lukhman_khan wrote: <lots of snipping> > 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.
Wow. I couldn't disagree more. I don't want "the best people" to be in a position to govern the country, for I don't even know what "best people" means. I don't believe that the uneducated/non-landowning represent the "worst of the worst" either.[1] I also find it difficult to swallow the ultra-libertarian taxation argument espoused by Amit. I think that "fair" people, "just" people, etc., would do a better job of being my representative than someone who is well educated, and able to read contracts that she enters into on behalf of the electorate; and I am more keen on a person who can be disinterested than one who is able to differentiate between the words disinterested and uninterested. Does education have something to do with justice and fairness? Sure. A degree in political science would give you excellent theoretical grounding in those ideas. But that still won't teach you *how* to be just and fair. > 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. Voting is not about making the "correct choice"! There *is* no correct choice. Even if I am to descend to what Lukhman invokes (?) as "worst of the worst": between a "murderer" and a Ph.D. holder with a thesis in political science, a masters degree in management, and a bachelors degree in law, there is no "correct choice" for me. I might believe that the murderer was left no choice against the upper caste rapists and looters that she killed because the law had majestically turned its back towards her quest for justice against them. The Ph.D. holder, on the other hand, might believe that only the educated ought to have the right to be represented. Additionally, I think that in this conversation about "education", education is being used as a proxy for political conciousness and awareness which it *by no stretch of the imagination* can possibly be. We use age as a proxy too. Some people find that problematic too. That is because while children and young adults have agency, it is often different from the forms of agency that adults have. While quite often this difference is explained away by our societal structures (treating children as "children", taking away children's sexuality, etc.) as well as our laws (contract laws, law of under-age (statutory) rape, election laws, etc.), sometimes it is only due to maturity and experience. And while some people might not agree that "wisdom" and "education" are distinct, I do hope all will recognize that maturity and experience, and education are distinct. Sure they overlap, sometimes inform each other, but one is not necessary for the other. We don't give people the right to vote because they pay taxes (or consume, hence indirectly paying taxes) nor because we want the best amongst us to govern us. But I agree that saying that does not suffice, because that is deriving an ought from an is. The reason we *ought* not give people the right to vote on those grounds goes straight to political conceptions of state and society. (It is assumed in the following that we are talking only about humans when talking of state and society -- germs, chipmunks and kangaroos are being excluded, perhaps a bit unfairly.) While there are many foundational conceptions of the state (and an equal number of critiques of those conceptions), most agree that in absence of anarchy (which itself is an attractive political system) the representative democracy is the most attractive political conception of the state. Differently put, given a Rawlsian veil of ignorance (while being in the original position), the governing principles most people would choose would be a form of democracy to guarantee themselves the best future representation of their self-interest.[2] This simple thought experiment also shows that even in principle it is in each person's interest to look out for societal benefit. Taking that as a background for why it is in our best interest to have a representative democracy as the best political means to guarantee an equitable basic set of civil, political, social, and economic rights being available for all citizens, we shall visit the question of who all should have a right to vote. Given that the very foundation of this theoretical system is the representative democracy, all persons should thus have the right to vote. Should people be free to trade away their right to vote after acquiring it? That is a very interesting question that I have neither the time nor the capacity to answer. Instead, I shall end on the note that even more disturbing than the thought of a electorate of the educated is the idea that only the "best" reproduce. Let nature take its course and the fittest survive. Let's leave eugenics to Dr. M and the past to which he very rightly belongs. [1] We often deny prisoners, etc., various civil and political rights, but I believe even that is arrogant to an extent. [2] "Best representation" is, needless to say, a very different idea from "the best people" that Lukhman spoke of. I assume it is irrelevant that the thought experiment I am proposing here, though presented in slightly Rawlsian terms for the sake of convenience, is quite different from the one proposed by Rawls himself.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
