The consequence of universal suffrage

Like Howard Stern or not, he has provided a useful insight into the perhaps fatal flaw of democracies: the unengaged, uneducated, unthinking voting population.  Surely the founding fathers did not anticipate that huge segments of the citizenry would remain essentially uninformed and yet have the right to vote.  What follows is the direct report with quotes from random interviews by Stern's staff of people on the street in Harlem.  The level of ignorance is appalling.  What's even more appalling is that these people have the vote.  From the article:

Howard Stern contributors Sal and Richard travel to Harlem to interview Obama supporters and ask them why they are voting for Obama. 

Stern and his crew ask denizens of Harlem various outrageous questions, including if they believe Obama will find and kill Osama bin Laden; if Romney is a Muslim and if Obama is a Mormon; if Obama made the right choice by picking Paul Ryan as his running mate and if he did it because he is black.

One interviewee was under the impression that 2008 Republican nominee John McCain is also running this time. 

"Just trust me, not one person knew that Osama bin Laden was dead," Stern said during the segment. 

"Well, we're obviously dealing with a whole population that doesn't listen to the newscasts or read a newspaper," co-host Robin Quivers said.

Alexis de Toqueville, an admirer and discerning critic of democracy, had this to say about universal suffrage:

Again, it may be objected that the poor never have the sole power of making the laws; but I reply that wherever universal suffrage has been established, the majority unquestionably exercises the legislative authority; and if it be proved that the poor always constitute the majority, may it not be added with perfect truth that in the countries in which they possess the elective franchise they possess the sole power of making the laws? It is certain that in all the nations of the world the greater number has always consisted of those persons who hold no property, or of those whose property is insufficient to exempt them from the necessity of working in order to procure a comfortable subsistence. Universal suffrage, therefore, in point of fact does invest the poor with the government of society.

He went on:

The disastrous influence that popular authority may sometimes exercise upon the finances of a state was clearly seen in some of the democratic republics of antiquity, in which the public treasure was exhausted in order to relieve indigent citizens or to supply games and theatrical amusements for the populace. It is true that the representative system was then almost unknown, and that at the present time the influence of popular passions is less felt in the conduct of public affairs; but it may well be believed that in the end the delegate will conform to the principles of his constituents and favor their propensities as much as their interests.

And further what happens when those with no "skin in the game" can vote themselves benefits:

Let us now suppose that the legislative authority is vested in the lowest order: there are two striking reasons which show that the tendency of the expenditures will be to increase, not to diminish.

As the great majority of those who create the laws have no taxable property, all the money that is spent for the community appears to be spent to their advantage, at no cost of their own, and those who have some little property readily find means of so regulating the taxes that they weigh upon the wealthy and profit the poor, although the rich cannot take the same advantage when they are in possession of the government.

In countries in which the poor have the exclusive power of making the laws, no great economy of public expenditure ought to be expected; that expenditure will always be considerable either because the taxes cannot weigh upon those who levy them or because they are levied in such a manner as not to reach these poorer classes. In other words, the government of the democracy is the only one under which the power that votes the taxes escapes the payment of them.

The consequence of robbing Peter to pay Paul:

In vain will it be objected that the true interest of the people is to spare the fortunes of the rich, since they must suffer in the long run from the general impoverishment which will ensue. . .

But lest you think de Toqueville, himself an aristocrat, did not truly believe in democracy and in capitalism:

The extravagance of democracy is less to be dreaded, however, in proportion as the people acquire a share of property, because, on the one hand, the contributions of the rich are then less needed, and, on the other, it is more difficult to impose taxes that will not reach the imposers.

In other words a rising tide lifts all boats because an opportunity culture provides social mobility while  redistribution saps incentives and eventually impoverishes everyone . In the end  the opportunity culture is the only way to create a successful democracy.