6 ms·

Democracy requires an informed electorate. Just having the right to vote isn't enough.

• logicchains 20d ago
  No it doesn't, democracy means rule by all the people not rule by some educated elite.
  • spacedcowboy 20d ago
    Two things: - Education is not "elite", it's open to all. - Informed is not "educated". Forcing political speech to be truthful (or at least have a reasonable expectation of being truthful) with serious consequences (jail time) for knowingly lying would go a long way to counter the misinformation that caused Brexit.
  • lores 20d ago
    "Educated" and "informed" aren't the same.
• foldr 20d ago
  It works better with an informed electorate. However, one of the reasons that voters don't bother informing themselves is the campaign of cynicism aimed at convincing them that all political parties are the same, that their vote doesn't matter, etc. etc. One might just as well say that an informed population requires democracy: why bother keeping track of national policy if you have no control over it? In the days after the Brexit vote, it turned out that a significant minority of 'leave' voters had been convinced that their vote would be an ineffectual protest with no actual influence on Britain's membership of the EU. Lazy and cynical anti-democratic rhetoric just feeds into that cycle of ignorance and stupidity.
  • pjmlp 20d ago
    Which is how autocracy governments get hold of countries without military action, it only needs enough patience and uninformed electorate to win the election. They can even argue it was the will of the people to get a dictorship.
    • 1718627440 19d ago
      > They can even argue it was the will of the people to get a dictorship. Is there an example where "they" have not done that?
      • pjmlp 19d ago
        Plenty, ask AI friend about military coups.
        • 1718627440 19d ago
          Aren't they still claiming, that they do it for and represent the people?
          • pjmlp 19d ago
            Maybe, however with elections they did in fact asked for it, which was the whole point.
  • lores 20d ago
    Yes, you're entirely right. One further, I was at a talk from a law professor at a big uni once, where he had printed the entire text of the Medicare bill on a giant pile of paper. He explained that it had taken him, a professor, several months full-time to understand everything at stake; what chance has a representative to do so, let alone on every bill? What chance has a voter? What does it mean for democracy that no one with decision powers understands what they decide?
    • foldr 20d ago
      The UK government usually publishes explanatory notes together with the text of the bill itself. It's quite feasible to read these if you're interested in the details of a particular piece of legislation. E.g. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/pdfs/ukpgaen_20230050_en.pdf https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/pdfs/ukpgaen_20...
    • Barbing 19d ago
      A truly wonderful point. Some attacks on low-information voters in other comments which I understand but none of us have read that whole Medicare bill. That’s even if we don’t have three jobs and six kids. Considerations when we reach for “lazy” or “dumb” to describe voters. Boy, the number of hours to research candidates & propositions on the last ballot in California…
    • inigyou 19d ago
      Representatives should vote no on everything they don't understand then, until the bills are short.
      • DangitBobby 19d ago
        How does that work with courts that work to the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law? That rule based on the exact text instead of the history of what went into the drafting and passing of the bill, and refuse to even ask legislators what the intent of the law would have been under certain conditions?
  • mattlondon 19d ago
    > it turned out that a significant minority of 'leave' voters had been convinced that their vote would be an ineffectual protest with no actual influence +1 to this. "I didn't thing it would actually happen!" IIRC there were polls soon after asking people if they'd change their vote or vote the same way again, and there was a fair amount of people saying they would have voted remain had they known. Madness really What annoys me is that Farage said something like "if it's 50.1% remain then this is not over" I.e. he'd be calling for a recount or a second vote. Yet it was basically that for leave and we got no recount or second vote. Similar deal for Scottish independence referendum... They keep on seeming to want to do another one so they get the answer they want, despite it being shutdown fairy recently.
• 1718627440 19d ago
  Yeah, but you can't legislate people to care.