09
5 Good Reasons Why Democracy is a Crock
Written by-Zach-This may just be my cynicism talking but, let’s face it, democracy is not all its cracked up to be. It sounds like a great idea with the “we the people…….” bit but the fact of the matter is, there are good reasons why it’s turned into a disappointment. Here are 5:
1. Everyone can vote.
I realize this is what democracy is all about, and I just don’t think it’s a good idea. Why would we want everyone to vote? It just doesn’t make sense. When I look around I see a lot of people who have a hard enough time deciding what to wear in the morning… and many who don’t do a good job. If they don’t have the faculty to pick out their clothes in the morning, what makes us think they will be able to pick out reasonable government officials?
Do we really want everyone to vote?
Click American Idol’s Alexis Cohen to see a video of her in action!
These kids will be voters in about 8 years.
2. We got rid of literacy tests.
In 1965 the National Voting Rights Act got rid of literacy tests, mostly because the motivation for them had been discriminatory against African Americans. Although I don’t agree with discrimination; I also don’t agree with letting people who are illiterate vote.
“…democracy as a form of governance can function only if the voters are informed about the political life. The rational explanation for the literacy demands, in our time, is that illiterate people are not sufficiently informed about the political candidates and their political programs; for that reason, they are not able to make a truly appropriate decision.” Leonard at Meti Online
3. No one does the research.
Either no one has the time, or no one takes the time, to do the research needed to make a responsible decision when it comes to voting. I think that I probably do more research on politics than 90% of the voting public and I still feel like what I know right now is not enough to make good decisions for the nation. It’s just plain irresponsible to vote without doing the research.
4. We push voter turnout.
Why in the world do we encourage people to vote? The people who don’t want to vote probably shouldn’t be voting in the first place. I think we should encourage people to do research. Then the people who weren’t going to vote, and probably shouldn’t vote anyway, still won’t vote and the people who do the research are probably going to put that hard work into action, and are going to vote without the push from some advertising campaign on TV.
5. Elections are popularity contests… but not real ones.
What do people look for in a candidate? Well, we would hope that people would look for experience and qualifications, but that’s wishful thinking. The majority of Americans vote from an emotional viewpoint. Barack Obama is a perfect example of this.
How many people have you ever seen faint about how qualified and experienced someone was? No one. People faint because their emotions get the best of them. Tele-evangelists have been doing it for years. Its all a popularity contest, who has the most charisma, the best smile, the most handsome face, that’s who wins. It’s like middle-school student government elections. Except for it’s not a “real” popularity contest, because if it were, we all know Chuck Norris would be our president.
Note: I’m not ungrateful for the people who gave their lives for the country: I think they fought to keep us and our freedoms safe, not for democracy specifically.(Also, I realize that the United States is not a true democracy; it’s a constitutional republic. I know, I know.)
Great article. I’m sure glad that America does not have a Democracy, but a Republic. As we saw with the 2000 election, popular vote does not elect a President.
As Always,
Your Humble Servant
Great post!!!!! I for one have been a huge proponent of Donald Trump as Commander- in -Chief!!!!
I completely disagree. Though it may be that a lot of your points are well thought out (and you speak them well), I find that a lot of your points are emotionally biased instead of evidence-based.
1. Everyone can vote.
- Note some of the basic requirements for someone to be able to vote.
– A United States citizen
– At least 18 years of age
– Must have no, or be cleared of, any felonies or related crimes.
– Again… Must be a United States Citizen.
I find it kind of odd that your paragraphed argument on why certain people shouldn’t vote uses the example of what they wear in the morning and not based on who the actual voters are. I am willing to bet that lawmakers who wear business suits everyday wonder why in the world should you be able to vote when you roll out of bed and throw on a pair of torn jeans and a t-shirt in the morning. What if they are thinking the same about you as you do about the people who don’t wear the same as you.
To answer your question of, “Why would we want everyone to vote?,”… it’s because that’s what separated us from all of Europe when we became a nation. Back to your clothing issue, don’t you like the fact that you can CHOOSE what you want to wear today instead of being TOLD what to wear. (I realize that example is a bit extreme, but I am just showing the point of freedom of choice)
2. We got rid of literacy tests.
- It may have been racially slanted during the time, but do we really even need literacy tests anymore? With grade school education required by law, our students come out of high school knowing how to read and write. And it’s all for free (because voters chose it to be.) We don’t need literacy tests anymore. Yes, it may be true that some people can’t read or write. But let’s be honest, that number compared to those who can are enormously shadowed.
3. No one does the research.
- I will agree with you on this one. I used to hate it when someone didn’t vote. Then after a while I realized that I hate it even more when someone casts an uneducated emotionally based vote. i.e- I know too many females who are voting for Sen. Hillary Clinton this coming election SOLELY BASED ON the fact that she is a female. Ridiculous.
- But at the same time, how can we as a public know when someone is “educated enough” to vote? You can’t. So, we go with it.
4. We push voter turnout
- Of course we do! It’s because too many people are too lazy to get up early in the morning to go vote. Even if they know who they want and why they want, too many people just leave it up to the masses to do the voting for them. “Ah, well… I know who I want. If enough other people do as well, then my vote won’t matter because he/she will already be elected. But if they lose, then what’s one more vote gonna matter? It’s not like they lost by only one vote anyway.” Terrible.
– “Why in the world to we encourage people to vote?” Because it’s our right to. And if we don’t encourage it, no one else will.
- I agree, we should encourage people to research. And we already do! Things like MTV’s voting ads or that rappers (I forgot who) “Vote or Die” does not encourage people to vote just to vote. They encourage people to understand why they are voting and to vote for who they truly think the best candidate is. Watch their commercials and their rallies… they truly do push for education, not just “caddle herding” voting.
5. Elections are popularity contests… but not real ones.
- Being in the military, I can tell you that I have seen many many many people faint while we are outside. I have had to do quick medical assessments and treatments on the spot from people fainting.
– The people in the videos are not fainting because of Sen. Obama, they are fainting because of heat, fatigue, and standing up in one place for hours on end. People who come to a rally that starts at 3, show up hours and hours before it starts. And I am willing to bet there is little to no seating available for the masses that show up.
– I have been in too many formations in which I see Marines who lock out their knees while at attention even for 15 minutes and pass out on the spot.
- Looking at that video would lead people to believe that someone faints at every one of Sen. Obama’s rallies. I highly doubt that. But given all the factors leading to someone fainting: a. Heat, b. dehydration, c. standing for hours on end, d. the amount of people multiplies the chances greatly.
Zach, again you make really good points. But they are emotionally based. You told your arguments well and it is obvious that you truly believe in your theories which is awesome. Please don’t take my response as an attack on your beliefs, because I respect your beliefs and that’s why America is so great in that we can have our own beliefs and ideologies without reprimand from others.
Awesome website, you guys. I will definitely be reading/posting as much as I can.
~Scott
Lance Corporal Campbell, USMC
Alas, the United States legal voting requirements seem like a sure-fire way to exclude the fragile-minded from accidentally picking another Hitler from being president. However, even loyal and patriotic citizens make uneducated decisions.
Take for instance, the decision to smoke cigarettes. It has been proven time and time again that cigarettes kill people. It doesn’t JUST kill people, it kills swarms of people at such a dramatic rate it only compares with the plague.
1.3 billion people smoke cigarettes. We can deduce that AT LEAST these 1.3 billion people who make bad decisions on a daily basis, WILL strike again. You can judge me however you like, but from now on when I see someone smoking I’m just going to assume that they wouldn’t be able to make an educated decision about politics.
People want life. Life equals happiness. Cigarettes equal death. People smoke cigarettes. Cigarettes kill people. People die.
I propose that we start making a stricter list of voter requirements. Here is my list:
1. United States Citizen – Why vote for OUR president if you aren’t a part of OUR country?
2. No History of Smoking
3. No Reported Crimes or Felonies – UNLESS crime was directed towards a smoker!
4. Must Pass Standing Longevity Test – If you can’t stand up straight for more than 15 minutes at any given time, your political opinion doesn’t matter.
5. Must Log 60+ Pre-Election Study Hours – If you haven’t done the research about who you are about to vote for, you could wind up giving control of our government to some extremist charismatic leader.
If any one of these requirements are not met prior to voting time and person shows interest in voting for our future President, I will personally cut their hands off.
See my comment to Scott, at http://www.alogicalillation.com/queriesandaxioms/archives/10 on the Queries and Axioms page.
Hey, Nick, Smokers are paying lots of taxes that go to social programs for non-smokers, and they are also saving you lots of cash by smoking. The average lifetime medical costs of smokers is way lower — yes, lower — than the average lifetime medical costs of healthy people. See, e.g., http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029. Smokers are therefore performing a civic service that enriches those of us who outlive them. They are the MIA soldiers in our war for richer social programs. That said, I like your suggestion and propose we also eliminate people who play the lottery and anyone who pays to place cell-phone sms votes for winners of reality television programs. Those people are also obviously incapable of making sound personal decisions.
I think Zach, Scott, and Nick have covered the other issues pretty well, but I can’t shut myself up anyway. Yes, today’s candidates are chosen over how they dress and which ten-second sound-bites about hot-button issues the media chooses to air. So? I’m fine with that. If any of you diligent researchers had, in 2000, been able to foresee that terrorists would bomb us, that we would start a war based upon mythical WMDs, that we would pass the Patriot Act, that phone companies would get bipartisan congressional approval for illegal wiretaps of Americans, that we would arrest and indefinitely confine people without recourse to habeas corpus or assistance of counsel, that waterboarding is not torture, or that we would have a Department of Homeland Security (and that the DHS would be so smart that it thought that taking four ounces of a liquid onto a plane posed an explosive danger but taking two three-ounce bottles did not), you could probably have swayed a lot of votes and changed the course of history. Note that almost everything up there won bipartisan congressional approval, so this is not a partisan rant. In fact, if you think your research disclosed how Al Gore would have reacted to 9/11 had he been chosen by the Supreme Court to be president in 2000 instead of GW Bush, please tell the rest of us. We would love to know. The fact is, we are just picking leaders. Like Supreme Court nominations, you can’t tell how they will perform for sure until history puts them to the test. Yes, your research can disclose those candidates’ general feelings about the economy or national health care or what-have-you, but what those positions will look like when enacted after bills make it through Congress (or are DOA in Congress) and how the candidate will act in times of crisis are different matters entirely. Moreover, long before a candidate even annouces a run for president, groomers and publicists and handlers will tell them how it is safest to vote while in the Senate or which bills to support as governor. Much of the research we can conduct is based upon calculated strategic decisions that we are spoon-fed. We would need to change a lot more than who votes for any real change to occur. Instead, I think we should add “swimsuit” and “talent” competitions to presidential election campaigns. It’s a lot easier.
Add A Comment