This may be too far off topic (sorry), but I’m curious what you mean by this:
civically virtuous—i.e. hard-working, homeowners, not divorced, not on benefits, etc
To me those are an odd set of traits to put together, and I think you imply that people with such traits are somehow more entitled to their vote. Is this what you meant? Would you mind explaining why if so?
I think you imply that people with such traits are somehow more entitled to their vote. Is this what you meant?
I can’t speak for OP, but I can give my reason to think such a thing.
First off, democracy isn’t a terminal good. People having a say in how the government is run is supposed to produce better goverment, not be an end in itself. As such, words like “entitled” are the wrong ones to use here I think. Better to ask what is the value, from a consequentialist perspective, of certain people having or not having the vote. The vote is a trust that you place in people to select good government on your behalf, not a right that they deserve.
If you can agree with that (which I’ll admit is rather radical), then the interesting question becomes whether civic-minded responsible homeowners would make a better decision than the population at large. It some sense, it seems likely. In another sense, the sanity waterline is so low that even the political opinions of most responsible 10% of the population are unlikely to be correllated with what would actually be good.
I somewhat agree with you. Actually my view used to be quite similar, but I changed some of my opinions to become much more in favour of democracy, if not as a terminal good then as a best choice out of a bad set of choices, mainly because the potential for abuse by any system that disenfranchises any minority group (under a broad definition of minority) is just too great. That’s the reasoning behind my admittedly loaded use of “entitled” here: I believe we have a responsibility to make sure everyone gets a say, because otherwise we end up abusing the ones who don’t. That’s just how people seem to work.
So your position is that the least harmful government we know of is democracy with no one left out of the process. That’s reasonable. My history and poli-sci knowledge isn’t good enough to say what might be lurking in “that we know of”. However, there seems to be rather strong mechanisms by which especially democracy becomes disfunctional and corrupt.
That’s the reasoning behind my admittedly loaded use of “entitled” here: I believe we have a responsibility to make sure everyone gets a say, because otherwise we end up abusing the ones who don’t.
Ok, but it’s confusing to mix normative and empirical/instrumental discussion together. Mixing them signals muddled thought, which makes it harder for people to interpret charitably. Try to seperate them as much as possible.
“The majority will tyrannize any minority without political clout, therefore we should make sure nobody is lacking in political power” is a much more useful statement than anything involving “responsibility” “rights” “enitled” etc. (mind you I think it’s wrong, but it’s at least composed of empirical predictions and instrumental suggestions that can be interrogated cleanly.)
It has nothing to do with being “entitled” to a vote. My post is not concerned with the moral status of voting, but rather the outputs.
My prediction (and experience) is that a population high in traits like that—basically, conscientiousness—will result in better decision-making for everyone than a population with the opposite traits.
Ah, I see. You’re probably right that there is some correlation between those traits and conscientiousness. (Not divorced is the one that would surprise me.) However, I imagine that you don’t catch many more conscientious people by including any of these sets over and above the set of well-informed voters, which you already mentioned. (Plus, if someone is conscientious but poorly informed, does that help?)
This may be too far off topic (sorry), but I’m curious what you mean by this:
To me those are an odd set of traits to put together, and I think you imply that people with such traits are somehow more entitled to their vote. Is this what you meant? Would you mind explaining why if so?
I can’t speak for OP, but I can give my reason to think such a thing.
First off, democracy isn’t a terminal good. People having a say in how the government is run is supposed to produce better goverment, not be an end in itself. As such, words like “entitled” are the wrong ones to use here I think. Better to ask what is the value, from a consequentialist perspective, of certain people having or not having the vote. The vote is a trust that you place in people to select good government on your behalf, not a right that they deserve.
If you can agree with that (which I’ll admit is rather radical), then the interesting question becomes whether civic-minded responsible homeowners would make a better decision than the population at large. It some sense, it seems likely. In another sense, the sanity waterline is so low that even the political opinions of most responsible 10% of the population are unlikely to be correllated with what would actually be good.
For various reasons I no longer believe in democracy.
I somewhat agree with you. Actually my view used to be quite similar, but I changed some of my opinions to become much more in favour of democracy, if not as a terminal good then as a best choice out of a bad set of choices, mainly because the potential for abuse by any system that disenfranchises any minority group (under a broad definition of minority) is just too great. That’s the reasoning behind my admittedly loaded use of “entitled” here: I believe we have a responsibility to make sure everyone gets a say, because otherwise we end up abusing the ones who don’t. That’s just how people seem to work.
So your position is that the least harmful government we know of is democracy with no one left out of the process. That’s reasonable. My history and poli-sci knowledge isn’t good enough to say what might be lurking in “that we know of”. However, there seems to be rather strong mechanisms by which especially democracy becomes disfunctional and corrupt.
Ok, but it’s confusing to mix normative and empirical/instrumental discussion together. Mixing them signals muddled thought, which makes it harder for people to interpret charitably. Try to seperate them as much as possible.
“The majority will tyrannize any minority without political clout, therefore we should make sure nobody is lacking in political power” is a much more useful statement than anything involving “responsibility” “rights” “enitled” etc. (mind you I think it’s wrong, but it’s at least composed of empirical predictions and instrumental suggestions that can be interrogated cleanly.)
Agreed, that is a better way of stating what I meant.
It has nothing to do with being “entitled” to a vote. My post is not concerned with the moral status of voting, but rather the outputs.
My prediction (and experience) is that a population high in traits like that—basically, conscientiousness—will result in better decision-making for everyone than a population with the opposite traits.
Ah, I see. You’re probably right that there is some correlation between those traits and conscientiousness. (Not divorced is the one that would surprise me.) However, I imagine that you don’t catch many more conscientious people by including any of these sets over and above the set of well-informed voters, which you already mentioned. (Plus, if someone is conscientious but poorly informed, does that help?)