If we need SIPO, what does that say about voters?

[goosebump]

One of the primary functions of The Standards in Public Office commission is to enforce laws that ensure candidates and parties do not exceed electoral spending limits.

The provides statutory recognition of the fact that electoral success is more often than not a function of spending power, wherein if no limits were applied, it would be probable that political power would rest with the richest among us.

However, every citizen, whether rich or poor, has the right to vote, so theoretically, no laws should be required to ensure that the weak, who form a majority in any society, are not ruled by the powerful. In fact, the principle argument in favour of democracy is that it protects the weak from the powerful.

So if we need SIPO, and electoral spending limits, what does that say about the electorate?

To me it suggests that the electorate can't actually be trusted to make informed decisions about who they wish to represent them, and instead and more likely to vote on the basis of the sophisticated advertising techniques and full throttle electoral campaigns that the spending limits are designed to curtail.

If that is the case, ie that specific measures are needed to prevent voters from being 'bought', how can voters be trusted to choose Government's in the first place?

To me, this is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the democratic process. If you can't trust a voter to make an informed decision, how can you trust them to make a decision at all?

[Hillmanhunter1]

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." - Winston Churchill.

You are absolutely right in that within your post you have identified "a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the democratic process", however this flaw doesn't really say anything about voters. The truth is that balance of power and information between voters and politicians is not equal and never will be. There may be many voters, but generally they don't know much about governance and political life - the fact that everyone has an opinion should not be interpreted as meaning that that all these opinions are well thought out, or of equal value. In the words of that great philosopher, The Outlaw Josey Wales, "opinions are like a$$holes, everybody's got one."

If the balance of power is such that the politicians are able to abuse the system (and by that I mean abuse it too much, it seems they all abuse it a little bit!) then it is necessary to introduce some external checks and balances, such as SIPO. There are bodies such as SIPO in virtually every mature democracy.

Democracy may be flawed, and by all means let's try to make it work better, but let's also not forget that while many who live in democracies criticise it as a system of governance, most who do not enjoy a measure of democracy would like to have some.

[goosebump]

There may be many voters, but generally they don't know much about governance and political life - the fact that everyone has an opinion should not be interpreted as meaning that that all these opinions are well thought out, or of equal value.

But that is the fundamental flaw.

If we are willing to admit that we need to 'babysit' voters, on what basis can we say that its a good idea to allow those voters choose a Government?

[ManUnited]

"There may be many voters, but generally they don't know much about governance and political life - the fact that everyone has an opinion should not be interpreted as meaning that that all these opinions are well thought out, or of equal value."

How did you come to this conclusion?..

[Libero]

The provides statutory recognition of the fact that electoral success is more often than not a function of spending power, wherein if no limits were applied, it would be probable that political power would rest with the richest among us.

No. It could be said to provide recognition of the view that electoral success is a product of many factors, spending power being one of them. And that spending power acts to amplify other factors, e.g. a candidate's policy platform, personality, etc.

So if we need SIPO, and electoral spending limits, what does that say about the electorate?

To me it suggests that the electorate can't actually be trusted to make informed decisions about who they wish to represent them, and instead and more likely to vote on the basis of the sophisticated advertising techniques and full throttle electoral campaigns that the spending limits are designed to curtail.

It doesn't suggest exactly that to me.

Instead, it suggests that while voters can, overall, be trusted to make informed decisions, they should do so on the basis of a rough equality of information from and about the candidates. Spending limits are needed to ensure that the information feeding into voters' informed decisions isn't dominated by whoever can pay for the most campaign material, election workers, PR agents, etc.

Wanting this rough equality of information (or at least wanting to prevent a massive inequality of information) does not equal a lack of faith in the ability of the voters to then make informed decisions.

To me, this is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the democratic process. If you can trust a voter to make an informed decision, how can you trust them to make a decision at all?

Like I said, you're choosing to view election spending limits as a sign of no confidence in the ability of the average voter to make an informed decision. It is possible to view the limits, instead, as a desire to ensure that voters' informed decisions are informed by roughly equal (or at least not hugely unequal) amounts of information.

If we are willing to admit that we need to 'babysit' voters, on what basis can we say that its a good idea to allow those voters choose a Government?

Imagine you were asked to approve or disapprove of a form of competition, resulting in an award for the best music album released in Ireland in a give year.

Now imagine that this competition requires a select panel of judges to spend a minimum amount of time listening to each album?

Would you welcome this requirement as helping ensure the making of an informed decision? Or would you view it as indicative of a 'babysitting' approach, with the existence of the requirement - by itself - showing a lack of faith, and casting doubt on the ability of the judges to make a proper decision?

[Hillmanhunter1]

"There may be many voters, but generally they don't know much about governance and political life - the fact that everyone has an opinion should not be interpreted as meaning that that all these opinions are well thought out, or of equal value."

How did you come to this conclusion?..

Its not a conclusion, its an opinion, and I'm happy to acknowledge the relevance of my earlier quote from Josey Wales in this regard!

[hammer]

Most voters haven`t a clue about the big picture. NAMA, €20 BILLION DEFICITS, National Debt, Bonds, deflation etc........

More interested in tax cuts & pot holes.

[YoungLiberal]

Voters are stupid. It's not exactly news. Try talking to the average one about euthanasia, abortion, simple governance or basic economics. It's an absolute waste of time. They'll just sit there, dribbiling from their mouths. Alas, I can think of no better system than democracy.

[hammer]

And thats only the ones that vote

The other 50% that dont vote are seriously thick.

[YoungLiberal]

And thats only the ones that vote

The other 50% that dont vote are seriously thick.

"Democracy encourages the majority to decide things about which the majority is ignorant."-John Simon

Although perhaps there is hope....

"The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it."- Edward Dowling