Oh, my bad. 'We' in this case is the Netherlands.
Oh great. That means I have to mind my tongue or else I piss off the little woman and have to pay the penalty when I get home. I'm already in trouble for my tendency to use the word "Hollandaise" instead of "Dutch." But I refuse to stop.
At any rate, Dutch politics are made very different by a large number of factors.
Any system works better the smaller the scale of implementation. In the US, Local government is generally more responsive than state government, and state government (while sometimes problematic) is light-years more accountable than federal government. The Netherlands is approximately half the size of South Carolina and has about the equivalent population of Florida, and also has much more unified culture. Really, except for an (arguably) common language, there are many states in the US which are as disparate in culture and motivation as different member nations of the EU. Hell, just listen to how many people on this board alone (Americans, mind you) that harbor deep antipathy for Texas. But I digress. The larger the nation, the larger the bureaucratic governmental support structure, and the more cumbersome the whole thing becomes.
Oh, and also, not least importantly, you have umpteen bajillion political parties. If we had more than 2 (that actually get elected), we wouldn't have NEAR the problems we do either.
Oh, and don't you have a.. you know...
reigning monarch?
Anyway, back to questioning, I'm now wondering if there would be another way to ''raise the minimum standard of enfranchisement'' as you put it.
There certainly is. Myriad ways. That was just one I pulled out of a hat because it seemed to be the one most accessible to all walks of life - poor, rich, any ethnicity. Originally in this country, one had to be male, white, and own real estate to vote. These days that wouldn't fly, I don't think, to put it lightly.
Or should all those disabled people who would be refused from the draft just be ignored? And why, for that matter, people should be so patriotistic - "willing to die and kill for their country" - to be able to vote. In your hypothetical society, should immigrants never be able to vote if they keep hanging on to traditions from their old country? Should people who are planning to migrate be denied the right to vote?
Actually, in my "hypothetical society," military service would also be a fast track to citizenship as well as enfranchisement. As for the why the military, I've already said - it is an active demonstration that you are concerned enough about the course of the nation to risk your own well being and more on its behalf. As for the disabled, they're still citizens, just not enfranchised. It's not perfect but it'd be better than what we have now.
Or people who don't really know about politics?
These people are definitely high on my list of people who should not be voting.
Isn't the purpose of a democracy to represent all individuals of the state, not just the ones that are able of body and mind and will salute the flag?
We are not "a" democracy, we're a republic, though we use forms of government that are very democratic in nature. The purpose of our government is to, in the words of the founders, “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Note that these are all general terms. It is promote the
general welfare, not ensure well-being on and individual basis. That would be impossible. And it is also impossible to represent all individuals (even of a single small congressional district) as many of those individuals will have conflicting interests.
So no, the purpose is not to represent all individuals, otherwise there would be a national, universal vote on every issue. The purpose is to make sure that the government is in some way other than by the threat of uprising still be held accountable to the governed in general. If any given person does not feel the government is representing him, that does not give him license to act in contempt of it. It all comes down to a discussion of how we pick our leaders, and who gets to do the picking. That's not an absolute - we don't let felons vote for example. Once one understands there's a line drawn somewhere, it just is a question of where the line is drawn.
