> Lukhman...our educational system is already a farce, > with people getting degrees in agricultural science > and then using it to get a job as a clerk in > a bank...let's not add one more farcical reason > to get a degree from some
That is besides the point. Our educational system may be farcical, is a separate problem and can be tackled separately, in a parallel track. And Amit wrote in another message---> >2] The question is, Lukhman, do we have the *right* >to deny the uneducated of their vote? I am afraid my answer is in the affirmative. Now cool it. Wait! let me explain. I ask myself, who would I prefer to have as an elected member of parliament (or state assembly)? I am 100% sure I want a person who is wise and educated. A person who can read our constitution and understand and then in turn **believe** in it. It is obvious that every single vote will count in making this possible. When we desire our elected representative to be competent, why then put a very low value on each of our own votes? Why allow any of the voters to be the exact opposite of competent. >>When the public does have "opinions," moreover, they are often >>>>self-contradictory. It's well known, for example, that Americans (quoted from the original message of this thread) On one hand we want the best people to be in a position to govern the country while we insist that the worst of the worst also be given the right to vote these wonderful governments. By giving every body a right to vote, we will only end up voting the wrong people (even thugs and murderers) into parliament. The value of each vote is diluted. The ignorant person who is allowed to vote is not capable of making that correct choice. Voter ignorance is indeed killing democracy. Lukhman
