Democracy vs Political Education

[Roman Candle]

Do you believe that it is valid to call a system a democracy if the people voting don't actually have an in-depth knowledge of the party and the political system?

It occured to me the other day that if you don't actually understand the precise politics and economics a party proposes, then all you're voting for is a shiny politician with a few vauge ideas. In that case, it's hardly really a democracy at all - you're not voting for policy, you're voting for an appearance. Which it seems to me is extremely unwise and unsafe.

So it now seems to me that a rigorous education in reasonable debate (and logical fallacies in particular), political history, and economics must be compulsory and any government that does not educate its people in this way is denying them a true democracy.

Unfortunately, I know very little about politics or economics :s

 

[Rhazdel]

The true definition of "democracy" has really gone out the window in the last few centuries. Our "democracy" is little more than a traditional "republic".

(Note: My use of the words "democracy" and "republic" do not reflect the political parties, as I am going to explain below)

In a true "democracy", the government (elected official) listens to and obeys the will (majority will) of the people.

In a true "republic", the people elect an official to govern at his/her discretion.

Since most officials are merely chosen by the people, and then the people are given very little input thereafter, is it really a democracy at all?

And yes, people do elect based on who "looks the shiniest" rather than "who has the best policies" (trust me, I come from California - the land of the Governator).

The global political climate is terrifying, right now. It really is.

 

[djzalzer]

I don't see how we're being denied freedoms by not being forced to learn debate... The American public won't learn anything unless they want to-which sadly doesn't seem the case. People can choose who to vote for-and if the shiny politicians with vague ideas don't provide enough details, the people can choose to vote for them or not. Sadly enough, the general public will go with the politician whose political ad looks the coolest or the leading politician in their party.

The only way for the average American to have their opinion heard is to vote or to become a politician (Sadly, regular people aren't really running the government as American forefathers intended),...

 

[Roman Candle]

But if you're voting for the most charismatic candidate, and charisma is largely unrelated to actual policy, then you're not a function member of a democracy. You might as well flip a coin.

 

[ccoa]

Worse, you're voting for the candidate with the most money and best publicist to make himself look shiny. And the candidate with the most money is going to be the most indebted to special interest groups.

The two party system also has to go - there's no functional difference between a Democrat and Republican except their stances on a few (purely superficial but publicly hot) issues. People need to accept that voting for a third party candidate or independent is not "throwing away their vote." Also, abortion and gay marraige are not issues you should be basing your decision on. Pick the really important issues that will actually have an effect on the nation and the world - the economy, global warming, foreign policy, etc. Politicians only bring up "hot" issues like abortion because the public gobbles it up. But in the long run, whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, abortion is a nonissue compared to everything else that's wrong with the world and the United States.

Also, if you're not willing to take the time to educate yourself beyond what you see on television, then I really don't want you voting for my future government. That's right, don't vote. I'd feel a hell of a lot safer if only people who knew who the candidates really are and what they stand for voted (as much as it's possible to tell), whether they share my political opinions or not.

 

[Jstreet]

Well, the USA is a Representative Democracy. The more local (State and City) votes are the most important, imo. We elect local officials to represent us in the legislation and interpret the politics that we don't understand.

Also, you should note that the President isn't directly voted for by the citizens. Actually, our votes are a voice to the state representatives who then cast the official electorial votes. So in reality, we could all vote for one guy and they could pick a completely different person. Of course, that would lead to conspiracy theories, and thoughts of inter-government corruption, bringing up several lawsuits.

Anyway, that's how it works in the US.

Believe it or not there's a large percentage of people who don't vote (people who can legally vote). They don't vote for this very reason, information or lack thereof. Most of the people who care enough to vote actually review politics. Maybe not much further than a TV set, but being mildly knowledgeable is better than being incompetent.

Also, it's not like you can't find out some things quite easily. Shit for the most parts when it comes to voting all you have to do is no your candidate's party and look up their platform to get a vague idea of what they want to do for the citizens.

 

[Rhazdel]

I don't vote for one very specific reason:

I dislike all candidates. At least the major candidates (in the U.S., the Democrats and the Republicans). I lean more toward Democrats on most issues, but it's kind of like voting whether you would like to be punched in the face or kicked in the gut. Either way, you lose.

As I've said, the U.S. has strayed from the concept of "democracy" and migrated to more of a traditional republic. We elect the politicians and then they do whatever they want (for the most part).

Gee, Panda, are you basing the electoral college votes winning out over popular votes on anything in particular

I mean, look at the 2000 elections (if you have a strong stomach). I DID NOT like Gore (I liked Bush even less, though), but Gore actually won the Popular Vote (he got more individual votes, meaning the country, on the whole, preferred him), but he lost the electoral votes, so he lost the election.

Idealistically, which person is in office shouldn't matter, because, in a true democracy, they should follow the will of the majority. The only time personal politics should play into your decision of who to vote for, would be in the case of no clear majority rule, or in times when the will of the majority can't be cast (ie: crisis situations where there is no time for a vote).

This is what spawned the media frenzy over those "hot button" issues, like abortion and stem cell research. Because there is no clear majority, the personal beliefs of the politicians begin to play in. But, now, people have lost sight of what really matters and obsess over the trivial stuff.

"He may be a terrible leader, but at least he agrees with me on Point X!"

 

[arcthemonkey]

I don't think that a leader has less or more discretion in a pure democracy than he does in a democratic republic.

Besides, though, direct democracy has been shown to be fairly ineffective with large populations.

Consider the consequences of direct democracy. In a direct democracy, who would have freed the slaves? You have to consider that in a society where the majority has absolute power, minorities have NO power. By confining the act of governing to elected representatives who are bound to the constitution, minorities are afforded better protection (really only ideally, but it does work). Direct democracy is dangerous in such a large, diverse country.

As for a candidate losing the popular vote but winning the electoral vote, that's a complex debate - however, it is extraordinarily rare.

We are still a democratic society in the sense that the people hold power, but such power is divided into regions to, again ideally, better represent the greater demographic.

 

[Rhazdel]

The voting system is rather skewed. As you said, winning the popular vote while losing the electoral is rare, but it obviously does happen. Also, the electoral votes are all equal. That means that Idaho's vote counts for 1 and New York's vote counts for 1, even though New York is much more densely populated (and therefore represents a much larger percentage of the majority). Population is factored into the House of Representatives (big whoop), but not Congress. The whole thing is a big mess.

Don't get me wrong, I do love this country, but there is a quote I heard a while back that sums up my belief nicely:

"Laws are like sausages, in that, if you ever see how they are made, you will want nothing more to do with either of them."

("Laws" here can pretty much extend to politics in general, for me)

But, to get back a little more on topic, I don't think that a true democracy is a better option for the U.S., but I think that trivializing over "which candidate looks better in a suit" or "which candidate agrees with me on one minor little detail" is outrageous.

As a country (and I would even extend this to some countries beyond), we have lost sight of what makes this country great, and have reduced to mudslinging and namecalling, until you are left to choose between which hog is wallowing in less mud.

There is almost no 'political education' anymore, because all any candidate talks about is 1) where he/she stands on 'hot button' issues and 2) what terrible things his/her opponent has done. The important stuff is rarely even discussed anymore.

 

[arcthemonkey]

If we could find some people who were truly objective and non-biased on political issues, then we would actually have someone to teach politics.

I can't think of anyone off the top of my head.

 

[ccoa]

Or you could select a group of people who were relatively objective and had a range of political views, thus giving the students the viewpoints they need to make up their own minds.

 

[Rhazdel]

@Arc and Ccoa

I would agree, but for 2 reasons:

1) Trying to find a knowlegeable, yet unbiased political teacher is like trying to find a monkey that can fly (ok, I really only used that example because I really enjoy the visual in my mind.....*spaces out*).

2) Most people don't want to learn. People are pretty extreme in their political view and it is very hard to change that bias, even if you give them all the facts.

I don't know, maybe I'm too pessimistic.

 

[Andy6000]

@Arc and Ccoa

I would agree, but for 2 reasons:

1) Trying to find a knowlegeable, yet unbiased political teacher is like trying to find a monkey that can fly (ok, I really only used that example because I really enjoy the visual in my mind.....*spaces out*).

2) Most people don't want to learn. People are pretty extreme in their political view and it is very hard to change that bias, even if you give them all the facts.

I don't know, maybe I'm too pessimistic.

I dunno, a decent government teacher isn't too hard to find, the only problem is actually making yourself go to class, and then keeping up after class is over. My government teacher was... Pretty horribly anti-bush, and seemed like he hated the Republican viewpoint and was a staunch athiest, but he tried to keep it out of classroom (other than the occasional, "I have no idea what the fuck Bush was trying to accomplish there"). I wouldn't say I learned too terribly much about the 'core values' of what's important, because you know, you should be finding those out yourself, but those classes are pretty educational on how the actual system works.

Stuff like efficacy, apathy, why exactly the house of representatives factors in population but congress doesn't (because some of the smaller states felt they needed an equal say in stuff when everything was being organized). And of course the wierd concept of the iron triangle between special interest groups, lobbyists, and your representatives. Why for the most part a representative will try to represent what the people who elected him want (at least on what they hear about) so he'll be elected again, but is willing to go his own way to get things he cares about passed through by bartering for favors so others can do it. The American government is a big, scary place that's very complex and annoying.

The only way someone has to make the system run better? PAY MORE FUCKING ATTENTION. Politicians' lives are run by getting elected again, if you pay attention to what they're doing that's not a hot-button issue, they're going to start doing what you want instead of what they want. But then again, that's something the majority would have to commit to doing, and political apathy is very overpowering right now so it's gonna be a while!

 

[___]

Well first off the U.S. was founded as a representative, not democratic, governing body. It's in both the original articles of confederation and the constitution. That doesn't make the OP's point at all invalid though. Also, many state and local governments are democratic, as are some countries.

I do believe everyone should be educated on government, politics, and logical debate. I also believe that in general our education system totally fails to teach useful and practical things. Fact is it's pretty tough to teach children and teenagers stuff that they're not interested in though, regardless of whether it's useful, and kids don't find government very interesting at all. There are so many problems with our education system though it's hard to keep focused on it : )

I actually think people who don't wish to educate themselves on politics should be encouraged to abstain from voting. The whole movement toward compulsory voting exclusively benefits politicians in the current system. Ideally you could have compulsory education and voting but that's not practical and raises ethical issues.

Don't ask questions. Get out and vote (for me). Right?

@Arcthemonkey: I think it's possible to present an unbiased viewpoint and maintain a personal bias if you have any kind of intellectual integrity. Do most educators have any intellectual integrity? That's questionable.

@Andy6000: We could probably provide a strict factual education on the structure and history of the government and bleach out most political bias if we wanted to. One of my professors (a retired judge) was admirably good at separating facts from his opinions and he's the only person I've ever encountered that did so. I think most teachers are just trying to counter what they see as a social bias by representing an opposite extreme, but in doing that they can be really harmful because they are perceived to have more authority and education than the people who previously taught the other point of view. I don't suspect that most educators actually believe every extremist point of view they sometimes present, they're just trying to get the students thinking. That's an uphill battle though since we spend our entire childhood being encouraged to think as little as possible.

@Rhazdel: I agree that a pure democracy is probably not a good choice in any large government, especially in a multicultural society like most developed countries have these days. The electoral college is being rightly questioned though - a democratic vote for president makes more sense now than it did at the time the country was founded.

 

[___]

Edit: Nevermind, was looking at the wrong page, accidental double post