To think that democracy isn't necessarily the best form of government?

[Thebestwaytoscareatory]

For example, I'm interested in politics and governance and have spent time learning about the topic, yet my vote counts exactly as much as someone who thinks all brown people are rapists or that all women are nothing more than broodmares.

This doesn't sit right with me. Surely we should acknowledge that some opinions are not as valid as others and take steps to ensure that the lowest common denominator isn't represented equally at elections?

That's a brave mea culpa @Thebestwaytoscareatory . And a graceful one too.

I don’t think democracy itself is the problem. It’s education and manipulation. So I like the poster who suggested that you have to sit a test, like passing your driving test, before being able to vote. They made a good point there. We don’t let people out on the road without the skills they need - it would cause chaos. Similar chaos ensues when uneducated voters, vote - and I mean, uneducated in politics and how government works, not anything more.

Second, if I were queen I’d make newspapers declare their political allegiances and print it at the beginning of every article. A free press is important. So is understanding the bias you are being exposed to.

Incorrect as a representative democracy is actually indirect

As far as I am concerned, we lost the right to be called "representative" when our craven parliament decided to abrogate it's role and give in to the mob.

And we won't be representative again until that is reversed.

Taxation explained in beer

Once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, the first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing, the fifth would pay £1, the sixth would pay £3, the seventh would pay £7, the eighth would pay £12, the ninth would pay £18 and the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59
he group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected.
But how could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realised £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody’s share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. ‘I only got £1 out of the £20 saving,’ declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man: ‘but he got £10.’
‘Yes, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved £1 too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me.’
‘That’s true” shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get £10 back when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks
‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison, ‘we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor.’
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next week the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him but did not have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill.
So Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore.’

So I like the poster who suggested that you have to sit a test, like passing your driving test, before being able to vote.

This was also suggested after Brexit and I think there’d rightly be uproar if it was suggested.

Anyway how would it work?
Would there be vast examination halls with invigilators with queues outside like for covid jabs?
Would the topics of the questions be known in advance so candidates could revise or would they have no idea what was coming so only those that really knew their stuff would pass?
What about for those who spoke poor or no English? Would tests be allowed in the language of their choice?
How many questions and what would the pass mark be?

@asterdaisy

"I assume you know we all pay a certain amount of tax. So what you really mean is poor people should not vote."

++++

But there has to be a balance, the 1% of wealthiest incomes pay 30% of all income tax whereas 48% pay no income tax because they don't earn enough.

When you are in the poorest 48% it is logical to vote for higher Government spending and higher taxes because the higher taxation won't impact you but you do benefit from higher Government spending on services.

The problem is that people generally vote for themselves, not for the whole of society and those in charge don't think beyond the term of office. I'd vote for a change to demarchy. Not perfect but could ensure long term strategies and less self interest participedia.net/method/194

And how exactly did "our craven parliament decided to abrogate it's role and give in to the mob"? 🤔

As you say, not perfect, but probably not worse.

Perhaps all earned income, from the first pound, should be subject to tax.

This doesn't sit right with me. Surely we should acknowledge that some opinions are not as valid as others and take steps to ensure that the lowest common denominator isn't represented equally at elections?

Well, John Stuart Mill argued in On Representative Government that one way of ensuring that liberal democracy was based on the votes of thoughtful rational people, was that university professors and judges and people in similar occupations should have 5 votes each, and the rest of the voting population should have votes apportioned on a a sliding scale according to education & profession, down to one vote for ordinary working people.

As I'm sure you know, from your extensive reading of political theory, Mill wasn't actually serious about this, however, but he wrote and thought a lot about the problem of British representative democracy was that an ignorant and careless person had the same voting power as a highly educated thinking person.

I'd get 5 votes, and going by the quality of your thought and writing in your OP@Thebestwaytoscareatory I'd say you're in the category of having only one vote.

Not so nice, is it?

Firstly no political party would ever get elected with such a policy and secondly even if it did exist then any Government wanting to increase spending through higher taxes would always want to levy those increases just on the wealthy and not proportionally across everyone.

Crazy. We ditched it here in NZ years ago, after a referendum to find what the public wanted.

Well, John Stuart Mill

Ah, someone who had some good points

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant..."

https://blog.politics.ox.ac.uk/will-people-primer-direct-democracy/

And as Jamie dimon said, we need a balanced tax system rather than an e.g. Just tax the rich

@Hawkins0090

"And as Jamie dimon said, we need a balanced tax system rather than an e.g. Just tax the rich"

+++

But in a democracy the majority will always vote to extract money from the minority for their own benefit until it becomes unsustainable.

That's the pickle, majority don't always understand the bigger picture

Indeed. A combination of the Daily Mail et al telling people what to think and the FPTP system we will never have a decent government

Exactly

I don't agree with much here, because there's a lot of snobbery and biased assumptions about the thinking skills of working class people. But I do love the idea of newspapers having to declare their political biases.

To prove some of the perspectives on here, try talking to different people of the working class and at a guess middle and upper class too and you'll will understand there level of political parties knowledge and understanding

Do you mean 'their'?

Votes are like pound coins - their value is tied to how much people want them; and the more there are, the less each one is worth.

Pickles, you know what I'm trying to suggest