It’s one of those safe-guards that democracy implements that’s currently having rather unintended consequences.
The reasoning is that taking away voting rights is far too easy to abuse, and if a majority of people agree with whomever you wanted to prevent from voting/getting elected then you’re fucked anyway.
Which, incidentally, is looking like a very real possibility right now.
That reasoning is missing a crucial part: even if you’re fucked anyway, why is it still okay to put a criminal in charge? Will it improve anything? Or do we think of the “fucked” condition very differently?
Democracy isn’t really meant to prevent something the majority wants.
If the majority wants a criminal to lead the country they’ll elect them, or someone with the same policies, or someone who promises to put the criminal in power. The end result isn’t all that different, and the latter two could be worse in some ways.
In a democracy the majority rules, and should they decide to put a lunatic in charge, well, that would be the least of your problems.
I’m sorry but that doesn’t seem logical. If you don’t care about general good state of things, why would you care about the majority? People refer to democracy as a good thing because the US showed how it improves the system, lives etc.
The equality aspect itself is what I’d like to support. But when you find the majority being uneducated to understand what they are doing - something is going wrong with our assumptions about how things should work. An idiot should not be highly respected. A criminal should not have the power over people’s lives. These things should have been more basic than democracy principles in everyone’s mind, no?
It’s one of those safe-guards that democracy implements that’s currently having rather unintended consequences.
The reasoning is that taking away voting rights is far too easy to abuse, and if a majority of people agree with whomever you wanted to prevent from voting/getting elected then you’re fucked anyway.
Which, incidentally, is looking like a very real possibility right now.
That reasoning is missing a crucial part: even if you’re fucked anyway, why is it still okay to put a criminal in charge? Will it improve anything? Or do we think of the “fucked” condition very differently?
Democracy isn’t really meant to prevent something the majority wants.
If the majority wants a criminal to lead the country they’ll elect them, or someone with the same policies, or someone who promises to put the criminal in power. The end result isn’t all that different, and the latter two could be worse in some ways.
In a democracy the majority rules, and should they decide to put a lunatic in charge, well, that would be the least of your problems.
I’m sorry but that doesn’t seem logical. If you don’t care about general good state of things, why would you care about the majority? People refer to democracy as a good thing because the US showed how it improves the system, lives etc.
The equality aspect itself is what I’d like to support. But when you find the majority being uneducated to understand what they are doing - something is going wrong with our assumptions about how things should work. An idiot should not be highly respected. A criminal should not have the power over people’s lives. These things should have been more basic than democracy principles in everyone’s mind, no?