For some reason liberals love to idealize Athens as the home of democracy, our historical tradition and origins. — thedeadidea

Your problem here is that Athens itself did not idealize democracy, so your entire debate is founded on a far deeper falsity than you state.

Socrates, who you quote, was no fan of democracy and an idealist and eventually eschewed. Aristotle is the proper origin of modern democracy (I started a separate thread on the issue of slavery (and AHEM women) on that. Aristotle was a realist, not an idealist, and called democracy the best option among worse alternatives. He was rather more practical minded and cynical and not an idealist at all.

With regard to votes, his debate centers on the benefit of oligarchy versus equality for all, the latter of which is of course, appears controlled by the poor, because there are always more of them. And I will try to summarize it because it is quite long. If you have say 2 rich and 4 poor voting equally, one of the poor quickly realizes they can be more powerful by voting with the rich. If there 2 rich and 6 poor, the poor realize they can split in two and each group can partner either with the rich group or the other poor group to win. And the latter example can collapse into the first, because there 1 person realizes, again, he can switch groups to make a 4:4 split. So what naturally evolves is a system where the rich and poor have equal power decided by a tiny swing group, or even a single person.

Does that, by the way, sound at all familiar to you?

So as to who vote for them, Aristotle agrees, with Plato, that it would be nice if everyone were as intelligent as you, but its impossible. Aristotle disagrees however that a small thinking class should have absolute power, because different crafts and skills earn money in different ways. Plato agrees with that latter point too, but Aristotle's point is, if only a small number of people control the power, they will have a natural bias towards the skills they possess themselves (also a sly stab at sophists with Socrates' view). To assure that the society acts in the interest of all proportionally, all people must have equal control in some aspects of a democratic government.

The issue, Aristotle says, is defining which parts of the system should be controlled more by an oligarchic system, and which by individual equality. So he is more of the opinion that both need to be going on at the same time, which is, in fact what happened in Ancient Greece, and which happens in the USA now too, as its almost entirely based on Aristotle's politics, as far as voting goes (doesnt include the legal wing which was instead defined by Locke's ideas on natural rights).

↪thedeadidea You are still talking about "democracy" as if it was synonymous with "the best form of government." If you remove what makes democracy a democracy, you may or may not end up with a better form of government, but what you won't have is a democracy. — SophistiCat

Please note the google translation of democracy

a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

Note the underlined bolded passage I have not said your definition is illegitimate only too narrow to apply to my argument in the way you want it to that is matter of fact. I previously clarified this and tried to elaborate on it so I will try dictionary games just to point out and make it as emphatically clearly as I possibly can...

DEMOCRACY HAS MORE CONNOTATIONS THAN YOU THINK IT DOES!

If this is still a failure I am at a loss as I have not the finances or your geographical location to sent a marching band by your house and am limited in any way to further make explicit what is implicit in the meaning of the word. Moreso I am loathed to further elaborate this single idea.

More so it is moronic to be on a philosophical forum and insist that ideas and concepts can only be discussed in your normative ideological refrain. If you want to be a good little unthinking normie go on facebook, twitter away there are so many mediums for you already.

have exactly NOT done what YOU ACCUSE me of which is blind prejudice. Nowhere have I said 'black people should not vote because they are black' or anything to the effect.
— thedeadidea

Where have I done this? — SophistiCat

I am glad you asked so here is you full original post so lets break it down

↪thedeadidea You don't understand what "democracy" means, do you? As StreetlightX points out, the sine qua non of democracy is that the governed have a say in how they are governed. You are saying, in essence, "I want democracy without all that democracy stuff." If you don't like democracy, then say so.

It's funny how words acquire such stable positive or negative connotations that people forget about their meaning and remember only the connotation. It's like someone saying "I am not a racist, I just hate niggers." — SophistiCat

i) note the personal address
ii) the rhetorical question and equivocation to someone I already clearly don't agree with
iii) Again your democracy only definition see previous post + inference of my position by i) + ii)
iv) Rhetorical simile equivocating prejudice by way of (i,ii, iii)

Do you have any other questions?

Look to those who can't follow along... I am arguing something more along the lines of this stupid, gullible people should not be allowed to vote.
I take Brexit as a good example of this and the geopolitical instability because there was a targeted propaganda campaign at dumb dumbs that in large part helped swing the vote.

I am asking is there anything more than an appeal of universal rights you can give?

Honestly.
If adults who have the reading, numerical abilities of a 12-year-old can decide the fate of the nation if this is a good idea why can't a 7-year-old who is reading at a 15-year-old level vote?

The voting line of age seems completely arbitray and given how stupid some people are I am not at all afraid of infants voting... Campaigning with tellytubbys bring that shit on.... At least the absurdity and depravity of the current ideological clusterfuck would be shown to be the 3 ring circus in a hand half an inch in front of your face...

Either make the argument that allowing the systemic risk of Brexit is somehow a necessary condition of the political fate of the nation and a necessary pain... or just admit you can't think of reasons why dumb-dumbs should vote either....



I think you made some great points but again we awkwardly get around the "greek" you are in and slave and women out...

I am not pointing out that Athens romanticized democracy, we fucking do.... It is the Barrack Obama photo opp, the liberal propaganda... I don't think alot of people buy into that shit alot of the time and then election time rolls around....
YES WE CAN..... "no you won't"... dreams are broken tears are shed...

then
LETS MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN..... oh for the love of fucking god please no.... Did it happen, why? after 8 years of fake-ranching G.W. Why the fuck is this a thing?

I don't have it in me anymore I have no good reason I can actually give. Brexit though was the tipping point....
More than that though what concerns me is the narrative and shaping of public opinion say "deregulation" as what is honestly a meme.... Deregulation of what? in what sense?

Nope.... Deregulation = GOOD

We get the deregulation under Clinton that then passed to Bush that leads to the 2008 financial crisis. Plenty of people have written intelligent journalism, pointed out the faults but it gets squashed by a political message designed for children... Not for children but for adults with the cognitive, literacy and numeracy skills for children... I just can't do it anymore...

I think many people who would completely try to shut down this kind of thinking of limited freedoms would also simultaneously deny capitalism.... Because they recognize it is not as advertised unless they are insane the better arguments against capitalism do not presuppose evil. But that 'free markets' are an illusionary fiction as right they should instead arguing in some specific sense that rather than social welfare we have corporate welfare... But the same kind of 'not as advertised' criticism or polemic cannot be generated about democracy?
Why?
.

I do not recognize my comment in your reply. I will put it in other words.

Every restriction of suffrage has been carried out by actual agents, duly assigned by whoever has the power to do so. The measures you call for have been called for by others. It was a central feature of the politics of the Jim Crow South.

How will you make sure that your program does not suffer the corruption so blatantly on view in the past?

I point out again that this is just another argument that does not make the direct argument that low IQ people make an important contribution to the democratic voting process... But why not.




Firstly it wouldn't be my program in order to formalize it you would need a democratic process of expertize and votes....

Second Jim Crow laws were about a racial hierarchy of prejudice that assumes the white is superior to the black for little to no reasoning. In contrast, I think I have generated sufficient reason as to why ignorance and stupidity is a threat to democratic governments.

Thirdly are you trying to imply that there is some kind of safety net to stop people from suffering corruption now? If so specifically what is it /

Fourth in terms of 'blatant discrimination' with how much-standardized testing goes into determining the collective intelligence of people, the value and success of education and admissions to the better schools or not I don't think my program as it were or how we would get there.... Is in the kind of esoteric nebula of hypothetical possibility and not actually existing in some way already that you seem to think it is...

Fifth my program would not just assess literacy and numeracy but specifically civics, critical reflection and research techniques... Including gestalt activities, being exposed to propaganda and things like Brexit showing why it is a catastrophe and urging people NOT TO LET IT HAPPEN TO THEM. I have no interest on teaching anything else and if you need more constitutional certainty... that is fine...

Sixth my program is not prohibitive in passing but LICENSE citizenship is EARNED and not freely given... Just as reaching a certain age is sufficient for one to try to get a car license to demonstrate sufficient competency...

You want to be an architect you need a license
You want to be a lawyer you need a license
You want to be a doctor you need a license
You want to be an accountant you need a license
You want to own a business in many places you need a license
You want to drive a car you need a license
You want to be a citizen you need a certificate (if you are an immigrant)
In nearly every other sphere of life where one party has some kind of liability or responsibility to another one is required to have a proof of competency... In all cases but one and that is the current Disneyland Democracy being argued for where even the Village Idiot called Frank gets to be a special little snowflake.

Lazy edgelord rubbish.
— @StreetlightX

What on earth is "edgelord rubbish"? I mean, I'm guessing it's bad... — Isaac

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That is quite a program.
Who will execute it?

↪thedeadidea
That is quite a program.
Who will execute it? — Valentinus

I hope he answers: "the lazy edgelord".

I hereby announce my retirement from this thread....

↪thedeadidea
That is quite a program.
Who will execute it? — Valentinus

If you want to be this disingenuous let me go with.

I don't know but I believe the final solution exists somewhere.

I may be dumb, but I am genuine.
I have no idea who would bring about the changes you ask for.

Honestly, I believe everyone should make me dictator for life. I'm smarter than most of you and I'm more literate than most Americans. Who needs democracy when you can have a genius like me rule over all of you?

Oh ho ho ho ho. Is this what the OP is implying? If so I support it.

If driving a car is a privilege and not a right, an activity one requires a licence for why should the fate of a nation and world be decided on the whim of people who are possibly contemptuously stupid ? — thedeadidea

You have identified some valid problems with universal suffrage in a democracy, but that's easy. What alternative do you propose? Identify the "right" people? I don't see a perfect way to do this. In universal suffrage, there's a chance the idiocy on all sides cancel each other out.

This clearly what I was implying and not a misrepresentation of my position at all.... who finally gets it... we need more geniuses like you in the world.

You have identified some valid problems with universal suffrage in a democracy, but that's easy. What alternative do — Relativist

I may be dumb, but I am genuine.
I have no idea who would bring about the changes you ask for. — Valentinus

you propose? Identify the "right" people? I don't see a perfect way to do this. In universal suffrage, there's a chance the idiocy on all sides cancel each other out.

What is hard about the idea that an age cap on democracy arbitrarily draws a line in the sand whilst insisting on a sufficient criterion of intelligence, literacy, and numeracy would be a better standard of voting capacity.... That there are probably some 12-year-olds better informed than 40-year-olds and one is arbitrarily enfranchized over the other and my nominal and small prospective change would flip this...

Is it you cannot grasp the idea because you dislike it in your stomach? OR Is it a genuine comprehension problem? I am lost to a certain conclusion.... OR my specific claim of utopia... this isn't the end of history or the kingdom of heaven if you wanted a True World Theory you came to the wrong thread.

I may be dumb, but I am genuine.
I have no idea who would bring about the changes you ask for. — Valentinus

You want to be an architect you need a license
You want to be a lawyer you need a license
You want to be a doctor you need a license
You want to be an accountant you need a license
You want to own a business in many places you need a license
You want to drive a car you need a license
You want to be a citizen you need a certificate (if you are an immigrant)
In nearly every other sphere of life where one party has some kind of liability or responsibility to another one is required to have a proof of competency... In all cases but one and that is the current Disneyland Democracy being argued for where even the Village Idiot called Frank gets to be a special little snowflake. — thedeadidea

The answer is WE would bring it about by changing the laws of the land, if people agreed to it. Before I get change I need hearts and minds... Start small by saying if you don't have a reading/math level of an 18 year old & a civics education test (the one immigrants take to get citizenship) you get excluded from voting.

There is already something very much like a Wizard of Oz version of democracy where behind the curtain there is something very different to what is presented on the surface. Modern Democracies have made it almost a habit of divesting as much power as possible to institutional bodies to act autonomously of the government as a defacto representative. This not only dilutes democracy but is the current disneyland version of democracies version of trying to have experts dictate policy.

The way I see it, the problem is not so much that uninformed and ignorant people are allowed to vote - good luck rescinding that right without violence, let alone getting people to agree with it - but that we celebrate and amplify the voice of uninformed and ignorant people.

Why? Because drama and conflict outsells intelligent discussion any day of the week. Polarity more readily stimulates a response from even the most intelligent and rational citizen, so they give air time to whingers and devil’s advocates, generating an assumption that what they’re saying has value other than simply stimulating response from others.

Rescinding the right to vote from the uninformed and ignorant will only generate a different form of class conflict. It’s not a solution, and to tout it as such only shows a lack of sympathy and an ignorance of what it’s like to be denied access to information, or to be raised ignorant.

That the age cap on democracy fails to ensure a standard of voting capacity is an indictment on our education and value systems. What happens historically when the ‘ruling elite’ dictate the criterion on which one can become enfranchised? Do you not see the problem with your supposed ‘utopia’?

LOL. Alright. Then I have nothing against your position, so long as I get to rule.

↪thedeadidea The way I see it, the problem is not so much that uninformed and ignorant people are allowed to vote - good luck rescinding that right without violence, let alone getting people to agree with it - but that we celebrate and amplify the voice of uninformed and ignorant people.

Why? Because drama and conflict outsells intelligent discussion any day of the week. Polarity more readily stimulates a response from even the most intelligent and rational citizen, so they give air time to whingers and devil’s advocates, generating an assumption that what they’re saying has value other than simply stimulating response from others.

Rescinding the right to vote from the uninformed and ignorant will only generate a different form of class conflict. It’s not a solution, and to tout it as such only shows a lack of sympathy and an ignorance of what it’s like to be denied access to information, or to be raised ignorant.

That the age cap on democracy fails to ensure a standard of voting capacity is an indictment on our education and value systems. What happens historically when the ‘ruling elite’ dictate the criterion on which one can become enfranchised? Do you not see the problem with your supposed ‘utopia’? — Possibility

& someone finally tries to run my ideas through a word that actually exists and finds out the tragic despot failure of the position. Alas I concede the flaw in my position as something applicable but I do stick to the principle. The fact immigrants need to get their 'citizenship license' and natives just get it for free is absurd. I don't think the test is the problem I think the problem is that it isn't a universal principle for voting rights.

So instead we will likely end up in a technocracy, for it is utterly more realistic. Alas I tried.

thedeadidea LOL. Alright. Then I have nothing against your position, so long as I get to rule. — YuZhonglu

Everyone will get to rule eventually... I will make a drug induced VR euthanasia available so everyone can rule. Whilst us normies will get the benefit of you ceasing to be... It is win-win.

OK you don't know what to do - so let's get realistic.

IMO the fact that most are not informed is not the biggest problem. The bigger problem is that people do not know how to think critically. Those who get "better informed" just fit the information into their existing ideological framework. We seek out news sources that fit our ideology, so even much of the new information has already be framed to fit our ideology.

What can we do? Education. Teach critical thinking skills. We can't teach everyone all the relevant information, but we can at least help them better evaluate what they DO hear.

I became a school teacher and have made good changes in my school... But if you are hoping for a nation-saving solution with the syllabus, pension for standardized testing and bureaucratic silliness let alone bold education then it is hard. There are some people like Rita Pierson who influenced my teaching. It is just we can't do anything radical, or even talk about it.

An example was Jane Elliott's blue eye- green eye experiment designed to give kids a confrontational and solidarity based experience in discrimination. It was something viewed as heretical and would still be viewed traumatizing...

What to do?
There is too many Theory running wishy-washy Marxists running around the University I worked close too in England and are doing the same here.... It is amazing they think that it is going unnoticed the attempt to advocate a curriculum with Derrida and Deconstruction. Really this is an inroad to bring back the right-minded construction theory and lesson plans with no concern for classroom management or measured engagement... inevitably creating shit pedagogy. You should consider having a listen to Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak talk at the University of London (on youtube) as she talks about the difficulty of contextualizing Derrida at a University level.

In spite of that difficulty it has a good chance becoming curriculum you want to know why? Even though it is a garbage idea there is a market for it... Hearts and Minds determines what becomes real or not... I won't win people to my side but the fact that I have said this time and time again....

Nobody has argued that stupid people contribute to a democracy outside of the principle...

If I argued and I think it is unfair that black people, women or some other group based on arbitrary demography should not get the vote. I would be condemned... For articulated and passionate calls for justice... Why? Because it is arbitrary, small minded prejudice... This is a good sign but more needs to be done.

But it is fine.... all something will happen this that and more

Eventually humanity will tire of its own bullshit and just let the computers be in charge... Seems more realistic than just stopping dumb fucks ruining democracy.... But then I always was a romantic.

No, I've tried arguing what you say before, but it doesnt work. If you give any one group of a popular vote disproportionate power, clever politicians exploit the difference to personal advantage. That includes groups of intelliigent people, which is what happened in the Russian revolution, and it happened again just recently when Trump exploited flaws in the electoral college.

Well I don't live in the States and I just left England.
So as much as possible it really isn't my problem.
You just keep doing American things.
4 more years of Trump cannot wait.
Sounds fantastic and wonderful.
We loved the wall in the brochure.
Democracy will prevail and the Will of the People
An idiot president for idiots democracy at work
Hoo Fuckin Rah God Bless America.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2018-10-12/2-of-3-americans-wouldnt-pass-us-citizenship-test

Read this... Have a look at a citizenship test and tell me your children would not be better educated by a squirrel... making their rights tied to their highschool diploma... You bet those fuckers will be doing all kinds of reading and writing.

Look to those who can't follow along... I am arguing something more along the lines of this stupid, gullible people should not be allowed to vote. — thedeadidea

A question if I may:

Are you suggesting that YOU get to decide who the "stuid and gullible" are?

If not...how will that be decided?

A question if I may:

Are you suggesting that YOU get to decide who the "stuid and gullible" are?

If not...how will that be decided? — Frank Apisa

Having anticipated this I have already pointed to any number of standards we have allowed to be culturally imposed in multiple ways in life. To the point of also including a citizenship test for immigration. The current litmus test is merely age.... you just need to exist and be born within a certain range of latitude and longitude and hey presto you are an adult citizen and you get a vote.

My argument is more let's not make it arbitrary anymore and tie it to any number of standards already produced whilst also promoting education in civics and critical thinking/reflection things already taught and have been taught for decades.


Moreover I am not saying this test should be a one time deal that is you fail you fail forever, you can take it infinity times... But you have to pass it much like you have to pass a drivers test in order to drive...

Given that your question just has me repeating myself may I ask a question...

Do you read what others write..... or do you more read what you want to read?

thedeadidea
64

A question if I may:

Are you suggesting that YOU get to decide who the "stuid and gullible" are?

If not...how will that be decided? — Frank Apisa


Having anticipated this I have already pointed to any number of standards we have allowed to be culturally imposed in multiple ways in life. To the point of also including a citizenship test for immigration. The current litmus test is merely age.... you just need to exist and be born within a certain range of latitude and longitude and hey presto you are an adult citizen and you get a vote.

My argument is more let's not make it arbitrary anymore and tie it to any number of standards already produced whilst also promoting education in civics and critical thinking/reflection things already taught and have been taught for decades.


Moreover I am not saying this test should be a one time deal that is you fail you fail forever, you can take it infinity times... But you have to pass it much like you have to pass a drivers test in order to drive...

Given that your question just has me repeating myself may I ask a question...

Do you read what others write..... or do you more read what you want to read? — thedeadidea

Sure you can ask your question, but I see it as a rather strange question!

Like most (like everyone, I suppose), I read what I want to read.

You do also. Right?

Anyway, I agree it is arbitrary to base voting rights on age...but at least that has to do with something easily defined and authenticated. ("How long you been alive and can you prove it?")

"Are you 'smart' enough to vote"...is not so easily defined. And what you (or a majority) might consider a minimum of intelligence to vote...might exclude people better prepared to make a reasonable selection of whom they want to represent them than those you deem to be "intelligent enough."

In any case, "the current litmus test" is NOT merely age. The desire to vote is also a test. One must go through the process of registering...and completing a ballot.

That desire to vote...seems to me to go a long way toward meeting a standard of being intelligent enough to make a reasonable decision.

Said another way: I'd love to see more people qualify to vote as opposed to seeing fewer qualified due to the standards you advocate imposing.

Sure you can ask your question, but I see it as a rather strange question!

Like most (like everyone, I suppose), I read what I want to read.

You do also. Right?

Anyway, I agree it is arbitrary to base voting rights on age...but at least that has to do with something easily defined and authenticated. ("How long you been alive and can you prove it?")

"Are you 'smart' enough to vote"...is not so easily defined. And what you (or a majority) might consider a minimum of intelligence to vote...might exclude people better prepared to make a reasonable selection of whom they want to represent them than those you deem to be "intelligent enough."

In any case, "the current litmus test" is NOT merely age. The desire to vote is also a test. One must go through the process of registering...and completing a ballot.

That desire to vote...seems to me to go a long way toward meeting a standard of being intelligent enough to make a reasonable decision.

Said another way: I'd love to see more people qualify to vote as opposed to seeing fewer qualified due to the standards you advocate imposing. — Frank Apisa

If the entire notion of biased of reading is meaningfully codified to subjective experience as the meaningful standard.... sure I do...

Insofar as it is hard to define.... well Cambridge Analytica launched a targeted advertising campaign and identified their victims well... Although I wouldn't say it is as 2+2 =4 we are getting a lot better at it.Big Data will take care of that proofing but Big Data will take over everything including democracy more and more.

If the entire notion of biased of reading is meaningfully codified to subjective experience as the meaningful standard.... sure I do... — thedeadidea

Al most EVERYONE reads what they want to. Nobody forces people to read things.

That is what you do...and it certainly is what I do.

Insofar as it is hard to define.... well Cambridge Analytica launched a targeted advertising campaign and identified their victims well... Although I wouldn't say it is as 2+2 =4 we are getting a lot better at it.Big Data will take care of that proofing but Big Data will take over everything including democracy more and more.

if you are hoping for a nation-saving solution with the syllabus, pension for standardized testing and bureaucratic silliness let alone bold education then it is hard. — thedeadidea

No, I realize there is no nation-saving solution. I primarily wanted to shift your attention from the need for voters who are better informed to the need for improved critical thinking. Not only is that the more serious problem, it is also more feasible to address. Addressing it does not mean fixing it, it means improving it - perhaps little by little, step by step - drawing attention to this as a problem, striving to improve our own critical thinking, and finally working towards small improvements in education (informal education and eventually formal). It needn't be autocratically imposed in formal education; it can be through improved textbooks by authors who realize the problem exists. Even individual teachers who embrace the issue could address it in some limited way. Eventually perhaps electives in critical thinking skills could be offered. Still a bit of a utopian vision, I admit, but still a reasonable principle to have in mind.

I am done making rational arguments... Here is argument through art.




Love It Love Democracy Do It...
We the collective will of dumb fucks
Shall have our dumb fuck elect

Awesome... good luck with it... Everytime you are haunted by it by the way is a moment in time I am right

No, I realize there is no nation-saving solution. I primarily wanted to shift your attention from the need for voters who are better informed to the need for improved critical thinking. Not only is that the more serious problem, it is also more feasible to address. Addressing it does not mean fixing it, it means improving it - perhaps little by little, step by step - drawing attention to this as a problem, striving to improve our own critical thinking, and finally working towards small improvements in education (informal education and eventually formal). It needn't be autocratically imposed in formal education; it can be through improved textbooks by authors who realize the problem exists. Even individual teachers who embrace the issue could address it in some limited way. Eventually perhaps electives in critical thinking skills could be offered. Still a bit of a utopian vision, I admit, but still a reasonable principle to have in min — Relativist

The role of government tends to be delegation more so than direct leadership...
Government does not set a highschool syllabus implicitly, they set standards on what to and not to include in abstract, total hours and so on at best... the Department of Education in a nation sets curriculum....

Having a formal standardized standard of what is acceptable for voting, what needs to be included in the test, to the appropiate education level, designating school curriculum, adult education, funding for apps, things like that... THAT is a political policy
It would then be handed off too someone else to deal with and formalize...

So specifically how would you fix this problem... specifically a method... it doesnt need to be pitch perfect manual.... I am asking for an A B C D plan in general that could feasibly exist within the current culture...
Rather than appealing to say "education" as if by way of a magical pixie fart we suddenly bump the collective IQ of a nation up by 3 points and reading average up significantly....

I feel like if you look through my posts I started from an argument and addressed the criticisms of how as reasonably as should be expected in an internet forum.... I also pointed out a license as proof of competency for just about fucking everything and anything now.

But the one exclusion seems to be democracy.... It is fine for open heart surgery or something as simple as driving a car but one no matter how much of a dumb fuck they are should be given free voting based on meeting an arbitrary voting age and coming out of one particular vaginal canal within an acceptable degree of latitude and longitude... Well take a good fucking look at the aesthetic argument...

That shit right there is the real price of freedom.

As for critical thinking faculties being developed no... it isn't utopian It works in most of British education just not Welsh and rural education that got left behind that was brexit... The education outside certain areas and inside others is a tale of two education systems....

Nowhere is this more evident than the United States with the best Education at the top end of universities.... But woefully depressing educational averages in stark contrast.

How can you burden people to make decisions many of whom are unqualified to do so and call it a 'right'? — thedeadidea

We're not (at least in the U.S.) forcing people to vote. I wouldn't say it's a burden to folks if they're only doing it because they're choosing to do it.

Aside from that, I don't want to say that people are required to know something particular or to have particular beliefs, etc. to vote. (And I also don't want convicted felons to not be able to vote, by the way.) If we're worried about people not having enough info to vote intelligently, then how about we work to provide the info instead?