A Socratic democracy

Why do people think you have the right to vote without proper preparation? A person has the right to drive a car, but still has to go through a course to get his license, right? I would propose a version of Democracy I’d like to call an Educated Democracy.

From the moment you turn 18 you are allowed to legally vote here in the Netherlands from a multitude of different parties, and most people tend to vote for buzzwords like immigration. That is why you would have to pass a test in the following subjects:

*Political History
*Political Ideologies
*Current Political field
*Political Jargon

When proven that you have the skill to pass these subjects in your educational facility (note that education is mandatory until the age of 18 in The Netherlands) you are legally allowed to vote. If you fail the following outcomes are possible:

*You really want to vote but are a bit too young to understand, try again later
*You really want to vote but did not understand it well enough, try again later
*You don’t really feel the need to motivate yourself to vote, your vote would’ve been wasted
*You really want to vote but can’t seem to pass the test, sorry but you’re not qualified.

It wouldn’t even have to be a hard test, but more so a small reminder of how heavily your vote weighs.

Why would we let people who don’t care rule the country? Why would we let manipulative politicians praying on the minds of the weak-minded rule our country?

People would just bribe officials to pass the test, or worse, the test would be designed in such a way that it specifically eliminates certain groups. This is why political aptitude tests generally don't exist, they sound nice in theory but in practice they're always just abused in order to shape public policy.

Just imagine how this could be done. You could have the tests only be given in select locations that are few and far between, making it difficult or impossible for poor people to reach them. You could make the test very long and time-consuming to discourage working class people from taking it (since it would eat up all their time off). You could charge a testing fee to simply implement a poll tax by another name - of course it's only to support the costs of the test though!

And then of course there's the obvious problem: Who gets to decide what's "qualified"? Only qualified people of course. This in itself represents circular logic but looking past that for a second, it also has a clear bias towards conservatism and nepotism which may be unhealthy for such a system in the long run. I think such a "democracy" would very quickly devolve into oligarchy. In fact, it seems designed to do exactly that.

You critizism is valid. Yet the system that I propose is one that is done by your educational facility. It simply is manditory to do the test for the first time (other attempt are optional).

The test can be taken by a 3rd party, and then reviewed by another 3rd party. Also, in studying for this test you make the populace more aware of how agendas are spicifically made to influence voters.

I think Jargon is the biggest culprit. If people can read, people can think. And any system is better than letting people vote based on attractive buz words, no?

Nah. Democracy is about people having their voice heard. Disenfranshizing them for any reason is missing the whole point of the system.

Besides, any sort of gatekeeping system fundamentally skewers the discourse in some way.

I would add economics, ethics and rethoric to that list

They had this in the US and it was specifically used to keep poor people from voting, and so now we have an amendment that expressly forbids these kinds of elitist voting practices. The modern world has made the statement that all men, from poor to rich, get a vote, and then their rich guy fuckery comes after when they decide how much each vote is actually worth, ala the electoral college.

>Why do people think you have the right to vote without proper preparation?
Because everyone is affected by governmental policy. And if you lock them out of the means to influence government within the system, their only recourse to opposing a policy that harms them is to go outside the system, which usually takes the form of armed revolt.

That is bad.

Yup
This thread could only exist in the modern era where people are fucking retards and don’t understand the shit humanity went through to get things like voting rights, the kind of bloodshed and horror that was required to break the lock on power that the landed aristocracy held, and the thousands of examples in history where people without a vent built up pressure and exploded. In the modern era, we learned from the past and decided to open some vents so that the people would have somewhere to vent their frustrations instead of running into a wall and trying to break it down because there’s no alternative, moderate path. Voting rights are the scraps the rich need to throw to the masses to keep those vents open, regardless of how corrupted the system is after the vote.

WE WUZ ATHENIANS AND SHIT

>tests to vote
Because that worked so well the last time it was implanted

I propose that the tests be purely foused on maths and the hard sciences to avoid any cultural problems or attempts to exclude cultural minorities.

WHEN YOU VOTE YOU ARE EXERCISING POLITICAL AUTHORITY

This introduces questionable dynamics. It may contribute to class divides where the upper class which may have more opportunities to get educated in such a way gets the upper hand against those who statistically are less inclined to pass the requirements to be able to vote. That's not optimal for a society.

Children are also affected by governmental policy, so are animals, but we rightly say that they are not qualified to vote.
The same way, most of today's voters are barely more qualified than a 15 year old to vote.

Neither children nor animals realistically have the capability to engage in violent opposition to governmental policy, either by direct action or incitement of such.

It's been tried and was basically a means of disenfranchisement.

In my opinion, direct contribution to the government is a much better means of qualifying one to vote. Completing a few years of civil or military service seems like a much more egalitarian and productive means of determining who has a genuine right to participate in government.

T. Louie XVII

*VXI

This is pretty problematic too. Some people just aren't able to serve, for medical reasons. Are they then barred from voting or do they get a waiver? If the former, that's an unfair system. If the latter, then all you need is a doctor to write you a note and you've cheated the system.

Also, are they paid for their service? If so, that's an enormous expense for the government. If not, many people won't be able to do it for economic reasons.

As I said, civil or military service. The former would offer an opportunity for the less physically capable or those opposed to military service. Pay would be in accordance with the position. I know at least a handful of European countries have systems similar to this, save that they're mandatory for citizens rather than tied to voting rights.

>letting civillians vote.

How do you even fail an ethics test?

I don't understand how anyone can believe in democracy considering how it's essentially responsible for the fall of western civilization.

I think the only type of democracy that could work, would be a "citizens democracy" in the same vein as Athens or Rome. Fighting or preforming a civic duty as the precursor to voting builds a more mature society, where people actually participate and have stake in it's propagation.

Hahahaha OP is a complete brainlet.

The Netherlands is a moderate oligarchy. Socrates would fucking piss himself laughing if some lanky modern man child tried to call "representative" government a democracy.

The West is not democratic. You live under a moderate oligarchy. In Socrates' eyes, and the eyes of any ancient Hellene, you are closer to an Athenian metic. Pay your metics tax, have an attorney/sponsor speak for you in Court, never set foot in the legislative assembly, and basically stfu while real citizens eat fully comped sushi.

sounds nice on paper, but politics 101 is that politicians act in their self-interest like any other human. The criteria for a passing grade will be determined by what benefits the designer or whoever payed him.

You've never seen child soldiers

And it's a general waste of time in the majority of cases (might as well employ professional soldiers).

yes? up until the point they voted that every retard should be allowed to have vote too - i guess they were not tested vigorously enough

>might as well employ professional soldiers
especially nice if you try to keep your civilians as disarmed as possible. remove the conscription and militia/national guard. then only reasonable armed force in the country would be small well trained professional force well removed from general citizenry.
this way you can have truly "directed democracy" - jey

...

/pol/ is not for serious political discussion

Not without being organized, trained, and armed by adults. When you see a collection of children forming their own army out of their own efforts, let me know.

By having no basic knowledge of that branch of philosophy

So we aknowledge that the only reason we let normal people vote is so that they don't become rebellious. There are other ways to work around that I'm sure.

By stabbing the child

Place as much limitations you wish, political parties will target that base amd brainwash you into voting for them without realizing it.

Greeks also had mandatory w year military service, and that is what is needed today