jamest wrote:MacIver wrote:But to put it simply I believe everyone is principally equal, and thus everyone deserves the right to vote.
If everyone is equal, then no doubt you wouldn't mind if parliament was elected by lottery? I don't see how you could object to that, given your 'principles'. The problem with that, obviously, is that most people lack sufficient intelligence/knowledge/skills to be able to govern the country, so that if we acknowledge your principles and allow anyone to govern, then the country would soon be in freefall. This is just basic common sense - people who manage [in whatever capacity] need sufficient and necessary intelligence/knowledge/skills. In other words, people aren't 'equal', since it is evidently clear that some have the capacity to manage/govern and some don't.
Now, this reasoning can then be extended to the electorate: it is obvious that there is a diversity of capabilities amongst them, regarding intelligence and knowledge of politics. This is just a fact of life. There's no point in pretending that it aint so, Joe. However, this creates a problem, for if the majority of the electorate lack political savvy, then what happens is that the outcome of an election is fucked. It's akin to asking the kind of person who watches the X Factor and idolises Justin Bieber to vote for the best Classical composer. You'll get an
uninformed result. You'll get a result that favours looks and personality, for instance - since the voters [generally] know very-little about
that which they are supposed to be voting about.
This is a serious problem, because when it comes to electing people with the best intelligence/knowledge/skills to govern the country, the 'uninformed effect' will often thwart us. Indeed, if we consider the recent AV referendum in the UK, what happened was that the electorate -
in general not having sufficient in-depth knowledge to participate - voted anyway. But much of their vote was not about the issue-at-hand, but about their fear-of-change and their desire to kick the liberals up the arse. It was a fucking joke of a referendum, considering the seriousness of the issue in a longevity context.
So, there is some mileage in the OP, and anyone who spouts assertions like "We're all equal" is clearly talking through a brownish hole, garnished with a golden glitter. Universal suffrage does come at a cost for quality politics. This is not to say that all poor and working-class people should be excluded from voting. But I am of the opinion that politics should be taught at school and that nobody should be allowed to vote unless they pass some kind of exam which will prove that these people have a decent grasp of what politics is about at a broad level.
The most important people in the lives of any individual are the executive of its State. Politics and policies are the biggest influence on anyone's life. Our physical and societal environment has been constructed by politics. Politics has created the stage upon which everyone of us plays-out our lives. So don't tell me that 'principles of equality' - which are an utter fiction - should be the guiding-light by which we should elect our policymakers. Fuck that, I'd rather have a system which will provide me with expert policymakers, as opposed to popular ones.
Equality simply does not exist. There are more intelligent/knowledgeable/skillful/capable people than others. It's a fact that even Rawls understood when formulating his 'difference principle' and
A Theory of Justice.
Your problem is that you are conflating equality of rights with equality of capability, which is wrong. However, it is not wrong (imo) that you should want the best possible outcome for those of us who lack these capabilites. Rawls himself said that we should allow those best-able to enrich the economy, to do so, then provide for those who are unable to participate in that endeavour through taxation and such. In other words, equality and rights are not synonymous with one another.
If Rawls had extended his argument to suffrage, he would have had no choice other than to say "Let those best-able to elect our governers do so, that we might
all reap the good fruit of their minds". Rawls cannot advocate that we all go out and vote and individually suffer the effects thereof, any more than he can advocate that we should all be individually responsible for our economic circumstances. That we all have a right to share in what is best, does not necessarily mean that we all should be active in producing what is best.
Your problem is that you are conflating equality of rights with equality of capability, which is wrong. 
by 
