Loved your article ! "Which people? The informed or the uninformed? The thoughtful or the impulsive? The patient or the reactive?" Would request you to bolden it because this is the essence of your writing . I love how you questioned the idea of democracy and it has somehow convinced me in doing so .
Hmm okay ma. Actually Substack website is so slow on my laptop. Other websites are perfectly fine though. This is a Substack issue. There is a 10-15 second latency while typing, making it difficult to type. So, I typed out the entire thing in notepad and directly copy posted it here without much emphasis on the formatting, which is why I didn't italicise or bold anything. And thanks for your opinion as well 🍀🍀
I am 21 yet I refused to apply for a voter id because I got mocked by people when i said that i wanted to vote for NOTA. How can i vote to a political party knowing the ruling party only won cuz it spent 2000rs per vote, while the opposition only gave away 1000rs per vote. This article really depicted democracy in its truest form.
Hii Aakash, I read this article earlier but forgot to respond because I got busy with some work.
I do like this article, and I agree with a lot of what you've said. Democracy is ultimately a game of numbers, and the majority can be gullible. It does have flaws, and it often feels unfair that someone who is completely uninformed has the same voting power as someone who has spent years understanding politics and public policy.
But then the question is who gets to decide whose vote should be worth more? And why would people trust whoever makes that decision?
We also can't realistically base voting rights on education. Many people never had the privilege of receiving a proper education, and having a degree doesn't automatically make someone politically aware. I've seen farmers who understand political issues far better than people with master's degrees because government policies directly affect their lives, so they pay closer attention.
Haan, I agree that degrees would be a terrible metric. But if voting competence were ever assessed, I'd imagine something closer to a driving theory test than an educational qualification. The goal wouldn't be to identify the smartest citizens, but to ensure voters understand the system they're participating in. For instance questions such as what are the three branches of government? What is the role of Parliament? What is the difference between state and national powers? What does a constitution do?What is inflation?
Or even before voting, voters could be required to spend 15-20 minutes reviewing neutral summaries of the candidates and policies, then answer a few questions showing they actually read them. Yeah IK, both ideas are weak on paper and would be even worse when implemented, but still…. 🥲
Loved your article ! "Which people? The informed or the uninformed? The thoughtful or the impulsive? The patient or the reactive?" Would request you to bolden it because this is the essence of your writing . I love how you questioned the idea of democracy and it has somehow convinced me in doing so .
Hmm okay ma. Actually Substack website is so slow on my laptop. Other websites are perfectly fine though. This is a Substack issue. There is a 10-15 second latency while typing, making it difficult to type. So, I typed out the entire thing in notepad and directly copy posted it here without much emphasis on the formatting, which is why I didn't italicise or bold anything. And thanks for your opinion as well 🍀🍀
I am 21 yet I refused to apply for a voter id because I got mocked by people when i said that i wanted to vote for NOTA. How can i vote to a political party knowing the ruling party only won cuz it spent 2000rs per vote, while the opposition only gave away 1000rs per vote. This article really depicted democracy in its truest form.
Exactly 😭
Blind faith is what keeps some of them going 🤧
Hii Aakash, I read this article earlier but forgot to respond because I got busy with some work.
I do like this article, and I agree with a lot of what you've said. Democracy is ultimately a game of numbers, and the majority can be gullible. It does have flaws, and it often feels unfair that someone who is completely uninformed has the same voting power as someone who has spent years understanding politics and public policy.
But then the question is who gets to decide whose vote should be worth more? And why would people trust whoever makes that decision?
We also can't realistically base voting rights on education. Many people never had the privilege of receiving a proper education, and having a degree doesn't automatically make someone politically aware. I've seen farmers who understand political issues far better than people with master's degrees because government policies directly affect their lives, so they pay closer attention.
Haan, I agree that degrees would be a terrible metric. But if voting competence were ever assessed, I'd imagine something closer to a driving theory test than an educational qualification. The goal wouldn't be to identify the smartest citizens, but to ensure voters understand the system they're participating in. For instance questions such as what are the three branches of government? What is the role of Parliament? What is the difference between state and national powers? What does a constitution do?What is inflation?
Or even before voting, voters could be required to spend 15-20 minutes reviewing neutral summaries of the candidates and policies, then answer a few questions showing they actually read them. Yeah IK, both ideas are weak on paper and would be even worse when implemented, but still…. 🥲
Wogayyyy and it's fine idhuku ellam edhuku thx 🤗