Generally speaking those who complain about current democracies are really complaining that their point of view isn't given sufficent weight. "If only people thought and voted like me, then democracy would be much improved."

Its the authoritarian impulse trying to usurp democracy and wear its banners for their own aims.

The author thinks that those who oppose Trump are "a significant minority of people [who] behave rationally, gather data and vote with full information - the vulcans." These are the anti-Trump protestors,apparently. The Trumpites are hooligans and hobbits.

Now I'm sure the author considers himself to be a vulcan - who wouldn't? So its clear, apparently, that if only there were more peoplelike him, things would be much improved.

Of coarse this misunderstands the function and purposes of democracy entirely.

We see quite a number of OLO-ers who also constantly rage about how we haven't got a real democracy and it almost always comes down to them complaining that their opinions don't win. True democrats to a man <sarc off>.

A lot of this comes down to the fact that government and control thereof is much too consequential. Government is so big and has insinuated itself into so much of our lives, that the movement of a few percentage points of opinion has enormous consequences for people's futures, near and far term. Wouldst t'were is not so.

Democracy is about preserving liberty. It isn't the most efficent form of government. It doesn't provide stability. It protects liberty and through that, as Hayek opined, it promotes economic advancement.

We can fiddle with the institution here and there, but preservation of individual liberty against the vulcan wannabes is more important.

…and another thing.

I would suggest our professor be more discerning in his choice of a reference for declaring how democratic countries are. The Economist Intelligence Unit does NOT give its findings based strictly on objective criteria, ie, if universal franchise, one-person-one-vote, secret ballot, 3 yr terms or 10 year, electing the executive as well as the legislative, a free press, whether technically a party can lose the popular vote and still win the election, etc. Of the 60 questions it asks of all countries, to quote Wikipedia,
“Most answers are "experts' assessments"; the report does not indicate what kinds of experts, nor their number, nor whether the experts are employees of the Economist Intelligence Unit or independent scholars, nor the nationalities of the experts. Some answers are provided by public-opinion surveys from the respective countries. In the case of countries for which survey results are missing, survey results for similar countries and expert assessments are used in order to fill in gaps.

Hi Mr. Ed,

You ask, in turn:

"Why should only citizens have the vote."

There are perhaps four billion adults in the world. Are you suggesting that they all should vote in every election, everywhere ?

"Why do you have to be over 18."

Good question: should it be put up to 21, or 25 ? So that only mature adults can vote ?

"Why can’t I vote in American elections."

If you are an American, you can. If not, then no. See first question and answer.

You suggest: "We shouldn’t vote on Brexit because future generations might disagree with our decision, but then again, they might not."

Australians couldn't and didn't (except for dual citizens) vote on Brexit. Most of us are not British citizens. It was a British matter. But in a democracy, those who are citizens here and now can vote: when the next generations reach voting age, then they can vote on the issues of the day then. Yes, they may vote differently to the way we do now. That will be their democratic right.

I hope this helps.

[Don't you hate priggish posts ?]

Joe

I'll leave Edward the pleasure of making mince-meat of your misplaced sarcasm. But it'll be fun.

Priggish indeed.

What nobody can ever explain, is why everyone should have an equal "right" to vote themselves the fruits of their neighbour's labour.

"You can in fact argue that when there are massive demonstrations in the United States opposing a recently elected president, people are protesting against a dictatorship of hobbits and hooligans."

Only if you assume that the demonstrators were all vulcans - well-informed, sensible, rational, ethical persons.

One glance at the demonstrators will prove that this assumption - which the author himself regards as improbable - is wrong.

The more probable explanation is also the true one. We were witnessing mass demonstrations of high indignation and infantile rage of the parasite class when the tit is popped out of their mouth.

What the author is calling the vulcan class, pre-supposes the morality and legitimacy of democray - that a "right" is whatever the government says it is.

The Nazi totalitarians also claimed legitimacy through democratic elections. It is a little-known fact that the notorious 'Nuremberg defence' - 'just following orders' - was actually only one leg of their defence at the Nuremberg trials. It it is a subsidiary branch of their main defence, which is that a right is whatever the government says it is.

This is precisely the ethic presupposed by the author in his approval of the vulcans, and disapproval of the hobbits and hooligans. It is the ethic assumed by all defenders of democracy.

It is where we get such talk of the so-called "right" to kill an innocent human being, the "right" to threaten people with prison and rape to get what you want by violating their freedom and property, the "right" to "free" education, and "free" this-that-and-the-other.

Democracy is morally contemptible, but its one redeeming feature is that it gives us the occasional pleasure of seeing the elitist hypocrites and parasites get a good kick in the teeth like they deserve.

Joe / Loudmouth,
One often suspects that some posters only read the title to an article as well as the one line precise, and then go straight to the comments section.
Might this be you Joe for this article?
The three questions plus a statement were quotes from the illustrious professor, author of the article. Because they were paraphrased they were not in inverted commas.

So in fact, your sentiments are similar to mine with regards to what the author wrote.

B.T.W. You seemed to misinterpret the over 18 question. The claimant was protesting the age was too high, not too low. Shouldn’t the appropriate sarcastic response be, “Good question, let’s drop it down to 13 so all teenagers have an input on how the country is run.”