Dumb people shouldn't vote!?

[Yugoslav Memes]

Dumb or not, the people will still be manipulated by politicians in 'democratic' systems - in probably the worst way possible.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

Not just the dumb people - I'd rather see democracy abolished entirely.

A country should be run by people who actually know what they are doing, and have a vested interest in keeping things stable and prosperous rather than just enriching themselves and their election sponsors for the duration of their term, come hell or high water afterwards. These people should absolutely not be selected in a popularity contest by appealing to the basest wants of a dumbed-down rabble that an election these days typically is, but by their actual competence and qualification to perform the functions of the office they are to assume. Modern democracy contradicts the principles of meritocracy, since it is rarely if ever the most competent, qualified, honest and patriotic citizens who are elected to office (and that's assuming the election system even works as advertised, i.e. isn't rigged). Most of the time, it's the most smooth-tongued and audacious liars with the most influential sponsors who care little for the fate of the nation, seeing it as merely another resource pool at which to enrich themselves and their supporters. The average voter these days (and by "average" I mean 85 or more percent) is so lazy, dumbed-down and politically illiterate that such people should be driven away from the election booths with a shitty stick by anyone who cares about the future of his nation.

A democracy can work properly in a nation where all or at least most of the eligible citizens actively take interest in politics and consider it their most sacred duty to work together in governing their state. Which is in stark contrast to modern "democracies" where the only vestige of actual democracy is a symbolic election once every four years to legitimize the authority of the corrupt oligarchs and their cronies in power, where voting is the only political activity expected or desired from the dumbed-down and apathetic common rabble, and where most people cannot be bothered to exercise even this nominal political activity because of it's evident futility.

Which is why the so-called democracy of today needs to go. The whole political system in the West is rotten to the core and needs to be redesigned from ground up if our civilization and it's many nations are to have a future.

Man, dictators/kings love their people so much. Remember the good old days of despotism, where corrupt kings ruled corrupt dukes ruling corrupt counts which enforced practical slavery on it's subjects?

Those were the days.

Are you suggesting that things are somehow different for the majority of the world today? The abolition of chains and whips and the right of slaves to choose their masters does not abolish the division between masters and slaves. Your alarm clock is now your whip, your bills and loan payments are your shackles and you spend your entire life working to enrich someone else.

The advocates of democracy in it's current form tend to forget two things - firstly, that it's really the sponsors of the election campaigns that actually run the state, not the actual reps who just smile and wave on the TV on their behalf, and secondly, that elected officials have no compelling reason to care for the well-being of the nation beyond the special interest group that paid for their election campaign.

---

The Chinese used to have an elaborate examination system for their officials, ensuring that only competent and qualified individuals could assume a government office. I don't see why a similar system could not be adopted for modern times, nor why such a system could be incompatible with democracy if some people so insist on retaining it. In the very least, it would ensure that the masses of stupid politically-illiterate voters cannot elect unqualified individuals into office.

[The Two Jerseys]

Well we're on a new topic now, so I guess both Skrill and the 4th graders passed on coasianism...

[Rusozak]

Democracy is the best system of government ever devised. However, it's biggest flaw is it's only as effective and fair as the voting public is informed. So yes, if you have no clue what your voting for or what the impact will be, just stay home on election day. You're not helping by voting blindly.

[Galloism]

Well we're on a new topic now, so I guess both Skrill and the 4th graders passed on coasianism...

Maybe because it's stupid and even fourth graders can see that.

[Giovenith]

Who gets to decide who the "idiots" are?

There's your problem.

[Galloism]

Who gets to decide who the "idiots" are?

There's your problem.

I'll decide.

Problem solved.

[Ebliania]

Who gets to decide who the "idiots" are?

There's your problem.

Might be us, for daring to disagree

[Ethel mermania]

The people have a right to be wrong.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Who gets to decide who the "idiots" are?

There's your problem.

I'll decide.

Problem solved.

I could get behind this.

[Tobuel]

If they are smart enough to be able to make enough money to pay taxes, then they should have the right to vote. They're funding the government after all it should be their decision (ideally no one should be voting).

[Russleb]

My stance on voting largely comes from the late great George Carlin


that being said, I see democracy as an experiment. It's quite fascinating to see what happens when anyone who's a citizen, regardless of contribution to society(which indeed does vary depending on who you ask) or lack thereof. All inevitable corruption aside(Fate of Empires and such), is it better to let the people have a say? I would argue yes despite my incredible cynicism. Because the chances of it working outweigh the lack of democracy.

But of course, nothing good lasts for very long, or stays good.

[Randian Atlantis]

Limiting voting rights for any reason seems like it would be harmful to democracy, rather than strengthen it.

Democracy often needs a check on it, the popular vote of fools can lead to worse tyranny than any dictator.

[Randian Atlantis]

Who gets to decide who the "idiots" are?

There's your problem.

An objective test of intelligence.

[Galloism]

Who gets to decide who the "idiots" are?

There's your problem.

An objective test of intelligence.

There's no such thing.

[Russleb]

An objective test of intelligence.

There's no such thing.

we regard animals as smart if they follow directions, and we treat kids the same way in school rather than based on how well they operate on their own and abstract thinking. common sense would be a nice indicator and a capacity to learn from mistakes, but I'm asking too much already

[Farnhamia]

My stance on voting largely comes from the late great George Carlin

(Image)

that being said, I see democracy as an experiment. It's quite fascinating to see what happens when anyone who's a citizen, regardless of contribution to society(which indeed does vary depending on who you ask) or lack thereof. All inevitable corruption aside(Fate of Empires and such), is it better to let the people have a say? I would argue yes despite my incredible cynicism. Because the chances of it working outweigh the lack of democracy.

But of course, nothing good lasts for very long, or stays good.

As much as I admire Saint George, he was wrong. If you refuse to participate in the system and do your best to make sure the best people are elected, you have no right to complain. None at all. You copped out, you stayed home, you abandoned your country for the specious claim that "this country was bought and paid for." Piffle.

[Russleb]

My stance on voting largely comes from the late great George Carlin

(Image)

that being said, I see democracy as an experiment. It's quite fascinating to see what happens when anyone who's a citizen, regardless of contribution to society(which indeed does vary depending on who you ask) or lack thereof. All inevitable corruption aside(Fate of Empires and such), is it better to let the people have a say? I would argue yes despite my incredible cynicism. Because the chances of it working outweigh the lack of democracy.

But of course, nothing good lasts for very long, or stays good.

As much as I admire Saint George, he was wrong. If you refuse to participate in the system and do your best to make sure the best people are elected, you have no right to complain. None at all. You copped out, you stayed home, you abandoned your country for the specious claim that "this country was bought and paid for." Piffle.

true, but would it be reasonable to assume that politicians reflect what the people of whatever country have to offer? politicians don't come from nowhere, they come from the same people who elect them, which doesn't bode well for the nation at this present state.

[Giovenith]

Who gets to decide who the "idiots" are?

There's your problem.

An objective test of intelligence.

There is no such thing as an objective intelligence test nor is creating one possible. Human intelligence is one of the most versatile and circumstantial forces we know of. Someone who seems like an idiot in one situation may be a genius in another and vice versa. People are predisposed toward believing that the things that they are good at are the true markers of intelligence, meaning there will always be a bias.

Stephen Hawking himself, one of the most generally accepted smartest guys alive, said that he does not believe that intelligence can be accurately measured and even once called people who brag about their IQ scores "losers."

[Tobuel]

An intelligent voter is a cleverer devil. The naturally depraved state of mankind is incapable of governing themselves, our only hope is that we are too stupid to effectively work destruction on ourselves.

[Minoa]

Limiting voting rights by intelligence is certainly harmful to a modern democracy, because the learning disabled will suffer the most.

[Farnhamia]

As much as I admire Saint George, he was wrong. If you refuse to participate in the system and do your best to make sure the best people are elected, you have no right to complain. None at all. You copped out, you stayed home, you abandoned your country for the specious claim that "this country was bought and paid for." Piffle.

true, but would it be reasonable to assume that politicians reflect what the people of whatever country have to offer? politicians don't come from nowhere, they come from the same people who elect them, which doesn't bode well for the nation at this present state.

Then it is the duty of patriotic citizens to remedy the situation.

[Russleb]

true, but would it be reasonable to assume that politicians reflect what the people of whatever country have to offer? politicians don't come from nowhere, they come from the same people who elect them, which doesn't bode well for the nation at this present state.

Then it is the duty of patriotic citizens to remedy the situation.

how the hell is that possible when the masses are swayed by politicians and empty promises?

I suppose a better emphasis on local authorities would benefit, take care of things at the lowest form of leadership, but I won't hold my breath. still, a little optimism is better at times I suppose.

[Farnhamia]

Then it is the duty of patriotic citizens to remedy the situation.

how the hell is that possible when the masses are swayed by politicians and empty promises?

I suppose a better emphasis on local authorities would benefit, take care of things at the lowest form of leadership, but I won't hold my breath. still, a little optimism is better at times I suppose.

You work as hard as you can to elect politicians who do not make empty promises. There are plenty of honest people out there who want to be of service to their country, state, county, city, what-have-you. Did I say it would be easy? No, but it can be done.

[Tobuel]

Why does a person living in California have a say in the life of a person living in Maine? It's absurd to think that people with nothing in common can self-govern effectively. If there is a democracy, it must be at most local possible level, nationally voting for an executive is absurd.