I don't understand why everyone has the same voting rights

I don't understand why everyone has the same voting rights

Its just illogical that a person who votes only based on billboard ads has the same voting right as a person who dedicates his whole life to politics. It makes politics not about running the country, but about marketing.

But with this system in place, there is no way of undoing it, since "billboard ads" guy won't ever vote for someone that would take away his rights.

Is there a logic behind general democracy, or is modern world on a spiral down to populist, corrupt and incompetent heads of state, and general decay?

Well what sort of quota would one use for Weighted Voting? Income? Education?

Simple tests on general political, economical and cultural awareness. Something that everyone can improve in, no matter their social standing or upbringing.

Who writes the tests though? Standards and 'truths' on what those standards are could be very different depending on the personal ideology of the people writing the tests.

They would be 100% positivist, only verifiable, solid data

>in today's edition of "true suffrage tests have never been tried before..."

>a person who dedicates his whole life to politics
Very few people can afford to do this. Globalism completely separated the wealth of individuals from their nations and thus the people who would wield political power in this sytem could not be trusted to do anything other than abuse it and extort every cent out of the people that they could.

>It makes politics not about running the country, but about marketing.

Which is the claim of several people in political science, like Anthony Downs for example.

The idea is, similar to Marxism, but not, that representative democracy is just like the market, e.g the political parties fight for votes in the same way private businesses fight for a market share.

The irony of it all is that if too many people become ignorant of politics, dictatorship or at least the abolition of democracy becomes more and more probable.

I was obviously exaggerating to give a fine example.

This is the sad thing, that most of academic scholars already admit that this system is broke, but since the plebs, not the intelligence, wields the power, there is nothing we can do about it.

say it with me: 25 year or older, male, property owners

this, why did we fuck this up?

A direct democracy is a bad idea because it can lead to mob rule but the idea of some sort of aristocratic voting system is retarded, you can't arbitrarily remove someone's voting rights because you think either their positions aren't valid or that they're not able to act in their own interest.

>Solid data
>Politics
Well I know one person who wouldn't be given the vote.

It is not about merit, only voters can decide what is best for them. Only in a few special cases like mental illness or children does society rob someone of independence and it needs a lot of oversight (or should) to prevent something like the milgram or stanford experiment occurring, people ultimately have to do many things for themselves. For the same reason we have to tolerate the tyranny of the mob so we don't get trodden under by organized tyranny. The goal is to get the mob to value individual rights and be skeptical of extremists, demagogues and populists whomst can come in many forms.

>history of a party/politicians
>economic data
>demographic data
>history

>Globalism completely separated the wealth of individuals from their nations
I don't think the lower classes were any closer to the wealth of their nations in most past politico-economic systems.

>I don't understand why everyone has the same voting rights
Children don't. When asked why children can't vote, people will usually answer it's because they aren't mature enough, not realizing this also applies to blacks and women.

This is why people who have status must be the only people to vote.

The way I see it is that only a lord/lady of the house may have the right to vote. I own my house, therefore I ought to have a right to vote.

And the way the government works, is that there's a small voluntary federal government (basic rights, the constitution, etc), which lord/ladies can democratically vote in; the party of which HAS to be dynastic in nature; thus the party's leader must either be its founder or inherited from the founder via family. The leader of said federal government, "Knight/Dame Commander".

Regional/Provincial/State government is elected via the same process, with the head of government being "King/Queen". Leaders of parties NOT in power are Dukes and Duchesses respectively.

This kind of government insures that the people in power KNOW what they are doing, and are raised to be in power, but are still at the mercy of a vote, but a vote by a competent home-owning citizen.

Why aren't you worried about the people who make the billboards?

Is the that's exactly what's happening right now with representative democracy in practically the whole world.

>I don't understand why everyone has the same voting rights

Because we fought wars for this shit, you dense faggot.

Still too easy for one group to weight in their favor. Never build a political too your opponent could use just as well as you could.

Not everyone on the internet is American, you fat cunt. Also the only thing YOU fought were the stairs this morning, don't take credit for other people's accomplishment.

>I am better than Trump voters, The Post.

If you are seriously considering that those tests should be made by one of the political parties, than you are dumber than the Americans

>I don't understand why everyone has the same voting rights
You may want to read a book

good question
esp interesting is when people in power collect taxes to fund billboards and such to "inform" anyone that their ideas for leadership are the best and they the best leaders
its even worse than just rich people organizing billboards for what they want - at leas they might have their own internal quarrels or many poorer people bound together by something migght pool up some messages

The point is that op is too blinded by ideology to think clearly.

then who the fuck makes the test? the government that has political party members running it? literally everyone has a view or idea on politics and that bias will be incorporated into the test no matter how hard you try to get rid of it.

This is a must read on this subject.

This book will in future seriously change the views of the economics profession and experts in political economy at large.

It outright exposes how badly misguided the average voter is and the implications of it.

While I agree there is a risk in this, what would questions such as these be biased toward:

>Who is your local representative?
>How many senators per state are there?
>What percentage of the national budget was spent on defense last year?

Perhaps if questions that have objective answers such as those do favour a certain group, perhaps they should be the only ones voting anyway.

>populism is bad

And where are these tests given? Why pays for the test to be created? Who verifies the answers?

Do you understand yet that you're a fucking moron? Or should we continue

>And where are these tests given? Why pays for the test to be created? Who verifies the answers?
And where are these votes taken? Who pays for the vote cards to be created? Who verifies the results?

Some of your objections to this test can be resolved by looking at voting, which is an institution that is widely trusted and can be subverted along the lines that you've specified. There's no reason that these tests can't be transparent.

I'm not actually advocating this, there more realistic ways of stopping the ignorant from voting. It's completely unrealistic that people will vote away their voting rights any time soon, if ever. A simple solution would be doing away with voter encouragement campaigns.

So the value of your opinion should be determined by your knowledge of random facts of the government that have nothing to do with any actual issues being debated? This sounds like it would favor extreme bureaucracy.

Populist policy often runs in contradiction to the opinions of experts in fields that government policy is applicable. So yeah, populism is often bad.

Well I mean those are the very basic questions.

The last one actually is important to be knowledgeable about issues, as knowing the amount of spending on a certain policy has a direct relation to voting for a politician who is advocating to lower or increase spending.

Knowing the voting record of your representative is also important as your representative could be saying one thing and doing another.

...

Back then in the 19th century, my country had a list of requirements for being allowed to vote and being elected, besides being male and older than 20 years old

>you had to at least have one of the following
>owning productive land, aka, at least a patch with some potatoes
>having a job of any kind and receiving a salary (self employment included)
>owning a productive company/business which provided jobs for the community
>having a determined capital used to invest on the community/country

And so on, basically, you had to be a "productive" member of society, the reasoning behind it was that you were going to vote having the best for the country in mind and someone elected was going to be someone who actually knew how society worked and what not. Ironically, with the development of the country the following generation became "intellectuals" and career politicians who didn't qualify to vote nor being elected, so the law was changed in ~1880.

So everyone who's mortgaging a house isn't allowed to vote?

>I'm a Trump voter who thinks other Trump voters are dumb, the post

More that it's disappointing that presidential elections can end with dichotomies like Clinton/Trump

How is that the result of everyone having voting rights and not the result of the American political system

>Disenfranchise group
>Politicians and rulers shit on them because there's no reason to pander to them when other people have the votes
>Disenfranchised group snaps and takes their political power by force
And that's why so many people have the vote. Because it forces the people in power to consider how their policies affect everyone, instead of the small group of people they need to stay in power. This is also why any functioning democracy will try to weight the process so every part of the country is equally represented, so the cities or rural areas don't dominate the political process

Unironically best answer
You can't piss off a group and expect no response

Bourgeois democracy is a sham. Not even a Marxist. Voting in HOA meetings or school board elections is far more substantial than voting for a state senator or federal election.