In "Should Everybody Vote?" Gary Gutting (2016) looks at some reasons against the common presumption that democratic principles require that everybody vote, at least in the US system. First, he presents some old arguments which suggest that voting is a waste of time, showing them to flawed arguments. Gutting next presents some new arguments why there might be better alternatives than modern voting to the usual way of a people asserting its democratic right to determine the form of their government and who governs them. He argues in favour of a system which is similar to the random selection of juries in criminal law cases in the US.
_______________________________________
My Yes/No question is:
Should everybody vote?
My answer is:
No, but everybody should be able to vote, although I'm reviewing my ideas on this.
I think this is the first time an article I've chosen to respond to in a blog post that has also given me the perfect Yes/No question to ask, but this was a bonus. What I really like about Gutting's essay, inspired by the upcoming US election in which many eligible voters dislike all the likely candidates for US president is that it presents some healthy critical review of democracy. Whilst flawed, Hillary is at least not the joke that is the apparently very popular Donald Trump. Unfortunately, democratic process does not guarantee that the outcome will be wonderful or the best. That's not what makes democracy morally superior to every alternative.
It is, however, the sort of worry that prompts people like Gutting and the other philosophers and academics he cites to search for ways to make democracy work better, including the voting process. Actually, what prompted me to respond to Gutting's article, which is a bit longer and more academic in style than the BBC News, was a superficial similarity between the excellent random representative group that Gutting describes and the morally rotten suggestion by Thailand's ruling group that only representatives of select groups be allowed to form the senate. The first could be not only democratic, but a much better way to assess the informed will of a people; the second contradicts basic democratic principle.
Gutting doesn't directly address it, but his ideas also show two reasons why a healthy society must strongly protect free speech: first, it is necessary for informed opinion of worth on a topic; when ideas some don't like cannot be stated, misunderstandings cannot be corrected, meaning that all such untested beliefs, however popular, are also uninformed, largely worthless and not knowledge; second, free speech is necessary to ensure that all members of a society have a say in what that society looks like, not only it's government and laws, but also its attitudes, customs and values.
Gutting gave me much to think about with my morning coffee a couple of days ago.
___________
Reference
I like your answer that “everybody should be able to vote”. Voting rights would be as important as the quality of voting. Its quantity would also become essential if people have rights to vote prudently.
ReplyDeleteI am not certain if I really understand the concept about the random representative group and the basic democratic principle as you mentioned or not.
Anyway, to be an authentic voting process, all members of a society should be objective and make decisions rationally (with the right, accurate supports). And the two reasons regarding protecting free speech by Gutting’s ideas seems judicious to help support the ways to be an effective voting process and good democracy.
To give comments on your thought-provoking post often challenges me very much due to my different knowledge background, the level of my interest in your topic, and your elaborate language, but I keep trying to do best. I would also like to say that it’s not true for me about your saying that “commenting on the blog just takes 5-7 minutes with relaxation” when I have to blog on your post. I always spend time more than that. But it is worth blogging on your post to practice as well as improve my English and at the same time broaden my knowledge and perspective.
I like your answer that “everybody should be able to vote”. Voting rights would be as important as the quality of voting. Its quantity would also become essential if people have rights to vote prudently.
ReplyDeleteI am not certain if I really understand the concept about the random representative group and the basic democratic principle as you mentioned or not.
Anyway, to be an authentic voting process, all members of a society should be objective and make decisions rationally (with the right, accurate supports). And the two reasons regarding protecting free speech by Gutting’s ideas seems judicious to help support the ways to be an effective voting process and good democracy.
To give comments on your thought-provoking post often challenges me very much due to my different knowledge background, the level of my interest in your topic, and your elaborate language, but I keep trying to do best. I would also like to say that it’s not true for me about your saying that “commenting on the blog just takes 5-7 minutes with relaxation” when I have to blog on your post. I always spend time more than that. But it is worth blogging on your post to practice as well as improve my English and at the same time broaden my knowledge and perspective.