not demanding that voters adhere to a set of political values, just that they demonstrate a minimum of interest and effort to make an informed decision; fill out non-scored anonymous surveys, attend debates and political events organised by whoever, sign up for political newsletters, participate on internet forums, etc.
no ideological screening whatsoever, just checking if you're politically active.
the "right people" would simply be the ones who care, i maintain that their decision is more valuable that that of those who don't make the smallest effort to know what they're talking about or what they're voting for

That's pretty ridiculous. Democracy means you have a right to be ignorant, and everybody has a right to vote. The number of people that actually actively participate in political debates and are thus properly informed in your opinion is probably pretty low in reality.
If voters are uninformed, it's a failure of the political parties, whose proper role it is to inform people and build opinion blocks. The people who don't care usually simply don't vote instead of voting for a random party. In fact non-voters have become the biggest "party" in many German elections in recent years, despite the fact that voting takes only minimal effort. But since this is a democracy, that is their right too.

If we're redefining democracy here, I'll suggest we apply the "one man, one vote" principle. I'll be the man and I'll have the vote, and I will take good care of y'all (or not). 

[10ebbor10]

Stupidity cannot fester and grow where there is logic and reason taught.

Ow, yes it can. But that;s not related to the issue.

[Frumple]

If voters are uninformed, it's a failure of the political parties, whose proper role it is to inform people and build opinion blocks.

... problem being with that proper role that "inform people" often doesn't have a very strong correlation to "in a non-deceptive manner" Their actual role isn't to inform people, in the sense of actually giving them accurate and relevant information, it's to get votes and damn the guns. As such, that information and opinion building is just chock full of misdirection, distraction, deception, and outright lies all too damned often.

The unfortunate fact is that a functioning democracy necessarily requires a very involved and educated/informed (in terms of information relevant to effective governance.) voting base. The less of that a democracy possesses, the less effectively it functions and the more likely it is to turn into something else. Apathy, ignorance, and misinformation are three of the deadliest poisons that exist for a democratic system.

Figuring out how to improve the whole voting base is the problem, though. Disenfranchisement is nearly as damning to the effectiveness of a democratic system as anything else is. You need everyone involved, everyone interested, and everyone informed, or cracks start showing, corruption starts growing, and the whole machine stops working as effectively. Biggest issue, really, is trying to do stuff about it when those benefiting from the current situation are actively fighting improvement. We know how to find and present relevant information (when it's not being drowned out, spun so hard it ends up upside down, or actively prevented from being found), we know how to teach people how to analyze and break down that information (when it's actually being taught and the information itself isn't badly flawed), and hell, by and large we even have a pretty damn good idea how to engender interest and investment (at least if we had a good way to shut the goddamn media up and cut out a lot of the ignorance and apathy that's latched on culturally to the process). It's just getting it bloody done.

[10ebbor10]

Agreeing on what's the truth is also problematic. Intelligent Design is a nice example.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Not really. Intelligent Design fails to reach the scientific standard by a wide margin. This should not exactly be surprising to anyone, given that it is blatantly modified Creationism.

[10ebbor10]

Not really. Intelligent Design fails to reach the scientific standard by a wide margin. This should not exactly be surprising to anyone, given that it is blatantly modified Creationism.

Yes, we know it, but people still managed to get it into schools, where it's teached as a possible truth.

And yes, ID is simply creationism with God replaced by an unknown almighty entity.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

If we're redefining democracy here, I'll suggest we apply the "one man, one vote" principle. I'll be the man and I'll have the vote, and I will take good care of y'all (or not). 

democracy is a very flexible word that rarely describes democracy. it usually describes a system where people get to vote for figureheads or one of two or three identical candidates, while not really having a right to complain because thats what they voted for. Democracy is a façade, and it was much better at it when it was capitalism vs. communism\democracy vs. autoracy. Now that it has established itself as the superior political system and it's status became entrenched and unquestionable it's stated goals of freedom and social justice have become more and more meaningless. so take democracy with a grain of salt, it is not a tried and true method to achieve utopia, but instead one that had it's potential to fuck up undermined by the pretension of moral superiority versus a rival that isn't there anymore.

Rather than limiting votes, it would be wiser to educate the entire population better.
(...)
It's easy to look at the 'cut away the filth and the rot' way, the difficult route however is the most reasonable: institute hours of forced education in things that bring out free-thinking.

i'd argue that

Democracy means you have a right to be ignorant, and everybody has a right to vote.

i think you should be able to chose between the two. voting is a right, not a duty, if you don't want to exercise that right you should be free to not do so

i'm also not defending "cutting away the ignorants", as in, ban stupid people from voting, instead i argue that we should demand that people who want to vote participate more actively in politics.