Former heavyweight boxing champion Mike Tyson visited the White House briefing room to endorse Donald Trump for the midterms and join his campaign rally in Syracuse.
I think the problems of american politics isn’t because it’s too democratic, rather I think it’s that the US is:
not a liberal democracy anymore
stuck with a voting system that forces a two-party system and doesn’t allow for proportional representation
electing the president directly instead of forming a multi-party coalition government that then elects the president
allowing money to influence politics way too much
running an education system barely worth its name
In short, the problem is not too much, but too little lived democracy. Allow the uniparty to fracture and the populace would be better able to pick and choose what they support.
I think there’s an important distinction between making voting accessible and ensuring that voters understand the institutions and decisions they’re being asked to influence.
We already accept that voting eligibility can be subject to legal qualifications, although the reasons for those qualifications differ. (I.E. children, people deemed legally mentally incompetent, US Residents who aren’t US Citizens, convicted felons in many states, people still serving prison sentences in many states, etc etc.)
My question is whether civic competence should have any place in that discussion.
If someone cannot explain the basic structure of government, distinguish established historical facts from misinformation, or demonstrate a basic understanding of the economic and political systems affected by elections, what consequences does that have for democratic decision-making?
You wouldn’t give someone a gun without them knowing how they work or what happens to people when they shoot them…
So why give them the power to decide which man controls all the people with guns in the whole government when they don’t understand that power or the government?
I am aware that requiring a test raises serious concerns about discrimination, abuse, and the right to political representation. But I think those concerns deserve examination alongside the consequences of widespread civic ignorance.
Even if we disagree about restricting eligibility, can we at least agree that improving civic knowledge is essential to a functioning democracy?
And that maybe civic knowledge should be required in schools, or in adult life perhaps before accepting Jury Duty or something… or at some point in a citizen’s existence before they step into a voting booth?
Even if we disagree about restricting eligibility, can we at least agree that improving civic knowledge is essential to a functioning democracy?
I can agree that a good measure of civic knowledge in the populace is absolutely a prerequisite. Now the question is does every voter need that? There my answer would be no. But should every citizen have been taught enough about civics in school to ensure at least a minimum breadth of civics knowledge in the populace? Yes.
I also think that a society needs a metaphorical buy-in from the populace. A populace that doesn’t feel they get to vote, demonizes the system that excludes them. We can see where that leads to in America, a low-trust society, where people do not trust the state, where the bureaucracy is seen as an enemy, oppressor, an occupying force. Removing the vote may guarantee a better result short term, but long term you’re just alienating a not inconsequential amount of the populace, creating a two-class society where the oppressed class will do anything in their power to hurt the system. And the US is already mostly there, because the people do not feel represented. I’d argue that many of the wrongs you’d want to correct with this are directly or indirectly caused by a lack of feeling to belong.
I am very much convinced that your solution is easier to implement in the rapidly autocratizing US. But I’m also convinced that my solution of more democracy would create a better, healthier, happier society. The most democratic countries in the world, are also the best educated and the happiest. https://www.v-dem.net/documents/75/V-Dem_Institute_Democracy_Report_2026_lowres.pdf
The system in the US is broken and you cannot fix it, by breaking it more, it has to be overhauled completely into something that guarantees representation, civic participation and engagement. And those three things would absolutely drop even lower the higher the hurdles for the smallest measure of representation, participation and engagement are.
Quite the Vaushite take.
I think the problems of american politics isn’t because it’s too democratic, rather I think it’s that the US is:
In short, the problem is not too much, but too little lived democracy. Allow the uniparty to fracture and the populace would be better able to pick and choose what they support.
I think there’s an important distinction between making voting accessible and ensuring that voters understand the institutions and decisions they’re being asked to influence.
We already accept that voting eligibility can be subject to legal qualifications, although the reasons for those qualifications differ. (I.E. children, people deemed legally mentally incompetent, US Residents who aren’t US Citizens, convicted felons in many states, people still serving prison sentences in many states, etc etc.)
My question is whether civic competence should have any place in that discussion.
If someone cannot explain the basic structure of government, distinguish established historical facts from misinformation, or demonstrate a basic understanding of the economic and political systems affected by elections, what consequences does that have for democratic decision-making?
You wouldn’t give someone a gun without them knowing how they work or what happens to people when they shoot them…
So why give them the power to decide which man controls all the people with guns in the whole government when they don’t understand that power or the government?
I am aware that requiring a test raises serious concerns about discrimination, abuse, and the right to political representation. But I think those concerns deserve examination alongside the consequences of widespread civic ignorance.
Even if we disagree about restricting eligibility, can we at least agree that improving civic knowledge is essential to a functioning democracy?
And that maybe civic knowledge should be required in schools, or in adult life perhaps before accepting Jury Duty or something… or at some point in a citizen’s existence before they step into a voting booth?
I can agree that a good measure of civic knowledge in the populace is absolutely a prerequisite. Now the question is does every voter need that? There my answer would be no. But should every citizen have been taught enough about civics in school to ensure at least a minimum breadth of civics knowledge in the populace? Yes.
I also think that a society needs a metaphorical buy-in from the populace. A populace that doesn’t feel they get to vote, demonizes the system that excludes them. We can see where that leads to in America, a low-trust society, where people do not trust the state, where the bureaucracy is seen as an enemy, oppressor, an occupying force. Removing the vote may guarantee a better result short term, but long term you’re just alienating a not inconsequential amount of the populace, creating a two-class society where the oppressed class will do anything in their power to hurt the system. And the US is already mostly there, because the people do not feel represented. I’d argue that many of the wrongs you’d want to correct with this are directly or indirectly caused by a lack of feeling to belong.
I am very much convinced that your solution is easier to implement in the rapidly autocratizing US. But I’m also convinced that my solution of more democracy would create a better, healthier, happier society. The most democratic countries in the world, are also the best educated and the happiest. https://www.v-dem.net/documents/75/V-Dem_Institute_Democracy_Report_2026_lowres.pdf
The system in the US is broken and you cannot fix it, by breaking it more, it has to be overhauled completely into something that guarantees representation, civic participation and engagement. And those three things would absolutely drop even lower the higher the hurdles for the smallest measure of representation, participation and engagement are.