Democracy comes from the greek words demos, meaning people, and kratos, meaning rule. The word literally means "people's rule". That could have a variety of connotations, but I believe most important, and perhaps most obvious, is that in something called a democracy, the people must rule. Now, there are no implications about the ability of the people to rule. After all, people are what the founding fathers were scared of when they created our "representative" democracy. But in my opinion "representative" democracy is not democracy at all. The people are not ruling; their representatives are. And that does a disservice to the idea of democracy.
The most obvious connotation, that the people must rule, is also the hardest for people to comprehend. This means that the people, no matter how uneducated, misinformed, or (forgive the social gaffe) retarded they may be must participate. Part of the assumption Americans make is that they should be able to choose who can and cannot have a say in government. And with the continuing polarization of the country politically and socially, that is a hard pill to swallow. The socially ultra-conservative Mormon in Utah doesn't want the vote of the lesbian living in Portland to affect him, and vice versus. The young urban black doesn't want the racist middle aged white guy in Tennesse (to make a huge generalization) to have any bearing on her life.
But that is the point of democracy. This is a shared experience, and part of the deal you signed up with when you crossed that border and accepted that social security number (or didn't give back the one they gave you at birth) was that you were a part of the experiment. There is no fine print guaranteeing success, but if we cannot follow the rules of engagement, namely that which ensures equal representation (voting), then what kind of game are we playing? Certainly not democracy.
The Right to Vote
By devon.cook - Posted on October 16th, 2008
Tagged: democracy
• individual freedom
• representative democracy
• voting
• Effective government
• Personal freedom
I think you're right when you say we don't live in a true democracy. And you shouldn't expect us to, either- it's a common misconception that America is a democracy.
In a true democracy, which has never existed on a large scale in all of history, every citizen would cast a vote on every legislative proposal and executive decision. The Ancient Greeks had a system that was close to true democracy, and they'd probably call our republican system of government a mere "elected aristocracy." In a nation of 300 million citizens spanning an entire continent, the obvious logistical obstacles prevent us from being a true democracy. So, we elect representatives to make laws for us- it's the best realistic compromise.
I don't believe that an uninformed voter is the same as an uneducated one. I wouldn't want a person with three doctorates casting any votes in an election if he doesn't even know the candidates' names. Conversely, I would encourage a high school dropout to vote if he was well versed on the major issues of both candidates.
Uninformed voters degrade democracy when they vote. The purpose of a democratic election is to vet candidates for the office to ensure they are capable leaders, worthy of being entrusted with the nation's stewardship. An uninformed voter disrupts this process of discovering the better candidate, and so they shouldn't vote. Allowing an uninformed voter to participate in an election would be like letting a plumber perform brain surgery- they are not properly qualified, and would not contribute positively to the process.
I'm not saying we should make it illegal to vote, but I personally would either educate an uninformed voter, or just tell him not to vote (the first option is preferable to the latter).
And that is that by living in a democracy, we have an inherent obligation to vote, but not to be informed. I agree with you that many people are uninformed, but in being that way, they are not violating their obligation. It comes down to implicit and explicit consent. By living in the United States, we are implicitly agreeing to the rules of its government, the most relevant here being participation in the process. When a person votes, they are explicitly giving that candidate (or ballot measure) their seal of approval. If they are uninformed when they do that, they are hurting themselves, because that candidate (or ballot measure) could have a significant bearing on their life. Do you see what I mean? There is nothing about democracy that requires its citizens to be informed, but simply to vote. The obligation to be informed is one owed by the citizen to themselves, so that they make decisions for their own well being.
The Constitution doesn't require us to vote- it's a right, not a compulsory obligation. In the same way, we have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean we have to always say what's on our minds.
An uninformed voter hurts himself by voting, that's true, and he also hurts me and you and millions of others. That shouldn't be tolerated.
But an uninformed voter can also help others. After all, everyone does not have the same opinion. An uninformed voter might vote for your candidate.
Leave Canada, please - Canadian Dude
I'd rather an uninformed voter not vote at all than vote for my candidate, just based on principle. Being uninformed isn't a matter of having wrong opinions- opinions can't really be wrong. Being uninformed is either having no opinion, or the wrong facts (for example: I won't vote for Obama because he is a terrorist).