In a Democracy Should All Opinions be Equally Considered?

Democracy clearly isn't the most effective way of getting things done. And with high powered TV advertising, it's possible now to fool enough of the people for enough of the time--if you have enough money to pay the media.

The worst thing about democracy is that the 30% illiterates have the same vote as everybody else. That is becoming a problem in today's world of illusions.

At this point, I'm not big on Democracy, but I don't see a good alternative.

 

I said "yes" to the question. But I don't think that's what is happening in this society since the "Fairness Doctrine" was removed by the FCC in the 1980s--during the Reagan era.

Nowadays, the views that get attention are the views that are paid for in the media.
All views are not created equal.

 

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]~ Winston Churchill [/FONT]​

 

An idea I have advocated for decades:

Prohibit all paid political advertising. Substitute in its place a reasonable amount of free air time on every TV and radio station, an equal amount for every candidate on the ballot in every race within the coverage region of the station or newspaper. In the print media, the space would be limited to text. No photos. On TV the only thing permitted would be a head and shoulders shot of the candidate himself or herself speaking. No "produced" commercials. Reinstate the fairness doctrine, so that any station or paper that broadcasts or prints political commentary favorable to one candidate must allow commentators approved by each of the other candidates to respond with equal time in the same general time or space. (Prime time TV with prime time TV; front page of section 2 with front page of section 2; etc.)

Possibly, the time/space would be paid for by the government and set at 1/2 of what the station charges commercial advertisers, or possibly they'd be required to provide it free. Debates could be permitted as long as every candidate on the ballot for a given office is included.

In other words, take the money out of elections. Perhaps also prohibit political polling, and absolutely prohibit commentary and reporting of election results until the last polling places have closed.

This would kill two birds with one stone: It would give equal opportunity to run for office to people without access to obscene amounts of money, and office holders would no longer be indebted to or dependent upon lobbyists and other campaign contributors.

Our present system is a "democracy" in name only, since it allows big corporations and ultra-wealthy individuals to keep a lock on the political process. The U.S. has never been a democracy, but the above could make it much more like one.

 

WoW! The majority here would rather not equally consider an opinion?!?!? Giving equal consideration to an opinion has nothing to do with the acquiesce to it's merit or acceptance of that opinion. Therefore, to me not to give equal consideration to an opinion seems rather closed minded but maybe I'm missing something or the semantics of the question are not sufficiently clear. That being said once heard the opinion has had it's equal consideration so fairness has been served.

BTW I'd like to mention that I think ya'll seem a bit confused. So my .02 cents would like to point out that "we" the United States of America are a Republic not a Democracy. Thank God! :usa2:

Just to be sure I'm not misunderstood the government has no constitutional power to say which opinions you consider or those opinions you don't consider. That's called liberty, as in the wolves and sheep discussing what's for lunch (Democracy) a well armed Sheep (guns or laws) protesting the vote is liberty (Republic) clear?

 

ya, the illiterates are the worst! i don't know what the founding founders were thinking.

 

i think the question leaves too much in question to give a yes or no. everyone has the right to be heard. but if all opinions where considered equally, no one would ever be able to make a decision. you have to be able to weed out the bad ones.

 

R

That sounds to me like you've answered the question the way it was intended. 'Yes' to letting all opinions be expressed, but 'no' to giving them all equal consideration. I'd count that as a 'no' vote from you. Would you agree?

 

There's a lot implied by the statement, "weed out the bad ones" and I'm not sure it's positive.

One person's weed is another person's flower.

Who makes that choice, I wonder.

 

you're right pinto, there's a lot that goes into that. but that's why we have large groups of people working together on decisions, and it's why we have a system of checks and balances in government.

but for the sake of this argument, "weed out the bad ones" basically means to dismiss opinions that are 1. not legal, 2. impossible to do, 3. more harmful than beneficial.

 

It's the semantics of the question that is causing the confusion. Exactly what is meant by "equal consideration" is the issue. Some people read that and think "heard", while others think "pondered over carefully". I assumed the latter, which is why I voted no.

Let's look at an extreme example for clarification:

California is facing a budget crises. Three opinions are put forth for consideration:

1) Cut spending.

2) Increase taxes.

3) Round up all persons whose last names start with A-M and shoot them, thereby reducing the population.

In this example, option 3 deserves very little consideration. It is obviously illegal, immoral, and idiotic.

Options 1 and 2, however, both have merit. Furthermore, the advantages and disadvantages of both are complex and sometime subtle. Options 1 and 2 require careful and extended consideration.

In this example, it is obvious that all opinions do not deserve equal consideration. Doing so would be a distraction and waste of time and resources.

Tom

 

Where is there a democracy?

 

California is about as close as we get. They seem to rule by referendum. The rest of us live in a republic.

Tom

 

Our Constitution gives everyone the right to speak. It does not give everyone the right to be heard. In fact, if you have no money, your opinions will never be heard. And therefore will never be considered.

Further, nothing in our system of laws requires me to consider an opinion I consider not worth considering. There are many opinions I reject out of hand, and others that I have considered in the past and do not feel are worth reconsidering when they are repeated. I refuse to consider the opinion that the moon is made of cheese, or that it is flat. I have considered and rejected the opinion that the Earth is around six thousand years old, and I don't care to to reconsider it as I think that would be a waste of my time.

As for whether the U.S. is a democracy or a republic, it's actually a bit of both: We have certain Constitutional rights which supposedly cannot be taken away from us, but in fact, the majority takes these rights away from one or another minority on a fairly regular basis. There is a constant struggle between majority rule and minority rights. If we were a pure republic, individual rights would always be respected, and if we were a pure democracy there would be no individual rights at all.

 

It's a perversion of democracy. The referendum process is driven by big business and special interest groups. There is a direct vote on the referendums but what gets to be voted on is determined by big business and special interest groups. For instance, out of state money from a religious organization based Utah was largely responsible for the passage of Prop 8, the anti-gay marriage proposition. I was ambivalent on gay marriage until that passed, now I am strongly pro.

It served it's purpose in the early 1900s when the state government was more screwed up than it is now and corruption was rampant. It also helped that there were only about 2,000,000 people in the state then so things were more manageable.

It would be very hard to get rid of. That would require a state constitutional amendment passed by the voters and the voters don't trust the politicians enough to give up the referendum.

 

I answered NO - based on the specific wording of the question. To those who answered YES, my educated guess is they don't understand the question. Of course, thats my opinion and you can choose to give it equal consideration or not!

 

hmmmm, being formerly from CA, I wonder how that will affect gov. Brown's budget cuts and tax increases in his proposed budget. It will be interesting to see how the residents react.

 

One of Brown's proposals is to transfer some areas of responsibility from the state to local governments. I am guessing that the local governments would not be too happy with that. I have not heard about Brown's ideas on how this will be paid for.