Only educated people should have the right to vote

in elections. What is your view?

Democracy is one of the most influential and pervasive form of governance in
many First World societies today. The basis of democracy is by the people, for
the people, the idea of majority rights. However, it has long been criticised.
Democracy is seen to fail due to the irrational voter and the sheer lack of
sufficient political education. Who should hold the votes then? There are those
who say that the educated professionals have the greatest capacity to make the
most pragmatic and informed decisions. However, the consequences are great
should they be the only ones to hold the vote. It destroys the fundamentals of
democracy; instead, it could well be oligarchy. It may cause a clear dichotomy
between the bourgeois and proletariat and such fragmentation of society is
damaging.
One of the common arguments put forth when justifying the move to allow the
educated the only ones to hold the vote is the idea of the irrational voter. As put
forth by American economist Milton Friedman, the idea is that the voter makes
ill-informed choices that are normally driven by emotional or populist ideas. If
we examine the two distinct education levels of society, the educated
professionals are most definitely better equipped with the necessary tools to
discern and rationalise. With education comes knowledge and with it comes
awareness of issues. Educated individuals tend to have greater interest in
politics as it appeals to their level of intellect. There is a higher propensity for an
educated individual to sieve out what is pragmatic and best for the society as
opposed to an uneducated individual who would probably go with populist
measures. We can see this in African communities. One of the reasons for
poverty in African communities is the lack of foresight; to a struggling person,
short-term goals such as using aid money for farming mean much more than
the potentially long-term benefits of education. Similarly, short-term populist
policies that may appeal to the uneducated and many a times money is used as
a carrot. As such, we can draw a lesson that circumstance and the lack of
awareness may lead to decisions that might not be the best for society.
However, as the educated few are smaller in a society, their votes are diluted.
We can see this trend across nations with significantly more educated
individuals as compared to those with lesser of such individuals. The
governments of First World nations tend to fare better than those in the Third
World be it economically or politically. On a superficial level, we can see that
there is a close correlation between educated populations and how well a nation
is doing. So, educated people should be the ones holding the votes because
they are discerning and can decide for what is best for a nation.
However, this logic is flawed. Such a train of thought is an Orwellian utopia
painted out in 1984. We increasingly see how long standing proponents of
democracy face economic or political problems. Japan with her ever-changing
leadership; the last one ending after nine months. The controversial Bush
administration in handling foreign affairs; look at how many relationships turned

sour over the course of five years in office. Ironically, these are countries close
to the ideal democracy and with high education levels. What we need today is
more then mere education, more than being teaching individuals skills for the
workplace. We need to teach politics and discernment. We need to instil in
populations the strong decisiveness of what is right from wrong. We have long
preached about giving rights to individuals and that individuals should be free to
exercise those rights. However, have we stopped to give individuals the
necessary tools to exercise those rights effectively? Educated or not, the
education received may well be irrelevant if what is taught does not address this
aspect. Einstein once said that God does not play dice. Can you imagine how
our physical world would be if things were merely random. We cannot afford to
play dice with who governs us or generations preceding us will have a greater
problem at hand. This is evident with the immense task ahead of the new
Obama administration.
Perhaps the educated may choose the most effective government, however the
consequences would be disastrous. What is the message sent to communities
when the educated are the only ones voting? It essential strips the uneducated
off the rights to decide from himself how he would be governed. It is effectively
then, the educated ruling over the uneducated. May I also point out that the
truth of the matter is that with higher education levels do we have greater
earning power in todays knowledge based economy. In other words, it may
seem like hegemony of one social class over the other. We fragment a society
and the consequence of that is worse as compared to a less than competent
government. Governments may change to suit the people however; to reunite
divided people is difficult. How long will it take before the highly educated rich
South Koreans and the less educated poor North Koreans join hands once again?
The fall of aristocracy in most societies has shown how clear divisions in society
cannot thrive. Dividing the people may cause great social upheavals that could
lead to wide spread violence. It would take immense amount of energy to quell
such violence, especially so for a group of once free citizens. The loss of rights
to vote is the loss of deciding what benefits and policies you can gain. It is like a
parent losing control over her teenage child. It is beyond your ability to change
the situation. Should we risk such a possibility just to allow the elite to lord over
the rest and decide for what is the best? The Orwellian utopia is too great a risk
to take. Let us learn from history not to commit such a mistake again.
Besides, if a democracy calls for the mandate of the people, then the elitist
movement is against the very grain of modern democracy. The Greek
democracy was to allow the elites to decide, however in our progressive society
today, we cannot fall back on that system. In a nutshell, I have present to you
how the idea that the educated can decide the best is essentially flawed. I have
also shown you that the consequence of the implementation of an elitist system
is a great cost on society.

Voting in a democratic country

Should I vote? Should you?
Full disclosure: Im in my fifties and I believe I have voted in every election Ive
been able to. If ever I havent, it will have been through circumstances
conspiring against me, not choice. Now, I find myself questioning whether
voting will be the right thing to do in future and I know there are plenty of
people in a similar quandary. The hard thing is trying to resolve it, but the very
least we can do is examine and appreciate the choices we have and the
freedom to make them.
The Source Of The Quandary
Lets assume that we accept democracy, when it works well, as the most
sensible way forward. Its not perfect, but its the best humanity has devised
thus far. Lets also assume that we agree that democracy in the UK is not
working well, and as I argued in an earlier article that all our main political
parties are part of the problem. The question then becomes, what is a realistic
course of action for the individual?
Of Course You Should Vote
Any discussion of voting, online or down the pub, will quickly yield some
strongly held and popular beliefs to support the view that everyone should vote.
People will happily acknowledge its a flawed system but assert that despite the
problems you should vote anyway, because
1. people in countries all around the world are fighting and dying for the
right to vote;
2. people fought for your right to vote;
3. if you dont, then evil prevails when good men do nothing;
4. even if the differences between the parties are small, they are still
significant.
(Without being flippant, I presume the other important opinion about voting,
why bother, nothing changes, is seldom voiced in discussions precisely
because its proponents just cannot be bothered. However, voter apathy is a
distinct problem in itself.)
Looking Abroad
For assessing whether one should vote in the UK, I suggest the situation in other
countries is, in fact, irrelevant. People can and cannot do all sorts of things in
other countries which may or may not be desirable in Britain. To focus on voting
rights as the sole aspect of life that we must bench-mark ourselves against or
draw imperatives from is to cherry-pick, and you need to look at the whole to
ascertain whats genuinely relevant and applicable. While democracy may be
the best political system humanitys come up with, it does not exist in and of

itself; it does, or doesnt, exist in political, social, cultural-religious and economic

contexts which vary from country to country.
Looking Back
Turning to all the fights for voting rights in the UK over the centuries, I am all too
aware that women and men, far more noble and brave than I will ever be, have
fought, suffered and died to win and defend the right to vote. I would add to
that, however, that democracy is about more than just the right to vote it is
about the sovereignty of the people and personal autonomy and hence I would
say they were also fighting for the right and freedom to decide not to vote. In
any incarnation of democracy in Britain that bears any meaningful correlation to
the present, there has never been a system of mandatory participation.
To make something mandatory requires sanctions. Mandatory participation in
politics thus easily becomes identified, rightly or wrongly, with coerced
participation and that, in the popular imagination if not in reality, comes tainted
with the experience of 99% turn-outs in favour of the rulers of totalitarian
regimes.
Looking For Better
Does voting prevent evil prevailing? We might vote in the hope of somehow
thus getting better politicians, or at least staving off even worse ones, but is it
wise to cling on to that hope?
Given that all our political parties are collectively guilty of creating and
perpetuating the state of democracy today, to make a difference in this sense a
ballot paper would need to include a none of the above (NOTA) option. This
would allow a distinction to be discerned between simple apathy which is
one problem and the active rejection of the representatives on offer, a wholly
different issue.
Including NOTA as an option, of course, raises the question of what to do in the
light of any subsequent NOTA votes. A system stipulating that to win a
candidate would have to achieve a majority of the eligible voters may be
instantly appealing, but it runs the risk of creating paralysis how many
candidates could actually command a majority in that sense?
Perhaps a better way forward would be to incorporate NOTA into a system of
Proportional Representation (with all the benefits of that approach ). NOTA, in
this context, might then come into play only if the NOTA vote is greater than
that achieved by the candidates as voted for under PR (in which case new
candidates would have to be fielded).
Whatever the details of any future voting system adopted with NOTA, as the UK
system currently stands, voting can do nothing to directly influence the calibre
of the candidates and nor the system that produces them.
(If otherwise disaffected individuals were to engage in active democratic
activities beyond simply voting e.g. actually standing for election then,

perhaps, real change might come about. A charismatic voice with proven
integrity and an adequate, probably pre-existing, public profile does stand a slim
chance of gaining election. Martin Bell comes to mind. But democratic
participation in this sense is a far greater personal commitment than simply
voting, and its not in any way a realistic option for the vast proportion of the
population for as long as our system, our parties and their supporting mass
media all continue as they are.)
Might opting to not vote allow a political rule worse than a rotten democracy to
prevail? Whether the low turnouts for European (34% in 2009) and local
elections (32% in 2012) have actually created change for the worse is, at the
very least, moot. Beyond that, I suggest we just dont know. History doesnt
offer a comparable lesson in the consequences of voter non-participation in a
western-style democracy.
We can say with certainty that voting for the candidates were given and the
system they represent perpetuates the status quo.
We also have to acknowledge the grim reality that significant numbers of people
sometimes vote for monsters. Its always invidious to raise Nazi Germany in any
discussion and of course were a long way from the situation that pertained in
pre-Second-World-Germany, but it is a prime example: the Nazi Party was the
most popular party in the Reichstag after elections in July and November 1932.
In some circumstances, voting most certainly does not prevent evil prevailing.
Whether incorporating a NOTA option, adopting PR or any other reform any
attempt to improve any democracy, in the UK or anywhere else, needs to keep
that lesson in mind. There is more to the governance of a nation than the means
by which a political party is voted in.
Looking For Small Mercies
That leaves us with voting for the small differences between the parties, for
marginal gains voting for the least bad option on offer. If you are anything
other than wholeheartedly in favour of the status quo, then voting in this sense,
in the context of the UK today, is to say that I know any vote cast is a vote for a
flawed/failing/failed system, but I think voting for this party, knowing all thats
wrong and despite all thats wrong, is better than voting for this other party
because at least they _____. And here we all fill in the blank according to our
own honestly held views; our prejudices, beliefs, biases and often-but-notalways vain hopes.
Lets be clear these really are small mercies wed be looking for. Its hard to
over-state the impotence of most voters, when not even tactical voting is likely
to have much impact. By way of simple, blunt evidence, Labour have as targets
just 106 seats in their planning for the coming general election all the rest are
foregone conclusions.
We can be quite sure that in the 544 foregone conclusions we can cast our
vote with the blank filled-in and/or as tactically as we might fondly imagine, but

it will have little or no consequence. The parties wont even be bothering to

fight the seat seriously.
And whether voting for the incumbent in a safe seat or not, wed be voting
knowing it is almost guaranteed that our voting intention will not be shared by
even a large minority of those actually eligible to vote in that constituency. In
the last election, only 36 MPs gained a mandate in the 40+% bracket.
You may or may not think of MPs as corrupt, venal, divisive and/or deceitful.
Whatever the truth on those fronts may be, that they are unrepresentative is
plainly evidenced by the numbers from the last general election. In the worst
example, Austin Mitchell MP is in parliament on the strength of just 17.6% of his
electorate.
And away from these bald, basic numbers, the unrepresentative nature of our
MPs by other measures gender, ethnicity, class, education, etc is well
documented. To take just gender as an example and to paraphrase the
Electoral Reform Society, if our country looked like our parliament then only one
person in five would be female.
Whatever we may want to believe to the contrary, that then is the context in
which well all be voting next time around. To return to the quandary I started
with, will I vote the next time I can? I dont know.
If I Dont?
Not voting is not a recognised official option. Despite that, the hope, in
abstaining, is that a significantly low turnout say, below 50% in a general
election will de-legitimise the winners to the extent that they will feel they
need to act decisively to restore faith and participation in democracy.
The question that that hope poses is whether our political classes and the
establishment they are part of, the collective source of the disaffection, would
actually respond to that pressure. Our political classes as they operate at the
local and European levels, with their lower than 40% mandates, certainly seem
fairly immune to any legitimacy-based concerns.
At least if I opt not to vote Ill be able to say that whatever the establishment
does for the following five years, it wont be able to claim to be doing it in my
name. At least Ill be, in however small a way, undermining them. (And at least
we know from dictatorships and their coerced 99% support that a claim to
legitimacy on the world stage is a concern for even the most corrupt rulers.)
Whether a low turnout should also raise hopes or fears for protest action on
the part of the electorate en masse, or, indeed, the established mass media, is a
wholly unknown prospect for modern Britain. All we can do is speculate:
It is more than likely that the media will try to promote stability in these
circumstances; the media is a part of the establishment and has as much or
more to lose as anyone else. As for mass protest, violent or otherwise, we can
look back at the (violent and non-violent) reaction to the Poll Tax for clues

perhaps, but real hardships and currently declining living standards aside our
collective affluence now is far greater than it was even just those few decades
ago. The bulk of the public has a lot to lose nowadays, whatever the wealth
gap(s).
I suggest a very low turnout will only trigger large-scale popular protest if those
in power are perceived to abuse their positions to an even greater extent than
in recent years, but that if push does come to shove, the public would readily
cite the illegitimacy of the government as just cause. (At that juncture, watching
which way our mass media jumps would be very interesting.)
If I Do?
If I do turn out to vote yet again, Ill be hoping that some marginal difference
between the parties, not as merely promised but as it transpires on the ground,
will salve my conscience. This would be the fill-in-the-blank time as referred to
above, when I would be hoping that something concrete, observable and
measurable; something I believe is a positive thing, will actually transpire, so
that I can point to it and say that only happened because of the party I voted
for.
Now Or Later?
Perhaps whether to vote or not comes down to a choice between the long and
the short term.
The long-term is the non-vote, a tactical choice with at least some meaning,
cast in the belief that eventually a de-legitimised establishment will act to
create meaningful change or that the public might react and push for change
with a voice that cant be ignored.
The short-term is the belief that X or Y party will do something positive, however
small that something might be, and that that something is more valuable than
the long-term de-legitimisation goal.
Due Justice
Where does all this actually leave us?
I suggest that, rather than arguing over assertions that people should or should
not vote, instead we ought to be fully conscious that we have that long-term
versus short-term choice. That choice is, in itself, a freedom to be valued.
Recognising that fact would be a step towards affording the struggles for
democracy, past and present, due justice.
As for actually making the choice: for as long as we are not coerced, for as long
as we are not fearful because of our politics, for as long as we have the
intellectual freedom to assess that long-term versus short-term distinction, we
can make our decision on a moral, personal level and be actively grateful for
that.

If we want to promote change, then once we have recognised our own freedom
and the long- versus short-term choice we have to make, framed in the terms
outlined above, then perhaps the most valuable thing we could be doing is
working to make others similarly conscious of that choice.
Source: 13 Dec 2013, Mike Butcher (Former BBC editor)
Dont let ignorant people vote
A provocative question for sure; however, Im not bringing it up for shock value,
but rather to give us all pause.
If I were to ask you to ingest an unknown medicine from someone who knew
nothing about the medical field, you probably wouldnt do it. And I doubt many
of us would feel comfortable as a shareholder in a company that asked people
who knew nothing about business to hire its next CEO?
Yet we all know people who gleefully admit they know nothing about politics,
dont have time to find out what the current issues are or even know how the
government works, but go out and vote. Want to know why it seems Washington
is run by a bunch of idiots? Blame this hiccup in our political system for starters.
Whats a solution? Weed out some of the ignorant by making people who want
to vote first pass a test modeled on the one given to those who want to become
citizens.
In an effort to win over ignorant voters, political campaigns are no longer
targeting the movable middle as much as the easily misled. Instead of
intelligent debates about important topics such as health care reform and cashstrapped states, we have an exchange of easy to remember catchphrases such
as Obamacare and War on Unions all in the race to pander to people who
cant explain what Congress does.
Or have a firm grasp of how tax dollars are spent.
In a recent CNN poll, more than a third of the people questioned wanted to see
cuts in military spending, which is a good debate to have. The problem is the
poll also revealed most Americans think the military takes up 30 percent of the
budget when in reality its 19 percent. If we dont know how much money is
being spent, how can we intelligently say its too much? And what to make of
the 20 percent of folks polled who believe public broadcasting represents 10
percent of the budget, when its more like a 10th of 1 percent?
Im not suggesting someone needs to be a Rhodes scholar to vote.
But voters should at least be able to name the three branches of government.
Voters should understand what a trade deficit is and how laws are made.
Before getting all bent out of shape by my assertion that you or someone you
love is ignorant, please know I am not referring to the dictionarys first definition
of the word, which typically means an uneducated or unsophisticated person. I

am operating with the second usage, defined as a lack of knowledge in a

specific area.
No one is omniscient; were all ignorant about something.
I know close to nothing about the inner workings of my car, and so I come to my
mechanic, ignorant but not stupid. As this relates to voting, if people dont
know much about current government and politics, they too are ignorant, not
necessarily stupid. The difference is that naively paying too much for repairs on
a car is not nearly as damaging to foreign policy as a bunch of ignorant voters
hitting the polls.
Am I advocating for some sort of elitism?
You betcha.
One of the more counterproductive byproducts of having our political system
hijacked by campaigns obsessed with ignorant voters is that the word elite
has been saddled with terrible PR. True, one boilerplate definition essentially
means rich snobs but another and the one more central to my point
means the best or most skilled in a group. We dont seem to have a problem
understanding the importance of having elite athletes on our favorite sports
team, but some of us have been trained to have a gag reflex at the very
mention of the countrys elite thinkers running the country.
The Founding Fathers were not a bunch of average Joes with gripes about
England; they were elite thinkers and philosophers. James Madison attended
what is now Princeton. John Hancock went to Harvard. Thomas Jefferson enrolled
at the College of William and Mary when he was 16. Today it seems the more
education a candidate has, the harder he or she has to work to distance him or
herself from it.
So how do we weed out ignorant voters without harking back to the days of poll
taxes and Jim Crow? I would start by making the U.S. Naturalization Test given
to immigrants who want to become citizens part of the voter registration
process.
If knowing the number of years a senator is elected to serve is required of
anyone who wants to become a U.S. citizen, is it too much to expect that
information to be common knowledge for those of us who already are? This has
nothing to do with who a person is or how they may vote but everything to do
with a person voting as an informed citizen, not a sound bite regurgitator.
Having a grasp of current events would be ideal, but if we could at least raise
the required investment to engage in the political system, perhaps the tone of
the rhetoric surrounding it can be elevated as well.
We wouldnt issue a drivers license to someone unable to pass the written test,
knowing the potential damage that person could do behind the wheel. Why do
we look at voting differently?

While the Constitution lists the reasons why a citizen cannot be denied the right
to vote, it does not explicitly say it is a federal right. This is why felon
disenfranchisement and mental competency laws, as they pertain to voting,
vary from state to state.
Im not suggesting we kick people out of the political process, only that we
require them to have an agreed upon understanding of what that process is. If
people are too busy to read up on the government, the Department of
Homeland Security is not going to escort them out of the country or take
away away their citizenship. At any point in which ignorant voters are fed up
with being on the outside looking in, they can go to the post office, pick up a
brochure with all of the questions and answers in it, and study free of charge.
Sounds harsh?
It is.
But at this crucial juncture with at least two wars, a budding energy crisis, a
growing trade deficit, etc., do we really have the luxury of hand-holding? There
simply needs to be more required of us as responsible voters than being born 18
years ago. Perhaps if we weed out the ignorant voters, politicians will no longer
feel the need to dumb down the conversation in hopes of getting their attention.
And then if were really lucky, maybe the ignorant politicians will go away as
well.
At least one can dream.

'History records male acts, written by males, and

holds little interest for females as a result.' Is this a
fair comment?
History most definitely has overlooked and ignored the contributions of women
in the past. Even now, historical facts that we know about women are mostly
gathered at a point in time far past the event, most of the historical research on
women are recent publications. Recent, being around the time females actually
started having rights. Men however, have had a slew of information on their
actions. For example, in royalty, princes and kings would have their daily
movements recorded, along with many details. If they went on a hunting trip, it
would be recorded in its entirety, when they set off, what horse he rode, what
weapons they used, and their catch. Contrast this with the fact that you don't
have anything on females, other than information on their male counterparts,
and how many children they had.
The Women's Land Army (WLA) had a quintessential role of supplying the British
with food supplies at a time where U-boats were destroyed and unable to deliver
them to the people. They were involved in tons of labourous agricultural
activities and during the time of its work, the WLA had provided 90,000 women
jobs and provided Britain with sufficient food for the duration of the war.
Despite the achievements and valuable contributions of the Women's Land
Army, they remain largely unknown and unrecognised, with little or no mention
in historical texts.

Should every country have the right to carry out

unlimited scientific research?
(I think you may have missed the point of the question which asks whether
countries should have the RIGHT to undertake unlimited scientific research. You
should have discussed the right which all countries should have, and each
country is sovereign as such has the right to do whatever they want. The essay
needs to hinge on whether countries should hence have this right, and not how
good or bad science research is)
Throughout history, humans have looked to science as a means to explain the
universe in which we live in. As our scientific foundations grew, what our ancient
ancestors previously thought to be mystical and spooky occurrences soon
became explainable phenomenon. Essentially, science is a compendium of
knowledge from the human perspective of the universe as we observe it. We
began to apply science into our daily lives in the form of technology, and with it
we improved our standard and quality of living. However, science has been
known to be used in ways that are more often destructive. In addition, science
has the tendency to invoke questions on morality and ethics. These problems,
however, can be avoided if science is put in the hands of the responsible.
Hence, I believe that, though science has the potential to improve the livelihood
of people across nations tremendously, the right for unlimited research should
not be given to every country.
Countries can use scientific research to improve their economy and,
subsequently, the standard of living for its people. The application of science so
as to create technology implies that better scientific knowledge will result in
more efficient technologies. Industrialization is an example of this: when
countries invest in the sciences, their knowledge of it grows and, as a product of
it, so do their technologies. These technologies are used in industries to improve
the revenue of the nation by making them more efficient, thus created a better
economy within which to work. Just as this economy evolves, so to does the
country's standard of living become better. However, economists would argue
that this would cause an increasing income gap between the high- and lowincome population of a country. This is due to the fact that as a country
develops, goods and services become more and more costly. Eventually, the
lower income population would lose out in the resulting rat-race to improve,
causing a widening division in the incomes of them and the higher income
population. In this way, scientific research can cause a decline in the standard of
living for some people while improving that of others.
Scientific research can also, however, be used to develop destructive
technology. As more research is put into science, the chances of a country
applying it to create weapon technologies is very high. This can be argued to be
a means of deterrence and protection from hostile action by other countries.
Though plausible, we must also consider countries that seem to elude the fact
that simple deterrence is an option for protection. Should these countries be

allowed to perform unlimited scientific research, the chances of sparking an

arms race akin to that between the Soviets and the United states during the
Cuban Missile Crisis would be incredibly high, after which countries would ruin
their economies trying to out-build the other country in terms of weapons
technology. Nations that dislike the influence and power of another dominant
country might abuse their scientific knowledge to create technology for the sole
purpose of threatening smaller countries nearby with invasion or even
destruction so as to garner power against the it. This could even result in
increasingly strained political ties between countries, and might ultimately lead
to major conflict.
Another way in which science can affect the world is through ethical concerns. It
is a major issue in scientific research, particularly in the field of medicine. This is
due to the fact that untested medicines or medical procedure may have
undesirable effects on an individual when used. In order to find these effects,
scientists must test the medicines on another living being before deploying
them. Other ethical issues arise when researching specific sciences such as
cloning. In this way, some countries limit their scientific research due to ethical
reasons stemming from areas such as society and religion. Without an ethical
barrier, however, unlimited scientific research would become possible and pave
the path for new findings and substantial advancement in medical science.
Despite such incredible potential, bridging the potential gap between the rich
and the poor would be difficult enough; should advanced medicine be one more
thing that the poor cannot afford? If it is made affordable, the chances for
abuse would also increase. Ethical issues in this way can cause countries to
consider pursuing further scientific research in sensitive medical areas.
In conclusion, unlimited scientific research can be used for good as well as for
bad. It can result in the increase of living standard amongst people within a
nation, but it may also result in a widening gap between the rich and the poor of
that nation. In addition, science may be used to develop technology that may
not yield a beneficial function for humanity in that it may create unease
between countries and could even incite war. Lastly, technology developed
through the study of science may not adhere to the ethical viewpoints held by
some groups and may even violate them and result in abuse. In short, the right
for scientific research should not be given to all countries unless they are
responsible in the way they utilize the technologies derived from them.