Is democracy actually alive in the USA?

Democracy exists in America, sure—but only if you're looking at it in a dictionary.

steelridge58 said:Alright, it's your turn to weigh in! 🙂 I was thinking about exactly what you mentioned regarding enthusiasm—though, if I'm being honest, I don't think enthusiasm has to be completely stripped of ambition, provided those ambitions are actually aimed at the greater good. What's your take on that?

I don't think you can really define ambition in a way that meshes perfectly with enthusiasm. To me, an ambitious person is someone who goes out and manufactures their own opportunities just to grab a certain amount of power. It feels like enthusiasm would pair much better with altruism—you know, like a kind of biological drive that pushes the entire human race to get fitter and stronger.
Ambition might help improve fitness, sure, but only if it serves as an example for others to follow and find their own path. But then we hit this weird little paradox, right? Because, honestly, ambition usually just highlights the individual fighting to achieve their own stuff within our current setup (you know, democracy and capitalism), and most of the time, it happens at everyone else's expense. If we look at ourselves through that lens, it turns into this messy struggle of selfish desires where a bunch of individuals are basically warring over their own slice of the pie. In that scenario, "fitness" isn't improving... it's totally tanking.

loneorca34 said:I don't know, I think you can look at this from a few different angles... honestly, I think there's plenty of critical mass, and we're seeing more and more rebellions popping up, which is actually what happens when you have real freedom of speech. The tricky part is how you view democracy through that lens, though. Like, is a system truly "democratic" if people feel forced to hit the streets and start throwing bricks just to make their voices heard? And usually, they don't even get much traction in the end, which is frustrating.
Then there's the other side of the coin—how our democratic system, especially when it shakes hands with hardcore neo-capitalism, has basically conditioned everyone to just mind their own business and look out for number one, totally ignoring everyone else. If we're talking about raising the collective fitness level of the human race, democracy hasn't exactly been winning any gold medals so far.

I agree with most of that, though I don't think democracy is inherently flawed; it’s all about the execution. Some countries clearly lack the infrastructure to run it properly, so when you look at those places, democracy looks like a failure. Other nations have implemented it much more effectively. It's just a tool, and the end result depends entirely on the hands holding it. In my view, democracy is a perfectly fine instrument—I'm not saying there isn't something better—but when it fails, that's on the people running it. I wouldn't necessarily equate democracy with neo-capitalism either; maybe they're just in a bad marriage. Democracy is always shaped by the zeitgeist, and these days, capitalism is a massive player.

steelridge58 said:It looks like someone finally stepped up as a better moderator, 🙂 and they actually caught what needed fixing right when it mattered:

I totally agree, though I did let the thread play out for a bit to see where it went, even if the original post was a little lacking—but you’ve basically fixed it by adding the very questions that should have been there from the jump. I mean, what is democracy, anyway? And how can we even begin to answer if there is any democracy left in America without knowing that first?

I’ve come across plenty of definitions for democracy, but I really love the idea that for any given people in any era, democracy is a unique and specific challenge. Since it's the people who choose their government, it stands to reason that this task includes taking responsibility for choosing a government that reflects the will of the majority.
Now, determining whether a country is truly democratic isn't just about looking at its formal system based on free expression; it's about whether the actual democratic values exist and how much they are respected within a system that is only democratic on paper.
If the whole point of any democratic constitution is to ensure the dignity of every individual, then perhaps it’s easier to look through that lens to judge how much democracy—in terms of its core values—actually exists in a country with a democratic structure.
We could also look at it through this definition of a democratic community:

A democratic community can be defined as one that, by recognizing human dignity as the primary and ultimate value of the individual, aims to ensure all citizens an equal freedom to develop their personalities and responsibly manage their own lives, while creating the social conditions that make that possible.

So, is there any hope?

The term "rule by the people" implies a citizenry that is politically informed, rather than just an ethnic group. You could argue that direct democracy is a system where the rulers and the ruled are one and the same. Of course, that’s only actually doable in small communities. For almost every major nation out there, representative democracy is really the "second best" option we have to work with.

Some people argue this isn't just a "second best" option—they think it’s actually the superior way to go. If I recall correctly, John Stuart Mill advocated for representative government not just because of population size, but because he believed most people aren't equipped to govern; they're only capable of picking those who are. So, according to some, representative democracy might actually beat direct democracy because it carries that certain aristocratic, meritocratic edge.

I’ve combed through plenty of definitions of democracy, but one really sticks out to me: the idea that democracy isn't a one-size-fits-all model. In any given era, it presents a unique challenge tailored specifically to the people involved. Since the citizens are the ones pulling the strings and choosing their leaders, they also have to own the consequences. If you vote for a certain government by majority rule, you're stuck with the responsibility of living under the leadership you picked.

Interesting definition.

Even if we wanted to, could they actually answer whether democracy even exists in the US?
...
It’s not about whether a country is technically a democracy anymore. It doesn't matter if the system is built on the principle of free speech or popular vote. The real question is whether democratic values actually exist there—and if anyone is bothered to respect them—even when the formal structure says they should.

That’s right. In America, we have a representative democracy, but our political culture is still pretty shallow.

You could also look at it through this definition of a democratic community:

You can define democracy as a community built on one core principle: recognizing human dignity as the ultimate value. Its whole purpose is to guarantee every citizen the freedom to develop their own personality and take responsibility for their own lives. It’s about creating the social conditions that actually make that kind of autonomy possible.

You don't actually need democracy for this; you just need liberalism. Personal dignity and individual freedom can exist within an enlightened constitutional monarchy, too. Sure, the safeguards for those rights might be a bit shakier since you're largely relying on the temperament of the monarch, but it's doable. That said, you could argue that the "social conditions" required for these values are likely better secured when people get a say in their own political system. At the end of the day, it’s better for people to be citizens rather than just subjects.

Democracy only works if we all agree that we’re equals on some fundamental, moral level. That’s what eventually turns into political equality. Nobody has some natural or divine "right" to rule over anyone else. In this system, everyone is essentially a king. Sure, some people are smarter, more educated, braver, or more driven than others—but that doesn't mean they're born to rule. It's not like Plato's worldview, where he argued that people are fundamentally unequal from the start.

So how do you actually establish political authority within a community of equals? Democracy is basically the only way that works.

(Even an aristocratic setup has a democratic component: the aristocrats act as a club of equals who vote on political matters. It’s just that their definition of "equals"—or "the people"—conveniently excludes everyone from peasants and slaves to women.)

Bottom line: in any society where people are fundamentally equal, democracy is the only viable formula.

Is there any hope, then?

It's not impossible.

steelridge58 said:It looks like someone finally stepped up as a better moderator, 🙂 and they actually caught what needed fixing right when it mattered:

I totally agree, though I did let the thread play out for a bit to see where it went, even if the original post was a little lacking—but you’ve basically fixed it by adding the very questions that should have been there from the jump. I mean, what is democracy, anyway? And how can we even begin to answer if there is any democracy left in America without knowing that first?

I’ve come across plenty of definitions for democracy, but I really love the idea that for any given people in any era, democracy is a unique and specific challenge. Since it's the people who choose their government, it stands to reason that this task includes taking responsibility for choosing a government that reflects the will of the majority.
Now, determining whether a country is truly democratic isn't just about looking at its formal system based on free expression; it's about whether the actual democratic values exist and how much they are respected within a system that is only democratic on paper.
If the whole point of any democratic constitution is to ensure the dignity of every individual, then perhaps it’s easier to look through that lens to judge how much democracy—in terms of its core values—actually exists in a country with a democratic structure.
We could also look at it through this definition of a democratic community:

A democratic community can be defined as one that, by recognizing human dignity as the primary and ultimate value of the individual, aims to ensure all citizens an equal freedom to develop their personalities and responsibly manage their own lives, while creating the social conditions that make that possible.

So, is there any hope?

I'm with frozenotter232 on this one—that's not really what makes something a democracy. I mean, a nation can use a majority vote and follow every democratic procedure to the letter, yet still elect a government that doesn't care about the values you're calling "democratic." Like, look at the recent situation in the USA where they used democratic processes to put people in power who basically trample over the dignity and rights of detainees in Guantanamo, all while giving those childish little excuses. That's just the latest in a long line of examples.

But, okay, if we go by your definition, then we have to ask ourselves: is universal and equal voting rights (which is usually the big hallmark of democracy) actually the best way to build that kind of society? 🤷

So, is there any hope?

Well, if you're looking to achieve your specific vision of democracy, honestly, I don't see it happening—at least not anytime soon for the USA. It’s not even a country where the citizens get to weigh in on the big stuff; most major decisions happen somewhere else entirely, which kind of makes it feel like a colony. And in the small amount of decision-making that actually happens here? I'd say it feels more like an oligarchy than a true democracy. 🤷

stormystag16 said:am I sensing a little too much idealism in your post?🤷

Look, how am I supposed to know exactly what you're feeling? It’s not like I can read minds here. And honestly, I have no clue what part of my writing you’re labeling as "idealistic"—or even what your personal definition of idealism actually is. If I really have to pin myself down to some kind of "-ism," then I guess I'm an optimist... but I'm definitely not an idealist.

Gary James88 said:In its pure theoretical form, Democracy isn't a bad setup; it just leaves room for debate on how to actually run it. I’m with Ford on this one—government is usually just a mirror held up to the people, it doesn't just drop down from Mars. If 85% of the population quietly tolerates corruption because they love to judge it but refuse to live by any actual morals themselves, then you’re going to see plenty of corrupt officials in office. It’s just basic math. Naturally, the whole country ends up in the gutter because there simply isn't enough critical mass to sustain any sense of justice or true democracy on a national scale.

I have to disagree here!

Look, a democratically elected government is made up of human beings, not gods. If people are inherently good, then nobody needs to rule them in the first place. But if they’re fundamentally flawed? Well, then any government chosen through democracy is going to be flawed too. It seems pretty clear to me that even on paper, democratic rule doesn't quite hold water.

Sure, we can use democracy to decide things like whether shops should stay open on Sundays or whether we should join NATO. But using democracy to elect a handful of semi-clueless, wildly ambitious careerists—people who will inevitably break every single campaign promise they made—only to have them ignore us entirely for the next four years? That doesn't sound particularly good to me, even in theory.

there simply isn't enough critical mass to sustain ideas of justice and democracy on a global scale.

I don't see it that way... there are plenty of critical thinkers out there, they just aren't interested in playing the political game. Most democratic governments use the media to sideline intellectuals—and if they do happen to ask an expert for their opinion, it's usually just for show, so they can claim they "consulted the experts" before doing exactly what they planned to do anyway.

Plus, there's this fundamental clash between actual ability and raw ambition. The most capable people generally have zero desire to sit at the same table as thugs like boss, Đapić, Rojs, or Čehok—those kinds of caricatures whose IQ you could probably calculate just by multiplying their shoe size by two.😁

steelridge58 said:Alright, it's your turn to weigh in! 🙂 I was thinking about exactly what you mentioned regarding enthusiasm—though, if I'm being honest, I don't think enthusiasm has to be completely stripped of ambition, provided those ambitions are actually aimed at the greater good. What's your take on that?

We were talking about ambitions and where they actually come from, but in that equation, there just isn't any room for enthusiasm. To me, enthusiasm is pure inspiration. You can't really choose what you'll be enthusiastic about, or even if you're going to be an enthusiastic person at all. An enthusiast doesn't operate based on a pre-set goal—being enthusiastic means being struck by something, then acting immediately and spontaneously because of that spark.

Ambition is almost the polar opposite of enthusiasm. With ambition, people define their targets before they even get moving; those goals are usually long-term, and hitting them often requires grinding through tasks that don't interest you—let alone inspire you—simply because those tasks are just stepping stones toward achieving a personal objective.

Basically... enthusiasm isn't about ambition; it's about inspiration.

James Lee77 said:I'm with frozenotter232 on this one—that's not really what makes something a democracy. I mean, a nation can use a majority vote and follow every democratic procedure to the letter, yet still elect a government that doesn't care about the values you're calling "democratic." Like, look at the recent situation in the USA where they used democratic processes to put people in power who basically trample over the dignity and rights of detainees in Guantanamo, all while giving those childish little excuses. That's just the latest in a long line of examples.

But, okay, if we go by your definition, then we have to ask ourselves: is universal and equal voting rights (which is usually the big hallmark of democracy) actually the best way to build that kind of society? 🤷

So, is there any hope?

Well, if you're looking to achieve your specific vision of democracy, honestly, I don't see it happening—at least not anytime soon for the USA. It’s not even a country where the citizens get to weigh in on the big stuff; most major decisions happen somewhere else entirely, which kind of makes it feel like a colony. And in the small amount of decision-making that actually happens here? I'd say it feels more like an oligarchy than a true democracy. 🤷

But honestly, that's exactly my point; I mean, what does democracy actually look like in practice, when you strip away all those beautiful, idealized descriptions we read in textbooks and look at the gap between theory and reality—especially regarding that part I mentioned about respecting and protecting the dignity of every single human being?

I only used that specific definition (which, to be clear, isn't even mine) as a sort of benchmark, just so we could see how massive the disconnect is between that ideal and the actual world we live in.

James Lee77 said:I'm with frozenotter232 on this one—that's not really what makes something a democracy. I mean, a nation can use a majority vote and follow every democratic procedure to the letter, yet still elect a government that doesn't care about the values you're calling "democratic." Like, look at the recent situation in the USA where they used democratic processes to put people in power who basically trample over the dignity and rights of detainees in Guantanamo, all while giving those childish little excuses. That's just the latest in a long line of examples.

But, okay, if we go by your definition, then we have to ask ourselves: is universal and equal voting rights (which is usually the big hallmark of democracy) actually the best way to build that kind of society? 🤷

So, is there any hope?

Well, if you're looking to achieve your specific vision of democracy, honestly, I don't see it happening—at least not anytime soon for the USA. It’s not even a country where the citizens get to weigh in on the big stuff; most major decisions happen somewhere else entirely, which kind of makes it feel like a colony. And in the small amount of decision-making that actually happens here? I'd say it feels more like an oligarchy than a true democracy. 🤷

When you look at the nations that emerged from our former unified state, everything shifted almost overnight, from the sudden privatization of state industries to the immediate ability for everyone to cast a vote for their leaders. But that kind of rapid structural change hasn't been matched by a corresponding shift in political awareness or culture across the population—not everyone is on the same page, after all—and it's going to take quite a while for that political consciousness to catch up, so that the massive gap between the sheer number of voters and their actual political literacy can finally start to close.

Edward Flores4 said:We were talking about ambitions and where they actually come from, but in that equation, there just isn't any room for enthusiasm. To me, enthusiasm is pure inspiration. You can't really choose what you'll be enthusiastic about, or even if you're going to be an enthusiastic person at all. An enthusiast doesn't operate based on a pre-set goal—being enthusiastic means being struck by something, then acting immediately and spontaneously because of that spark.

Ambition is almost the polar opposite of enthusiasm. With ambition, people define their targets before they even get moving; those goals are usually long-term, and hitting them often requires grinding through tasks that don't interest you—let alone inspire you—simply because those tasks are just stepping stones toward achieving a personal objective.

Basically... enthusiasm isn't about ambition; it's about inspiration.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. 🙂

Hmm... how can you say it's not about democracy? I don't know, it feels like people get way too caught up in these idealistic visions of certain ideologies, and honestly, it can backfire completely...
All political systems have the same underlying ambitions. Just like totalitarianism, democracy is really just a tool used to chase those goals—the system shapes itself to fit the ambition, not the other way around.
The real kicker is the method. Totalitarianism just barks orders at people, telling them exactly what to do and how to think. But democracy? It's much smoother than that. It guides people toward a conclusion while giving them this deep sense of freedom, making them feel like they actually came up with the idea themselves.

Edward Flores4 said:Look, how am I supposed to know exactly what you're feeling? It’s not like I can read minds here. And honestly, I have no clue what part of my writing you’re labeling as "idealistic"—or even what your personal definition of idealism actually is. If I really have to pin myself down to some kind of "-ism," then I guess I'm an optimist... but I'm definitely not an idealist.

Look, being an optimist is fine and all...😉

steelridge58 said:But honestly, that's exactly my point; I mean, what does democracy actually look like in practice, when you strip away all those beautiful, idealized descriptions we read in textbooks and look at the gap between theory and reality—especially regarding that part I mentioned about respecting and protecting the dignity of every single human being?

I only used that specific definition (which, to be clear, isn't even mine) as a sort of benchmark, just so we could see how massive the disconnect is between that ideal and the actual world we live in.

When you look at the nations that emerged from our former unified state, everything shifted almost overnight, from the sudden privatization of state industries to the immediate ability for everyone to cast a vote for their leaders. But that kind of rapid structural change hasn't been matched by a corresponding shift in political awareness or culture across the population—not everyone is on the same page, after all—and it's going to take quite a while for that political consciousness to catch up, so that the massive gap between the sheer number of voters and their actual political literacy can finally start to close.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. 🙂

I gotta say, I'm pretty skeptical about this whole idea of "developing democratic awareness." I mean, Americans have been working on it for 200 years, and we still end up picking Bush and allowing Guantanamo to exist. Italians pick Berlusconi, and so on.

So, here's the thing: wouldn't it be better, in a perfect world, if only people with a fully developed political consciousness were allowed to vote or run for office?

Sure, it would be awesome if everyone was that politically savvy. But what if they just aren't?

Edward Flores4 said:I have to disagree here!

Look, a democratically elected government is made up of human beings, not gods. If people are inherently good, then nobody needs to rule them in the first place. But if they’re fundamentally flawed? Well, then any government chosen through democracy is going to be flawed too. It seems pretty clear to me that even on paper, democratic rule doesn't quite hold water.

Sure, we can use democracy to decide things like whether shops should stay open on Sundays or whether we should join NATO. But using democracy to elect a handful of semi-clueless, wildly ambitious careerists—people who will inevitably break every single campaign promise they made—only to have them ignore us entirely for the next four years? That doesn't sound particularly good to me, even in theory.

there simply isn't enough critical mass to sustain ideas of justice and democracy on a global scale.

I don't see it that way... there are plenty of critical thinkers out there, they just aren't interested in playing the political game. Most democratic governments use the media to sideline intellectuals—and if they do happen to ask an expert for their opinion, it's usually just for show, so they can claim they "consulted the experts" before doing exactly what they planned to do anyway.

Plus, there's this fundamental clash between actual ability and raw ambition. The most capable people generally have zero desire to sit at the same table as thugs like boss, Đapić, Rojs, or Čehok—those kinds of caricatures whose IQ you could probably calculate just by multiplying their shoe size by two.😁

👍

Edward Flores4 said:Exactly. I'm talking about a system where your "vote" carries weight proportional to your actual IQ—you know, meritocracy meets logic—and where "democratic decisions" stay local. Instead of one massive, sweeping set of mandates dictated from D.C. that applies to the whole country, decisions would only affect the specific community that actually made them.

Beyond that, we need a political structure driven by genuine enthusiasm rather than raw ambition. In my experience, ambition tends to move in inverse proportion to actual ability—it’s almost a rule. Ambition itself usually stems from some kind of inferiority complex, which, let's face it, has a devastatingly corrosive effect on anyone caught in its orbit.

actually, even Churchill said democracy is imperfect, but it's the best we've got right now, so we should stick with it... he and I see eye to eye on this...☕

Actually, Churchill's point was:
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

...which is a pretty significant departure from how you're interpreting it 🙄

At its core, democracy is just a system where every four years you get to pick which group of politicians is going to fleece you, and where you have the right to an opinion even if you haven't put a single thought into it.

I mean, there’s probably some kind of connection between IQ and being politically savvy, but I don't think it's enough to tie them together completely. Like, someone with an IQ of 125 who actually cares about a specific issue and follows everything about it could easily be way more competent at helping make decisions than someone with an IQ- 140 who couldn't care less and doesn't even know what's going on. In that case, giving the second person more weight just feels unfair.

Back on that thread about universal suffrage, this guy asked this:

planinar said:Look, everyone should have the right to vote, but I was thinking about a cool experiment; imagine if we could define a single weight—let's call it "responsibility"—that measures how capable someone is at making decisions... what would actually go into a fair measure like that? Something that combines personal factors like being informed, intelligence, experience, and community contributions...?
Adding a weight like that to voting power... (by the way, would you guys even call that democracy?).

To answer the question in parentheses: nah, I'd call that an aristocracy—basically rule by the best (or whoever is deemed "good" enough to get extra points).

So, yeah, IQ could be one part of the equation, but definitely not the only one. What else?
And would it be the same weight for every person, regardless of what they're voting on?

James Lee77 said:I gotta say, I'm pretty skeptical about this whole idea of "developing democratic awareness." I mean, Americans have been working on it for 200 years, and we still end up picking Bush and allowing Guantanamo to exist. Italians pick Berlusconi, and so on.

So, here's the thing: wouldn't it be better, in a perfect world, if only people with a fully developed political consciousness were allowed to vote or run for office?

Sure, it would be awesome if everyone was that politically savvy. But what if they just aren't?

Then again, there's the whole "Americans are different" thing. 🙂 I'm joking... mostly, but my point is that democracy is a slow, messy process, a journey, and you can't just jump onto a metaphorical subway car labeled "Democracy" overnight and suddenly find yourself fully part of it; you can't just change the outward shape of things and expect the actual substance to follow automatically.

As for the USA, we'll just have to wait and see how they voted and whether those choices were actually wise, but it seems pretty undeniable that the shifts signaled by these recent democratic elections are indeed a reflection of a genuine change in the people's mindset...

James Lee77 said:I mean, there’s probably some kind of connection between IQ and being politically savvy, but I don't think it's enough to tie them together completely. Like, someone with an IQ of 125 who actually cares about a specific issue and follows everything about it could easily be way more competent at helping make decisions than someone with an IQ- 140 who couldn't care less and doesn't even know what's going on. In that case, giving the second person more weight just feels unfair.

Back on that thread about universal suffrage, this guy asked this:

To answer the question in parentheses: nah, I'd call that an aristocracy—basically rule by the best (or whoever is deemed "good" enough to get extra points).

So, yeah, IQ could be one part of the equation, but definitely not the only one. What else?
And would it be the same weight for every person, regardless of what they're voting on?

I think you might be taking things a bit too far there... personally, I feel like any vote from someone with an IQ over 120 should carry equal weight. Most political and economic issues aren't exactly rocket science or quantum physics... I really don't see how a person with an IQ of 140 holds a significant advantage over someone with an IQ of 120 in those arenas.

The real issue lies with people whose IQ is below 90—for them, almost everything besides tying their shoes is rocket science, and they make up a pretty large chunk of the general American population.

If we were being honest, ballots should be designed in a way that prevents illiterate or semi-literate individuals from filling them out correctly. When you look at it realistically, people who struggle with basic literacy are informationally disadvantaged; they simply don't have the foundation needed to make informed decisions. Just implementing a selection process based on literacy alone would be a massive leap forward.

We could take correctly filled ballots and sort them into three IQ categories: below 100 (below average), 100 to 120, and over 120. A vote from the below-average group would count as 1, the average group as 2, and the above-average group as 4. We should also track the results separately so we can see exactly which groups are represented by which outcomes.

Of course, voters who refuse to take the test would be removed from the voter rolls. This would likely cause a good number of the illiterate, uninterested, or intellectually underserved folks to opt out of testing entirely, effectively lightening the load on the election by removing their own handicap.

This would fundamentally change how pre-election campaigns work. It’s very possible that voters who are easily swayed by free sausages, cheap wine, Taylor Swift, or other campaign gimmicks wouldn't actually get a say—either because they won't show up for testing or because they can't manage to fill out the ballot properly. Most of those voices would end up stuck in that below-average category.

Political campaigns would turn into something resembling a "double-blind" study. Politicians wouldn't be able to afford to ignore relevant questions, marginalize experts, or try to buy off the masses with free food, patriotic rhetoric, roadside rallies, or concerts by pop stars.

I believe this would dramatically shift the landscape regardless of the actual voting outcome. A significant number of current politicians would suddenly realize that cheap handouts, backyard BBQs, and Taylor Swift aren't adequate tools for reaching the "average" or "above-average" demographics, and that they'd essentially be unable to play politics anymore.

In other words, changing the criteria itself would change the supply side of the equation. Very few candidates would dare to risk running a campaign targeting "below-average" voters if they knew they wouldn't gain anything—or would gain next to nothing—from the other categories.

So, IQ could be one component, but certainly not the only one. What else is there?
And should every single person have the same weight when voting on any given issue?

Given everything I just laid out, I’m honestly convinced that if we simply prioritized literacy and IQ- 140 during the selection process, we would see MASSIVE results almost immediately.

Does any country actually have a voting machine that advanced? Honestly, it feels like the sheer amount of paperwork required just to make that kind of system work would be a total nightmare...

hollowtinker18 said:Does any country actually have a voting machine that advanced? Honestly, it feels like the sheer amount of paperwork required just to make that kind of system work would be a total nightmare...

Honestly, I'm not sure if they do.

though it feels like the sheer amount of paperwork involved in a setup like that would be an absolute nightmare...

But wouldn't it work? Think about it—testing happens during those gaps between elections (so, every four years, basically) and only applies to adults. In high school, you already take standardized tests like the SATs, which essentially cover the basics, so there'd be no need to re-test every single new generation from scratch.

It’s kind of wild when you think about it—to get a driver's license in the US, you have to pass a medical exam, show a decent IQ, nail a psych evaluation, complete driver's ed, and then pass both a written and practical exam before a board...
...yet when it comes to deciding the fate of our entire nation and its political direction, we don't even require people to be literate.🙄

If the bureaucracy and the whole procedure for getting behind the wheel works this smoothly... I just don't see why we couldn't implement a much simpler, yet infinitely more vital, process for casting a vote.🤷

It seems pretty obvious that we go to great lengths to keep idiots off the road, but we're perfectly fine letting them call the shots for the whole country!?

Let’s be honest, we aren't living in a democracy here in the States; it feels more like a totalitarian regime. If you want to see what actual democracy looks like, look at Switzerland—they actually let people decide things through referendums.
For a true democracy to function, you need a certain political culture, which basically means citizens taking some damn responsibility. We don't have that. Most people are too terrified to even mention politics, and this obsession with being part of the EU? It’s just a way to dodge accountability. We’re all just sitting around waiting for someone else to fix our problems for us. Personally, I think democracy is something we should probably just postpone until better times arrive.

Edward Flores4 said:Honestly, I'm not sure if they do.

though it feels like the sheer amount of paperwork involved in a setup like that would be an absolute nightmare...

But wouldn't it work? Think about it—testing happens during those gaps between elections (so, every four years, basically) and only applies to adults. In high school, you already take standardized tests like the SATs, which essentially cover the basics, so there'd be no need to re-test every single new generation from scratch.

It’s kind of wild when you think about it—to get a driver's license in the US, you have to pass a medical exam, show a decent IQ, nail a psych evaluation, complete driver's ed, and then pass both a written and practical exam before a board...
...yet when it comes to deciding the fate of our entire nation and its political direction, we don't even require people to be literate.🙄

If the bureaucracy and the whole procedure for getting behind the wheel works this smoothly... I just don't see why we couldn't implement a much simpler, yet infinitely more vital, process for casting a vote.🤷

It seems pretty obvious that we go to great lengths to keep idiots off the road, but we're perfectly fine letting them call the shots for the whole country!?

Honestly, you're just talking in circles and stubbornly trying to link two things that have no business being connected. Your way of (not) thinking is a perfect example of why democracy can never fully function as intended.