Kimberly, I don't see this post as an "argument," but rather as a question about a "problem," where the "argument" is brought in to explicate the problem. But perhaps there is no problem at all. However, you yourself admit there is a problem and that it demands a "solution": "There are no easy solutions to this problem ..."

You seem to be suggesting (or am I misinterpreting you?) that the origin of the problem lies in the quality of public education and that if we provided everyone with the same kind of high quality education as private schools provide, voters will make more informed, and therefore "better," decisions at the polls.

Others, however, might argue that the "problem" has nothing to do with knowledge or intelligence or education, because people vote with their hearts, not with their heads. Others ascribe the problem to apathy -- people rarely pay attention to politics except during an election year; most people are too busy with day-to-day living to give politics more than a cursory glance.

It is doubtful whether education is going to change human nature. And democracies are always going to be subject to the limitations of human nature.

Kimberley Gibson I may be misunderstanding you. But you appear to agree that to improve the quality of political leadership in a democracy we need to improve the voters who place them in positions of power.

But you may be saying that the qualities of politicians in democracies need no improvement - and that we are empowering the right people with leadership.

Or maybe are you saying that democratic leaders do need to be improved, but some other ways should be found to accomplish this.

The classical argument has always been to IMPROVE society we must find ways to improve the people in it. But this may not be your position.

Also, aside from John Stewart Mill who addressed this issue extensively in his Treatise Considerations on Representative Government, what other philosophers have addressed this question?

Kimberley Gibson I understand what you are saying. What is confusing me is that you seem to be suggesting that if we give everyone the same education as those people in Harvard University, Stanford U. and Yale U. than they will vote in the same ways as those people from Harvard, Stanford and Yale.

And then, things will be better.

Well, if the people from Harvard, Stanford and Yale are already trained to know who the best leaders are, while the rest of us are not .... why not just limit the ability to vote to the people with graduate degrees from select universities?

I also understand what Rawls was saying.

But the problem with Rawls' approach is that he (and his followers) never seem to believe there is an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY anywhere

That is, until they get to an EQUAL OUTCOME for all -- which has happened nowhere.

If we presume that a huge percentage of today's very successful people originated in the middle class and worked their way up (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Lebron James, Clarence Thomas) isn't that a sort of competency test as telling as a university degree?

Should those who have proven themselves to be less competent and less capable in the society we all share have an equal say in picking its leaders with those who have PROVEN themselves more competent under the same environmental conditions?

The current answer is clearly YES THEY SHOULD.

And the result of our current system is: Donald Trump and Joe Biden.

I do not wish to seem obtuse, and I understand all the EQUALITY SLOGANS - but what are your concrete suggestions?

When you say we need "Better emphasis on civic engagement" what does that mean?

Do we give everyone a guaranteed income?

Do we give everyone a scholarship to Yale?

Do we have mandatory voting and required participation in town meetings?

What real steps do we take to improve the sorts of people being elected to office right now?

I suggest we go back to some fundamentals.

Cirizens are equal, being free (i.e. not having masters). We know this from Aristotle. That equality relates, of course, to power, rather than to economic or class positioning. We see this equality expressed in today's principle "one person - one vote".

If citizens are equal as regards the weight of their vote, they should be equal as regards their capacity to make informed choices while using this vote. From which follows that there should be equal access to that part of education, which provides knowledge about politics and society.

From this, in turn, follows a re-thinking of the education system, particularly - at school level. Originally, schools were set up, in the USA and Britain, so as to provide the common people with enough political knowledge for them to be able to function as citizens. Aptly put during the parliamentary debates during the 1866 Reform Bill, "We must educate our masters" (Robert Lowe). Meaning: we must ensure that when we give the vote to the common people, who will them be the ones sending us (or not) to Parliament, we must ensure that they are educated.

Later, with the formation of new nations states around Europe, schools were set up with the same mission: to produce people who are capable of being responsible citizens, so that the new countries could be viable.

Consequently: re-institute, at the core of education, the mission to turn individual human beings into responsible citizens. To finish with the late and great Ernest Gellner: "The citizen is an artificial construct. The citizen is not man as such".

E. Dainov The idea that an educated citizenry is necessary to the proper functioning of a free state is as old as political philosophy. But is it sound?

After all, most monarchies transition to democracies without their citizenry receiving any such education. In early America the literacy rate was quite low. And even today, most American citizens can not name their own representatives in congress. Maybe the "betterment" we seek in the voter is not academic-improvement but social-improvement or personal and technical-improvement..

That is, what they need to be educated about is not political science or theories of justice but whatever it is that they are up to, in their own lives.

The better people are at taking care of themselves, the less they need leaders to do things for them and the freer they can be.

Democracy defined as the political cooperation of independent people.

Democracy, historically, always follows on the heels of a commercial society where whatever "the people" are doing is collectively more important that whatever it is that "the government" is doing.

all of that also, of course. Plus self-government at the lowest possible level, "deliberative publics" (Dewey, Mills) and all the rest. Yet the problem of basic civic ignorance remains - which explains the rise of populists, particularly in our part of the world, where sufficient efforts to produce that artifice - the citizen - were never much in evidence.An added complication is the deconstruction of the physical arenas for deliberation, for all sorts of reasons, technical as well as psychological.

I think that's a right question to ask, especially in times of prominent populism. My preferred solution would be to allow voting only to those, who both: a) pay income taxes, b) their income is not in any way associated with state's finances (e.g public sector workers, people on state's welfare, people working in / running companies which benefits from the state / local public subventions, pensioners etc.). Of course each taxpayer, no matter how much income taxes he/she pays, will have one vote (to avoid plutocracy). I think this should ensure the quality of voters, because, in aforementioned conditions, every single one of them should have at least some qualifications, in order to be able to pay income tax, and also improve the quality of states(wo)men- as in this case, they are no longer able to buy people's votes with state's (ie. people's) money. As Easton once said: politics is all about an authoritative decisions of (various) resources allocation. So, you have to provide some, even very little, part of this resources in order to be able to co-decide their allocation. Of course, this is an idea based on some sort of inequality, but equal not always means just. And it is also an quasi-utopian idea- not even a single politician would allow that, because they would lose an easy way of acquiring power.

I am open to every constructive critique of this idea.

Best regards,

Tomasz Wojciechowski, BA in Political Science

Please forgive me Kimberley Gibson I need fewer references to outside articles and more simple and straight-forward answers.

Are you saying that we should have everyone provided universal basic incomes and that this (somehow) would make them more informed citizens and better voters?

Are you suggesting that we should have everyone provided some sort of state funded education that is different from the current version of the state supported education that is provided today? And that this would make them better able to select leaders?

Please skip the slogans and the articles and get to concrete suggestions.

Tomasz was clear in suggesting limiting voting to people who earned money and paid taxes in the private sector. His idea is simple and straightforward.

Do you agree or disagree with his idea?

The issue is more complex and cannot be resolved by providing an "ideal" education in "ideal" circumstances. Such a system would have to depend on "ideal" parents and "ideal" students - parents who believed in the value of education and students who were motivated to learn.

I went to school in the 50s, when there were every bit as many, if not more, economic and social disparities as there are today. But in those days, parents - rich and poor alike - BELIEVED IN the value of education, and pushed their kids to do well in school. When their child got a bad grade, or was disciplined by the teacher, the parents took the teacher's side and disciplined their child as well.

This is no longer the case. Parents do not value education apart from the piece of paper it hands out at the end of a term, so the more ambitious ones encourage their kids to cheat - it's not what is LEARNED that is important, as long as you get the carrot at the end. Kids are more interested in their phones than in what's going on in the classroom; they don't pay attention, and they don't care. If they do poorly in school, their parents complain to the teacher or the principal that their child has been "unjustly treated," and that's the end of it - back to the phone and the video games! Everyone talks about individual rights; the idea of individual responsibilities - which is where voting comes in - has become obsolete.

Learning is active, not passive. It is not the "effect" of the (sociocultural) environment, but rather a product of the interaction between the learner's environment (the external, sociocultural circumstances) and his own internal resources (cognitive and affective), which include attitudes and motivation - things like self-discipline, engagement, and perseverance, qualities that are not promoted today. You can improve the external conditions till the cows come home, but if there is no improvement in the internal conditions, no learning will take place.

We allow people to make moral choices, though most of us do not have degree in ethics. We allow people do decide what is good for themselves, though most of us are not professional psychologist. We allow people to be parents, though most of us are not trained pedagogics. Becoming teacher, physician, driver requiers qualifiacations and training. Making moral decision, choosing way of life, loving offspring and other people is part of being human, it does not require formally recognized qualification or diploma. We are born with this abilities, it is part of our nature, though we are not always able to use them properly, to make our lifes satysfying and happy. Human kind is also social and political by nature. Politics is in its core dispute about nature of human kind, about wrong and right. We are all equally entitled to participate in social, public and political life, because we belong to human kind. However, in my opinion it does not abolish our moral obligation to improve and enhance our ability to do it properly, whatever it means. But this just my opion about our moral obligations, yours might be completely different, and here the politics begins. We all have some assumptions about human nature more or less clearly articulated, and on the basis of such assumptions we belive that the state, society, economy, should be organized this or that way, so that it could fit the needs of human nature. We belive for example that people are good, or bad, greedy or not, prone to moral decline or rather naturally inclined to noble deeds. Which of this is true? We make demands, develop ideologies, political agendas and organizations onbehalf of such beliefs, and confront them with those developed by other people, with other beliefs, though most of us are not anthropologists. In short, being a human means being social and political creature by nature. Being born human does not require any other acquired abilities. If it did, what qualification should one present to be allowed to participate in political life? A degree in political science? BA or MA would be enough? Or maybe PhD? Why not in economics, since huge part of politics is about making decision in economy? Why not in philosophy since politics is about making the law, punishing people for they deeds, deciding what is and waht is not acceptable? So maybe one needs also a law degree, to be able to create well functioning laws? Why not demand a degree in sociology? Should not politican and citizen be able to understand regualrities and laws which govern social life? By the way, which ecnomicla, political, sociological or philosophical theory provides the most accurate picture of political life? What degree and expertize it requires to decide that? And who would that person be? Who would be qualifies to elect such person, what qualifiactions shuould the elector poses to do it properly? Of course, it is desired that every citizen have at least basic knowledge about political institutions and rules. But - in my personal and obviously political opinion - the basic qualification for being citizen is one's ability to make moral choices. That is - in my personal and political opinion - the prior and only indispensible qualification for being a citizen. The question is - do I have enough qualifications to make such political statement and by this political discussion exercise my citizenship? Does my degree in political science entitles me to do that, since I have no expertize i political theory?

Tomasz Wojciechowski why being unemployed disqulifies one from valuable participation in political life? Why being on welfare does it too? Why not include everyone who benefits from public education, public health care and other public, state financed service? Is in it also a kind being dependant on state/public finances? What if after the epidemy, or wrong political decision, unemployment rate in Poland will reach, let say 20%? Why these unemployed people should be stripped of their political power to overthrown incompetent politicians by electoral decision? It would be very comfortable situation for every incompetent and ignorant desion maker but I'm not sure it would improve the quality of our political life. What I'm sure it would end with revolution as it did many times in human history when people were exculded from political decision and ruled by those who felt moraly qualified to make authoritatve decisions about who and who not should be equipped with political rights.

By this logic professor of political science, enrolled on state owned univeristy is less qualified (as - I dont know - more susceptible to a kind or moral corruption? ) the a for examle a shoe maker. Is in it?

Tomasz Wojciechowski One more thing, your idea is actually not about improving the quallity of voters but about excluding from right to vote those who do not fit your subjective picture of high qulity voter.

Before we can determine who the best voter is, maybe we need to figure out what are the qualities of the superior leader.

Once we have determined the qualities of the superior leader we might then be able to determine what kind of voter is in a position to recognize this, and be smart enough to vote such a person into power.

I think it would be instructive to detour a bit into a discussion about who were the better democratically elected officials and what qualities they possessed and who were the people who elected them into power.

Many in the United States would say the earlier American presidents like Jefferson, Madison, Adams and Lincoln were superior to many of the more recent presidents. Is this true?

Was Abraham Lincoln superior to Donald Trump or Thomas Jefferson to George Bush?

Lincoln and Jefferson were elected by only white males. Does that matter?

If these same leaders were around today would we find them superior? Would we fault in them?

Centuries from now, will history look back on the leaders of our time like Trump, Bush and Obama and imagine them to be towering figures of noble virtue elected by a more wise electorate?

Stephen Martin Fritz

I really doubt it is possible to determine the qualities of the superior leader. Leadership is not just a formal position in community, it is a unique relation between the one who leads and his/her followers, based on complementary pscyhological needs. Since every community consist of people of different biographical, cultural, social, political background, they develop different preferences about leadership, as their background foster different psychological needs. Whereas one needs strong moral guidance and decisive leader, others preferer menagers or administrators who do not intrvene in one's personal sphere of moral decisions. And this is just one possible difference.

Maciej Bachryj

Thank you for your critique- it helps in further polishing of this idea.

I put my idea on a tenet of dependency- every category of people I've mentioned depends on the state. This constrains them from making well-minded decision, and makes the political system more prone to "corruption"- be it by increasing social benefits, paying higher wages for public sector workers (disassociated with work output) or other forms of so-called sunshine legislation (thus excluding private companies on subventions, tax exemptions etc.) and pork-barrel.

In case of public services- everyone working in this sector should be excluded from voting, but the users of those services should not. Why? Because, when workers of this services depends on the state, they become more prone to laziness, acting disrespectfully towards "customers" etc. On the other hand, when they would knew that their safe-haven might be reduced by dissatisfied "customers", they should be more dedicated to their work. And the "customers"? They paid (in taxes) for this services. I could also explain further details of this, but I do not want to make this thread too focused on Poland.

Also, in my "vision", case of voting rights is a "revolving-door" type- when you pay income taxes of your independent (from the state) work, then you have voting rights. When you stop paying this kind of taxes, you lose your voting rights. But when you again start paying this taxes, your voting right is back (and so on...). This is an idea based on psychological grounds- when people earn something, they tend to respect this earned thing more than when this thing is given to them for free.

As in the case of the revolutions you mentioned- in French Revolution, the famous 99% of people were told to: shut up, work hard, pay ever growing taxes and have no voting rights, while the court, the nobility and the clergy were exempted from taxes, had all the power and lived a lavish lifestyle. In American Revolution, one of the reasons was "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION". And I elongate this tenet with: "Yes, but also no representation without taxation". In this case, this is a double-bind transaction.

In case of mentioned professor of political science- yes, (s)he should be excluded. I even think that he/she should exclude themselves- again, on psychological grounds- when people choose something, they make great rationalization of their choice, and in case of politics- they may be endangered with becoming political activists or partisans of given political parties, and this greatly hampers the research process, which should be as objective as possible (Yes, I abstain from voting, because I conduct social research on political polarization). And as Ms. Morel said above, formal education is not always associated with wisdom.

On the case of subjectivity- of course, almost everything is subjective, and thus, discussions of our ideas is crucial. But I suppose that we, as a society, are making the same mistake- giving certain rights by the "virtue" of being born in this world- it is quite similar to the tenet of nobility. And it ended awfully. And yes, what I propose about voting rights is exclusive BUT attainable- by going through "the rite of passage"- in form of providing money to the community of given state.

I'm sorry for every grammar mistake I committed- my English is not as proficient as I would like it to be.

Best regards,

TW

Tomasz Wojciechowski

Your welcome! But your clarifiaction brings even more difficultities, of different kinds: paradoxes, hidden and highly questionable assumption and simple mistakes:

a) those who work in public sector are lazy, disrespectful to customers. It is a very simplified and one-dimensional look on human being. First o all, work ethics is much more complexed phenomenon, it does not change instantly with the change of one's employment. People can be lazy, disrespectful and dishonest in both - private and public sector. That is why I have had to change a car mechanic recently. I'm pretty sure you could provide a lot of other exemples. People work ethics - to some extent - is shaped by their job enviroment, but on the other hand the quality of their work is shaped by their work ethic as well, developed prior to their current employment. And since you have at least basics in psychology you should be aware that attitudes, particularly those complexed and connetcted to important aspects of the self - as is in the case of work ethics - are very persistent and difficult to change. We don't just switch instantly our moral condition from good to bad because of change of one factor only. Second, our moral condition is shaped not only by what we do for living. Our work is just one aspect of our lives, hardly separatable from others. It is imposible to judge someone solely on the basis of place employment. At least in most cases.

Now an example. Consider paramedics or nurses in Polish public healthcare. They work load is far more than 8h/day, they work for nearly minimum wage, they risk their lives. I wouldn't say it is lazyness or disrespectfulness. I would rather say it is a real heroism, sacrifice, bravery. What about teachers, fire fighters? Are they lazy too? What is wrong with their moral standards that they dont deserve a right to vote?

The quality of work is a matter of work ethics and proper management (obviously not oly that), not the kind of proporty it is based on.

b) people in public sector are lazy because because thet don't need to be afraid of dissatisfied customer. This is simply not true. Yes, they can be fired, customer satisfaction can be and in fact is one of the criteria of emploee evaluation. In public sector as well. But the problem is that clients' satisfaction in many cases can't be a criaterion for job evaluation becasue a lot of people's work can't be associated with customer satisfaction - both in public and private sector. Consider assembly line worker, who put two elements together in something that in the end is a tv set. Customer is satisfied (or not) with the brand, the final product, but not with the work of particular worker. There are many other ways to evaluate the quality of work which can be applied either in public or private sector. Customer satisfaction is one of the many, not necessarily the best or proper one in every case.

c) the above claims are based on the hidden assumption that the only way to make people work well is to make them to be afraid they can lose their job. In some cases it may be true but in general it is not. This is the XIX century perspective. A lot of people like to do what they do, and like to make they job being done well, because it gives them internally generated satisfaction. People are not just stimulus-response machines, we can regulate our beahviour, we do things and we like to do them well because of our internal drive,not only because we have to do it, or are afraid of being punished. I don't know about you, but is it really your work ethics? Is it the only thing which motivates you to make your job done properly, a fear of being fired? I dont think so, and if not, why you make such assumptions about others?

Take any contemporary handbook of human resources management or pscyhology of management. Read introductory chapters and your XIX century perspectives on what stimulates people to work, and how to improve the quality of their work (either in private or public sector) will fall apart. Your vision is based on not clearly articulated, hidden, simplistic and one-dimensional assumptions about human nature which can be easily falsified - or at least qustioned - by introductory chapter to handbooks of psychology, sociology, economy or any other social science.

d) the alternative you present - lazy vs good employee - is another questionable or rather false assumption. Between the two there are many middle-states but you've missed it totally. People attitudes is not zero-one alternatives.

e) how would you settled following dillema: a business owner had made wrong business decision which resulted in bankruptcy. The business owner had to fired all employees. Now they are jobless and lacking of right to vote. It was not their fault, it was not their decision, why should they bear political costs of incomptenet decision of business owner?

f) another dillema: a business owner decides to take public financed contract. In your logic ithe business owner and all employees are now state dependant. Business owner makes decision but ohter people, who weren't involved in that decision have to bear the costs as well, losing their right to vote. Is that fair?

g) a paradox: prime minister, MP's, members of cabinet, president, all are being paid from state/public budget. Therefore - following your logic - they are lazy and morally corrupted and should be devoided of right to vote. Yet, they are far more entitled to make political decision as their are the key political decision-makers. Is it logical?

h) another paradox which makes part of Polish history very puzzling. In Polish People's Republic, authoritarian communist regime, overwhlelming majority of people were employed in state-owned companies. It means they were lazy and morally corrupted - following your logic. And yet, these lazy people were able to rise their country from ashes of WWII, working for nearly nothing. But in your logic they should not demand right to vote in fair election because their were not rithgtous people. So maybe PPR wasnt totaly wrong? Communist were right to devoid people of their political rights, right? The political dissidents, freedom fighters, Solidarity members, risking their lives and being tortured, were lazy and morally corrupted because their were employed in state owned companies. Yet, these people were able to overthrown really immoral political regime. Then the trasnformation and economic downturn resulted in very high unemployment rate. All these people lost their job and became even more lazy and state dependant - following your logic. Then - sometimes it took years - some of them were able to find a job in reborned private sector and finally regain their rightousness and righte to vote. But soon, when they got retired and dependent on state financed and guaranteed pensions, they again became lazy and disrespectful. Sorry, it doesn't make sense to me. Too simplistic perspective on human nature leads to absurd conclusions and paradoxes.

i) your proposition is very stigmatizing and conflict generating idea but in the first place it is totally unrealistic. Within democratic procedures obviously. I don't belive the majority of people would vote for those who promise to limit their political rights - in some situations - to be fair. Why should one risk losing the right to something when it is already guaranteed (right to vote). It doesnt look psychologically realistic. The only option to make your proposition real is by force but in such case this discussion doesn't make sense. Therea are not voters in authoritarian regimes.

j) Since some of the people - in your proposition - should have limited political rights, which means they can not take responsibility for what is going on in the state, shouldn't their also be excused from supporting the state, by taxes and in other ways. Since political rights are a privilige to those who pay taxes and work in private sector, shouldn't the rest of the commnunity be realsed from such obligations? Wouldn't it be fair?

k) last but not least. I was trying not take it personal but - forgive me - I can't. You know virtually nothing about me and yet you feel entitled to call me 'lazy and disrespectful' to my customers, in this case student of publicly financed Polish univeristy. On the basis of one feature only you put me into a category which consist of milions of extremaly different people. On the basis of one feature only you conclude about may moral condition. That is not reasoning, that is stereotyping, one of the basic cognitive error. What you do is not psychological reasoning, it is en example of so called 'folk' or 'naive' psychology (or as I call it - anthropodoxis) which is studied by a real psychologists. And you make such categorical evaluation of me only of the basis of one tiny aspect of my entire, compelexed, multidimensional over forty years long life - namely a place of work. Do you really belive it is fair, logical and scientificly reasonable to make such strong statement on the basis of so few - actually only one - information about extremely complexed phenomenon such as human individual?

What about my collegues, your profesors, are they all lazy and disrespectful too? How were you able to obtain your degree at the public univeristy filled with lazy and disrespcetful academics and administrative staff? That must have been really demanding undertaking. Congratulations!

This became rather personal discussion between the two of us therefore I suggest to move it to provate channels of communication, provided that your are willing to continue.

my best

Perhaps we don't have to worry about the relative intelligence or knowledge of voters in a democratic election.

James Surowiecki, in his book, "The Wisdom of Crowds," claims (with a number of confirming examples) that, when a group (a "crowd") is faced with a problem to solve or a decision to make, the crowd as a whole is often more intelligent than the smartest individual in the crowd. This kind of "group intelligence" increases with the size of the group, as well as with the diversity and independence of its members.

Here is a review of the book, which summarizes the main points:

https://www.icmrindia.org/free%20resources/Bookreviews/wisdom%20of%20crowds.htm

Good Answer Stephen Martin Fritz

I think some kind of programs to generate awareness among people about the significance of the right to vote, effective usage of the right to vote, positive and negative repercussions for people and country to abuse the right to vote, will improve the public participation in the shared governance. Thank you for raising this question. Regards, Prit Kaur