[IlPrincipe]

As I am currently studying the evolution of politics in history and the different political regimes,
I was wondering if it was possible that in the future a new form of democracy (or other political organisation) could appear in the western civilisations (considered as modernised).

The current democracies know different issues such as nepotist tendencies, corruptions or yet the mass medias manipulation.
So my thoughts are maybe naive or hypothetical, but it would interesting to discuss if a new form of social organisation, maybe more efficient, would be conceivable, and if yes which one?!

I also had in mind the changes of the French Revolution and the apparition of liberal ideas advocating a suffrage exclusively for rich and educated people?
I was thus wondering if a "right of vote" allowed to the citizens by an exam based on their qualifications and aptitudes could be an alternative?
Could this form of qualified franchise resolve many current problems still in a "democratic" way?

These ideas may seem very far-fetched but this is why I wanted to hear different opinions.

[Potemkin]

Your "new" form of democracy actually existed in the developed European nations of the 19th century, as a limited franchise for the well-to-do (which by definition at that time meant the educated classes of society). However, the early 20th century saw the advent of the masses into the political sphere for the first time. Once that particular genie had been allowed out of the bottle, there's no way to shove it back inside again.

[IlPrincipe]

Allright but now we can wonder if allowing every citizens to vote, whatever are their opinions or understanding of the politics, is the best way to organise the society ?!
The universal suffrage gives of course the complete view of the people opinions and is very representative of what people think or want.
But don't you think that this system, the most democratic there is, is maybe not the most "efficient" for the society?

I am just wondering if that system is not too beneficial for people with bad intentions and with lacks of minimal understanding of how to manage a state ?
If you can convice the people, manipulate them via the media, input misrepresented ideas in their head, and play a great "performance" on the political shows, you will have more to be elected than maybe someone who knows how to have such responsabilites but whose ideas won't be appreciated by the people, even if they are in their best interest.

You can observe in some countries that people who are/were in power, were sometimes not the best politicians (maybe with good feelings but without enough knowledges) but who were able to amass more votes, unlike their really efficient adversaries.

This is why I was wondering if letting only the people with enough knowledge to understand how politics works and what are in their best interests, if not better for the society than having a mandatory vote for everybody while taking the risk of giving votes to the best showmen but maybe not the best politicians.

[Potemkin]

Essentially, you are advocating something like Cromwell's "Parliament of the Saints" - an elite of the wise and the good governing in the (perceived) best interests of society as a whole, regardless of the popular will. It would probably be about as successful too.

[Paul Sanderson]

I actually agree with the idea and it's something I've mentioned before. The exam doesn't need to be very difficult and can be taken multiple times. The ideas from political manifestos would be better remembered by the citizens under this method and would stimulate some kind of debate. I honestly can't see liberals going along with this though- I more imagine talk of elitism and the taking away of basic rights

[fuser]

This is a very bad idea and relies on too much idealism to boot.

Under the current paradigm of capitalism I give any system like this 5 years before it being tore down in a popular mass movement. Capitalists directly woo the political class through money while the more disfranchised group of society have to rely on periodical votes no matter how farcical one may see this process, there is a check maintained as political class will have to woo this section of society for votes (one of the major reason for success of liberalism) and with the lack of latter there is simply no incentive for that.

The supposed wise men will be falling to the capitalist class too easily and an appeal to oh "their good hearts" is just silly idealism.

[Potemkin]

This is a very bad idea and relies on too much idealism to boot.

Under the current paradigm of capitalism I give any system like this 5 years before it being tore down in a popular mass movement. Capitalists directly woo the political class through money while the more disfranchised group of society have to rely on periodical votes no matter how farcical one may see this process, there is a check maintained as political class will have to woo this section of society for votes (one of the major reason for success of liberalism) and with the lack of latter there is simply no incentive for that.

The supposed wise men will be falling to the capitalist class too easily and an appeal to oh "their good hearts" is just silly idealism.

Exactly. Cromwell's 'Parliament of the Saints' failed for precisely this reason.

[blackjack21]

I was thus wondering if a "right of vote" allowed to the citizens by an exam based on their qualifications and aptitudes could be an alternative?

It used to be the case. I would go one further--that a politician should have to face such an exam too. The interesting question would be how do you construct the exam, or exams? I think there are two negative forces that apply to all humans: stupidity and laziness, both of which take some effort to overcome.

Literacy would be one factor. A voter should know the basic words and terms used in the constitution, for example. You wouldn't want to empower the political class to make it too arbitrary. A basic understanding of political institutions, their roles, etc. would also be useful. Too many people think the president is all powerful, and have little understanding of the legislature or the judiciary.

I think an ongoing test that would be interesting is a challenger's quiz, where a challenger gets to question prospective voters as to the votes of an incumbent. Too many people go to the polls and vote for someone who supports things they oppose, and they are not any wiser. They vote Democrat or Republican because their parents did, or their friends do, or their professor says that's how they should vote. People should know what the extant government has done and what their representatives have voted on. That would be a great test.

The current democracies know different issues such as nepotist tendencies, corruptions or yet the mass medias manipulation.

I'd be inclined to preclude non-consecutive terms of office--forcing people to vote on ideas rather than on people.

So my thoughts are maybe naive or hypothetical, but it would interesting to discuss if a new form of social organisation, maybe more efficient, would be conceivable, and if yes which one?!

For me, I think expansive suffrage is a big mistake. For example, all tax bills arise from the House of Representatives; yet, not all people who vote for representatives have to pay taxes. In my opinion, all tax bills should arise from representatives of people who have paid taxes. So in my opinion, all representatives who can propose a tax may only be elected by persons who have paid a tax--hence, I think a poll tax should be mandatory for such representatives.

I think having a Senate that's popularly elected violates federalism. Moreover, I think class factions should be represented and aren't. I think it would be interesting to revert one senator to election by a state legislature, and another senator to election by citizens who have paid a poll tax. That would fundamentally change the make up of the senate--giving states a vote, and tax payers a vote.

However, the early 20th century saw the advent of the masses into the political sphere for the first time. Once that particular genie had been allowed out of the bottle, there's no way to shove it back inside again.

I think Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, the Eastern European communists (Ceaucescu, Honnecker, etc), Franciso Franco, Benito Mussolini, Georgios Papadopoulos, etc. have more than proved that assertion false. The regular retort is that we "can't put the genie back in the bottle." I think we can and should. As Charles Murray suggests, we are already moving toward a different society based on a cognitive elite. We need a political system that reflects it.

My goal wouldn't be to take away the franchise from the poor, but rather from the stupid. We have too much stupid in this society. Rich and stupid, poor and stupid--you don't vote. If you're stupid, you just don't have that right. You want poor and smart--not necessarily tied to degrees, but aptitute--to be represented. You want their interests to be represented too.

The universal suffrage gives of course the complete view of the people opinions and is very representative of what people think or want.

I think that is an assumption of fact not in evidence. Chuck Schumer has recently lamented--the South having lost most of its Democratic Party politicians now--that ObamaCare was not the right focus. Well, of course that's correct. However, they knew that before the 2008 election. The elected representatives did what special interests wanted, not what the people wanted. So the elected representatives are not reflective of the will of the people now. For example, Jeb Bush has considered running for the presidency and just issued his first gaffe, "You have to lose the primary to win the general without compromising your principles." Of course, you cannot lose the primary and win the general. What he means is, you have to lie your ass off in the primary without pissing off the middle, and then betray the base. Bush and a lot of the Republican Establishment and Democratic Party elites want to flood the United States with illegal immigrants to keep wages down, while at the same time leaving 90M Americans out of the workforce. This is not in the interest of rank and file Democrats or Republicans, but the political class in the United States is trying to do that anyway. So a French-style revolution may not be as far off as the elite in this country thinks.

I honestly can't see liberals going along with this though- I more imagine talk of elitism and the taking away of basic rights

Modern liberals really do not give two shits about the poor. Nobody in their right mind would flood the country with third world laborers who are illiterate in English and their native language in a country with 90M able-bodied people not participating in the labor force. They have an agenda, and it sure as shit isn't about helping the poor.

[Rich]

This is a stupid idea. In fact its such a stupid idea that anyone who proposes this should be banned from voting for being too stupid.

What your saying is I don't like the result of elections so I want to stop some people from voting so as I can get a result more to my liking. Its stupid because no one who supports a party that loses from these changes is going to accept the result as legitimate. Universal adult suffrage is now really the only game in town, not because it produces perfect results but because it is a straight forward system that most people can accept. Of course if society is too divided then democracy comes to an end.

The Bolsheviks actually tried this. They didn't like the result of the Constituent assembly so they said lets use the Soviet results that exclude the capitalists and the middle class. Of course the result was dictatorship. Either you accept the result of the democracy or you don't. You can get away with nibbling at the edges of universal suffrage, such as excluding prisoners or criminals, but only because this has almost zero effect on the outcome. As soon as you say well I don't think this group of voters should have aright to vote, then all your opponents can soon start thinking of groups that they want to exclude to bias the result in their favour. Maybe people who've made racist or sexist homophobic comments on face-book or twitter.

Its one thing to preserve an existing exclusion, for example the Swiss excluded women from voting inot the seventies, but once peole have been given the right to vote, you can't take it away again without delegitimising the result and there by undermining the number on advantage of democracy: the huge legitimacy that it confers. No there's only two choices now universal suffrage or no suffrage. I want to caveat that statement. I have myself proposed excluding Muslims from voting in Western Syria. Now this is only possible to implement in a situation of religious conflict, where population transfers and ethnic rationalisation are already ongoing. I don't propose it under the illusion that it would be anything but extremely divisive and could never be implemented peacefully.

[blackjack21]

What your saying is I don't like the result of elections so I want to stop some people from voting so as I can get a result more to my liking. Its stupid because no one who supports a party that loses from these changes is going to accept the result as legitimate. Universal adult suffrage is now really the only game in town, not because it produces perfect results but because it is a straight forward system that most people can accept. Of course if society is too divided then democracy comes to an end.

The end of democracy has already been achieved. I'm saying that the way you get it back is by preventing knuckeheads from voting, and by preventing voting on an irrational best interest--for example, allowing people who don't pay taxes to vote themselves benefits that they don't have to pay for; or similarly, preventing people from voting for tax cuts--e.g., impost duties--that they would otherwise have to pay for.

The United States government is a mixed economy welfare state that has outsourced its tax base, because taxes are levied on labor. It persists, as Jonathan Gruber noted, because most voters are too stupid to figure out the lies being told to them. They vote for a "Cadillac Tax" on themselves, because they think they are levying it on insurance companies, who will just pass it on to the consumer. Ergo, dumb people should not be allowed to vote.

The Bolsheviks actually tried this. They didn't like the result of the Constituent assembly so they said lets use the Soviet results that exclude the capitalists and the middle class.

I didn't propose excluding capitalists, the middle class, the underclass, the upper class. I proposed eliminating the impossibly stupid class.

Either you accept the result of the democracy or you don't.

I don't.

As soon as you say well I don't think this group of voters should have aright to vote, then all your opponents can soon start thinking of groups that they want to exclude to bias the result in their favour.

Sure they can, but that's what war is for.

Its one thing to preserve an existing exclusion, for example the Swiss excluded women from voting inot the seventies, but once peole have been given the right to vote, you can't take it away again without delegitimising the result and there by undermining the number on advantage of democracy: the huge legitimacy that it confers.

I don't see it as absolute legitimacy. For example, I would argue that under the Affordable Care Act, you don't necessarily get to keep your plan or your doctor. You can infer that by the basic language of the statute. The problem is that the president would argue otherwise, his supporters would argue otherwise, and the media would put on a massive campaign supporting the president. It doesn't matter that it turns out that I'm right and the president was lying, because idiots have the right to participate in the process. These are idiots who now oppose what they once supported. These are idiots who like the Affordable Care Act, but don't like ObamaCare even though they are exactly the same thing.

No there's only two choices now universal suffrage or no suffrage.

I don't think that's the case.

I have myself proposed excluding Muslims from voting in Western Syria. Now this is only possible to implement in a situation of religious conflict, where population transfers and ethnic rationalisation are already ongoing.

Right, and my point is that you are going to eliminate a lot of Muslims from the rolls if you deal with my proposal; yet, you will still have many Muslim voters. In fact, Osama bin Laden and Mohammed Atta probably would get to vote, because they are educated men. The crazy guy yammering on the street corner would not get to vote. So unpopular ideas get a hearing, and popular but nutty ideas get a hearing. Rational wins, and irrational loses. That's what I'm aiming towards.

I don't propose it under the illusion that it would be anything but extremely divisive and could never be implemented peacefully.

Well even if it is implemented peacefully, sometimes you get democratic results you don't like. Remember, Hitler got more of the German popular vote (44%) than Bill Clinton got of the American popular vote in 1992 (42%). The Palestinians voted for Hamas. The Egyptians voted for the Muslim brotherhood.

If you want rational results, you need to eliminate irrational voters from the roll and from the eligible candidates.

[Potemkin]

If you want rational results, you need to eliminate irrational voters from the roll and from the eligible candidates.

So essentially, by "irrational voters" you mean anyone who votes for things that you don't like?

[IlPrincipe]

I was preparing answers to the comparaison about Cromwell's "Parliament of the Saints", or maybe explaining what criteria could be in the hypothetical exam,
but blackjack21 developed totally what exactly I had in mind !
I could not have explained better the idea.

Essentially, you are advocating something like Cromwell's "Parliament of the Saints" - an elite of the wise and the good governing in the (perceived) best interests of society as a whole, regardless of the popular will. It would probably be about as successful too.

However I still think I need to insist on the fact that I don't defend a democracy of "elites" "regardless of the popular will". The point is that you will still have a popular will but only from the people that can play a role in that political framework. It is a democracy from the rational people, not a universal democracy anymore, but still a democraty with the votes coming from the population.

Literacy would be one factor. A voter should know the basic words and terms used in the constitution, for example. You wouldn't want to empower the political class to make it too arbitrary. A basic understanding of political institutions, their roles, etc. would also be useful.

This is exactly what I meant. An exam based on the rationality and basic understanding, and that can be retaken.

What your saying is I don't like the result of elections so I want to stop some people from voting so as I can get a result more to my liking.

I think you get it wrong. The concept I was trying to develop was that everybody can vote, as long as he is rational enough to do so. It doesn't matter if he shares different opinions or if I agree or not. Differences of opinions are of course still allowed, and necessary in a society. As blackjack21 argued, I don't advocate the elimination of some particular opinions, but the elimination of stupidity (which is not a political opinion I think) from the political framework.

Of course if society is too divided then democracy comes to an end.

Do you really think you're living in a real democracy ?! (Of course we use the terms, like in representative democracy, but I mean the basic signification of democracy?) -- But this is another topic

So essentially, by "irrational voters" you mean anyone who votes for things that you don't like?

And no, "irrational voters" does not mean people who vote for things I don't like,
but people who are not conscious of the importance of the vote, of what politics represents, who don't understand the issues... who are not rational enough.

Remember what blackjack previously cited as examples. It is very representative of the concept I try to defend and the problem with the current suffrage.

Too many people go to the polls and vote for someone who supports things they oppose, and they are not any wiser. They vote Democrat or Republican because their parents did, or their friends do, or their professor says that's how they should vote. People should know what the extant government has done and what their representatives have voted on.

[quetzalcoatl]

It is becoming less important, year by year, who votes and doesn't vote. The visible official government is fading in importance as the deep state becomes entrenched and rationalized.

there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose...this other government cannot be accurately termed an “establishment.” All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself.

Mike Lofgren, veteran (28 year) congressional staffer.

[The Deep State] is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street. All these agencies are coordinated by the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council. Certain key areas of the judiciary belong to the Deep State, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose actions are mysterious even to most members of Congress. Also included are a handful of vital federal trial courts, such as the Eastern District of Virginia and the Southern District of Manhattan, where sensitive proceedings in national security cases are conducted. The final government component (and possibly last in precedence among the formal branches of government established by the Constitution) is a kind of rump Congress consisting of the congressional leadership and some (but not all) of the members of the defense and intelligence committees. The rest of Congress, normally so fractious and partisan, is mostly only intermittently aware of the Deep State and when required usually submits to a few well-chosen words from the State’s emissaries.

[Paul Sanderson]

This is a very bad idea and relies on too much idealism to boot. Capitalists directly woo the political class through money while the more disfranchised group of society have to rely on periodical votes no matter how farcical one may see this process, there is a check maintained as political class will have to woo this section of society for votes (one of the major reason for success of liberalism) and with the lack of latter there is simply no incentive for that.

If this is the system now, it doesn’t necessarily have to change. Also, what is the “political class”? It’s true that wealthy businessmen use their wealth and influence to support the parties that are more favourable to them, but this doesn’t make them the deciding factor. The Labour party in Britain (seen as the working class party/party of immigrants) has massive funding from the trade unions which is no different from taking money from a relatively small number of big donors. Supposedly the democrats in the United States can rely on donations from both sides of the political spectrum with the Obama administration being particularly adept at raising billions. As we’ve stated before, this exam doesn’t need to be difficult by any means and the system we propose is actually a safeguard against the power of the media and newspapers which can’t be a bad thing. Maybe if Conservative/Labour voters really understood what they were voting for based on these parties’ recent performance and most recent manifesto, they would have less cause to be swayed by one of the headlines in the Sun newspaper.

What your saying is I don't like the result of elections so I want to stop some people from voting so as I can get a result more to my liking. Its stupid because no one who supports a party that loses from these changes is going to accept the result as legitimate. Universal adult suffrage is now really the only game in town, not because it produces perfect results but because it is a straight forward system that most people can accept.

This is far from what we’re saying and I can only stress for a third time that the exam is not going to be taxing. If you are too stupid/lazy to learn the basic principles of a political party’s manifesto, you just don’t deserve to have a say in how the country is going to be run. For now, this actually applies to most people. However, in time, when that right is taken away from them, they will begin to desire what they once had but don’t have anymore. This is simple psychology. The people will then become more politically involved so as not to lose their vote.

Of course if society is too divided then democracy comes to an end.

I think democracy actually encourages a divided society in a lot of ways- a divided population is much easier to control (and therefore less likely to unite and rebel) than a united one.

The Bolsheviks actually tried this. They didn't like the result of the Constituent assembly so they said lets use the Soviet results that exclude the capitalists and the middle class.

Why do you assume that people would get excluded based on anything other than their ability to pass the exam?

As soon as you say well I don't think this group of voters should have aright to vote, then all your opponents can soon start thinking of groups that they want to exclude to bias the result in their favour. Maybe people who've made racist or sexist homophobic comments on face-book or twitter.

The point here is that people can’t be banned from voting based on anything other than their knowledge. Wealth, gender, race and sexuality mean nothing. Anyone can vote, the only condition is that you make a slight effort in order to do so- you don’t have to change your lifestyle.

Its one thing to preserve an existing exclusion, for example the Swiss excluded women from voting inot the seventies, but once peole have been given the right to vote, you can't take it away again without delegitimising the result and there by undermining the number on advantage of democracy: the huge legitimacy that it confers.

My opinion is that this method actually increases legitimacy by putting the power of the vote in the hands of those taking the exam. Currently, as mentioned in this post, illegitimacy is guaranteed by people voting for parties based on what they read in the newspaper or see on TV. We should probably then ask ourselves, “how many people are involved in deciding what the final edit of the newspaper or TV program will look like?” Not many at all. This grants and unbelievable amount of power on those who run these media groups and is actually a great contradiction of democracy and adds to its illegitimacy.

[Dystopian Darkness]

As I am currently studying the evolution of politics in history and the different political regimes,
I was wondering if it was possible that in the future a new form of democracy (or other political organisation) could appear in the western civilisations (considered as modernised).

The current democracies know different issues such as nepotist tendencies, corruptions or yet the mass medias manipulation.
So my thoughts are maybe naive or hypothetical, but it would interesting to discuss if a new form of social organisation, maybe more efficient, would be conceivable, and if yes which one?!

I also had in mind the changes of the French Revolution and the apparition of liberal ideas advocating a suffrage exclusively for rich and educated people?
I was thus wondering if a "right of vote" allowed to the citizens by an exam based on their qualifications and aptitudes could be an alternative?
Could this form of qualified franchise resolve many current problems still in a "democratic" way?

These ideas may seem very far-fetched but this is why I wanted to hear different opinions.

You are definitely not the first person I've "met" that proposes this measure. It's not bad per se, but it seems unreliable to me. The problem is that qualifications and aptitudes are subjective adjectives we attribute to people and I don't know how we would be able to measure who gets to vote or not. There are certainly many uneducated and "not qualified" people who don't understand anything about politics voting. This depends on the country though, in my country there's a lot of abstinence and I mostly assume people who don't vote don't understand or don't care.

You need to specify what do you mean by exams and qualifications, since it's an idea that could easily be used to manipulate who gets to vote and reach pre-determined results.

Let me give my example - I'm a university student (law), I have decent knowledge on politics and I am well informed on what's going on with the world and around me. In my case, I have trouble voting since it's hard to choose from a sea of bad fish (but I still do it). Would I qualify to vote?

[Contrapunctus]

I also had in mind the changes of the French Revolution and the apparition of liberal ideas advocating a suffrage exclusively for rich and educated people?
I was thus wondering if a "right of vote" allowed to the citizens by an exam based on their qualifications and aptitudes could be an alternative?
Could this form of qualified franchise resolve many current problems still in a "democratic" way?

Any sort of testing requirements for voting will only serve to disenfranchise citizens. It's been tried and repealed,and god willing it'll stay that way.

The only requirement for voting should be citizenship.