If you can't explain, in fact-based, logical/rational argumentation that takes history, current circumstances/pressures/realities and human nature into account, why the policies and practices of government should be more like X versus more like Y in order to be most beneficial to the masses, then you shouldn't be voting. Your 'feelings', whether they lean toward a 'sacred value' of Conservatism or Liberalism, aren't a reasonable, much less intelligent, tool for creating and maintaining social systems, laws and regulations. If you haven't taken the time, made the effort, suppressed your fragile ego, and/or opened your mind to the point that you can have some substance behind your reasons for voting this way versus that way, then I don't think you've earned the right to participate in the democratic process.
'Everyone is entitled to their opinion.' Says who?
Opinions have NO value as an argument for policy-making. None. ZERO! If there's no factual content in your 'opinion,' then what you are expressing is a 'feeling' that is likely either hard wired in your brain, or beaten into it by the culture you grew up in, or indoctrinated by the school instructors you happened to have.
Opinions are vulnerable to OFFENSE (a feeling) because they are nothing more than feelings, and feelings have no place in debating the laws, regulations and systems that should govern us all for the betterment of everyone.
"That's just your opinion and it offends me!" Who cares?
If your opinion is based upon a lot of research, reading and thinking, it isn't an opinion, it's a thesis; it's a 'point of view' that is based upon POINTS of fact. If you can make arguments based upon what has worked historically and why, given our modern challenges, we should try a new strategy, or just a new tactic, you are not expressing an opinion, you are presenting an argument and one that another person with well considered arguments can debate.
The moment someone says "Well I just don't feel that's right" they have lost the argument, and in my opinion, have lost the right to vote. Is that a radical statement? Depends on whether you think we should be doing what works best based upon intelligence, science and balanced consideration or the force of 'feelings.'
The original concept of Democracy, born in ancient Greece, was based upon the basic platform of a meritocracy, that governing of the state should be conducted by those with enough wealth, as property owners (of both slaves and real estate), to have sufficient free time to participate in The Assembly, and usually those with sufficient wealth also had sufficient education to engage in articulate and conceptual debate. "One man, one vote" is an incorrect translation: Athenian Democracy, which worked well for some decades [each time crushed by narcissistic psychopathic megalomaniacs leveraging tribalism (nationalism) to take over control, then restored once that dictator and his faction were defeated], was actually:
"One wealthy male, one vote -- but only if you had sufficient free time, intelligence, drive and oratory skills to participate in the Assembly."
This filter ensured that, the majority of those voting were both highly invested in the outcome of the votes, were sufficiently educated to understand the issues and had enough free time to take part. It had the added advantage of selecting for individuals who were both driven enough, clever enough and socially adept enough to succeed financially.
Today's 'rigged system' of Democracy ensures that average people's hardwired sacred values of either Conservatism or Liberalism get hijacked by the elites to put their proxies in power. The people who are not members of the elite, but ARE very involved in the debates over what laws, rules and regulations should be put in place for the betterment of the masses to the extent that they are sufficiently clever, spend the time to educate themselves about the issues and have the skill to debate, get drowned out or ignored, to the detriment of the masses they are willing to stand up for.
Professor Jonathan Haidt has the answer to Democracy's core failing. He has proven that we are hardwired from birth to be Conservative, Liberal, or somewhere between, but about 40% are dyed-in-the-wool Righties and 20% are hardcore Lefties.
Why is this the case? Because for a social species like Homo Sapiens to survive we all needed to work together, to cooperate. We needed to stick with what worked as long as it did work, but also try new solutions to the inevitable challenges that living in changing climates and situations confronted us with. Having a larger percentage of "don't fix it if it ain't broke" tribe members than "let's try something new" was a winning strategy that kept us alive better than any other mix did. The 40% of people in the middle, today's 'Centrists,' were the 'voters' who swung the decision of the tribe. (Social anthropologists have determined that the most common social dynamic of the tribes of our ancestors was NOT being led by a chief, but rather by a loose democracy. The power-hungry, pushy guy generally got run out of town by the majority of tribe members.)
What decades of both Democracy-in-practice and Socialism-in-practice has demonstrated is that the best answers to what will benefit the mass of citizens best is not to allow the elites to do what benefits THEM the most (today's America, China and Russia), but rather Centrist solutions.
Democracy that is nothing but a tool of Capitalism ends up gradually becoming an Oligopoly, a deeply divided class-based society, because, as Richard D. Wolff has pointed out so succintly, Capitalism left to its own devices kills itself like the snake eating its tail -- it must pursue profit relentlessly, growing ever larger, ever more global, with the wealthy hoarding more and more wealth, driving down costs, automating all jobs to the point no one but the elites have a job and thus cannot afford what the corporations produce. That's not an opinion, but a statement of fact about the nature of Capitalism.
Socialism in its purest form ALWAYS puts a tiny group of opportunists in place who may BEGIN being interested in "from each according to her/his abilities, to each according to his/her needs," but once in power, inevitably the group skim the cream off of the national economy for the primary benefit of their family and supporters and a narcissistic psychopath (they're always the individuals MOST motivated to rise to the top) emerges to take over absolute control. Xi Jinping has just accomplished this in China, Putin did in in supposedly post-socialist Russia (but Democracy had never cemented itself in their society), Stalin, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, the list goes on...
Which countries succeeded in delivering maximum happiness, freedom and economic equality over the long term? Democratic Socialist systems -- a balance of Capitalism and Socialism -- "Centrism." A system that ensures equitable wealth distribution with progressive taxation (the elite families can never make use of an ever-growing hoard of wealth -- it is conceptually impossible -- once a household income goes over about $500k per year, everyone in the family has every possible thing they will ever need to be healthy and happy) and the injection of support into 'the poverty trap' for those who are born driven and smart, but poor, or are simply too low on the IQ bell curve to ever be able to earn their way out of the trap.
As long as we allow our countries to be hijacked by opportunists who get rich via Predatory Capitalism disguised as Democracy, or national economic rape by opportunists disguised as Socialists, the mass of citizens will not be treated equitably -- they WILL be marginalized by the few lucky enough to leverage their way to the top and then exert the absolute power that comes with unimaginable wealth. They will find ways to leverage the votes of those hardwired for Leftism or Rightism and will obfuscate what they're up to in the background. (The WORST possible set up is to have a two party system wherein the elites gradually take over both parties!) Sadly Democracy, without the influence of the best aspect of Socialism (not national ownership of ALL money-making institutions, but regulation to suppress the worst aspects of human nature and the reasonable distribution of national wealth, both natural resources and private hoards) ends up screwing the mass of citizens.
I believe that our politics, our voting, our governments, need is to be led by those who have the interest, the willingness to be involved, the education, the brain power and the debating skills to evaluate the benefits to the masses of Centrist, balanced concepts for rules, regulations and taxation. The only way to ensure we end up with the right people in power, and therefore the best, balanced laws and regulations, is to introduce a test that voters have to pass to prove that they understand the basic issues and have enough knowledge and intellectual curiousity be able to debate the options of which way to go.
