ageedizzleWhat’s your most controversial opinion?
https://piefed.ca/c/asklemmy/p/563749/whats-your-most-controversial-opinion
Lemmy WorldI both thing people have a right to dignity, which by extension means they should have a day of how to live their lives. I also think that the general population shouldn’t vote. Against Democracy is a really good read if you haven’t read it.
For the record, I literally will drive people to the polls (since our current system creates better outcomes if more people vote) but I do really wish that most of them wouldn’t XD.
mandatory voting is better than any sort of voter controls, the catch is you also have to combine it with a properly funded/structured public education system designed to grow well rounded individuals capable of critical thought (instead of mindless factory drones, like the US’s).
I am not sure I buy the conditional statement
“If a population is well educated then they will vote well”
There is a component of research time that greatly limits ones ability to vote in most matters.
Furthermore the afformentioned conditional statement ignores the litany of cognitive biases that would influence a vote.
ComradeSharkfuckerOkay so i haven’t read against democracy but it seems to take the socrates position. Instead of limiting votes to only the highly educated (which i take as an issue because this disadvantages the poor significantly due to higher education costing lots of money) why not just build a society in which everyone is educated enough to meet the standard for an informed voting population?
Firstly, I don’t agree with anyone in this chain, but man… there are just some people who damn near physically incapable of learning.
There’s also the simple fact that a huge portion of the population just don’t care about politics or government. If “didn’t vote” was an option for eligible voters, it would have won every election in US history.
I see the fact that most people don’t care about politics, government, or learning as a symptom of our system of social organization rather than something inherent to humanity
The great thing about representative democracy is that idiots don’t actually vote for anything. They only vote for whom to represent them.
I’ll admit, I’m somewhat of an ignorant idiot myself. I haven’t read nor understood the entirety of all laws. That’s why I choose someone else to represent me.
I think it’s only fair that mentally handicapped people are also allowed to choose someone to speak their case.
The problem in US isn’t the idiots. It’s the two party system. In countries with multiple parties, truly idiotic votes would be scattered randomly all over different parties, or they would be placed on the party that represents idiots the best.
That doesn’t work in US, because you actually only have one political party and then the opposition. It’s really easy for an opposition to trick idiots into voting against everything.
There are a few ways that the Socratic position (epistocracy) could be implemented and he covers them in the book. I am partial to a panel of experts that can only veto laws in their area of expertise.
For example. Congress passes a law to allow offshore drilling and the climate change panel vetos it.
Even if that would be a good idea in theory (which I am skeptical of) the optics of having a panel of elites veto laws passed by democratically elected officials would be terrible. This system would be unsustainable if for no other reason than the fact that it would be extremely unpopular
I am happy to concede that point.
That said, in the US, evidentially speaking, the current administration has a near all time low in approval.
I am not convinced the veto panels would be any worse off than the current administration in terms of approval.
Yeah this is a good one.
I agree that the majority of the populace chooses how to cast their vote based on limited information, overwhelming biases, and erroneous misconceptions.
However, I don’t know that there’s a better more equitable alternative? I’ll have to read Against Democracy, for sure.
Without spoiling too much from the book, the argument is “protection from the tyrrany of the massively misinformed.”
The arguments hinge on the idea that, if voting is equal (I am not 100% sure on his stance for equitable), then the under informed masses force us into subjugation through their ignorance.
Pragmatically, his major point is, it’s very hard (and likely impossible) for everyone to be informed on every topic, so we should abstain from topics where we are under informed (which for most of us, most of the time, is most topics).