Democracy, Even for Idiots

I was surprised when progressive columnist LZ Granderson wrote recently that the government should strip the right to vote from people who are "ignorant". Granderson argues that the political process is way too important to put into the hands of a electorate who lack a basic understanding of the legislative process. In a time of "at least two wars, a budding energy crisis, a growing trade deficit," Granderson argues that if a person is unable to pass the U.S. Naturalization Test required for immigrants to pass to gain citizenship, this person should be barred from potentially upsetting th democratic process. Why? Because otherwise ignorant voters will sway election due to their vulnerability to be manipulated by political machine-driven catchphrases such as "Obamacare" and "War on Unions".

Granderson laments about the pejorative lens upon the "elite" and argues that "the Founding Fathers were not a bunch of average Joes with gripes about England; they were elite thinkers and philosophers. James Madison attended what is now Princeton. John Hancock went to Harvard. Thomas Jefferson enrolled at the College of William and Mary when he was 16." That may be true, but they weren't the only people who were allowed to vote. The reality is that we have a representative democratic government which still very much ensures that highly intelligent and qualified individuals are in the best position to serve in public office. In fact, given the importance of political allies, personal connections with high-net-worth individuals and a war chest in winning any election, it's hard to argue that political power still very much resides with the elite. That's not necessarily a good thing.

The representative government nature of American democracy also serves to prevent the "ignorant" population from doing too much self-inflicted harm. As opposed to decision making by referendum (one vote per person, majority choice gets put into law). The population elects representation in Congress who write and vote on laws on a populations' behalf. Heck, there has been more than one occasion where the guy who got the most votes in the country ended up losing the Presidency. If anything, the single (ignorant) voter might argue that there isn't enough power in his or her vote.

Granderson is also wrongheaded in his belief that knowledge of municipal and civic protocol somehow makes people less "vulnerable" to political campaigns, advertising and, yes, catchphrases. People don't believe in the concept of "Obamacare" or "death panels" or "illegal wars" because they don't know that two senators serve from each state, they resonate with that "rhetoric" because they actually believe that those ideas. I'm not saying that there isn't objective and absolute truth, what I'm saying is democratic government is about the exchange, debate and promotion of ideals and opinions which are passionate and personal. You can't legislate this out of the political process.

Lastly and most importantly, is seems to me that the measure of true democracy is to allow participation unfettered. The onus is for those involved in the political process to present truthful facts and opinions and all sides and let people - as misguided, imperfect and ignorant as we are - to make a decision according to our respect consciences. I don't think voter hurdles are the answer - greater openness, debate, communication and deliberation to create a more informed and engaged population might better serve that end.

I frankly think that the bigger problem is the anemic numbers around voter participation. If anything, we need more voters, not less.