Originally Posted by
Yvaelle
My view is that democracy relies on an educated and informed public. Today, the quality of education provided is often an inadequate baseline, from which the masses can become informed. The masses are asked to form an opinion on the long-term effects of free trade agreements, geopolitical grand strategy, identifying the 'good guys' in horrible civil wars where everything has become shades of black. The masses are asked by the democratic process - for their educated and informed opinion on tax policy and brackets, on the specifics of 2000 page healthcare plans, on economic policies, FIRE regulations, food & environmental policy, etc.
The level of education and intelligence required to grasp just a handful of these issues in true depth can take a lifetime of passion and study to achieve. A rudimentary understanding would suffice - but given the complexity of the subjects today - the sheer number of dials and gauges we need to monitor and control - frankly - we have failed as democratic societies to reasonably prepare the masses - through education - to the level required to participate meaningfully in every conversation. People may have the education required to participate in some of these conversations - but all of them? None of us, even on MMO-GenOT, is truly versed educated to the level needed to become informed about every topic we're expected to base our vote on.
When I say informed, what I mean is that an education is merely a baseline knowledge - to be able to vote effectively on the geopolitics of Syria - and the degree and method to which the US should intervene - education of their past, their culture, their historical factions, their motivations - are necessary - but it falls upon the media to sufficiently inform us on how these things have evolved from the history books we learned in school.
We rely (foolishly!) on the media to inform the educated masses on how each topic has evolved from where our education on Syria left off - in an objective, insightful, and concise way. Instead, media is increasingly becoming a clown show - a bunch of jackass politicians from all over the world jammed into a tiny clown car of talking heads in gridded boxes - all shouting their obviously biased opinions over one another until the only discernable things the educated populace can discern, is that a) there is a controversy, b) the media isn't doing what we need them to do (find the signal through the noise, or harmonize the cacophony), c) nothing useful will come from watching the talking heads.
At best, the population is both educated and informed about their specific issues - of personal interest or related to their profession - but even then we lack an objective means to balance the innate bias of our sources, given that our news media is failing to perform the function we require of it (objective concise reporting). If we work in the FIRE sector, we probably have some education on the subjects - and we are likely informed on the current state - but we may lack opposing opinions = even when we are educated and informed on our subjects, it is often within an echo chamber of confirming perspectives.
This means that virtually none of the population is properly prepared to participate on the level required for democracy to properly function anymore. Most of us are educated in some topics, fewer of us are both educated and informed about a given topic - even when we are both educated and informed, it may not be sufficiently broad and objective: because we are informed by biased sources within the industries we work in (I feel as though I'm failing to explain this issue - think of if you work in the Oil & Natural Gas industry, you are likely informed on the industry by material published on your employers website or newsletter or industry newsletters - and what do those newsletters usually conclude? "Sometimes we make a little mess, but for the most part we're necessary, awesome, and almost never make mistakes" = informed but biased).
I think democracy was a great idea and a grand experiment - and I think it could have worked in a different time - but the complexity and breadth of topics in today's world is simply too vast and too deep for us to all academically participate in. I don't claim to have the right solution to replace it, and I want to preserve the distribution of power that democracy intends - but if we are failing to meet the assumptions that a sound democracy requires (educated & informed), we need limitations in place which ensure that democracy can only exist once those requirements are met. I think the easiest solution would be to create frequent referendum on every topical issue, but each referendum is prefaced by a test of at least rudimentary knowledge on the subject - itself prefaced by access to all the knowledge and answers relevant to the subject. Choices in each referendum are weighted based on the score of the voter on the prior knowledge exam.
Let's use BrExit as an example - at the start of the decision, information - something like a textbook or documentary or wiki - would be produced and made publicly available. People would have months to read, watch, and explore the topic free of the media douchebaggery of today. At the time of the referendum, anyone would be allowed to walk in - take a multiple choice knowledge exam - and place their vote. If they got 80% on the exam, their vote counts as 80% of a full vote. If they knew nothing about the subject, filled in 'C' for every question on the exam and scored 25%, their vote counts as 25% of a vote.
That is essentially what a good democracy requires - a vote amongst the educated and informed - but available to everyone to determine their level of involvement in democracy, on a per topic basis, and weighted to their knowledge of the discussion (even if it still favors spamming the polls with people filling in 'C').
Maybe that's just my ivory tower wizardry speaking though