Yahoo News: People too stupid for democracy

[DominionSeraph]

The authoritarian leftists know best, any American that disagrees with their point of view and opinions is an idiot and incapable of running or participating in a democracy.
Nothing new, it's the usual suspects sharing their enlightened view of the world with you useless rabble.

Quite right as written. And in your disagreement with it you prove the point: You're just too dumb to get it right.

 

[Nebor]

Benevolent dictatorship.

I feel this idea doesn't get enough play. We could enact radical social change so much more quickly this way: universal health care, equal rights, etc.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I feel this idea doesn't get enough play. We could enact radical social change so much more quickly this way: universal health care, equal rights, etc.

The insurmountable problem is that you can't ensure a government of such people when you've given up the power to ensure anything.

 

[rchiu]

Well isn't democracy voting the people closely representing the population into the office? So if people are stupid, stupid politicians got voted into the office?

Democracy is really about given people the choice, the choice maybe stupid, but it is people's choice and they should live with it whatever the out come is.

But if you put in authoritarian leaders in the office, the political choice is made for the people, and often people have to suffer for choice not made by them, therefore the system sucks.

And by the way, human are not smart to start with. Who is gonna say dictatorship/authoritarian is gonna give you better result? If bunch of elite rule the country, is the result gonna be better? In addition to the voting system, the beauty of democracy is the check and balance to not have one or few elites taking over the country and treating the country as their personal property.

So bottom line, you have democracy for 2 thing, 1) give the choice to people, 2) check and balances. Only nerds think there is this "best" candidate or it is always about electing this "best" candidate.

 

[nonlnear]

The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies.

The article falls flat on the first sentence. The democratic process relies on no such assumption, as the benefit of democracy over the system it replaced (monarchy) has nothing to do with competence.

Democracy is an improvement over monarchy because it allows for the peaceful transition of power when the people are enraged. It was suddenly possible to replace a government without killing anyone. This promotes a more civil society, because you no longer need to have an entire generation consenting to a massacre in order to remove an unpopular regime. It's pretty much immaterial who is coming into power, it's all about the ability to remove the rulers who have fallen out of favor from power with as little social upheaval as possible.

 

[SagaLore]

What they failed to realize, or at least note, is that this doesn't just apply to democracy. This applies to all forms of government.

The whole point of democracy is to allow the majority of us stupid people to elect stupid people to represent us.

The article does note that everyone overestimates their abilities. That includes "really smart people" who think they know what's best for everyone and try to setup non-democratic governments in the people's best interests.

The beauty of a democracy is that regardless of how crappy our ability to properly recognize the merit of candidates - the "really smart" candidates realize this and will maneuver themselves around the stupidity of our votes to get themselves elected.

For example, how many elected officials have actually attempted or successfully followed through on even half of what they promise during an election? That isn't an accident.

 

[nonlnear]

The beauty of a democracy is that regardless of how crappy our ability to properly recognize the merit of candidates - the "really smart" candidates realize this and will maneuver themselves around the stupidity of our votes to get themselves elected.

For example, how many elected officials have actually attempted or successfully followed through on even half of what they promise during an election? That isn't an accident.

Correction: a subset of really smart candidates maneuver themselves around the stupidity. There are plenty of really smart peole who are nauseated by the notion of "doing whatever it takes" and turn their noses up at the whole game. That's almost anyone with any integrity.

That raises the question of whether "integrity" is actually a positive attribute, or if it is only a positive insofar as it is perceived by others. Now I'm starting to sound like a politician...

 

[Anarchist420]

The rule by a majority is more or less the same as a rule by one. People saw the problems with a monarchy, so maybe one day enough people will see the problems with democracy and abolish the state. That's probably at least century off, however.

 

[SagaLore]

The rule by a majority is more or less the same as a rule by one. People saw the problems with a monarchy, so maybe one day enough people will see the problems with democracy and abolish the state. That's probably at least century off, however.

And then what? You think the Internet or the ability to buy pube dye would exist without some kind of government?

 

[Doppel]

Anybody honest and mildly intelligent has known this for a long time. I find it frankly unacceptable that a university educated person who is politically well read has no more power to chose a candidate than some butt fvck ignorant barely-literate twit who always votes a particular party "cuz my 'pa always did". I make light of it but it's a serious problem. Most people who vote should not vote, but they are too stupid to know they shouldn't. They have no idea what the hell is going on or much knowledge of the topic.

 

[Craig234]

Anybody honest and mildly intelligent has known this for a long time. I find it frankly unacceptable that a university educated person who is politically well read has no more power to chose a candidate than some butt fvck ignorant barely-literate twit who always votes a particular party "cuz my 'pa always did". I make light of it but it's a serious problem. Most people who vote should not vote, but they are too stupid to know they shouldn't. They have no idea what the hell is going on or much knowledge of the topic.

You're wrong about this. It's a common mistake.

Elections aren't about 'finding the best person by having the most qualified analysts be the ones who make the decision'.

Applying your logic, why not limit elections to only real political experts with Ph.D's?

Elections are about the moral imperative that the people who are governed get the right to have a say in who governs - right or wrong.

The way to address your concern about easily manipulated ignorant people being fooled into electing corrupt terrible leaders isn't to take the vote away; it's to do what we can to limit the ability of the corrupt to manipulate voters. There's a whole progressive laundry list of issues to do that, some of which are:

- Limiting money in the campaigns where a few who can spend the most can have an excessive role in selecting who wind.

Where there are first amendment issues, public financing could help level the playing field - if the Supreme Court hadn't banned that because it might discourage the rich spending.

- The promotion of honest, independant media by limiting massive ownership of media by a few huge corporations - locally owned, more independant media helps educate voters.

IIRC, I've seen a statistic that something like 80% or 90% of US media is owned by 4 or 5 corporations, for the first time in American history. This is bad for demcoracy.

- Voting should be made easier for voters, not harder. Participation should be encouraged, not discouraged. There are nationwide efforts to reduce the number of Democratic voters.

- Encourage public interest groups, like the League of Women Voters, who try to provide voter education.

The 'right to vote', the sharing of the power to select government, outweighs the desire to have only more qualified voters vote.

The benefit of the people retaining that power outweighs the benefit of limiting the vote, even if we feel that it results in a lot of bad election choices.

It's not obvious, but that's the core of democracy to appreciate, the power of selection belonging to the people.

Any attempts to do what you suggest are basically guaranteed to result in injustice where those with the vote favor their interests at the expense of those without the vote.

American history has moved in the right direction, from white male property owners to all races, both genders, property not required.

Save234

 

[nonlnear]

You're wrong about this. It's a common mistake.

Elections aren't about 'finding the best person by having the most qualified analysts be the ones who make the decision'.

We agree on this much. What is your reaction to my first post in this thread?

Elections are about the moral imperative that the people who are governed get the right to have a say in who governs - right or wrong.

I so wish I could still believe this. Life was simpler when I believed in more standard political philosophical constructs.

Elections are a way to keep people from killing government leaders. You can eliminate the devil you know whenever you want - peacefully. However you don't really have any effective say on what kind of person gets in. More importantly you have absolutely no say in what that "representative" actually does - and isn't that the important part?

IIRC, I've seen a statistic that something like 80% or 90% of US media is owned by 4 or 5 corporations, for the first time in American history. This is bad for demcoracy.

Craig,

You of all people should know this is NOT new. Just read up on the exploits of J.P. Morgan. Sure the degree of concentration (by certain metrics that are only relevant in a modern media landscape anyways) is higher than what Morgan achieved, but Morgan figured out what level of media influence he needed to do to steer the country's political leaders and he seized it. It has been the same game being repeated ever since.

 

[michal1980]

The authoritarian leftists know best, any American that disagrees with their point of view and opinions is an idiot and incapable of running or participating in a democracy.
Nothing new, it's the usual suspects sharing their enlightened view of the world with you useless rabble.

Bingo.

 

[Jhhnn]

The authoritarian leftists know best, any American that disagrees with their point of view and opinions is an idiot and incapable of running or participating in a democracy.
Nothing new, it's the usual suspects sharing their enlightened view of the world with you useless rabble.

It's not what people don't know that makes 'em stupid- it's what they think they know that's really not true.

Things like cutting govt spending will create jobs, that abstinence only sex-ed will result in fewer unwanted pregnancies, that self regulated banking won't crash & burn, and that trickledown economics actually work...

Authoritarian Left? What a giggle. Repubs have been purging their ranks of all dissent for 30 years, using an ideological cookie cutter to create their politicians.

 

[monovillage]

It's not what people don't know that makes 'em stupid- it's what they think they know that's really not true.

Things like cutting govt spending will create jobs, that abstinence only sex-ed will result in fewer unwanted pregnancies, that self regulated banking won't crash & burn, and that trickledown economics actually work...

Authoritarian Left? What a giggle. Repubs have been purging their ranks of all dissent for 30 years, using an ideological cookie cutter to create their politicians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_left

Is that why Obama is the only Democrat running for president? Talk about ideological cookie cutters.

 

[Jhhnn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_left

Is that why Obama is the only Democrat running for president? Talk about ideological cookie cutters.

He's the only one running because he's good enough, and because prominent Dems have no serious reasons to run against him.

Authoritarian Left? After the fall of the Soviets, it's more of a theoretical construct than anything else. OTOH, their counterparts on the Right are stronger than ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism

If you weren't deliberately blind, you'd see a little bit of yourself in there...

 

[piasabird]

Well if the media was not always taking sides and then attempting to brainwash the public, maybe we could be informed and choose wisely. The problem is no one knows what the government is even doing. The O'Bamma administration has used laws enacted by woodrow wilson to charge Journalists with crimes of sedition against the federal government 6 times. This is the most open Administration since Hitler.

 

[monovillage]

He's the only one running because he's good enough, and because prominent Dems have no serious reasons to run against him.

Authoritarian Left? After the fall of the Soviets, it's more of a theoretical construct than anything else. OTOH, their counterparts on the Right are stronger than ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism

If you weren't deliberately blind, you'd see a little bit of yourself in there...

You are dreaming if you think the authoritarian left died with the soviets, they are alive and living well in China and the Democratic party.

I'm far from Authoritarian, if anything i'm much closer to Libertarian. You, on the other hand are about as extreme of an Authoritarian as they come.