Elected, yes. Thoughtful and responsible depends on your point of view. For example: there is a substantial contingent of people in the U.S. that want the country to be a Christian theocracy. (Most of these people believe that this is how things used to be, and they want to return to those halcyon days.) And so, unsurprisingly, these people vote for representatives who they think will advance that goal. So, for example, is Roy Moore "thoughtful and responsible"? If you're a member of this contingent then you probably think he is. If you're not, then you probably don't.
Likewise, there is a substantial contingent of people who are scared witless at the thought of terrorism, and think that it's worth trading in the odd civil right to insure that terrorists are not "free" to plot our destruction unmolested. There is a substantial contingent of people who are unrepentant racists who think black people are less than human and the root of all evil. Likewise for Muslims. All of these people not only don't care when "the bad guys" have their civil rights violated by the cops, they think it's a feature. They see the cops as courageous defenders of their point of view against the corrupting influence of pluralism and wussiness. The vaguaries of our electoral system make a difference at the margins (e.g. by gerrymandering) but none of these things would be possible if there were not millions of people who thought that it was good and proper.
The irony is that by blaming the system instead of acknowledging that the outcomes we see are the result of democracy working exactly as intended you are actually contributing to the problem, which is that everyone retreats into their echo chamber and spends their energy vilifying anyone who doesn't agree with them instead of working constructively to figure out how all 7+ billion of us are going to get along on this little planet.
But I am not blaming the system.
I pointed out bad faith actors in the system, which in my view, are contributing to the dysfunction of the process, and have poisoned political discourse in this nation. I don't remember the exact date when we crossed the threshold but do remember noting a somewhat abrupt introduction of extreme vulgarity and uncivility into televised political shows at some point in 90s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
The various POVs you mention are noted and point well taken. But were not these strains of thought present in the 80s, 70s, and before? I haven't watched TV in decades, but the few times I am exposed to it by force (visits to family, public spaces, etc.) my skin literally crawls, regardless of which point of view is being voiced. It's like the planet of the vulgarian apes. Don't you think the public that is exposed to this /garbage/ day after day has been conditioned to act in the same manner?
> Likewise, there is a substantial contingent of people who are scared witless at the thought of terrorism, and think that it's worth trading in the odd civil right to insure that terrorists are not "free" to plot our destruction unmolested.
This is the only POV that I find unacceptable. This view -- propagated from on high from -- is the factual "blaming the system". The clear subtext of this manufactured view is that our system is fragile and inadequate in face of enemies and needs corrective measures that alter the very nature of our system. Yes, the people were scared, but it was not the people who pulled the Patriot Act out of God knows where and passed it without even an attempt at deliberation.
They could have been offered other remedies, but were not. They could have been reassured by national leadership that we can prevail without disfiguring our national character, but were not.
Americans torturing and torture shows on cable TV.
Disgraceful.
Honestly, I've been finger-wagged out of an opinion or two, so "never" is too strong. Frankly, I challenge you to name any form of "political discourse" that regularly changes opinions. In my experience political discourse in general rarely accomplishes anything other than preach to the choir and cause opponents to dig in.
You were certainly wagging your finger at a fingerwagger.
You wrote:
> The 'actual problem' seems to be in the selection/delegation process.
That sounds like blaming the system to me.
(In case you're interested, Pierre Sallinger touches on the post '72 role of the media in the selection process in his 1995 c-span interview: https://www.c-span.org/video/?67372-1/ps-memoir [edit: jump to 44:56])
> The 'actual problem' seems to be in the selection/delegation process.
One has long suspected the insidious idea that the Founders etc. did such a Good Job that we mustn't criticize any current incarnation of the institutions and traditions they created. One used to hear this silly idea from "strict constructionists", but recently it seems to come mostly from devoted supporters of the status quo.
The free press is not objective, or benevolent, or ethical. Yes, parts of it may have started that way, but today's free press is merely free, in that it can and will say anything, within legal bounds. It ends up saying whatever gets the most eyeballs.
We need a better way to disseminate factual information to the public. Sadly, I have no idea how to do that.
https://theconversation.com/ has African, Australian, French, UK, US and global versions (but the African, US and global editions seem not to be donor-funded), Creative Commons licensing, and no advertising (but it does have sponsors).
I wonder how it would cope with a billion readers.
I'm sure part of the reason non land owners, slaves, women, etc. were not allowed to vote was in order to keep a certain group in power, but there have been many writers who correctly predicted what happens when everyone is allowed to vote:
"A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury."
The fact that you have something like 1/2 the citizens working and subsidizing the other half, along with our 24 hour news cycle that cannot be trusted anymore than Pravda at its worst, and I think we will probably look back and realize allowing everyone a vote is a bad idea, or no better than a monarchy or some other rule by a select few.
Not that I have a better idea, though
What states include being educated as an input to their voter eligibility determination?
The 'actual problem' seems to be in the selection/delegation process. The minority that is currently in charge has framed the question as that of "safety and security" vs liberties ("freedoms"). The corporate media (aka "journalists" and "free press") is more than happy to support this thesis. The "people", lets be frank here, were never expected to be a nation of Jeffersons. And it is unreasonable to expect them to be astute techno-political scientists carefully weighing various implications of technology and policy.
Other unelected minorities -- corporations such as Apple, Google, Facebook, ... -- could by fiat choose to only offer goods that preserve our liberties. They chose not to do so and arguably they are not under an obligation to do so. (Note arguably.)
Other unelected minorities -- technologists that work for the above -- have also elected to lend their talents to produce these systems, platforms, and devices that erode our liberties. Again, arguably they don't really have much choice in the matter, as we all must pay the proverbial rent.
So, imho, beyond the cliche that 'a people deserve their government' (which is a congenital defect of a political body), there remains the framework that was intended to select the best and brightest minority that would be entrusted with carefully considering various options. It is this framework that is currently broken. I accuse our so called "free press" for a playing a substantial role in the dysfunction of our political system.
There are other responsible parties for sure, but the press and media play a critical role in knowingly confusing and frightening the majority -- a role known as agitprop in the USSR.
[edit: noop cleanup]