While browsing Project Petaling Street earlier to relieve myself of boredom, I came across a blog’s entry questioning democracy. Those questions are legitimate and it’s true that democracy is not without flawed. However, they are several points that I disagree and here, I will offer a different perspective.

Author of the blog first touches on how majority rules. I quote him (or her but since English lacks a neutral term, I’ll use he/his/him out of convenience) here.

The Majority Vote

This is what democracy has it's base in, that the majority always has it's say. But look at our own nation. Recently there was a discussion on the NEP and it's revision, the 2020 goal. Many non bumis said it was unfair and undemocratic. In my opinion, it's totally democratic, since the majority of the populace, or the Bumiputera support it and votes in the government that keeps it in return, because bumis hold a 60-40 majority in terms of population, is the government going to back down from the majority of it's voters? No. And if so, i'm sure the 60 percent will find a party willing to support the NEP, so i ask you, unless the bumis were gratious enough to give up their rights like the Whites of america or the non bumis having enough children do you see a solution?

I have nothing to say here except that I agree with it. That's what democracy essentially is.

Then, the author mentions voting idiots.

The Idiot Vote

I question the reason why idiots get to vote, just imagine if only 20 percent of people knew the parties, candidates, issues and consequences. Then what would the other 80 percent be? Obviously idiots, idiots who are impressionable, stupid and can't diffrentiate State from Parliament. So in a democracy, we're essentially putting our lives and future into the hands of people who can't tell left from right. Why are we the more intelligent people giving dumb animals the right to vote? Equality has nothing to do with it, the greater good is at stake here, and i'm as sure as hell not going to give up my right to choose because the majority of idiots think that voting for the party with the flashiest banners, nicest clothes and best media manipulation. Since opening the eyes of idiots is like try to cut a diamond with a flaccid penis, i suggest a screening system of sorts, for example my favourite "Service guarantees citizenship!"

While I do agree with him about there are voters that lack certain information in order to properly practice his right to choose, I firmly disagree to disallow these idiots, or politically correct term, uninformed voters from practicing their right to vote.

If we in the name of greater good prevent these voters from the ballot, we would be no better than a tyrant. A tyrant would choose at his wimp who would be able to vote by invoking this idea of uninformed voters or to some extent, imperfect or asymmetrical information (The term imperfect or asymmetrical information only applies if a voter actually gives a damn about an election rather than being nonchalant). A tyrant could easily label the supporters of his opponent as ignorant and naïve, of which from the tyrant point of view, being uninformed of the need to elect the tyrant over and over again. The term uninformed is subjective and it’s dangerous to tinker with.

The solution to this is free flow of information. The author asserts that educating these uninformed voters is as useful as talking to a brick wall. Well, he is wrong. If a person intends to vote and new information is available, a rational voter will certainly take that piece of information into account. Moreover, if a voter doesn’t care about anything and hence doesn’t have the urge to know who’s who, what’s what, which, why and how, it’s kind of obvious that he won’t exercise his right to vote. Thus the question, why do we need to prevent him from voting in the first place?

It is far easier and less trouble to let everybody votes. Enough of that. Let’s move to the next item in the list, non-contributory voter.

The Non Contributor Vote

Seriously if someone enters your home asks for free food and lodging plus you give so to him, are you going to challenge whatever the owner of the house says? No, be thankful the owner took you in the first place. Why should we, the tax payers help the lower class that contributes nothing, i believe that people should only be given a right to vote if they contribute, something like the Wikimedia foundation vote, where the greatest contibuters wield the most power to vote and become candidates, so in a sense, the more good you do, the more power you wield, may sound bad to most, but to me it isn't , naturally good people will rise the ranks due to their contribution, doesn't need to be monetary, but it can be judged on many fronts. How would like it if some stupid lepaking kid who smoke 2 packs a days and doesn't work to wield a vote? Seriously these people don't deserve it! And if they don't deserve it why in God's name should we give them the power to steer the future of a nation!

A citizen of a country, living in that country, will be affected by any policy brought forth by the government, regardless whether he does contribute to the country or doesn’t. It’s because of that that they do and should have a voice. Furthermore, allowing merely contributing citizens to vote is similar to taking a walk well before the French Revolution when only landowners have the right to vote. Certainly, that walk to the past is an undoing all the progress humanity has made in achieving a fairer society.

Finally, higher unconscious vote. Honestly, I have no idea what that term means but according to the author:

The Higher Unconcious Vote

The problem is that simply, democracy isn't exercised all the time! Only during the elections, how can we as the voters vote on anything more than not only our leaders, but the choices they exercise, like how politicians are pressing for the change of UNITAR to UNIUMNO, it's just plain stupid, but what can we as the public do? We aren't given the choice to shoot it down are we? Ofcourse we chose these SOBs as our representatives, but do they actually represent our choice? I never saw any politician holding a meeting on the census of certain issues in my area do i? In the end these politicians merely promise to serve our will, but in the end, serve their own will! When was the last time your representative held counsel with the people who voted him in to hear their thoughts? Only when it's convenient. Just like the LRT ad fiasco, the stupid MP blamed his Voters for wanting to raise the issue, either his voters are all the aformentioned above or he's looking for an easy way out!

All I can say is you reap what you sow. The voters are at fault here, not the system. Vote him out in the next election instead of reelecting him.