It seems to me, for people to claim democracy is the be all and end all in government, they must hold the voter in great esteem, else they don’t really esteem democracy. If one believes that democracy is a good then they must also believe in the will of the voter. Because if one believes the voter incompetent to make even the most basic decisions, or comply with the least standardization, then they must also have a hatred for democracy as well. The two go hand in hand. For someone to hold both mutually exclusive ideas simultaneously, is not a sign of intelligence… but of deceit.
Democracy is based on the competence of the voter. No matter how the voter is defined. The basis of all democracy, from Athens to America, is that it rests on the voter casting his or her ballot, for the person or concept of governance, they see most fit. The theory is that the voter, in the aggregate, networked into society, have the “on the ground knowledge” that allows us to make the right decision, most of the time.
If that voter is not only ignorant but is incompetent as well, the entire government, society and civilization suffer. When government is run by egoists the economy suffers. When society is run by ignoramuses crime is rampant, and when civilization is held in low esteem… it is soon lost. These outcomes necessarially follow these preconditions. A person who believes the people incompetent would think, for example, that no good can be done; without the direct intervention of government, that people are incapable of feeding themselves, that people are so inept they cannot work and need a dole, that people must have every aspect of their lives regulated or that people need even to be told to “buckle up,” in government paid ads on television. If a person were to hold the voter in such low esteem then they would naturally fear democracy. This fear would manifest itself in many ways, not the least of which is, by undermining true representative democracy.
We see this very thing acted out in various countries, mostly by tyrants seeking to hold power, that the people begrudge. The tyrant will stuff ballot boxes, he will intimidate voters with violence, the would be tyrant always wins the dead vote and the would be oppressor needs to control the unbiased media. All the time claiming to be a favorer of democratic forms of government. The truth is that they do… as long as the tyrant, not the voters, decide. This play is acted out all over the World. From Africa to Asia, tyrants have “free and fair” elections, while the media is one sided, there are armed gangs at voting stations intimidating voters and there are tons of ineligible votes cast.
We can reliably tell who is, in their hearts, opposed to real democracy by the way they act. When laws standardizing the voting process, to protect the populace from vote fraud are initiated, they scream and whine some voters will be disenfranchised. If they also control the unbiased media and have armed gangs at voting stations, we can reliably tell that they are against democracy, only claiming to be for it… as a means of deceit. In the last election in Russia, there was wide spread claims of voter fraud, and we know the media in Russia is reliably on the side of the governing Elite… else they meet with unfortunate “accidents.”
In the 2008 election in the USA, there were accounts of voter intimidation by armed gangs at voting stations in Chicago and elsewhere. The Black Panthers were implicated but the “Justice Department” never saw fit to prosecute their political allies. The unbiased media is firmly in the “democrats” corner, and the “democrats” seek to stop any and all attempts, to protect the voters ballot from fraud.
They would rather have 100 fraudulent ballots cast than let one person be disenfranchised…