Courtesy, FreeFoto.com
Conflicting Understandings of Democracy
There are two understandings of democracy. In one, voting is seen to be simply an exercise in advancing the voter’s own self-interest — an understanding that presumes that there is really no distinct, overarching public interest as an alternative, but only an aggregation of competing private interests. Each person’s (or group’s) interest is presumed to be obvious, so little if any discussion about it is seen to be necessary. And as each person’s or group’s interest is distinct, there is no common ground for it in any case.
This understanding more precisely identifies “majority rule.” The second understanding also includes majority rule, but such rule that is based not on self-interest voting, but on what is contended to be the “public interest” — that is, the application of principles of government that transcend private interests. But, as there are different views of what these principles are, and how they should be applied, there is both a basis and a need for public discussion of such differences, and an implicit need and responsibility of voters to know what the conflicting points of view, and the arguments for them, are.
Under the current democratic system in America, voting is asserted to be a right, but little if anything is said about it entailing a responsibility. It is to promote that understanding that this site has been created.
Fostering Voter Responsibility
Toward such purpose, this writer proposes an electoral system for states in which states would create an online forum in which political parties and/or candidates could engage in email debates — and in which voters would be required to attest to having examined, to the best of their understanding, the content of such debates.
What is not proposed is that voters be tested on whether they have in fact examined such debate materials, only that they attest to having done so. And surely, there will be some who take advantage of such trust, and who will attest to having examined such materials without having done so. But these would be people who would not be receptive to opposing arguments in any case. This proposal is directed toward Americans that would be.
And it is to assert, through the collective voice of democratically enacted law, that American voters do in fact have not just a right to vote, but, to their fellow citizens, a responsibility to be, to the best of their ability, knowledgeable about what they are voting for.
*******
For an example of a summary draft of state legislation authorizing such a system, go to the “Voter Responsibility” tab.
For a related proposal, see Trump’s Constitution Classes: Good Idea?