The Right to Vote Should Be Restricted to Those With Knowledge

[Jungibaaz]

This is a system separate to so called 'democracies', I'd say it's a massive leap in the wrong direction. According to Aristotle's constitutional forms and Plato's five regimes, such a system would be an aristocracy, not a democracy, and its perversion which in part is inevitable would be an oligarchy.

The only observation of mine is that most current democracies and their problems aren't too far off from this scenario, the poor and uneducated vote in very small numbers, the rich use their capital to influence the outcome of elections, thereby usurping the power of the vote with their money. Only what you suggest would take the negative aspects and advance them further.

Also, such a system would skew the socioeconomic landscape in favour of the elite, and upper middle classes. I don't exaggerate this when I say it could destroy social mobility, a large part of the working economy of any nation, and literally throw people from relative poverty and high inequality to literal serfdom. This is what tends to happen in the modern form of government where one has no representation.

Overall, it's a very bad idea, and fundamentally undermines the purpose and philosophy of modern day governance that most countries struggled hard to achieve.

 

[jha]

At time of Bihar legislative election many of us were saying that Biharis deserve to be ruled by Lallu

OK I am not asking for politburo system
What about min qualification for standing for election?

Minimum qualifications for contesting elections shoukd be looked into. But anything beyond that will seriously undermine democracy.

 

[scorpionx]

All the pioneering democracies started with limited franchises limited only within the first estate, but as the political theories evolved it encompassed the second and the third with time. India was the first nation with so intense poverty and illiteracy in the world that embraced universal franchise. One civil servant in the 50's called it the 'Biggest Gamble' in history. It certainly has some pros and some cons as well.

But reverting to the primitive form of electoral democracy will be a demotion from an universally acknowledged system of governance. It should be more prudent to authorize only those with good leadership skills, no criminal record, with a decent educational background as candidates and not screening the population with a dubious basis such as political knowledge.

 

[RAMPAGE]

All the pioneering democracies started with limited franchises limited only within the first estate, but as the political theories evolved it encompassed the second and the third with time. India was the first nation with so intense poverty and illiteracy in the world that embraced universal franchise. One civil servant in the 50's called it the 'Biggest Gamble' in history. It certainly has some pros and some cons as well.

But reverting to the primitive form of electoral democracy will be a demotion from an universally acknowledged system of governance. It should be more prudent to authorize only those with good leadership skills, no criminal record, with a decent educational background as candidates and not screening the population with a dubious basis such as political knowledge.

Aptly put, Sir. People really needs to study the history of what is perhaps the greatest institution built by the human race.