Supporters of American Democracy, defend yourselves.

What makes every legal adult with U.S. citizenship qualified to choose the leaders of the most powerful country in the world? If they are not qualified, then why do they have a right to choose who the most powerful people in the world are?

There's no better alternative.

For the record, not every legal adult with U.S. citizenship is allowed to vote in the U.S.

It's not a matter of qualifications or rights. There's no better alternative.


P.S. For the record, not every legal adult with U.S. citizenship is allowed to vote in the U.S.

Meritocracy



Let me rephrase, barring you commit a felony, you're given the vote no matter what. Why such low standards?

Meritocracy


Let me rephrase, barring you commit a felony, you're given the vote no matter what. Why such low standards?

If not everyone, you would then need a smaller group to issue voting licenses. Who gets that job? The rich, the kind, the intelligent? Even wealth cannot be easily quantified (for not all wealth is cash). Kindness and intelligence would be probably more difficult to measure/establish. And who establishes the tests/standards? And how do we decide who creates these standards by which we determine who is worthy to vote? And so on and so on.

Also, it's not entirely clear whether by "meritocracy" you mean that only those with merit should be allowed to vote, or that only those with merit should be allowed to rule. It can mean both, and they are very different propositions.

What makes every legal adult with U.S. citizenship qualified to choose the leaders of the most powerful country in the world? If they are not qualified, then why do they have a right to choose who the most powerful people in the world are?

Does this mean you concede that my criticism is a valid one? I created this thread because I really wanted to hear a good solid defense of the system. But to answer your question the government should simply be an administrative structure with a rigid civil service examination system. Administrators should have a broad and profound understanding of political and ethical philosophy.



I mean both. You would go through a civil service examination system to get in and then there would be a department or committee to look into the appointment of anyone to any higher position.

Once again though, this is not supposed to be a discussion of the ideal state. If you have arguments for it other than 'what else are we supposed to do?' and pessimistic pragmatism, I'd like to hear them before we go headlong into a discussion of the ideal state.

Administrators should have a broad and profound understanding of political and ethical philosophy.

According to who? What if broad and profound don't mix? Isn't philosophy largely a clash of opposing viewpoints?

Who classifies which philosophers are required reading? Who tests for "profound" understanding? Who says philosophers are wise on the subject of politics in the first place?

Read up on why Plato thought democracy was a bad idea. And in fact many people realize that democracy is dreadful. But what is the alternative? No matter what you come up with I think there are too many pressing problems to deal with to even consider reforming democracy in practical terms. The US is drowning in debt and approaching political paralysis in my view.



(And actually the merit system you suggest based on exams and attainment is very close to the Mandarin bureaucracy, although China has never been, and may never be, a democracy.)

According to who? What if broad and profound don't mix? Isn't philosophy largely a clash of opposing viewpoints?

Who classifies which philosophers are required reading? Who tests for "profound" understanding? Who says philosophers are wise on the subject of politics in the first place?

Isn't philosophy largely a clash of opposing viewpoints?

Who says philosophers are wise on the subject of politics in the first place?

According to experts in the field.

Naturally those who can best answer these questions and have the best understanding of what statesmanship is ought to be the ones who can best run the state.

There's nothing pessimistic about it. I think American democracy runs quite well. The fact that it works so well is a powerful argument in its favor. I'm not sure what other kinds of arguments you're looking for, but they sound highly theoretical and more likely to lead to a discussion about an ideal state.

It's not entirely clear that Plato really thought democracy was a bad idea.

Just sayin'.

Read up on why Plato thought democracy was a bad idea. And in fact many people realize that democracy is dreadful. But what is the alternative? No matter what you come up with I think there are too many pressing problems to deal with to even consider reforming democracy in practical terms. The US is drowning in debt and approaching political paralysis in my view.

(And actually the merit system you suggest based on exams and attainment is very close to the Mandarin bureaucracy, although China has never been, and may never be, a democracy.)

How do we sort the experts from the non-experts?

Why American democracy in particular?

I wanted to focus on one system in particular but it outlines a problem with democracy in general.