It's not wrong though. Most people don't care about politics. They don't research economics or anything like that, at best they hear the news sometimes and discuss stuff with their friends.

That doesn't make them sub-human. There is no real incentive to care a lot about politics or do all the research and thinking necessary to come to correct conclusions. It's not like your vote is going to change the outcome of the election.

But no it's not terribly self-aggrandizing to assume that most people don't have a lot of interest or education in politics. It's true.

This is precisely it: its not economically beneficial to be involved in politics, unless you basically make it your absolute sole concern. That is to say, there are clear benefits to becoming a politician, or a lobbyist, or interest group. However, just becoming "informed" generally has a lot of negatives (depression), with no real positives (as you said, its not like you can do much about it other than complain). So unless your goal is to make a living in politics in one way or another, it is completely rational to be apathetic towards politics and put your focus somewhere else.

>This is precisely it: its not economically beneficial to be involved in politics

That was the case at other times and places too. And their solution to that, was to shame citizens that only cared for what's economically beneficial.

The solution is to make active participation in politics (= active citizenship) a virtue that people want to be identified with in the same way being "in fashion", "in shape" or "rich" is one.

Of course we have the contrary. Active participation is actually discouraged -- except if you are a career politician.

A huge, enormous part of this is having a vigilant press. It's impossible for everyone to individually do investigative reporting on every relevant issue. You may be able to shame people into reading good investigative reporting but first somebody has to write it. That is really where we've failed today: People get their news from outlets that run stories about Obama's birth certificate and what color Phil Zimmerman's lawyer's tie is and what a shame it is that the cops have dirty shotguns (never mind that the dirt is the blood of innocent civilians' innocent puppies) so now we had better give them a trillion more dollars for additional military surplus equipment or the terrorists will win.

Job One should really be to solve the problem that the most popular news network is also the most factually inaccurate.

>Phil Zimmerman

Did you maybe mean George Zimmerman? That would be a more topical example of media stupidity.

Here in Brazil not only people are usually like that (the "shocking" protests here, were still a minority... 1 million people in total, spread over the entire country, when the country has 200 million people... Compare that with european countries with a history of population fueled government changes, that regularly do protests with more than 1 million people and have less population), but people in Brazil are PROUD of it.

Here when you attempt to talk about politics, a common reply is: "Dude, I don't care, and I like it that way, don't come with that politics bullshit toward me."

This applies even during the elections...

In fact, here vote is mandatory, because when it wasn't, less than 5% voted at all, but making vote mandatory only made the thing poisonous, people vote because they must, usually on whoever they see most on TV, or some random candidate or another, if you ask a random brazillian who he voted for as representative, most of them don't remember at all, not even the party they voted for.

Also we have plenty of proof, that all elections since electronics ballot were introduced here, were cheated, and people DON'T CARE. I show videos of people hacking our machines and showing how they can steer election to whatever way they want, and most people react with complete apathy, they feel that politics is irrelevant, that all politicians are the same, thus it does not matter if whoever wins won cheating or not, because the result is not important to them.

Obligatory Douglas Adams quote, from Thanks For All The Fish:

"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."

"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

"What?"

"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"

"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."

Ford shrugged again.

"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."

>In fact, here vote is mandatory, because when it wasn't, less than 5% voted at all

But voting being mandatory, is a very alarming thing. Does not sound like democracy at all. What happens, when one does not vote?

When you are a non-voter you can fix your situation by paying a fine.

If you stay non-voter, you cannot get hired by government, cannot ask loans from government owned banks (or from the government itself), cannot get issued a new passport, cannot get issued a new id, cannot vote, cannot study in government schools and universities, your companies cannot provide services to the government, and you are considered a draft dodger (ie: for example if you want to join a private school that requires you to have completed military service, the school would be breaking its own rules if it allow you to study there)

If you do that in three elections in a row (here we have elections every two years, thus this is 6 years) your document related to voting is revoked. (meaning that you become de facto stateless, although de jure you are still brazillian).

"government" here apply to all levels (example: the part where you cannot join government schools, apply to federal, state and city schools)

Also this applies to overseas citizens (you must to the embassy and vote there).

You can "justify" your vote, this is showing up into any random voting zone (not necessarily the one where you are registered) and explaining why you won't vote, but usually the only explanation accepted is that you are away from your zone (ie: if you are into a city where you are not registered as resident).

Mandatory voting is essential for a healthy democracy.

It's scary, because what do you do when 58% of the total electorate tick the "None of the above" option?

2001, 2005, and 2010 UK elections had less than 70% turn out. That's a scary 30% to 35% of people forced to tick a box.

I'm not sure having that many people randomly ticking a box is good for democracy, especially because it's probably not a random choice but determined things like position on the ballot paper.

Do you have an explanation for why OP is wrong beyond that you find his claim aesthetically displeasing?

If someone says "most people are peasants", why would that be a statement about their personality, rather than their situation? To me that's still an objection to something read into it.

Describing them as sheep seems a lot less dehumanizing than depicting them as out of their minds with fear.

In a strange twist, I think one of the problems is that the more we celebrate the American ideal and elevate it above other nations, etc., the more difficult it becomes for people to mobilize for change, or even believe that change is necessary.

It's a strange groupthink that makes anything our government does the de facto morally superior action. It's an inherent trust by the masses that turn questioners into conspiracy theorists. The irony, of course, is that mentaility among the populace is perhaps the single most destructive threat to a true democracy, which demands vigilance.

And all of this is propped up by a corporate-political state that controls a media, which works tirelessly to maintain the image while also distracting us to no end with trivialities.