(This thread is not about the UK EU referendum but based on it) After the results from the whole UK referendum thing, I have read posts here, on twitter, and articles in several websites where people are lamenting the fact that the rural, not-well-educated part of the country had such a big say in such an important matter. I have noticed a rather interesting trend where opinion pieces actually, in not so subtle ways, argue that the election should have never been given to the people at large. 

Democracy is, in my book, the best system, if people are educated about what they are voting for or against. And this is in my opinion the key to a well-functioning democracy. For instance, imagine ordinary people voting for players on the International Chopin Piano Competition, via text messages or something like that, from the comfort of their home.

Edited by ALotOfBottle - June 24 2016 at 14:14

So are uneducated societies (in the western sense I assume) better off with a very very limited democracy when all they choose is the people who make decisions? Or even a full autocracy? 

ALotOfBottle wrote: Democracy is, in my book, the best system, if people are educated about what they are voting for or against.

I agree, however this brings another question: if people are not educated enough about what they are voting, is this the fault of the pupils (the citizens) or of the teachers (the government and technocrats)?


Edited by Modrigue - June 24 2016 at 14:24

You can be educated and still know nothing about politics and economics.

Churchill did say that democracy didn't seem such a good idea after having a five minute conversation with the average voter (paraphrased) but I still think it's better than the alternative.

Tha said our referendum shouldnt have happened. It was publicity stunt on the part of the tories that backfired badly. The Brtish people - educated or otherwise - know next to nothing about the mechanics of the EU and the consequences of voting the 'wrong' way on such an issue are significantly more far reaching than voting in a bad domestic government for just four years or so.

Wow that's long for a web article. I'll read it later of course. I don't mind left-of-center sources. 

Modrigue wrote: ALotOfBottle wrote: Democracy is, in my book, the best system, if people are educated about what they are voting for or against. I agree, however this brings another question: if people are not educated enough about what they are voting, is this the fault of the pupils (the citizens) or of the teachers (the government and technocrats)?

Agree as well, and without putting blame on people, I do think that the system/s need/s to be improved so that people are better educated when it comes to voting. Part of that is having better schools which emphasize logic that much more, amongst other things, as well as having more town halls where people can discuss these issues.

I like the idea of direct (true) democracy, though it has its pitfalls (people who are ignorant and/or only self-interested, as well as people who think very short term). At the least, I would like more direct democracy, but I think that more avenues for educating and involving the general population are needed.

I like the idea that everyone has a civic and civil social responsibility.

I often think here that it's only a democracy come voting day (we have very few referenda/ plebiscites). People feel alienated from the government, whereas I like the idea of the government being the people as much as possible. I would like it if everyone felt that they had say in legislation. I want more local community groups that have more say politically. I like to think if people felt more involved, and were more involved in the actual process of governance, then they would become more politically aware.

That said, I think one could start in small ways, and for me it starts with your family and then your community. I've been wanting to work with community associations for a long time as even in my large municipality, many people feel alienated from our local government. At least we came out in force and stopped a development which would have had a big effect on where I live.

For now we have a very limited democracy, and I would rather, if possible, rational, honest experts make the calls, but at the same time, I would like it people were involved in politics and more politically aware. I think we need a sort of oligarchy for now -- have to strike a balance.

Sorry, this is really poorly expressed, and maybe I'll edit it later.

Utopia should never and must never exist.  It may not even be possible, thank goodness.

The fine line between uneducated and not indoctrinated continues to blur.

Nothing wrong with the democratic principle as such but a lot of things wrong with the idea of a 50%+1 vote simple majority.  If democracy is to indeed represent the will of the people, that percentage should be higher, more like 70-80%.  Maybe such a system would not be practical for electing representatives to positions be it in local government or parliament but certainly should apply in a referendum IF you do not want the results of the referendum to tear a nation apart.  In the Brexit case, the options should really have been status quo and leave the EU (wherein say a 70-80% vote is required to upend the status quo).  Now that will still leave a substantial minority that is disgruntled with the outcome (IF leave had still won, which it would not have as per Thursday's voting) but at least it would be less fractious.  Now UK has just split right down the middle.  I am not taking sides here because it's not for me to say what's best for the Brits from the outside but it is the polarisation that worries me.  A situation that could have been avoided by requiring greater support for such a radical change (as it ought to unless you really enjoy the idea of nationwide upheaval).  

Edited by rogerthat - June 25 2016 at 09:42