DEMOCRACY - Is the principle of one person, one vote wise ?

Question

We all have a right to drive BUT before we can excercise that right, we have to pass a test.

SHOULD we have to pass some kind of test to demonstrate that we can understand complex issues and apply logical soloutions before we can excercise our right to vote?

The one person, one vote system ( 100% fair in principle ) would choose a charismatic leader ahead of a competent leader of integrity. It therefore follows that an elloquent conman could get elected ahead of eg. a great economist or somebody who could help resolve global issues.

I once heard a girl say she cast her vote for a certain candidate because "he's kind of cute" !

The role of Predident or Prime Minister is a JOB. No employer would get away with hiring staff on that basis !!!!!

I guess Hitler was elected by one person one vote - a great leader but look what happened ...............!!!!

( Of course, I am not suggesting that charisma and eg integrity are mutually excusive ! )

Answer 1

You have just hit the biggest nail on the head with the biggest hammer !
No company is run like a government. The government if it were a company would be the worst run, most wasteful incompetent company in the world. Ministers get put into Education, Transport & Food departments without knowing a thing about them. It is absolutely nuts. It's like putting a mechanic in charge of a kitchen or a chef in charge of a garage.
Prime Ministers & Members of Parliament are not elected on any capacity to do the job in hand.
CEO's and MD's should be the best candidates, but they know better. You know what they always say, any body who WANTS to be a Politician, shouldn't be one !
If a government was actualy run like any other business, then we may possible actualy get somewhere.
They say in elections that a vote for a certain party is a wasted vote.
You have gone one better and noticed that every vote is actualy a wasted vote.
You should start a company called Great Britain Ltd !
Cheers for letting me have a rant ! x x lol

Answer 2

It's the best we can do with what we have to work with. What are the alternatives? Some sort of testing mechanism which decides who is allowed to vote and who isn't? How could you possibly filter out the emotional element entirely? And if you can't eliminate it entirely, how are you going to filter it in part?

I know what you mean, and I share your frustration. I remember in 1968 hearing people say that they didn't vote for Humphrey because he "cried too much" and he was "too homely." So people were voting for Nixon because he showed less emotion in public and was (supposedly) better looking. See where that got us. Eloquent con men get elected ahead of better qualified people all the time, especially at the lower level of our democracy.

But don't put the President and the Prime Minister in the same boat. The parliamentary system is entirely different. You don't even get into a position in which you would be remotely considered for the position of Prime Minister until you have worked your way up the ranks. The results are incredibly different. Have you ever watched Prime Minister's question time on CSPAN on the weekends? The Prime Minister has to answer any question thrown at him by both sides for an hour or so. George Bush would wither under the heat.

That being said, although I theoretically prefer the parliamentary system, I just don't think it would work in a country our size and with our cultural and political history. The entire country of England is smaller than the state of Alabama, so the sort of intense debates they have for office are much more feasible. But it sure goes to explain why when our President gets together with the Prime Minister of England for a press conference, whoever the Prime Minister is usually comes off looking a lot better (with a few notable exceptions--Clinton could hold his own intellectually with Tony Blair).

Answer 3

There are problems with a one person, one vote system. But other models have many problems too.

Who writes the test? What do you think the people who didn't pass it would do?

There is no logically correct person that should be elected president. It's a job, but what is right for a job depends on what you value. Who decides what is right and wrong to value?

By the way, the German people were (at the time) pretty happy with their leader. I doubt a logic test would have helped.

Answer 4

Democracy is a total farce,a concept designed by rich men to pull the wool over the eyes of the majority,and even if every human being had the right to vote,governments still take it upon themselves to make decisions in the"national intrerest",for example,see the so-called labour governments approval of the "Super Casino",when polls showed that the British public were 80% against. They completely ignored the protests and the polls,why.....because they want to line their own pockets as usual,and it will probably be their last big graft before Don Tony has to step down,Democracy is a scam,but fascism certainly is not the answer,so be your own judge

Answer 5

You only have to look at some of the questions and answers on here to see the flaw in our democratic system. The most articulate, well informed and sensible individuals share the same right with the moronic, bigoted and semi-literate. Unfortunately, the vast majority seem to fall into the latter category.

It certainly IS the best we have come up with to date, but when you see how appalling badly our public services are run you realise how flawed the system is.

Equally, look at Northern Ireland. Two former terrorists who still have warm blood on their hands are at the very centre of the NIA, one in charge of EDUCATION. If that doesn't sum up what is wrong, nothing does.

Answer 6

I think it was Winston Churchill who said something along the lines of,"Democracy is a poor form of government but better so far than all the others that have been tried". If you want his exact quotes go to Yahoo search.
'frog' it is not a good advert for democracy but Hitler did come to power by the democratic system in Germany at the time.
'prince_he' there is no logic in what you claim so you are obviously Tony Bliar in disguise!.

Answer 7

Everyone should have the right to vote but unfortunately many people are apathetic when it comes to exercising that right. We could only hope that intelligent people who know and understand the issues out number the idiots who vote. As far as educating the electorate is concerned that would depend on the media(hopefully non-partisan).
Driving is a privilege not a right.

Answer 8

Darius became Emperor of Persia by arguing that in democracy some idiots would vote, in a government some of the members would be stupider than others, but a single strong ruler who is a great man will be the best form of government. I don't totally agree but there is good logic in this.

Answer 9

the idea of one man one vote is the only fair way to ensure everyone has an equal say. I suppose you caould say that the attitide and intelligence that go behind the voting is reflective upon the eduactional standards of the country at the time....so in a way, governements get what they ask for!

Answer 10

It must be one person, one vote to be true Democracy. It might SOUND good to be able to exclude people that are not quite as informed as others, but it becomes a slippery slope very quickly when civil rights are in question.

Long story short, it ain't perfect, but it's better than the alternatives.