Democracy - a failed experiment.

Does democracy work when stupid people can vote? I'm not talking about people who support different ideologies that you may or may not agree with, I'm talking about stupid people.

At the last General Election in the UK, we saw two approaches. Party A had a simple, inane, stupid three word slogan that they repeated again and again and again. Party B tried to bribe voters with giveaway policies announced almost every day, free this and free that. It's been said that the electorate saw through this but perhaps it's just a case that more stupid people were attracted to A than to B.

At the Brexit vote, one side lied but with a simple message while the other side were complacent and divided with a complex message. Stupid people opted for the simple message

In the US, Trump aimed for the stupid vote with a stupid message and won.

Throughout Europe, extremist parties of Left and Right have made gains with stupid messages making stupid promises that they couldn't keep but more and more stupid people voted for them.

So have the parties pretty much figured out how to get votes - appeal to the stupid?

Is there a system that ensures clever people like us CCers get more influence? Are the Russian and Chinese systems of "elected" dictatorships better for the population as a whole?
 

Beebo

Firm and Fruity
Location
Hexleybeef
49.9% of people are below average intelligence.
They always have been and always will be.
 

SpokeyDokey

Into my 64th
Moderator
No, you misunderstand. I'm not disapproving of the way stupid people vote, I'm disapproving of them being allowed to vote at all.
I'm not sure if you are being serious or not tbh. Maybe the lack of smileys means that you are being serious. In which case this post and your opening post are breathtakingly laden with arrogance.

Who are you to determine if someone is stupid or not? And how are you defining stupid? Someone not as savvy as you think that you are?

How are you determining that 'us CCers' are clever?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
I'm not sure if you are being serious or not tbh. Maybe the lack of smileys means that you are being serious. In which case this post and your opening post are breathtakingly laden with arrogance.

Who are you to determine if someone is stupid or not? And how are you defining stupid? Someone not as savvy as you think that you are?

How are you determining that 'us CCers' are clever?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
^_^

The point I'm making is democracy looks to be particularly easy to manipulate by blatantly lying and appealing to base instincts. Socrates and Voltaire both thought democracy wouldn't work because the masses are easily fooled. Aristotle called it a perversion akin to mob rule. Certainly seems true just now.

If there's an arrogance, does it not come from the Western democracies themselves who tell us repeatedly that democracy is best, democracy is worth dying for etc but is it? Is it really?

We don't have a true democracy anyway, we have representative democracy. In a sense, that's a form of epistocracy - we give our votes to someone with political knowledge and allow them to vote on our behalf. However, the party system corrupts that with whips controlling representatives using rewards and/or punishments regardless of the representative's own political knowledge.

But for the sake of argument, why not replace universal suffrage with epistocracy?
 

Once a Wheeler

Active Member
Beebo has got it right. Defining who is and who is not stupid is a bit of a waste of time, what is needed is a system where stupidities cancel themselves out and informed reason can become the decision-making process.

Almost any tried-and-tested form of proportional representation (PR) would be better than what the UK has at the moment. Under either a list system such as Germany or a single transferable vote (STV) system such as Ireland, the UK would have a very different and a much better system of government.

For example, either of these systems would have awarded around 10–20% of parliamentary seats to UKIP at times over the last 15 years. Far from giving power to extremists, this would have led to UKIP having its internecine punch-ups in Westminster, its unparliamentary tactics made evident to all and its ideas shown up for the bar-room bluster which they are. They would have rightly become a joke to the electorate and consequently fizzled out.

On the side of positive politics, the truly long-term policies such as social care, the NHS, education, defence and dealing with poverty would lose much of their partisan nature. The bottom line is freedom and no-one who is ill, ignorant, enslaved or destitute is free: a proportional system gives the common ground firm foundations. The current system puts the common ground up for grabs where the electorate is encouraged to pay for its fantasies with its birthright, which then becomes the property of fantasists.

The current prime minister has no genuine mandate. He is at the head of a faction which controls a minority which forms the tail which wags the dog. Democracy would be a very good thing; we certainly do not have it now.
 
Last edited:
^_^

The point I'm making is democracy looks to be particularly easy to manipulate by blatantly lying and appealing to base instincts. Socrates and Voltaire both thought democracy wouldn't work because the masses are easily fooled. Aristotle called it a perversion akin to mob rule. Certainly seems true just now.

If there's an arrogance, does it not come from the Western democracies themselves who tell us repeatedly that democracy is best, democracy is worth dying for etc but is it? Is it really?

We don't have a true democracy anyway, we have representative democracy. In a sense, that's a form of epistocracy - we give our votes to someone with political knowledge and allow them to vote on our behalf. However, the party system corrupts that with whips controlling representatives using rewards and/or punishments regardless of the representative's own political knowledge.

But for the sake of argument, why not replace universal suffrage with epistocracy?
Good to see you back in your amphora again Diogenes, it's been too long.

The only -ocracy that is relevant when discussing UK and US politics is "Idiocracy".
I would quite like to watch that again but I think doing so would depress me too much. At least President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho knew that he and his chiefs of staff were farking idiots.
 
Top Bottom