Politics would be less crazy if voting were compulsory | Hacker News Reader

Politics would be less crazy if voting were compulsory

philosophersbeard.org

22 pointspaulpauper95 comments

If there's one way to turn the political process into a complete reality show, this is it. Why bother arguing based on policy when you know that 40-60% of the electorate won't care and simply vote for whoever is the flashiest?

A much better idea is to get rid of the primary process and implement ranked choice voting instead.

In the US, they dont vote for the flashiest, they vote with their tribe. The percentage of people that are "independent" and "undecided" is minuscule, which is why our choice in 2020 was between a orange-colored crazy "republican" (who was a democrat for most of his life) and a barely sentient milquetoast "democrat"

> they vote with their tribe

The current voters do; we don't necessarily know how people who don't currently vote would behave.

true

Biden wasn't "barely sentient." Not only did the guy incredibly well prepared during the campaign and debates, but he would even stop to answer additional questions after the lights were off and the cameras stopped rolling. He's not a great orator and wouldn't have been my first choice (If it were up to me only candidates between 50 and 65 would be allowed to run), but he was better prepared for the job than any candidate since Bush Sr.

Clinton received all the questions before the debate, I can assume they got them to Biden as well.

Even if Trump got the questions, he couldn't have answered any of them because the man was the most incompetent national politician in history, modern or otherwise, but that wasn't what I was replying to, was it? Biden clearly has complete control over his own mental faculties and knows more about running a government than 99% of the politicians in this country.

You don't have to do too much homework at this point to see Biden is fading. He isn't the same man he was 10 years ago. I voted for him, but lets not kid ourselves.

You don't have to do much homework to figure out that "barely sentient" doesn't describe him, either.

Maybe that was a bit harsh .... I'll give you that.

A lot of apparently-odd behavior during campaigns makes a lot more sense when you realize that GOTV (get out the vote), or suppressing your opponents' vote, can be a more effective use of time and resources than actually trying to sway undecideds, in a (de facto) two-party system like ours.

This is also why Hillary's nomination was alarming to anyone with a sense of how almost all Republicans and a lot of blue-collar Dems viewed her (rightly or wrongly—doesn't matter). Her nomination was a huge, free boost to R GOTV and gave the Ds an uphill battle for GOTV on their own side (again, doesn't matter whether that was "fair", it just was).

Enough of that "Biden is senile" hogwash. That narrative was pushed by people with a long history of gaslighting, seeking to capitalize on a speech impediment.

That is exactly what ranked choice voting would fix. If there are 5 democrats, 5 republicans and 5 other parties/independents on the ballot, you can now make a much more informed decision (and have your vote still count) without having to bow down to the extreme voices from either party. The mindset of "I'll just vote D or R down the ballot" is no longer an option.

i agree, but it will never happen.

> a barely sentient milquetoast "democrat"

Much to my surprise, the "milquetoast" has had one of the most successful starts to a presidency ever. Whether it is the civil war (uncivil??) within the GOP or the fact everybody underestimates "Sleepy Joe". He has had a great start to his presidency.

Any non-Trump candidate would look good just by not tweeting at 3.00am. Sleepy Joe is more effective than Sax-playing Bill or No drama Obama because no one is paying attention. And that is good for America and the world.

> Why bother arguing based on policy when you know that 40-60% of the electorate won't care and simply vote for whoever is the flashiest?

I think a strong argument could be made that this is already the case.

It is, but at least most of the "don't care" demographic is staying at home today. Non-voters and indifferent voters are a large enough bloc that spending your entire campaign budget on targeting just them would ensure a win, and that is eventually what every politician's strategy would become.

That seems to be the point. Targeting ordinary people with less-extreme views. People who aren't wed to a particular political ideology or who aren't motivated by hatred of their political rivals, but who just want to see their own lives and those of their countrymen improved.

You would have a greater point if our current system wasn't based around tricking as much of that 40-60% that doesn't care into showing up anyway.

You aren't mentioning the other part (notably more influent part) that systematically prevents people from voting. One removes names from voting rolls using brain-dead software that is 95% inaccurate.

> Why bother arguing based on policy when you know that 40-60% of the electorate won't care and simply vote for whoever is the flashiest?

You say this as if the last administration somehow didn't exist? Analysis of the mobilization power of the Trump campaigns will go on for decades and decades, but among the reasons for his appeal the notion that it was somehow due to consistent and well-explained policy positions has to be dead last. I mean, please.

I agree with your first paragraph.

I don't think the solution is to use ranked choices though.

I think the solution is to make voting rights contingent on full time work or taxes paid (whether through work or capital gains). As long as you work full time or pay an equivalent in federal taxes of a full-time minimum wage employee (before deductions, because I realize minimum wage employees pay almost no taxes to begin with), you get to vote.

You might think this is draconian, but without using any emotion and trying to be purely logical, can you think of one reason why somebody who doesn't pay any taxes or work full-time should have a vote on the government that is funded by tax dollars from other working people? It doesn't mean people who don't work or worthless or should be marginalized in anyway; it means that they don't have a place in the political world, because politics is for government and government is designed to manage people and is paid for by the people who build the society that is being governed. Those who don't want to participate in this society by working have choices, they can stay at home and play video games or they might be a stay at home husband or wife or whatever, or they might just be somebody who wants to sleep in the park, whatever the case, it doesn't mean that they are a worthless human, but they are not really an active participant in the economy being governed. If I'm a stay at home husband and my wife works, my wife gets a vote and I can hopefully attempt to persuade her if I have an opinion, but if I'm not participating in the economy, I don't expect that I should have the ability to make choices about with my wife's taxes are spent on.

Of course the exception would be those in retirement who did previously work.

> without using any emotion and trying to be purely logical, can you think of one reason why somebody who doesn't pay any taxes or work full-time should have a vote on the government that is funded by tax dollars from other working people?

Yes, I do. Because moving around cash isn't the only thing a modern government does. Governments hold immense power over each and every citizen, and as such, each and every citizen should have a say in how governments are run.

TLDR: If you can send me to fight in a war, you'd better have me have a say in the decision.

Once you start making voting conditional on being part of a certain class then the then people in power will start making sure that the people who disagree with them end up in the class that isn't allowed to vote.

This would only make sense if there was an "exclude me from society" option that people could opt in to. Do any new laws created apply to me? Will the government regulate my lifestyle? Could the government legally seize my property? Could I be sent to fight in a war? If all of this is true then I damn well have the right to vote. Working full time or part time or not at all has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Military protection, as well as streets, side walks, fire and schools, are all free service given to non-taxpayers. And everybody is subject to the draft, yet only taxpayers actually pay for the military and its weapons.

I think that's a fair trade.

“However, it does exercise a centripetal force that pulls Australian political parties inexorably towards the moderate centre ground where the swing voters corralled to the polls by threat of a fine are waiting to make their decision”

Australia has preferential voting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Australia#...)

I think that alone can explain why election winners are moderate. Such candidates may not be the number 1 candidate for many, but they won’t be number last for many, either.

> If one looks at Australia, the country where compulsory voting seems most consistently enforced, one does not see a paradise of rational and inclusive politics.

It's difficult to isolate what difference compulsory voting makes to the outcome. A different and related factor is the election days in Australia are held on weekends to make sure everyone can attend, and postal voting has long been a properly resourced right.

But more, much more than the compulsory voting system, Australian election results are a consequence of concentrated media ownership.

https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/rupert-murdoch-news-corp-cont...

There are so many other issues with voting in the US that forced voting is really not a great answer.

Before we force people to vote, we need to fix it so states can't create situations where people stand in line for 8+ hours to vote (Georgia, Arizona).

Before we force people to vote, we need to eliminate gerrymandering.

Before we force people to vote, we should address the electoral college, you shouldn't have more voting power just because you live in Idaho.

Before we force people to vote, we should eliminate FPTP. Nobody should be voting for "the lesser of two evils" they should vote for the candidates they like.

Before we force people to vote, we should reform campaign finance. It shouldn't be legal for the rich to buy policy.

Before we force people to vote, we should address misinformation and education. Because what we need is an electorate that is presented with accurate information and has been given the tools to process that information. We don't need an electorate swayed by a popular podcaster spewing misinformation.

There are so many things to fix, forcing people to vote is near the bottom for reform.

>we need to fix it so states can't create situations where people stand in line for 8+ hours to vote (Georgia, Arizona).

Agreed, but you seem to imply it is the Federal Government's job to do it, which I do not think many would agree on, one, and two, kicks the problem up a level.

>we need to eliminate gerrymandering.

We already did. It's illegal. Now go find a judge comfortable with establishing an objective legal test that works in all or most cases to measure gerrymandering. I'll wait. (I kid you not, that's what actually holds it up)

>we should address the electoral college, you shouldn't have more voting power just because you live in Idaho.

You shouldn't be able to dictate who the Chief Executive of the Federal Government is by virtue of your population demographics. The Federal Governmemt is the primary mediator between the States, not People. The formula for the number of Electors derived that the States must fill has been unchanged for centuries, but I also agree that legislative meddling (forcing Electors to Vote the popular vote, and negating the Faithless Elector ) completely nullifies the institution's original purpose (a check against demagoguery).

>we should eliminate FPTP. Nobody should be voting for "the lesser of two evils" they should vote for the candidates they like.

Agreed, you'll still jave a problem in that people will still structure ticketsarou d it.

>we should reform campaign finance. It shouldn't be legal for the rich to buy policy.

Agreed. Donations from legal fictions (Corporations, trusts, etc...) should not be a thing. It just leads to issues.

>we should address misinformation and education. Because what we need is an electorate that is presented with accurate information and has been given the tools to process that information. We don't need an electorate swayed by a popular podcaster spewing misinformation.

You're pissing into the wind. People have that already. The tool has been subverted by the SEO, advertising, and media/publishing industry for their own profit which has caused a downswing in actually constructive politicking since placating reachable audiences is necessarily filtered through editorial audience engineering. I.e. instead of printing/advertising/favoring the Truth, you get this tooling printing/advertising/favoring whatever gets the most clicks, or drives the most revenue. Nevermind the perverse incentives and propaganda hazards created by blindly leaving that sort of thing to a government controlled agency.

> Agreed, but you seem to imply it is the Federal Government's job to do it, which I do not think many would agree on, one, and two, kicks the problem up a level.

When state elected politicians can gerrymander their way into power (see next comment), the only other option is federal enforcement. The voice of the harmed is muted in states doing this shit. In fact, in Georgia in particular they are looking at even more punitive measures to stop voters. Without a federal law, how would this ever change?

> We already did. It's illegal. Now go find a judge comfortable with establishing an objective legal test that works in all or most cases to measure gerrymandering. I'll wait. (I kid you not, that's what actually holds it up)

You are mistaken, that already went through and the SC ruled that gerrymandering cases are nonjusticiable [1], making it legal under current laws. There needs to be a new federal law in order to make it illegal.

> You're pissing into the wind. People have that already.

> you get this tooling printing/advertising/favoring whatever gets the most clicks, or drives the most revenue.

You say we have this, yet we also have a media standard that allows for blatant lies with few consequences [2]. So long the primary source for "news" is talking heads that legally classify themselves as "entertainment" to skirt legal standards for journalism, we've got a big problem.

We have a propaganda problem that needs addressing. I don't have the best solution for it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rucho_v._Common_Cause

[2] https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-...

Of all the ways to make politics less crazy, forced participation doesn't seem like a great one.

Why?

Well, for one, a lot of people abstain from voting on issues that they are uninformed about. Forcing people to vote even if they aren't well informed is a recipe for tribalized group think.

The real barrier is a two-party system that only serves the extremes on each side, in the United States at least.

This is not what actually happens. Instead people get "informed" and "activated" by propaganda on any given side, and choose to vote.

When they vote, there are a dozen+ other elections going (most of which a voter doesn't know/care about). Forcing them to choose (ie, they have to opt-out by writing in blank or mickey mouse) would lead to more participation and involvement. Groupthink is already here.

Australia has compulsory voting and it's arguably better in terms of outcomes than the US.

> people get "informed" and "activated" by propaganda on any given side

Yes, in other words, they get manipulated into tribalized group think.

> Australia has compulsory voting and it's arguably better in terms of outcomes than the US.

There could be many reasons for this other than voting being compulsory.

Being able to vote “nothing” might solve that, with the benefit of serving as an indicator whether the subject is clear enough. Wishful thinking though

I can't imagine what tribalized group think in american politics could possibly look like.

Sorry. Couldn't resists. Snide aside, they could have it work how corporate voting works, wherein each share gets a vote and each voting session you log in and look at the issues to be voted on, and you are given the choices, alongside which choice is the Board's recommendation, along with the rationale behind it.

This could help. Let each party pitch why their choice is the best for each candidate/issue. This doesn't fix the problem of parties lying here, but it's not like we don't already have that problem. That way people can cold-vote and at least have... something to go on. Whereas right now I think people generally just vote R or D.

Perfect is the enemy of good here, I think, since what we currently have is fairly pitiful, at least in my opinion. Most voters are uninformed, or perhaps worse, primarily informed by paid advertising and/or Reddit/4chan.

Compulsory voting would just make politics even more about money. Whoever advertised the most would receive a large boost from the voters who normally choose not to vote.

I feel as though viable 3rd/4th parties in the US would create a more balanced environment.

There are times that I abstain from voting because candidates aren’t aligned enough with my viewpoints.

Forced participation would not create another party.

Party infrastructure is something that needs to be built up, from local level all the way to the National level. Not impossible but it would require a lot of money, people and drive.

We would need election/ballot reform to make that happen. A 2 party system is the expected outcome with FPTP/simple plurality voting.

Proportional elections or some flavor of preference voting would allow a 3rd party.

In the US, this has led to a literal 2-party system. In the UK and Canada, only the 2 largest/most popular parties of a given time period are typically able to form governments.

Wouldn't uninterested voters be even more susceptible to populism. Democracy needs education (among other things). If you have people voting, but they're still uninformed, that's hardly a good setup.

Yup, Trump was very good at motivating a lot of folks who don't normally vote. Careful what you wish for.

I challenge the idea that unmotivated voters are uniformed voters.

In fact i think quite the opposite might be true. Some of the most uninformed voters are the most motivated.

It's not easy for me to imagine an unmotivated, but informed person.

If you think about how much your life will change depending on who is the elected representative as a member of the middle class the answer may very reasonably be 'a small amount'.

This very small change is something an informed person can reason about. Unless there are massive sweeping new laws coming that target you your life won't be noticeably different. It's not something that helps to motivate voting in every election though even if long term it's a good idea to always vote (over many many decades small changes add up).

On the other hand those that think politics will completely change their lives depending on who is elected are generally misguided and unrealistic. These are the people who are the most motivated. They will storm the capital to stop the other side getting into power because they think their lives will be completely changed under the new leadership. It's not a realistic viewpoint. The moderate that believes that each election brings small changes at a time is probably closer to the truth but understandably less motivated.

I know several people who avidly follow politics and keep up to date with the news, but are incredibly unmotivated to actually vote because "they're all the same" and "none of the candidates are really on my side"

My father. Very informed, but his views don't quite line up with either political camp he has to choose from, so his motivation to engage with the system at all steadily dips.

I mean, he still votes, but he's less enthused by it every time.

I would hope a philosopher would choose his words more carefully. However, 'crazy' is only used in the article one time, as a modifier to the word 'partisanship'. Partisanship is exactly what Washington warned us about more than two hundred years ago:

> However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

> President Washington's Farewell Address, September 17, 1796

The author of this article goes on to admit that compulsory voting isn't a solution to partisanship, but rather provides sufficient political ballast to stop the center from shifting away from the otherwise apathetic.

I would love to see a fresh analysis of term limits.

Oregon, everyone is basically enrolled in elections and you get a mail in ballot. Seems to work great, especially since you can vote on your couch with Google open and research your local candidates.

Then just put it in the mail. Or not if that's your thing.

I'm fine with compulsory voting if there is a "none of the above" ballot option that abolishes the position in the government for that term.

Otherwise it's just compelled speech, and fuck that.

Abdicating responsibility doesn't mean things will get better. Just that someone else will make the decision for you.

If both candidates fail to represent me, why should I reward either one with a vote? Sometimes both sides can be equally contestable. I know with all the get out to vote propaganda in the United States we're all told that we should participate. But if the system is inherently broken, I can act much more change personally on a local level with local elections and state elections. I think a lot of people are in the same boat as me and we write off the federal government as a circus where the highest funded candidate gets into office.

(On that note, if we banned corporate donors, that would be a very interesting experiment)

Not my circus, not my monkeys.

It's not an abdication of responsibility, as I don't recognize the responsibility or the authority of mob rule in the first place.

You're right that it means someone else will make the decision for me, and it will be enforced against me with violence. I'd rather not participate in it at all, because that gives the whole process the appearance of consent and legitimacy.

I don't actually think democracy is a good way to run things, and I don't consent to the application of it to me, or the demand that I participate in it, or the insinuation that I have some responsibility to do so. I never signed up for this and don't want it. My participation is implied/tacit acceptance of the outcome even if it is different from my vote, and no such acceptance exists.

There is a "none of the above" - it's called a write-in. You can write-in a blank.

Instead of none of the above, maybe you mean a vote of "no confidence"?

That depends on your country.

Write ins are kind of a crazy idea pragmatically. I cant imagine most countries have them. Mine (canada) certainly doesnt. You can always spoil your ballot or give a blank ballot.

If I recall correctly, some states would actually throw out or invalidate your entire ballot if you do a write in. If memory serves Oklahoma was one of them.

How's that work in a system of compulsory voting, the topic at hand? How is making me go to the ballot box to fill in "blank" any different than letting me stay home?

You are recorded making a no-choice. In the US, you have multiple elections on each per ballot card (ostensibly to reduce cost of running the election), so you'd have to no-choice all the ballot entries if you were to simulate not voting at all.

ie, making it as difficult to not vote as it is to vote (unless you want to risk consequences of law).

I think a better option would be if I could rate candidates on a scale of 1 to 10. There's some interesting research on these voting systems, if one of my candidates has no chance of winning my next best candidate will get my vote. it would be an interesting system to see in practice.

Edit, link; https://electionscience.org/library/score-voting/

This. Almost any flavor of preference voting would be an improvement of our current single-ballot plurality system.

You don't even have to rate the choices to see an improvement. Just pick any that are acceptable. Ballot design stays almost exactly the same. No run-off needed. Easy to understand. In US presidential elections, that might mean somebody gets to vote R and L. Or D and G. Or D, G, and L. Etc.

Voting is compulsory in Brazil. Also, political advertisement is partially state supported through mandatory TV time allocated to political parties. You can check the result of these policies by taking a look at some excerpts of the political ads shown on TV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6yKkwISOvg

When everybody HAS to vote, you guarantee that people who couldn't care less about the process is casting a vote.

People love to badmouth politicians, but they're just mirrors of our collective id. If we don't like what see, that's on us.

Politicians lie to get votes. Voting chooses the most convincing liar, that's all.

I would vote people into office if I could also vote them out every year if they weren't doing what they said they'd do, or reaffirm the vote if they are doing what they said they'd do.

I think local US politics would benefit from a publicized lottery system that rewards random voters.

It’s probably more complicated than this in practice, but one huge benefit to compulsory voting would be the elimination of voter suppression.

The act of voting lends legitimacy to those organizing the election. Mandatory voting removes that measure of approval. A few democracies have mandatory voting but I bet the fraction of dictatorships that do is higher.

This article is also confused in that it discusses voting and democracy in universal terms but includes the paperwork for “registering” as the first example of obstacles for voting.

I think so long as “registering” is required, and it requires “paperwork” then there is likely much easier fixes for making politics less crazy.

You can counter that with spoiled ballots, or having none of the above as an option.

It depends on the system used for counting but if I support the election itself but none of the candidates I vote N/A. That’s my protest against those running but not against the election. Not going to the polling station would not express the same thing. (The subtle difference could possibly be registered if blank vs spoiled ballots are counted differently).

That's bullshit. I'm argentinian, and voting is compulsory. Tell me that argentinian politics are any better than in the US.

To an outsider of both? It seems to be better.

Don't confuse "I don't see Argentina constantly being lambasted on /r/politics and /r/worldnews" with "Argentinean politics are better than that of the US". As the person you replied to would be the first to say, things are much, much, much better off in the US than in Argentina.

I don't use Reddit so I don't know what you are referring to but I can guess.

A system in Argentina can be better than a system in the US while also having worse politics in Argentina than in the US. The system in use isn't the only thing causing politics to be the way they are. The system in Argentina does look better to me while the political situation does not.

I follow both, US and Argentinean politics, given that I live in Argentina, and my livelihood depends on the US (I've worked for American companies for the past 20 years or so).

Would anyone from Australia care to weigh in on this?

Yeah I'm from Australia and you guys need preferential voting systems more than compulsory voting. Although I think compulsory voting is a positive influence overall.

wars would be a lot less crazy if front line infantry service was compulsory for politicians and defense company executives

let's try that first

Or you just end up with Starship Troopers.

The good news is we can already test this hypothesis by looking at the countries that already enforce compulsory voting [1]:

  Argentina
  Australia
  Belgium
  Bolivia
  Brazil
  Ecuador
  Liechtenstein
  Luxembourg
  Nauru
  North Korea
  Peru
  Pitcairn Islands
  Samoa
  Singapore
  Swiss canton of Schaffhausen
  Uruguay

Which one of these is a democratic paradise that the author would like to emulate?

Australia is probably the best of the bunch but it's demography and geography are not comparable to the US, a lot of things that work there don't translate here and vice versa.

The author theorizes:

> When the only question voters face is whose ideas they prefer, politicians will naturally focus on developing and debating real world ideas rather than fantasies, and democracy can live up to its moral and practical potential.

O RLY? Is that the situation in Argentina, Bolivia and Ecuador? TL;DR: No.

This article also presumes the bedrock of democracy is elections, but in fact that's just one dimension and not necessarily the most important one -- rule of law, civil institutions, a functioning state are all equally if not more important than the selection of specific leaders.

Good book on this topic: https://www.amazon.com/Wars-Guns-Votes-Democracy-Dangerous/d...

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting#:~:text=15)%...

> but it's [sic] demography and geography are not comparable to the US, a lot of things that work there don't translate here and vice versa.

You should have started you post with that... discounting any other place because their demographics "are not comparable" to the US makes any additional argument moot.

> Australia is probably the best of the bunch but it's demography and geography are not comparable to the US, a lot of things that work there don't translate here and vice versa.

Americans say that about literally everything. Sure comparisons are always imperfect, but its kind of silly how americans dismiss every comparision on the basis of "we're unique". America is not that unique.

>Australia is probably the best of the bunch

The country on the list most similar to the US is the best? That's very American of you. As someone not in any of those countries (US included) I could pick four or five before I got to Australia.

>O RLY? Is that the situation in Argentina, Bolivia and Ecuador? TL;DR: No.

Please don't do that.

I think the real way to make politics less crazy is to create barriers to voting, actually.

The real problem with our politics is that the more informed members of the populace make up their minds early on, leaving the lowest common denominator voters as the only votes left to be swayed. Which causes our political cycle to be driven by abject stupidity rather than useful information and policy discussion.

Imagine how much better things could become if we could find some fair, reasonable way to create a truly representative voting base that were required to be actually quantitatively informed on policy and policy consequences.

I'm not sure the voters that decide early are really doing it based on being 'more informed'.

Another way to put it might be that they are more secure in what they wish to see from a policy standpoint, and the personality-based sideshow of a campaign is usually irrelevant to that. Assuming of course that any given candidate is upfront about their platform and sticks to it.

Their claim wasn't that early deciding voters are more informed, but that more informed voters decide earlier.

IE: That more informed voters are a subset of the population of early deciding voters.

The counterpoint would be informed voters who make late decisions, not low-information voters who decide early.

My counterpoint is that early informed voters aren't any meaningful percentage of voters!

I think that would backfire, since the most successful forms of stupidity are also the most compelling and enervating. :P

Also, voting isn't a privilege, it's a bare-minimum consolation-prize for the power the government wields over you. It would be immoral to create barriers.

Perhaps some sort of simple literacy test, such as this?

https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/question/2012/pdfs...

( from https://allthatsinteresting.com/voting-literacy-test )

edit: god I hope people realize I'm being facetious

What if there is a racial difference in the test score?

The irony is that I think you would love Plato's republic. I think everyone is seeing shades of racism hence the downvotes.

Nonetheless your critique of democracy with universal suffrage is not new and has some valid points.

I think the problem is an implementation, those that want power create rules- rules that will prevent marginalized communities from being represented.

It would require the abolition of political parties, at least in the US.

The problem with your theory is that excluding people from voting doesn’t exclude them from being manipulatable political footsoldiers, it just removes a peaceful outlet for their political dissatisfactions and heightens their sense of alienation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com