I hope it is agreed that the largest majority of people in the U.S. is the lower class. I am hoping it can also be agreed that the lower class is also the least educated class.
If it is the citizen’s responsibility to elect leaders, and the majority of voters are of the lower class and are the least educated, how can they be expected to vote for the candidate that will aid them the most?
It seems to me that even if there was a candidate who had the best ideas and policies to help the lower class, the lower class wouldn’t be educated enough to realize it, and could even be swayed away from their best interests simply by a convincing person, or a great public speaker.
It seems more likely that the less educated would be more swayed by a convincing, likeable, nonsensical candidate than an intelligent, poorly spoken and impersonal candidate.
Considering the complexity of economics and political science, how can the largest voting majority be expected to vote in their best interest? Is there any solution to this problem, or is this a problem at all?
Brecht thought that the wealthy infantilizing the poor was a major problem in capitalist ideology. I’m of two minds about this, but overall I do disagree with your position that the poor aren’t educated enough to recognize what is in their best interest. Instead it is a matter of prioritizing and, the poorer one is the more proximal one’s concerns are especially with respect to wedge issues, the more likely it is to hit home. This becomes especially dangerous when coupled with narratives like the American Dream, where even the most impoverished harbors not merely a hope but often an expectation of wealth at some later point.
So it is a matter of bridging the gap between proximal, yet fluffy, “values” and policies that would enact meaningful changes to their socioeconomic standing.
But if the position you hold is taken as a given, disenfranchisement of the poor is the easiest way to mitigate their effect on elections. In America, that is already largely in place, with elections taking place on a work day during working hours. Coupled with shadier aspects of it, as well as various arbitrary and ever-changing requirements that prevent them from voting.
So if you think it is a big problem, don’t worry. It has already largely been taken care of.
What I see happening is that the poor are denied political power because they are undeducated, and then are denied education because they have no political power.
How many of the poor are interested in researching the Federal Reserve, fiat currency vs. gold standard, different forms of economics, world economics, or truly why oil prices are going up?
I get the feeling that if the poor were offered something that benefited them immediately, but in the distant future would obliterate our economy, they wouldn’t be educated enough or have the foresight to spot it.
Most people don’t react to the shortcomings and wrongdoings of our government, not because they don’t care, but rather because I believe they simply don’t know. With the introduction of the internet, perhaps that will change, but will it be soon enough?
I agree. It is most apparent to me when I listen to speeches by McCain, Obama, and Hillary. Rarely do they do more than scratch the surface of an issue. “I believe everybody should have universal healthcare,” for instance. The result is people arguing either for or against having universal healthcare, but without substance or depth. Never are the economic or social ramifications discussed in detail, because the uneducated haven’t learned enough about the issues, history, economy, etc., to have the right kind of discussion.
What you are tlaking about is not a flaw of democracy, fatal or otherwise, but of republicanism, majority rule, representative government. Is there some reason you have a say on some issue that has no effect on you? What if you are bribed to act against my interests to serve your own? It really does not matter what I vote for that has an effect on me. That is self government, and when it matters, I can think long and hard about my future. If I vote wrong it is easy to correct myself and my neighbors than it is to correct a two party love fest of a whole nation not knowing my condition or suffering my consequences. Since our country has grown -without the numbers of representatives growing in ratio or intelligence, it is no wonder that our problems have grown progressively worse. It is not the fault of a democracy we do not have, but of a partocracy that we do have.
what can you expect. we use democracy to vote for “what people want”
The “winners” want whats best for them. It’s impossible not to make mistakes this way.
As far as i’m concerned democracy can only really be used in a representative government. And even if we have straight arrow personnel, the fact that 30 percent of the population makes a choice regarding the other 70% will necessarily lead to extended problems.
When we were predominantly a christian nation do you remember the laws we had? People teaching darwinism getting thrown out of universitites?
The majority will have their way, and the way of the majority is like a fussy 3 year old. The majority rule fallacy is one of the first i ever learned, and it’s easy to see that majority rule is basically another way of saying “democracy”
Can someone explain to me why the electoral college overrides the popular vote, or does it? Why is it needed?
Also, why is someone like Ralph Nader not able to debate in republican or dem debates, other than the fact that those debates are sponsored by their own parties. Not that he should be elected president, but I always thought someone like Nader could inject a new angle in the debates, so that issues are not oversimplified as for or against. Maybe a middle ground. Nader or someone like him would force the two parties to do more than talk of polar opposites, and he would bring up different issues than those two parties agree are worth debating over.
You see, I voted for Nader a few years ago, not because i thought he’d win, but because if he got enough votes he would be able to debate in future elections. He didn’t get enough.
Sometimes I think only certain issues are agreed upon as relevant, when many issues go unaddressed. This controlling of the issues, or the restricted number of them, is more important to me, then any surface talk about solutions.
I mean come on, how long will abortion be debated into the future, election after election. Gas and war and the economy, we are affected by our enviroment in more ways than that.
I’d like them debate over the idea of alienation in our world, as it relates to technology. But no, more computers in the classroom while never have a downside, at least, nothing anyone would publicly put on the platform.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, democracy does not have a fatal flaw. Democracy just describes a general mechanism by which leadership is chosen and changed.
Democracy is attractive because it is a means to change leadership.
Every democracy is different. You can conceivably judge a democracy on how peaceful the change in leadership occurs and how predictable the results may be.
Example 1: Russia is technically a democracy but everybody knows who the next leader will be: it will be whoever Putin chooses and so it was before and so it will be after.
Example 2: Zimbabwe is technically a democracy but Robert Mugabe and his thugs kill anybody who challenges his leadership.
Last but not least, Example 3: The U.S.A. is technically a democracy but some people say that WBush stole the election from JKerry yet his presidency was accepted peacefully by the population. N.B.: That is truly astonishing. Most Americans should be very proud of themselves for being so peaceful. Had such a dubious election result occurred in most any other country, we would expect civil war to break out.
Example 3 1/2: Nobody can say who will be the next president. A couple of years ago, nobody could predict who the contenders for the presidency would be either.
Whatever “fatal flaw” democracy may have, it will just be a reflection of the people involved. Democracy per se has very little to do with it.
I think it is smart of you to bring up this flaw. Nevertheless democracy was invented to include the people that are not smart enough to understand democracy and its process. Democracy was invented for ordinary people. It was invented so ordinary, not very smart people were protected from tyrants. So far it has worked, to a great degree.
Eugene Debs said: I’d rather vote for something and not get it, than not vote for something and get it. And that is part of the problem. We vote for people rather than consent to legislation, and the people we vote for hand us a sop while they steel our livelyhoods. It is absolutly anethema to a democracy that a majority should control anything. Consensus is what makes democracy work. But, apart from that all people should ask: Is this question my concern or the concern of government. If two people act in collusion to make a profit they should keep open books for the government because either the people as individuals will be free, or corporations will have their freedom. The rights we have, that all people have are individual rights, and for the purpose of securing those rights our government was formed. Since our government is our union why should any one need a union to negotiate with business, or why should anyone need an association to appeal for rights from government? Lobbies mark the failure of government to act as the constituents demand, but because of the great numbers of voters represented by even the house of representatives is evenly divided, and vast in number, any decision on the part of a representative, even against his own electors can be justified. Who is that man representing if he does not do the will of the people, of if he gerimands his district so evenly that the minority can never be served? Our govenment is acting against the people. It is not the fault of democracy. If we had democracy no problem would be without solution. The problem is no democracy, and democracy denied.
I have a question, and this may be off topic, although it is about democracy.
If the majority elect a leader who is granted unlimited powers for an unlimited amount of time, then ought this country still be considered a democracy?
Democracy is not about electing leaders, is not about majority rule; but is about self government, and the question really is between self control, and self government, where one leaves off and the other begins. Bad government results in an irresponsible population, but an irresponsible people also makes responsible government impossible, so if we should improve our morals we should do so together.
What is a person doing when they elect a representative? Are they giving their consent to be governed even if that government goes against their will at some point? I see that they are delegating their authority to an individual, and individuals to do good in their name, because that is the only authority any one has to give.
Does any government actually have the power to do evil for any purpose? When individuals choose to do an evil act they do so without authority, and without the consent of society, so they have no authority to do evil that they can grant individually or collectively to their government. When people say the government can do evil while the people cannot they are saying might makes right.
Does the majority have power over the minority, so that they could appoint a leader over them, without duration? A government is a form of relationship, but is also a formed community, and every community has this fact in common. It has a purpose of protecting some right, or rights held in common. In this land there is a meaningless platitude often crossing the lips of the people in government that: the people are sovereign. Regardless of the true meaning of that expression, it is used to mean that the government is sovereign, and not the people. It is thought, and taught that government governs with the consent of the people. How is that consent solicited? By having elections of human beings who are all too corruptible, who in turn begin looking for re-election right after election? We do not ever get a vote of consent on the laws passed, but more than that; because there is no need for consensus, there is no method of advising the government, so we are led into division when division is fatal for all nations.
We have a government elected for an unlimited time with unlimited power because it is virtually impossible to change even the faces of a few, and because, in our divided state we look for leaders who will protect us from our neighbors even though it is the government that is the source of our division. There is not enough in this country for the rich and the poor alike. If the rich shall have theirs we must fight our neighbors for his share of nothing. Our government has failed, not because it was democratic, but because it is deliberatly anti democratic.
Democracy was never invented, but has often been reinvented. When it first grew up, it grew amid primitive peoples to organize defense, and society, in such a way that the people would survive, and in turn it bred a sort of society where intelligence was general, and each person demonstrated a cultured measure of self control. Just as with communism as an economy, democracy is the only form of government that has been tested in time, and succeeded. But half way democracies cannot be counted on to last or to deliver the goods as true democracy will. Republicanism is a perversion of democracy, and it does not protect rights, but unequal rights, and if it is left to its own course it will always result in a tyrant.
Almost every person i discuss democracy with goes straight to what i call “American Capitalism”. American capitalism is how you described the current state of affairs, and American democracy should not be examined in this thread.
You seem to believe that democracy (and forgive my bluntness) is like a superhero.
“Concensus is what makes democracy work”.
Re-read that sentence… Do you see anything wrong with it?
A concenus is when all parties involved in making a decision or choice agree to the same option. Sometimes this is done through outright unanimous vote but more often than not through what we call comprimise.
What i need you to tell me is how can democracy allow for a concensus if there exists a losing side of votes.
We are forced to vote for 2 options. side A with their beliefs and side B with theirs.
If i vote for side A but side B wins then side B is effectively controlling me.
The only way i can possibly imagine democracy allowing for a concensus is by having continual re-votes with the candidates changing their platforms until a unanimous decision is met (which is obviously impossible)
“Concensus is what makes democracy work”.
Democracy is the tool by which you hope to achieve a concensus, yet democracy cannot provides none. It provides the mode beleif.
If we had a concensus in the first place we wouldn’t need democracy.
Today, Ireland is voting on an EU treaty and not one other country has had a vote to deliver their consent, but there consent was given without their consent. And some people are saying: Why should they get a vote.
Why should any and all get a vote. People should have the say on any issue likely to affect them. But what if a minority stands in the way of the will of the majority? Is that not the reason minorities are served by democracy, because it empowers them in their needs and desires? Cut them in. Give them a reason to give their consent. Give Ireland a reason to consent. Everyone should benefit from society. If some are benefiting too much that is a problem people can address, but if you can perpetually exclude a minority from power you can destroy the whole of the people by halves. The essential authority in ones life and affairs is something all people need, and we suffer the loss of that authority in America every single day because if you do not have to ask a person’s consent to do something, or find it necessary to prove to him that he will in fact benefit, then goavernment can get on with doing as it pleases over the will of the people. Has the war in Iraq been debated? No. Has energy policy been debated? Has public health care been debated? Has Nafta been debated? Has global warming been debated? We are not consulted nor fully educated on the subjects essential to all our well being because it is not necessary. So long as government can do as it pleases we will not have good government, and without action on the part of government, we will not have even the time to learn to govern ourselves. Clearly primitives had time for self government, and even our pioneers had time for government, but we with all our advanced technology are working harder and longer for less. That is the end of bad government.
Sorry for sounding like a broken record but this is once again an example of American capitallsim.
The minority is not served by democracy.
In america there the minorities are helped because otehrwise they would starve to death or freeze to death.
The minority vote is not served by the majority vote. The idea that it does it a deluded one.
The funny thing is that most minorities dont even vote, though this may be due to american capitalism, but it is the majority of the people who vote. yet another strike against democracy.
The minority is not served by democracy, hence why America is a republic. I’m far from knowledgeable on the subject, but as far as I understand it, the key difference between a democracy and a republic is the rights of the individual. A republic is far more focused on the individual’s rights.
For example, in a democracy, people could hold a vote to decide whether or not you should get to keep your house, and the minority would rule. In a republic, you have the right to own a house as an individual, and your right to do so cannot be voted away.
basically the government cant revoke certain rights, and there is electoral leadership, not dictatorship or monarchy.
but what i’m getting at is that if we hold a vote to take your house away, and you lose, the house gets taken unless house taking is an infringement of the laid out rights. The minorities still suffer in a republic
no the majority would rule.
But the problem of minorities being opressed in any and all areas not covered by the original rights still exists
