NationStates Jolt Archive

I was going to make the title "Should you actually be allowed to vote for or against somebody when you don't know their politics?", but that was too long.

Now, I'm most certainly not going into "Should women be allowed to vote", "Should old people be allowed to vote", "Should blacks be allowed to vote", etc.
But I am slightly worried about the motives some people have for casting their votes. And about the level of information they have about who they're voting for/against.
As you can imagine, the BBC and other European news channels are reporting extensively about the USAmerican election campaigns, and are trying to give a feeling for what USAmericans think and feel. Now, while I'm fully aware that all we get are sound bites and far from a complete picture, some of these short interviews left me feeling more than a little concerned.
There was a hunter who went to some length explaining how the US is currently fighting Muslims, and how that's why he wouldn't ever consider voting for Obama because he's a Muslim, too.
There was the mother and housewife who had been a strong Clinton-supporter, and who now told the camera how it was so great that at least the Republicans have a female she could go vote for. When asked about Palin's politics in particular regarding women's rights, the lady said she was "hard-working" and must be therefore a good person.
And then there was this pensioner, sitting in uniform in front of a flag and saying that he felt insulted by the way McCain used the fact that he had been a POW to fight the election with, which was why he himself would for the first time in his life vote Democrat.

I know (or at least I hope really really badly) that those people do not represent the majority of the voting public in the US. Or anywhere else, for that matter.
But it did lead me to an interesting question : Should there be a knowledge test making sure that anybody who votes actually KNOWs who and what they are voting for or against? A short questionaire about the politics of the candidates?

Far too easy to abuse. Not to mention the fact that voting rights based on knowledge and therefore education will also affect people at the lower end of the economic scale more than wealthier people.

EDIT: A questionnaire on the candidates political stances also suffers from the problem that the candidate's opinions have changed in the space of a few months.

Far too easy to abuse. Not to mention the fact that voting rights based on knowledge and therefore education will also affect people at the lower end of the economic scale more than wealthier people.

True, abuse is a good point.
But wouldn't it be in everybody's interest (including the voter's, especially if they're at the lower end of the economic scales) that people actually knew what they are voting for?

True, abuse is a good point.
But wouldn't it be in everybody's interest (including the voter's, especially if they're at the lower end of the economic scales) that people actually knew what they are voting for?

It would, but I wouldn't want it to be mandatory. Slippery slope, etc.

True, abuse is a good point.
But wouldn't it be in everybody's interest (including the voter's, especially if they're at the lower end of the economic scales) that people actually knew what they are voting for?

That would be nice but completely unfeasible I think. See my edit: what happens when you have candidates who have changed their opinions or are vague on them? How can you give the right answer?

But it did lead me to an interesting question : Should there be a knowledge test making sure that anybody who votes actually KNOWs who and what they are voting for or against? A short questionaire about the politics of the candidates?

It's a nice idea but unfortunately impractical, unenforcable and probably leading to more problems than it solves. Also, where do you put the line, do they need to know a few big policies, general stances, complete knowledge...?

However, I do think more can be done on the other end, ensuring that enough air-time is given to the policies rather than the people. Make sure that the issues are focused on and that candidates actually answer questions, not given free passes. Unfortunately you will always have those who vote based on general perception of the candidate or gut-feeling.

You will also have those (a bit more justifiably) who vote more based on the overall stance of the party rather than the individual candidate, certainly in senate/congress races or parliamentary systems where the impact at a national stage of one or another party controlling the house must be weighed against the impact of the specific candidate on a local level.

As the daughter of a 24%'er (i.e., one of the few people who still believes Bush is doing a good job), I firmly believe that voters should have to show at least basic understanding of the major issues and positions before voting. However, I recognize this would be easy to abuse and impossible to enforce.

True, abuse is a good point.
But wouldn't it be in everybody's interest (including the voter's, especially if they're at the lower end of the economic scales) that people actually knew what they are voting for?
Perhaps, but how would you accomplish it? The views of the candidates are being reported on endlessly, the information is out there on the Internet, along with rumor busting sites, and so on... how do you get people to pay attention when they don't want to?

That said, it should also be noted that the American election process is half-myth making, it's our traditional time to align ourselves as a nation to what we want to be, what myths we have decided to take to heart for the next four years.

Of course, I highly suspect every other democratic nation of doing the exact same thing and most voters choosing a party less on the platform of said party, and more how that party aligns with their wish for themselves as citizens of their respective nation.

True, abuse is a good point.
But wouldn't it be in everybody's interest (including the voter's, especially if they're at the lower end of the economic scales) that people actually knew what they are voting for?

Realistically, it would be better. I think people should know at least a bit about the candidates' politics before voting.

However, in terms of what's going to happen, there will never be a knowledge test or any other kind of test to vote in the US. There are too many bad memories about "literacy tests" that were given to black voters in the south, which were almost impossible to pass. Any talk about giving a test dredges up issues of historical racism, and that dooms it. I blame the Dixiecrats.

I was going to make the title "Should you actually be allowed to vote for or against somebody when you don't know their politics?", but that was too long.

Now, I'm most certainly not going into "Should women be allowed to vote", "Should old people be allowed to vote", "Should blacks be allowed to vote", etc.
But I am slightly worried about the motives some people have for casting their votes. And about the level of information they have about who they're voting for/against.
As you can imagine, the BBC and other European news channels are reporting extensively about the USAmerican election campaigns, and are trying to give a feeling for what USAmericans think and feel. Now, while I'm fully aware that all we get are sound bites and far from a complete picture, some of these short interviews left me feeling more than a little concerned.
There was a hunter who went to some length explaining how the US is currently fighting Muslims, and how that's why he wouldn't ever consider voting for Obama because he's a Muslim, too.
There was the mother and housewife who had been a strong Clinton-supporter, and who now told the camera how it was so great that at least the Republicans have a female she could go vote for. When asked about Palin's politics in particular regarding women's rights, the lady said she was "hard-working" and must be therefore a good person.
And then there was this pensioner, sitting in uniform in front of a flag and saying that he felt insulted by the way McCain used the fact that he had been a POW to fight the election with, which was why he himself would for the first time in his life vote Democrat.

I know (or at least I hope really really badly) that those people do not represent the majority of the voting public in the US. Or anywhere else, for that matter.
But it did lead me to an interesting question : Should there be a knowledge test making sure that anybody who votes actually KNOWs who and what they are voting for or against? A short questionaire about the politics of the candidates?


In short no. All those of elegible age should be allowed to vote.

I believe in a graduated income poll tax. And make it high enough % that the only people willing to pay to vote are people that are going to at least take it seriously. Perhaps buy voting shares much like a stock in a company. If this is a capitalist country lets really make it a capitalist country.

I believe in a graduated income poll tax. And make it high enough % that the only people willing to pay to vote are people that are going to at least take it seriously.

No man that is such a bad idea.

In short no. All those of elegible age should be allowed to vote.

Why do we make age the defining factor, though?
I would be perfectly happy to accept a vote from a 14-year-old, if they knew what the politics of their candidate are...

A knowledge vote, at face value, looks good. But then we get into the gummy issue of who would be administrating it, and how it could be kept incorruptible.

And then we also avoid the fact that it's not that people are simply ignorant. Ignorance is an easy enough thing to fix. It's that they are willfully ignorant that's the problem. Five second soundbites make lasting impressions on people, and they tend to tune out lengthy rebuttals backed with facts by filing it under "too long, too boring".

A pure fact requirement test before voting would elicit plenty of howls from quarters demanding that the facts are "lies" and their "facts" are true, nevermind that their facts are based off entirely five seconds of rhetoric.

A simple example of this would be say, the creationism and YEC movement.

I believe in a graduated income poll tax. And make it high enough % that the only people willing to pay to vote are people that are going to at least take it seriously. Perhaps buy voting shares much like a stock in a company. If this is a capitalist country lets really make it a capitalist country.

*lol
Well, if you ever wanted proof that capitalism has been abandoned for good long ago, here it is. And good riddance to it, too.

A knowledge vote, at face value, looks good. But then we get into the gummy issue of who would be administrating it, and how it could be kept incorruptible.

And then we also avoid the fact that it's not that people are simply ignorant. Ignorance is an easy enough thing to fix. It's that they are willfully ignorant that's the problem. Five second soundbites make lasting impressions on people, and they tend to tune out lengthy rebuttals backed with facts by filing it under "too long, too boring".

A pure fact requirement test before voting would elicit plenty of howls from quarters demanding that the facts are "lies" and their "facts" are true, nevermind that their facts are based off entirely five seconds of rhetoric.

A simple example of this would be say, the creationism and YEC movement.


How about using party programs as basis, then? Surely they can't object if they published it themselves?

Why do we make age the defining factor, though?
I would be perfectly happy to accept a vote from a 14-year-old, if they knew what the politics of their candidate are...

Naaa not I. At least wait until they have brain that has stopped with the whole teenage change thing.

Why do we make age the defining factor, though?
I would be perfectly happy to accept a vote from a 14-year-old, if they knew what the politics of their candidate are...

Simply because they gain a host of other citizenship privileges at that age, though perhaps this is an egg and hen type dealy.

However, among the already mentioned reasons for keeping a universal vote, is also the idea of accountability, imo. If you, as a society, become so degraded and feeble (especially now, in a time where information symmetry is higher than any other point in history and only continues to increase) that the uninformed, yet still interested enough to vote, are able to so completely determine an election outcome to the point that knowledge becomes irrelevant, it is a sign of social sickness that needs to be addressed from within. Look at it as a warning sign, or a symptom. It's good that diseases have symptoms, otherwise we'd be unaware that they're there.

Naaa not I. At least wait until they have brain that has stopped with the whole teenage change thing.

You know, I've met adults that were just as bad.
True, teenagers tend to be more convinced to the point of fanatism when it comes to how they see the world. But that may not necessarily be a bad thing.

How about using party programs as basis, then? Surely they can't object if they published it themselves?

And who would keep these party programs honest and not chock full of lies like we see in every election speech?

And who would keep these party programs honest and not chock full of lies like we see in every election speech?

I wouldn't go so far as to demand that people know which candidate is lying, really.
But I think if they're going to vote for someone, the least they can do is read through what the person SAID they were going to do...

I think it would be reasonable to test that people know at least the basics of the political system and possess a basic level of political knowledge before they are allowed to vote. It would have to be fact based though, it would be tricky to do it on the basis of knowing the policies of the candidates; after all, manifestos and other candidates presentation of their rivals policies are probably not neutral and trustworthy, so its hard to test on them.

EDIT: I know some people here, doing a politics course, who can't name any of the British Conservative or Liberal Democrat "shadow" cabinet/policy area representatives. That doesn't inspire much confidence in democracy.

You know, I've met adults that were just as bad.
True, teenagers tend to be more convinced to the point of fanatism when it comes to how they see the world. But that may not necessarily be a bad thing.

Indeed, me also. But sociaty dictates the age at which one is consided adult, and I don't belive that children should vote.

I wouldn't go so far as to demand that people know which candidate is lying, really.
But I think if they're going to vote for someone, the least they can do is read through what the person SAID they were going to do...

Which means that the party programs will be full of doublespeak then.

Seriously, how many people believed and remembered what their candidates said they were going to do, only to toss it out the other ear once they slid into power?

You're putting too much hope in the average voter being interested in facts and reality rather than the Disney-esque magic happy land they're willing to construct to deify the ones they support.

Yes, this is a gross generalization, but if Americans were largely the responsible sort who were really interested in the well being of their country and actively so, then knowledge tests wouldn't be necessary since they'd at least get off their asses to do some basic research. But they aren't. Most would rather sit and be spoon fed factoids and feel good lies, further helped along by a strong cultural sentiment of self centered responsibility free consumerism, so that they don't have to think, making a knowledge test an exercise in futility at best, and a mockery of the world knowledge at worst.

Come to think of it, this isn't something unique to Americans either.

I propose a random number generator pick the winner. However they can be rigged.

Therefore I shall also be devising a new random number generator consisting of Ballot boxes, ballots, and hundreds of thousands of Lunatic Goofballs clones.

How about making it to where people must pass a constitution test before the can vote. I know they do this in some states, in regards to people graduating high school. I figure that if you are intelligent enough to know how the government works, then you should be able to be intelligent enough to elect the right people to the positions in the government to make it work correctly.

Give Vampires the vote! :)

IIRC I suggested this on NSG before and got yelled at by other posters.....

Unfortunately, there's no easy answer. If you add in quizzes then it's bad for immigrants who only speak a relatively unknown language, but if you don't then you get people voting for Bush because they think he's the lead singer of Jimmy Eat World (http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20041026.html). I guess the best solution would be to have a nonpartisan committee post the major candidates' positions in important things in several languages. It doesn't force people to take a quiz, it makes them informed, and it gives them something to read if the lines are longer than they expected!

If you want to prevent people who don't have the faintest idea about the issues, and will vote according to whatever the media tells them, then you'd have to disenfranchise about 80% of the population on both sides of the Atlantic...

If you want to prevent people who don't have the faintest idea about the issues, and will vote according to whatever the media tells them, then you'd have to disenfranchise about 80% of the population on both sides of the Atlantic...

I don't mind if they're informed through the media.
But voting for or against someone based on absolutely fuck-all apart from "I like his face" seems frivolous to me.

That's why there is a lil' part on the ballads for "undecicive"



:hail: to the Kitti Empire!!!!

I don't mind if they're informed through the media.
But voting for or against someone based on absolutely fuck-all apart from "I like his face" seems frivolous to me.

And it is so, but don't you think it makes a mockery of the democratic process if we start to place conditions on who can vote?

Shouldn't I be allowed to vote for whomever I like, even if it is just because I like his face?

But it did lead me to an interesting question : Should there be a knowledge test making sure that anybody who votes actually KNOWs who and what they are voting for or against? A short questionaire about the politics of the candidates?
There's something interesting about this. It ensures that voting is done on the basis of a candidate's represented views, and prohibits the sort of "sticking to your own" kind of attitude your examples suggest. Demographic politics, in short, are eliminated.

However, the problem is that we're imposing a sort of selectivity, which doesn't quite gel. Why should the vote only go to those to whom the answers to certain questions can be easily memorised?

I have an answer. Anonymous representation.

It works like this. Each candidate releases and is associated with a brief summary of their positions on key issues and perhaps a short record of their voting and employment history. At the polling station, what the voter receives is the summaries, each of which is associated simply with the names "Candidate A", "Candidate B..." etc. The voter reads these summaries and places a vote for the anonymous candidate of their choice.

Consequently, the influence of party politics is reduced, the race and gender barrier eliminated, and people find that their vote accurately reflects their opinions rather than being blinded by their prejudices.

And it is so, but don't you think it makes a mockery of the democratic process if we start to place conditions on who can vote?

Shouldn't I be allowed to vote for whomever I like, even if it is just because I like his face?

I'm not sure allowing people to vote who have no idea about what their chosen candidate actually stands for politically isn't actually more of a mockery.

Look at it this way : Banks don't give people loans just because they like their faces. The applicants need to provide their credit history, income, etc, and the bank decides on that basis.
If they don't do that, we end up in situations like the one we are in now.
Banks/voters ignorantly deciding who to give credit/power to doesn't usually end well...

If you require a knowledge test before voting, here's an idea - the test should test the person's knowledge of how the government system works, and it should include a few question from international sources, regarding world views on America. In other words, require the voter to take time and learn about the rest of the world and how that vote will affect it.

Have a small pamphlet at the station, that the people can read before they take the test. Give them a test on a scantron card then once the result is clear then they can either have their ballot or not...

It sounds strange but I have a friend in Calgary who like me after voting in the advance polls said that she is more concern with the outcome of the American election than the Canadian because here we're just going to face another minority. The Americans' choice affects the world.

If you have a 'knowlege test' to decide who can vote who decides what level of knowledge is needed before someone can vote? How do you define knowledge for the purposes of an exam? How do you ensure that the disenfranchised remain integrated with and accepting of this new system that openly does not take their views into account?

If you have a 'knowlege test' to decide who can vote who decides what level of knowledge is needed before someone can vote? How do you define knowledge for the purposes of an exam? How do you ensure that the disenfranchised remain integrated with and accepting of this new system that openly does not take their views into account?

Basic literacy. So, if you passed any civics/history class in high school, you should be able to understand. If you watch more than FOX and CNN you will be fine.

I'm not sure allowing people to vote who have no idea about what their chosen candidate actually stands for politically isn't actually more of a mockery.

Look at it this way : Banks don't give people loans just because they like their faces. The applicants need to provide their credit history, income, etc, and the bank decides on that basis.
If they don't do that, we end up in situations like the one we are in now.
Banks/voters ignorantly deciding who to give credit/power to doesn't usually end well...


True, and I do agree with you, but banks and the democratic process are hardly alike.

What is more important for democracy, that all get to voice their opinion, or that this right should be extended only to a chosen few?

Surly that's a step backwards?

No. Absolutely not. Elections are not just about choosing our leaders, but also about holding the government accountable to the populace. Even the stupid portion of the population. Just because someone is more ignorant than me does not me that they are less affected by the folks in charge, and therefore should get some say about how he or she is governed, even if it simply proves the ignorance of the democratic citizen.

By providing such a test, you are basically saying that only people with a certain amount of knowledge should be able to fully particpate in the democratic duty of keeping our leaders accountable.

Basic literacy. So, if you passed any civics/history class in high school, you should be able to understand. If you watch more than FOX and CNN you will be fine.
British history classes focus almost exclusively on foreign history, to the point where (at Sheffield Uni at least) Nazis and Communists are departmental no-go areas and bear no relevance to knoweledge of the British system of government. Civics classes no not exist. I'm not saying this is right or a good thing, but on a practical level in the UK this would make it difficult - a new course exam would have to be devised and I doubt the government wants to pay for and mark exams for 60 million people.

My other problem would be allowing the government to define who and who can't vote. If it were found by external surveys that people who have a lower knowledge 'score' in an exam tend to vote Labour and there is a Conservative government, that creates an immediate conflict of interest when the Conservative government has to approve of next year's examination. I don't necessarily think this would happen - the trend in the 19th and 20th centuries was to increase the franchise in order to bribe the newly enfranchised into voting for you - but it's a risk I don't want to take.

And it is so, but don't you think it makes a mockery of the democratic process if we start to place conditions on who can vote?

Shouldn't I be allowed to vote for whomever I like, even if it is just because I like his face?

No.

I am firmly in support of more restrictions on the voting process. It may be unfeasible, but it is a good idea, I think, to at least attempt to cut down on the amount of uninformed votes.

No.

I am firmly in support of more restrictions on the voting process. It may be unfeasible, but it is a good idea, I think, to at least attempt to cut down on the amount of uninformed votes.
This is the problem I've been talking about before. How do you decide who is an 'uninformed' voter?

And - out of interest - how many people who want to restrict voting to the Elect consider themselves uninformed?

I was going to make the title "Should you actually be allowed to vote for or against somebody when you don't know their politics?", but that was too long.

Now, I'm most certainly not going into "Should women be allowed to vote", "Should old people be allowed to vote", "Should blacks be allowed to vote", etc.
But I am slightly worried about the motives some people have for casting their votes. And about the level of information they have about who they're voting for/against.
As you can imagine, the BBC and other European news channels are reporting extensively about the USAmerican election campaigns, and are trying to give a feeling for what USAmericans think and feel. Now, while I'm fully aware that all we get are sound bites and far from a complete picture, some of these short interviews left me feeling more than a little concerned.
There was a hunter who went to some length explaining how the US is currently fighting Muslims, and how that's why he wouldn't ever consider voting for Obama because he's a Muslim, too.
There was the mother and housewife who had been a strong Clinton-supporter, and who now told the camera how it was so great that at least the Republicans have a female she could go vote for. When asked about Palin's politics in particular regarding women's rights, the lady said she was "hard-working" and must be therefore a good person.
And then there was this pensioner, sitting in uniform in front of a flag and saying that he felt insulted by the way McCain used the fact that he had been a POW to fight the election with, which was why he himself would for the first time in his life vote Democrat.

I know (or at least I hope really really badly) that those people do not represent the majority of the voting public in the US. Or anywhere else, for that matter.
But it did lead me to an interesting question : Should there be a knowledge test making sure that anybody who votes actually KNOWs who and what they are voting for or against? A short questionaire about the politics of the candidates?

i've often wondered the same thing. i tend to ignore it, but its not a bad idea.


i remember on the news in the last US election, a bunch of guys were interviewed at a car race of some sort in one of the Dakotas. they were saying how they were going to vote for G. W. Bush because of how much of an 'ordinary joe' he was, and how he seems like the kind of guy they'd invite to a barbeque or have a beer with. i remember thinking then, i don't want the person running my country to be the sort of guy i could have a drink with...

but i bet you can find a bunch of stupid people over here who have all kinds of stupid reasons for voting the way they do. i have a friend who said, a few years back, that he was voting UKIP (UK Indipendence Party - mild right wing nationalists) in the next election. when i asked why he eventually answered that the local high street looks really run down, and that it used to be better before New Labour got in power. when i asked what this had to do with Europe, he just said 'it all comes from the EU' and 'the immigrants taking jobs', and that was why only the UKIP (or BNP, he was tempted) would do. i was largely ignored when i pointed out the steady economic growth the UK had been experiencing for the previous few years at that time. he read the Daily Mail... daily.

long story short: lots of stupid people are everywhere.

No broads, no blacks, no Irish.

This is the problem I've been talking about before. How do you decide who is an 'uninformed' voter?

And - out of interest - how many people who want to restrict voting to the Elect consider themselves uninformed?

All I ask is a simple quiz that has questions like

"What is the electoral college?"

a. Popularly elected representatives who formally select the President and Vice President of the United States.

b. A presidentially appointed board responsible for overseeing the election of supreme court justices.

c. A university establishment in Washington D.C. within which presidents gain a basic understanding of the more important aspects of their new job.

True, and I do agree with you, but banks and the democratic process are hardly alike.

What is more important for democracy, that all get to voice their opinion, or that this right should be extended only to a chosen few?

Surly that's a step backwards?

I think an opinion ought to based on some sort of minimum of information, otherwise it is bound to be more destructive than helpful to the democratic process.

If I remember my school years correctly, "information of the public on political issues and stands" in Germany is a duty of the parties. That doesn't mean that there is any sort of test like I'm talking about in this thread, but it does mean that parties are obliged to make their politics available and to go to some length to ensure that the information reaches the vast majority of the population.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to include the duty to inform into the ele4ction process? And with it a duty to be informed to some extend?

Who should be allow to vote?

A small confederation of warlords.

My other problem would be allowing the government to define who and who can't vote. If it were found by external surveys that people who have a lower knowledge 'score' in an exam tend to vote Labour and there is a Conservative government, that creates an immediate conflict of interest when the Conservative government has to approve of next year's examination. I don't necessarily think this would happen - the trend in the 19th and 20th centuries was to increase the franchise in order to bribe the newly enfranchised into voting for you - but it's a risk I don't want to take.

Ok, now, this confuses me. Is there no separation between the government and the state/administration in the UK?
Surely there must be such a thing as independent departments? If not, who makes sure that elelctions are run to democratic and legal standards?

No.

I am firmly in support of more restrictions on the voting process. It may be unfeasible, but it is a good idea, I think, to at least attempt to cut down on the amount of uninformed votes.

No I couldn't disagree more. The vote is for all citersens, to make it exclusive to an elite of any kind for any reason is not democratic. Might as well have stuck with the monarchies.

This is the problem I've been talking about before. How do you decide who is an 'uninformed' voter?

And - out of interest - how many people who want to restrict voting to the Elect consider themselves uninformed?

I'm not them most informed person, certainly not.
But then, I would never go and vote for a party because I've always voted for them, and before voting I would inform myself on who stands for what.

That's really all I would like to see in all voters, really. At least a basic knowledge of WHAT they are voting for, not just WHO.

But voting for or against someone based on absolutely fuck-all apart from "I like his face" seems frivolous to me.

I once voted for a port water commissioner because I like his name. Does that count? But honestly, the port water commissioner affects no one, least of all me.

No I couldn't disagree more. The vote is for all citersens, to make it exclusive to an elite of any kind for any reason is not democratic. Might as well have stuck with the monarchies.

Well, no, as a matter of fact, it's not.
It's for citizens of a certain age and with a certain level of mental clarity (meaning that if you're suffering from certain mental illnesses, you're not eligible to vote). Another criterium in some nations is not currently being in jail, and sometimes not ever having been to jail.
It's not a straight-out right for everybody, even in the most democratic countries, sorry.

That's really all I would like to see in all voters, really. At least a basic knowledge of WHAT they are voting for, not just WHO.

Note that in US politics the WHO and WHAT are practically indistinguishable. The parties are merely background noise; instead of the other way around.

I think an opinion ought to based on some sort of minimum of information, otherwise it is bound to be more destructive than helpful to the democratic process.

If I remember my school years correctly, "information of the public on political issues and stands" in Germany is a duty of the parties. That doesn't mean that there is any sort of test like I'm talking about in this thread, but it does mean that parties are obliged to make their politics available and to go to some length to ensure that the information reaches the vast majority of the population.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to include the duty to inform into the ele4ction process? And with it a duty to be informed to some extend?

Yes yes indeed, but let me make myelf clear here. I'm all in favour of reforms to the current way we do things, I don't think that should include any type exclusion, otherwise that just isn't democracy is it?

It seems to me that those who are arguing for some sort of test are ignorant as to what purposes elections serve in a democracy. By the logic of these people, they shouldn't be allowed to vote either.

Yes yes indeed, but let me make myelf clear here. I'm all in favour of reforms to the current way we do things, I don't think that should include any type exclusion, otherwise that just isn't democracy is it?

But we are already excluding people, and a large percentage of the entire population at that.
We allow voting for people without criminal record and without severe mental disabilities who are legal citizens of the nation only.
This excludes tax-paying, resident immigrants who don't have the citizenship (for whatever reason), it excludes children, it excludes mental patients, it excludes prison inmates and people with a criminal record. What would you say that sums up as, percentagewise?

It seems to me that those who are arguing for some sort of test are ignorant as to what purposes elections serve in a democracy. By the logic of these people, they shouldn't be allowed to vote either.

Enlighten me. What purpose do elections serve?

Well, no, as a matter of fact, it's not.
It's for citizens of a certain age and with a certain level of mental clarity (meaning that if you're suffering from certain mental illnesses, you're not eligible to vote). Another criterium in some nations is not currently being in jail, and sometimes not ever having been to jail.
It's not a straight-out right for everybody, even in the most democratic countries, sorry.

Ahh okay, I of course knew this, but I had thought it not worth mentioning and had hoped that you would gleam these exceptions as a matter of course.:D

But we are already excluding people, and a large percentage of the entire population at that.
We allow voting for people without criminal record and without severe mental disabilities who are legal citizens of the nation only.
This excludes tax-paying, resident immigrants who don't have the citizenship (for whatever reason), it excludes children, it excludes mental patients, it excludes prison inmates and people with a criminal record. What would you say that sums up as, percentagewise?


You do know that people with criminal records ARE still allowed to vote?

%wise less than 5%?

I support the right of every moron, genius, and regular person to vote. I support the right of people to not bother. That's the amazing balancing act of the vote. Somehow, the wisdom of the whole prevails.

Where I run into uncertainty is the issue of age. Should 18 (as it is here) be the magical age of enfranchisement? Is it just, or even sensical to deny minors the vote?

Is fourteen too young? Sixteen? When asking this question, what am I really trying to figure out? What 'capacity' am I after? Maturity? Age does not guarantee this, or even necessarily make it more likely. Political understanding? Ditto.

Ahh okay, I of course knew this, but I had thought it not worth mentioning and had hoped that you would gleam these exceptions as a matter of course.:D

Hehe... as if!
See, all I'm suggesting if it wouldn't make sense to make a level of knowledge about the politics and issues that are being decided over in any given election the basis of the right to vote, rather than the age of the voters. It would seem to make more sense to me.

You do know that people with criminal records ARE still allowed to vote?

%wise less than 5%?

I can't say for sure, but I've heard of nations where they aren't allowed. I'll have to go dig for more information on that.

And if you think that persons under 18 make up less than 5% of the entire population I would say you greatly underestimate the human reproductive insitnct. :D

I don't mind if they're informed through the media.
But voting for or against someone based on absolutely fuck-all apart from "I like his face" seems frivolous to me.

So?

You seem to be arguing that with the right to vote, comes the responsibility to vote 'well', however you define that. Understanding the issues perhaps.

I don't agree this is necessary. Ultimately, however a person comes to their decision, I believe the exercise of their right to vote is valid. If they want to ask Svenka the Croatian psychic down the hall who to vote for...why not?

Democracy is not about a highly educated populace making nuanced political decisions...if we had that sort of system, then voting would be considered the least of our political expressions, rather than the height of them.

Hehe... as if!
See, all I'm suggesting if it wouldn't make sense to make a level of knowledge about the politics and issues that are being decided over in any given election the basis of the right to vote, rather than the age of the voters. It would seem to make more sense to me.

It would also make more sense to value some votes more than others. After all, we do that for almost everything else already.

Take medicine for example. Mr X feels a bit bad, so he asks quite a few randomly selected people what he should do about it. Of those, 70% says "do nothing, it will pass", 20% says "take this medication" en 10% says "go to the hospital NOW!".

Democracy indicates he should do nothing. But is that still the best course of action to take if all the medical professionals in his sample group are amongst that 10% that wants him to go to hospital ?

I agree with that. I'm not talking about creating an elite, just about a simple screening process to remove a small part of the most ignorant of votes. "George-Bush-votes", as it were. ;)

No I couldn't disagree more. The vote is for all citersens, to make it exclusive to an elite of any kind for any reason is not democratic. Might as well have stuck with the monarchies.

All citizens, but not people under age 18. Right.

Hehe... as if!
See, all I'm suggesting if it wouldn't make sense to make a level of knowledge about the politics and issues that are being decided over in any given election the basis of the right to vote, rather than the age of the voters. It would seem to make more sense to me.

It does make sense, but I still disagree with it.

It is up to the individual to educate themselves on parties and policies, if a voter votes becuase of an arbiturary reason, particularly an uneducated one, then that is their right, and I'll not take it away from them.

I can't say for sure, but I've heard of nations where they aren't allowed. I'll have to go dig for more information on that.

And if you think that persons under 18 make up less than 5% of the entire population I would say you greatly underestimate the human reproductive insitnct. :D

No those under the age didn't even factor into it, I was only including those adults who for some reason or other are not legible to vote.

Enlighten me. What purpose do elections serve?

One of them is to hold the current governemnt accountable to its people. All of its people. Even the ignorant ones. You don't have to know what the electoral college is to know that Bush has done a bad job. And Bush should be, and is, accountable to both those who know what the EC is and those who do not. You are suggesting that the governemnt need only hold itself accountable to a portion of the population even though their policies affect everyone.

I agree with that. I'm not talking about creating an elite, just about a simple screening process to remove a small part of the most ignorant of votes. "George-Bush-votes", as it were. ;)



All citizens, but not people under age 18. Right.

Correct.

So..... You've just undermined your entire argument, yes?

So, is there any argument for such tests?

One of them is to hold the current governemnt accountable to its people. All of its people. Even the ignorant ones. You don't have to know what the electoral college is to know that Bush has done a bad job. And Bush should be, and is, accountable to both those who know what the EC is and those who do not. You are suggesting that the governemnt need only hold itself accountable to a portion of the population even though their policies affect everyone.
The thing is, accountability doesn't work if people don't vote on the basis of policy. If people just vote for whoever makes better viewing, your successes and failures in government have no impact whatsoever on whether or not you'll be re-elected.

Which is why voting should be about issues. If government is fighting to represent the direction that people want a country to go in, rather than put on a happy evening TV show for them to watch, then it really will actually act as though it was accountable to its people, instead of plodding on like political dinosaurs for 3 years then turning into daytime soapstars.

So..... You've just undermined your entire argument, yes?

No not at all, read up the thread a bit pay attention to myself and Cabra's little tooing and throwing, there are of course some exceptions that are so common knowldge that to mention them only confuses the matter and leads to asides like this one.

So, is there any argument for such tests?

The fact that people are willing to decide the fate of America, and, by extension, that of the world, on the basis of how someone's face looks is absolutely appalling. Surely you can understand this?

The fact that people are willing to decide the fate of America, and, by extension, that of the world, on the basis of how someone's face looks is absolutely appalling. Surely you can understand this?
That's not an argument for testing, though. That's an argument in favour of hiding the person's face from the voters.

The fact that people are willing to decide the fate of America, and, by extension, that of the world, on the basis of how someone's face looks is absolutely appalling. Surely you can understand this?

Surely you can understand that even if .01% of people actually make their decision on that alone, totally divorced from their socio-economic environment, completely and utterly unable to draw any connections between their own lives and the government currently in power...that you still haven't explained why that .01% of people should be disenfranchised?

A lot of people simply vote against the current government, or for it, depending on how their lives have either improved or not over the last four years. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this sort of 'intuitive' voting.

No not at all, read up the thread a bit pay attention to myself and Cabra's little tooing and throwing, there are of course some exceptions that are so common knowldge that to mention them only confuses the matter and leads to asides like this one.

OK, here's my problem:

It does make sense, but I still disagree with it.

It is up to the individual to educate themselves on parties and policies, if a voter votes becuase of an arbiturary reason, particularly an uneducated one, then that is their right, and I'll not take it away from them.

In this answer to Cabra you say that having a purely democratic voting process is an ideal far more important to you than real issues that affect the running of the country. I cannot agree with this, because as far as I can tell it is an idealistic opinion that has no practical use, and is, in fact, damaging to the system and therefore the country.

The thing is, accountability doesn't work if people don't vote on the basis of policy. If people just vote for whoever makes better viewing, your successes and failures in government have no impact whatsoever on whether or not you'll be re-elected.

Which is why voting should be about issues. If government is fighting to represent the direction that people want a country to go in, rather than put on a happy evening TV show for them to watch, then it really will actually act as though it was accountable to its people, instead of plodding on like political dinosaurs for 3 years then turning into daytime soapstars.

So - would it be an idea to keep presidential candidates secret ? They can explain their ideas and such through the media - but no personal display.

The thing is, accountability doesn't work if people don't vote on the basis of policy. If people just vote for whoever makes better viewing, your successes and failures in government have no impact whatsoever on whether or not you'll be re-elected.

Which is why voting should be about issues. If government is fighting to represent the direction that people want a country to go in, rather than put on a happy evening TV show for them to watch, then it really will actually act as though it was accountable to its people, instead of plodding on like political dinosaurs for 3 years then turning into daytime soapstars.

So then have we got any reliable figures on how many voters vote this way or for reasons that some of us *cough* Cabra *cough* may find less than desireable?:D

Surely you can understand that even if .01% of people actually make their decision on that alone, totally divorced from their socio-economic environment, completely and utterly unable to draw any connections between their own lives and the government currently in power...that you still haven't explained why that .01% of people should be disenfranchised?

A lot of people simply vote against the current government, or for it, depending on how their lives have either improved or not over the last four years. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this sort of 'intuitive' voting.


Yeah spot on. Bearing in mind that the initial post was based on nowt more than subjective experiance, tnen I can argue that each and everytime I consider my vote, and each and every person I talk to or discuss politics with when the time approches have valid thought out reasons.

Okay some of them not well thought out, but honestly I don't know one single person who has voted for a stupid reason.

Ok, now, this confuses me. Is there no separation between the government and the state/administration in the UK?
Surely there must be such a thing as independent departments? If not, who makes sure that elelctions are run to democratic and legal standards?
There are. I can think offhand of the Electoral Commission, Local Government Boundary Commissions, Constituency Boundary Commissions and the Judicial Nominations Commission. But these are all created by Parliament and, just like any other statutory body, can be abolished by Parliament or have their remit modified. Furthermore, most of their activities have to be approved by Parliament or a minister by Order in Council.

So, to address the point behind this, I don't think that our constitutional framework (or any constitutional framework) offers enough independence to prevent a conflict of interest in setting the threshold to which the would be voter has to pass.

I'm not them most informed person, certainly not.
But then, I would never go and vote for a party because I've always voted for them, and before voting I would inform myself on who stands for what.

That's really all I would like to see in all voters, really. At least a basic knowledge of WHAT they are voting for, not just WHO.
I would see that too. The BNP would melt away in my constituency. I don't know whether I would count as being 'informed' or not (obviously the term being so varied and subjective) but tend to vote based on where parties stand on issues. However, I see no reason why anyone should be accountable to me or the government for their vote or the reasoning they use behind that vote.

OK, here's my problem:
In this answer to Cabra you say that having a purely democratic voting process is an ideal far more important to you than real issues that affect the running of the country. I cannot agree with this, because as far as I can tell it is an idealistic opinion that has no practical use, and is, in fact, damaging to the system and therefore the country.


You are of course entilted to feel this way. In fact that is not what I belive, I do belive that the process of democracy is the best way we have at the momnet, I do feel that things should change, and that how it all works at the moment is not idea. I don't belive that we should exclude anybody the chance to vote based on their intelegence or perceived understanding of politics.


I belive this way because our history shows that democracy is by far the best methoed(as of yet) of fair governance, that we should all have a voice is hardly idealistic.

Can you show me the type of damage you are talking about though? Can you show that it is the fault of careless voters?

That's not an argument for testing, though. That's an argument in favour of hiding the person's face from the voters.

You have to realize that the only "test" I am arguing for would be a simple affair that makes sure that the person voting has at least a rudimentary understanding of the main issues of the day, and perhaps of the basic way the government works. This "test" would have to be carefully constructed so that anyone could pass after perhaps an hour of self-education -- the equivalent, perhaps, of opening a newspaper.


Neesika:

Surely you can understand that even if .01% of people actually make their decision on that alone, totally divorced from their socio-economic environment, completely and utterly unable to draw any connections between their own lives and the government currently in power...that you still haven't explained why that .01% of people should be disenfranchised?

Simply for the sake of the people who will be adversely affected by these ignorant votes. The dead Iraqi civilians, people who have lost their homes as a result of a failure of governmental economic policy, to give a few common examples. I don't think that people should be allowed to make extremely important decisions about the fate of the world on the basis of how much they like the body-language of someone.

A lot of people simply vote against the current government, or for it, depending on how their lives have either improved or not over the last four years. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this sort of 'intuitive' voting.

Neither do I. The "test" I advocate would pose no trouble at all to people like this. It's aimed at that 0.01% you mentioned.

Neesika:

Simply for the sake of the people who will be adversely affected by these ignorant votes. The dead Iraqi civilians, people who have lost their homes as a result of a failure of governmental economic policy, to give a few common examples. I don't think that people should be allowed to make extremely important decisions about the fate of the world on the basis of how much they like the body-language of someone. You're making the unfounded assumption that disenfranchising these people would result in outcomes that are not as bad. I could not possibly support the elimination of such a vital democratic right on the 'belief' that things would be 'better' if idiots didn't vote. Sorry.



Neither do I. The "test" I advocate would pose no trouble at all to people like this. It's aimed at that 0.01% you mentioned.
And would work how? What are you testing for exactly? What quality do you believe a person needs to have in order to have the right to vote?

I don't belive that we should exclude anybody the chance to vote based on their intelegence or perceived understanding of politics.

Oh, me neither. The only intelligence necessary to pass this "test" would be that which is required to have someone read a newspaper to you.

Neither do I. The "test" I advocate would pose no trouble at all to people like this. It's aimed at that 0.01% you mentioned.

Heh and here it is. If it truely is such a tiny minority then how can their vote change anything?

And would work how? What are you testing for exactly? What quality do you believe a person needs to have in order to have the right to vote?

Simply a basic understanding of the major issues of the day. The current economic crisis, for example.

Heh and here it is. If it truely is such a tiny minority then how can their vote change anything?

I'm not sure it really is that small. This is America, after all. ;)

In all seriousness, my uncle knew who he would vote for in the 2008 election even in 2007, because the only thing he cares to educate himself (or not educate himself, actually) about is abortion. He is otherwise an intelligent, educated, well-off citizen of America.

I think that there ought to be a basic civics and citizenship course as part of the mandatory curriculum in all high schools. If you choose not to learn the system, history and purpose of our political system, or if you are too dim to understand it, then you will not be allowed to vote or otherwise take part in politics. You can maintain all the other rights and privileges of citizenship, you just won't be allowed to pollute the leadership pool with your ignorance.

The problem is that this idea is contrary to what we claim our political ideals are. The ultimate reality is that, in an unrestricted democracy, the majority wins--and the majority of humanity (in ANY country) is poorly educated, driven by poorly defined or thought out personal biases and too busy with the day to day struggle for survival (working, childcare, housework, paying bills...) to be bothered with educating themselves about the issues and views of not just one but many candidates. This is why parties dominate a campaign, instead of individuals, and why the "discussion" of issues follow a pattern of simple polarization along party lines instead of actual thought. It's why a two party system dominates and why viable third or fourth parties never get past a "grass roots" stage. It's why the conservative Christian hunter in Alabama will vote against his own family's economic interests in order to support a republican pro-gun/anti-abortion candidate.

Ultimately, Democracy means a rule by the masses--and the masses are stupid.

I think that there ought to be a basic civics and citizenship course as part of the mandatory curriculum in all high schools.


Don't know where you are but over here we have had that for years.

Simply a basic understanding of the major issues of the day. The current economic crisis, for example. How would you measure that? What questions would be asked? How would you pay for the administration of such a huge undertaking? And once again, how do you justify the need for such a test at all? A vague belief that the outcomes would be 'better' is not enough. Not even close.

In all seriousness, my uncle knew who he would vote for in the 2008 election even in 2007, because the only thing he cares to educate himself (or not educate himself, actually) about is abortion. He is otherwise an intelligent, educated, well-off citizen of America.


But that is his right is it not. To vote for the party or candidate that shares his views on a subject that he feels strongly about and makes a promise to do what he thinks is the best thing to do.

Myself I started voting for the same party my dad did, just because I was young and I thought well my dad does I should too.

It was only a year or two after that, that I discovered the reasons for dad's vote where and still are valid and so I still vote similar to my dad.

Ultimatly your vote is your choice, and your reasons for your vote are yours, and yours to make known or keep secret.

How would you measure that? What questions would be asked? How would you pay for the administration of such a huge undertaking?

Well, I have not given a great deal of thought to the form of the quiz, but I'm sure that for a relatively small cost a number of professionals of some sort could create a very short test that meets the requirements.

And once again, how do you justify the need for such a test at all? A vague belief that the outcomes would be 'better' is not enough. Not even close.

Presumably people who know what their votes mean are more likely to create positive change than people who don't, since most people are interested in improving a given situation and people who know anything at all about something are better able to effect desired change upon it than people who don't. To stray into the realm of analogy, take two people, and give each a car:

The first person, who happens to know how to drive a car, is more likely to be able to use the vehicle in a positive way (maybe he wants to drive to the market to buy a roast ham) than the second person, who perhaps doesn't even know how to open the door.

Don't know where you are but over here we have had that for years.

Northeast US - and yes, technically we had civics classes teaching us to memorize how bills are passed, what the electoral college is, etc. What it didn't teach was why these things are important, the philosophical ideas behind the Bill of Rights, or how to think critically about a candidate's platform and how that platform relates to the needs of your life (then again the idea of critical thinking is lacking across the board in our educational system...but that's a topic for another thread).

Well, I have not given a great deal of thought to the form of the quiz, but I'm sure that for a relatively small cost a number of professionals of some sort could create a very short test that meets the requirements. A relatively small cost?

You would need to administer this test to every enfranchised person in the country. Would it be a one-of test? Or would it be done every voting year?

If you want to start stripping away Constitutional rights, basic human rights as recognised by the international community...then you had better think it out.





Presumably people who know what their votes mean are more likely to create positive change than people who don't, since most people are interested in improving a given situation and people who know anything at all about something are better able to effect desired change upon it than people who don't.
Let's just accept your presumption and point out the obvious. 'Positive change' might mean 'going to Iraq' for one voter and 'staying out of Iraq' for another.

You are falling into the trap of believing that if people were smarter, they'd vote how you'd want them to.



To stray into the shaky realm of analogy, take two people, and give them each a car:

The first person, who happens to know how to drive a car, is more likely to be able to use the vehicle in a positive way than the second person, who perhaps doesn't even know how to open the door.
The analogy completely fails. A better one would be:

Person A chooses to have someone drive the car south, person B chooses to have someone drive the car north. Both of the drivers promise that the car will be better off driving in one of the two directions. Person A may have checked out the route, and considered all the possible obstacels...and person B may have just flipped a coin to make her choice.

You still haven't provided a justification for why person B should therefore lose the right to vote.

Anyone that follows the Bible as a literal truth should be prevented from voting.

They are citizens of a 'different state', and even their own scripture says they shouldn't serve two masters. They can't be trusted to make decisions that affect others.

But that is his right is it not. To vote for the party or candidate that shares his views on a subject that he feels strongly about and makes a promise to do what he thinks is the best thing to do.

Myself I started voting for the same party my dad did, just because I was young and I thought well my dad does I should too.

It was only a year or two after that, that I discovered the reasons for dad's vote where and still are valid and so I still vote similar to my dad.

Ultimatly your vote is your choice, and your reasons for your vote are yours, and yours to make known or keep secret.

Sure. In the case of my uncle, I would have no problem allowing him to vote, even completely on that one, dead-end issue, if only he could demonstrate a good understanding of the other important issues of the day. As long as he has had the opportunity to consider the more important issues, I don't care if he tries to vote a cow into office.

I would make the test simple. When you come in to vote, before being allowed to cast your ballot in a Federal Election you must be able to name:

1. The current president
2 The current V.P.
3. Your 2 state senators
4. The congressman who represents your district

If you can correctly name all these people then you get to vote. Otherwise, we turn you away until you establish you are smart enough to at least know who you may be voting for/against.

I am amazed when I hear "man on the street" stuff where people say they think Clinton or Gore are in power, etc.

A relatively small cost?

You would need to administer this test to every enfranchised person in the country. Would it be a one-of test? Or would it be done every voting year?

If you want to start stripping away Constitutional rights, basic human rights as recognised by the international community...then you had better think it out.

The issue here is not logistics. The issue is whether or not looking into creating such a test is politically reasonable.

Also, the right to vote from a state of total ignorance and disregard is not an internationally recognised basic human right.




Let's just accept your presumption and point out the obvious. 'Positive change' might mean 'going to Iraq' for one voter and 'staying out of Iraq' for another.

That is totally fine by me.

You are falling into the trap of believing that if people were smarter, they'd vote how you'd want them to.

That is incorrect. Even if this change caused people to vote totally against my beliefs, I would still support it.


The analogy completely fails. A better one would be:

Person A chooses to have someone drive the car south, person B chooses to have someone drive the car north. Both of the drivers promise that the car will be better off driving in one of the two directions. Person A may have checked out the route, and considered all the possible obstacels...and person B may have just flipped a coin to make her choice.

You still haven't provided a justification for why person B should therefore lose the right to vote.

You don't understand what I'm talking about. For person B to be able to turn on the car and drive it anywhere means that he would have passed my test. That is how rudimentary it would be.

Anyone that follows the Bible as a literal truth should be prevented from voting.

They are citizens of a 'different state', and even their own scripture says they shouldn't serve two masters. They can't be trusted to make decisions that affect others.

Heh funny. Yeah I sorta agree with this one though, but hey that is just my anti Christian leanings.

The point and it is one well made by G&I, is that once started, excluding the right to vote for a person because of stated reason A, the it can go anywhere.

If for example the next presidant of the USA was a gay man, and made laws saying that hetro men where not allowed to vote, then I'm sure there would be uproar.

So any move to change voteing so that only those who pass a test would rightly be given the same treatment.

Should we for example ignore the the history of sufferance, and take the vote back from woman?

What about the filthy foriegner, I mean any immigrant surly does not undestand how our politics work in our country, lets exclude them.

What about those in the armed forces, if we let them have the vote then they are sure to comply with those who pay their wages, no no we can't let them have the vote and risk milatary coup.

Where does it stop, pul-ease wont somebody think of the children!;)

Has nobody referenced this news item yet?

The Daily Show: John Oliver Breaks Down the Stupid Vote (http://blog.indecision2008.com/2008/10/08/the-daily-show-john-oliver-breaks-down-the-stupid-vote/)

Heh funny. Yeah I sorta agree with this one though, but hey that is just my anti Christian leanings.

The point and it is one well made by G&I, is that once started, excluding the right to vote for a person because of stated reason A, the it can go anywhere.

If for example the next presidant of the USA was a gay man, and made laws saying that hetro men where not allowed to vote, then I'm sure there would be uproar.

So any move to change voteing so that only those who pass a test would rightly be given the same treatment.

Should we for example ignore the the history of sufferance, and take the vote back from woman?

What about the filthy foriegner, I mean any immigrant surly does not undestand how our politics work in our country, lets exclude them.

What about those in the armed forces, if we let them have the vote then they are sure to comply with those who pay their wages, no no we can't let them have the vote and risk milatary coup.

Where does it stop, pul-ease wont somebody think of the children!;)

People are often much more willing to embrace restricting rights in groups THEY don't belong to.

The thing is, accountability doesn't work if people don't vote on the basis of policy. If people just vote for whoever makes better viewing, your successes and failures in government have no impact whatsoever on whether or not you'll be re-elected.

Which is why voting should be about issues. If government is fighting to represent the direction that people want a country to go in, rather than put on a happy evening TV show for them to watch, then it really will actually act as though it was accountable to its people, instead of plodding on like political dinosaurs for 3 years then turning into daytime soapstars.

Government accountability can work on something as simple as whether or not people pay more taxes or had to wait in line at the hospital for too long. And you don't have to have an understanding of the electoral process to judge the efficacy of government services as a user. For example, the passport application system in Canada has been recently changed. I have no idea about the political reasons for it, or how exactly it changed. All I know is that it's a lot easier now, and the current government did it.

The fact that people are willing to decide the fate of America, and, by extension, that of the world, on the basis of how someone's face looks is absolutely appalling. Surely you can understand this?

Oh. So we're supposed to disenfranchise people because you have some sort of subjective antipathy towards their motivations. Try again.

Has nobody referenced this news item yet?

The Daily Show: John Oliver Breaks Down the Stupid Vote (http://blog.indecision2008.com/2008/10/08/the-daily-show-john-oliver-breaks-down-the-stupid-vote/)

I saw that last night, and I agree. Cubs fans should not be allowed to vote.

Oh. So we're supposed to disenfranchise people because you have some sort of subjective antipathy towards their motivations. Try again.

Well, you must admit that taking away an idiot's right to vote is highly preferable to engaging in vigilante killings and/or kidnappings of the offending party. :D

The issue here is not logistics. The issue is whether or not looking into creating such a test is politically reasonable.
Logistics is necessarily a consideration when deciding whether or not the creation of such a test is politically reasonable. It's not a factor you can simply put off until after you've reached your decision.

Also, the right to vote from a state of total ignorance and disregard is not an internationally recognised basic human right.
No. The right to vote period, is an absolute right upon enfranchisement. It is not qualified, despite the fact that you believe it should be. Nor have you provided a compelling, factual argument that would justify creating qualifications.

All you've done is say 'it would be better'. And I counter with 'no it's not'. Right now, my lack of an argument still trumps yours because the default 'right' exists, and if you want to curtail it or infringe it in any way, you need to come up with something better than vague predictions.




That is totally fine by me.

That is incorrect. Even if this change caused people to vote totally against my beliefs, I would still support it. Then your outcome based argument fails on its own merits.

You argued about creating positive change, or a desired change.

You failed to define what constitutes 'positive' or 'desired'. You can have a myriad of 'positive' or 'desired' outcomes that conflict with one another. You seem to be confusing motivation with outcome.

The argument you're actually making is one of motivation. The outcome doesn't matter. You want people to vote only if the have the proper motivations (defined loosely as being able to pass some mystical 'test')...yet you back up this argument with examples of outcomes.

Decide which end you're approaching this from.



You don't understand what I'm talking about. For person B to be able to turn on the car and drive it anywhere means that he would have passed my test. That is how rudimentary it would be.

No. You don't understand why your analogy fails. Person B is not the driver. Neither is person A. Person A and B only have a say in which direction the car is driven.

You have utterly failed to answer any of my questions, or explain what your test would do (and please don't give me more vague ramblings, I want specifics), or how you can justify disenfranchising anyone.

Let me ask you something concrete. What quality is it that a person must possess in order to vote, in your opinion?

Well, you must admit that taking away an idiot's right to vote is highly preferable to engaging in vigilante killings and/or kidnappings of the offending party. :D

So you're abandoning any attempt to actually work on your premise?

Anyone that follows the Bible as a literal truth should be prevented from voting.

They are citizens of a 'different state', and even their own scripture says they shouldn't serve two masters. They can't be trusted to make decisions that affect others.

:rolleyes:

I want to do an experiment: Flipping it completely over from what's been the norm through history, I'd only let women vote. For 8 years, i.e. two election cycles.

After that, we can evaluate the results.

Though I personally wouldn't want restrictions on voting - not even for ex-cons - I would be interested in seeing the results of the idea above.

Though I personally wouldn't want restrictions on voting - not even for ex-cons - I would be interested in seeing the results of the idea above.

I agree on allowing ex-cons, and even people currently incarcerated, to vote. They will still be impacted in some way by the policies of people elected, so they should have a right to vote.

If there were some way to make it non-discriminatory, a test on basic gov't functioning would be better that 'current issues' as , as it's been pointed out, is vague and changing.

Questions like :
"Who is the president is the P and VP are incapacitated"?
"What percentage is needed to override a presidential veto"?
"How many votes are there in the electoral college?"

etc.

But we live in the real world so any test will be designed to eliminate as many of the opposing side as it can while a 'bi-partisan' designed one would be completely useless and stink of pork.

If there were some way to make it non-discriminatory, a test on basic gov't functioning would be better that 'current issues' as , as it's been pointed out, is vague and changing.

Questions like :
"Who is the president is the P and VP are incapacitated"?
"What percentage is needed to override a presidential veto"?
"How many votes are there in the electoral college?"

etc.

But we live in the real world so any test will be designed to eliminate as many of the opposing side as it can while a 'bi-partisan' designed one would be completely useless and stink of pork.
I don't see how the questions you've posed have any bearing on the ability of a person to choose a party to vote for.

I agree on allowing ex-cons, and even people currently incarcerated, to vote. They will still be impacted in some way by the policies of people elected, so they should have a right to vote.

I disagree. They have shown themselves to be unable or unwilling to work within the basic constraints of society so shouldn't have a say in how that society operates.

Now I do disagree w/ most lifetime restrictions so they should be able to petition after a period depending on the type of crime they've committed.

I don't see how the questions you've posed have any bearing on the ability of a person to choose a party to vote for.

You don't see how knowing how the gov't functions can help in the decision to choose which direction it will take in the future?

How would knowing veto percentages qualify a person to decide if the nation needs to be more socialised, or have smaller government?

You don't see how knowing how the gov't functions can help in the decision to choose which direction it will take in the future?

I think your questions are completely irrelevant.

I don't need to know what powers the Governer General has in order to know I want to vote NDP or Green in the Canadian federal election.

I don't even have to know in very much detail at all how the government actually functions to cast that vote...nor would my hypothetical ignorance invalidate my choice.

How would knowing veto percentages qualify a person to decide if the nation needs to be more socialised, or have smaller government?

So you're saying a person who doesn't even know how the gov't operates knows enough to have a say in the direction it takes?

I think your questions are completely irrelevant.

I don't need to know what powers the Governer General has in order to know I want to vote NDP in the Canadian federal election.

I don't even have to know in very much detail at all how the government actually functions to cast that vote...nor would my hypothetical ignorance invalidate my choice.

So you say. I disagree.

I think people should at least have a basic idea of the structure behind something before they try and change it.

So you say. I disagree.

I think people should at least have a basic idea of the structure behind something before they try and change it.

Why?

And how basic? I'm sure there are plenty of voters who don't know the answers to the questions you've raised. Are you sure those are 'basic' questions then?

Why?

And how basic? I'm sure there are plenty of voters who don't know the answers to the questions you've raised. Are you sure those are 'basic' questions then?

Those are the types of questions that are on the High School level gov't test.

You honestly think it is a good idea to let someone who has no or little functional knowledge of how a thing operates to make determinations on it?

So you're saying a person who doesn't even know how the gov't operates knows enough to have a say in the direction it takes?

I have absolutely NO idea what goes on under the hood of my car, yet I think I'm qualified to say which direction it takes.

Personally, I actually favour greater particiaption from 'qualified' voters on every issue, and think that that 'qualification' should be based on the factors of each issue. I don't think a general understanding of 'how many x's are needed to do y' of the governmental machine is important. You need to be aware of the road to drive the machine, not what the pistons are doing.

Those are the types of questions that are on the High School level gov't test. Yes, along with chemistry equations, and other specialised facts you study intensely for the exam and forget promptly after.

But as gift-of-god pointed out, you can tell things like, whether the minimum wage has gone up or not since the new government got in, and if that's how you decide how to vote, I don't see how that's invalid.


You honestly think it is a good idea to let someone who has no or little functional knowledge of how a thing operates to make determinations on it?You haven't given me one reason to believe it wouldn't be a good idea.

I have absolutely NO idea what goes on under the hood of my car, yet I think I'm qualified to say which direction it takes.

Personally, I actually favour greater particiaption from 'qualified' voters on every issue, and think that that 'qualification' should be based on the factors of each issue. I don't think a general understanding of 'how many x's are needed to do y' of the governmental machine is important. You need to be aware of the road to drive the machine, not what the pistons are doing.

Using the same analogy, you do have to know how to operate a car, it's basic functions, and the rules of the road before you can drive in any direction.

Gas peddle makes car go faster. Brakes make it slow. Green light means go.

legislature writes laws, president signs/vetos laws, Courts determine if laws are valid.

I don't have to understand how a bus works in order to choose which one to take to school. I choose based on which ride has the nicest scenery, or perhaps which driver is hottest (we have some nice young drivers these days), which bus I can take my bike on, or maybe even the bus that has my lucky number on the side.

How I choose is irrelevant and I need know nothing about its inner workings.

Yes, along with chemistry equations, and other specialised facts you study intensely for the exam and forget promptly after.

But as gift-of-god pointed out, you can tell things like, whether the minimum wage has gone up or not since the new government got in, and if that's how you decide how to vote, I don't see how that's invalid.

You haven't given me one reason to believe it wouldn't be a good idea.

Knowing how the gov't operates are "specialised facts you study intensely for the exam and forget promptly after"?

I think that says alot about why you think it's a bad idea.

Is 'minimum wage going up' a current issue for everyone or would it be more an issue to people who make minimum wage? Did a particular tax go up or down? Did it effect everyone?

Also, these analogies are stupid. Just answer these questions. How does knowing something like, "What percentage is needed to override a presidential veto"? magically make someone a qualified voter?

Also, what is 'qualified'? What quality is possessed now that wasn't there before?

I don't have to understand how a bus works in order to choose which one to take to school. I choose based on which ride has the nicest scenery, or perhaps which driver is hottest (we have some nice young drivers these days), which bus I can take my bike on, or maybe even the bus that has my lucky number on the side.

How I choose is irrelevant and I need know nothing about its inner workings.

So you don't even care where the bus is going or pay attention to the schedules?

I think we've all learnt from this thread that allowing people to vote to choose their leader is an illogical and outdated idea. I offer you all an alternative. Put a dwarf in a mechanised cannon, programmed to constantly shift its firing direction within a given range and to fire after a random interval of time between 11 and 47 seconds. Line up the candidates of all the parties in a line in front. Whichever candidate the dwarf hits must have been chosen by God and is granted dictatorial powers for the next four years, along with a lifetime supply of custard cream biscuits. The other candidates are clearly enemies of God and are murdered to death by children with hammers.

Also, these analogies are stupid. Just answer these questions. How does knowing something like, "What percentage is needed to override a presidential veto"? magically make someone a qualified voter?

Also, what is 'qualified'? What quality is possessed now that wasn't there before?

I've answered the question. You just don't like the answer.

Even immigrants need to answer basic questions on the Gov't in order to become naturalized and vote. If a natural born citizen can't answer them, why should they be allowed to vote?

Knowing how the gov't operates are "specialised facts you study intensely for the exam and forget promptly after"? Essentially yes. In most countries, you receive some education about the intricate workings of your government. After a few years have passed, the majority of you will forget these intricate details and retain only the rough outlines.

That's how knowledge works, when you do not apply it, or reconsider it.

I think that says alot about why you think it's a bad idea. What does it say exactly? You seem to enjoy being vague.

Is 'minimum wage going up' a current issue for everyone or would it be more an issue to people who make minimum wage? Did a particular tax go up or down? Did it effect everyone?
Irrelevant.

The fact is, many people make their decision based on how life has gone for them during a particular government's term. Some people will care about minimum wage, some will only care that gas got more expensive.

I've answered the question. You just don't like the answer.

Yes, that’s generally what someone says when they want to remain vague and avoid specific questions.

Please point out where you have answered my questions.

Just to be clear, the questions again are:

1)How does knowing something like, "What percentage is needed to override a presidential veto" magically make someone a qualified voter?

2)What is 'qualified'? What quality is possessed now that wasn't there before?

Even immigrants need to answer basic questions on the Gov't in order to become naturalized and vote. If a natural born citizen can't answer them, why should they be allowed to vote?

Because they are citizens, and citizens have the unqualified and absolute right to vote.

Give me a reason to take this right away. Your justifications need to be show that doing so would prevent a greater harm than would result from disenfranchising someone.

Yes, that’s generally what someone says when they want to remain vague and avoid specific questions.

Please point out where you have answered my questions.

Just to be clear, the questions again are:

1)How does knowing something like, "What percentage is needed to override a presidential veto" magically make someone a qualified voter?

2)What is 'qualified'? What quality is possessed now that wasn't there before?

*Sigh*

1. Knowing how the gov't operates in it's basic functions makes one more qualified to determine what those functions should do than one who just likes the color of the signs the gov't puts out to get elected.

2. Education. That's a 'quality'.

Just because you choose a candidate based off of what he or she is wearing doesn't mean you should.

Because they are citizens, and citizens have the unqualified and absolute right to vote.

Give me a reason to take this right away. Your justifications need to be show that doing so would prevent a greater harm than would result from disenfranchising someone.


No, actually they don't. In the US, numerous offenses can cause you to lose that right so your claim is false.

You've stated that you think that most people couldn't answer even the basic questions. I guess you think the voting habits in the US have been all hunky dorry then?

*Sigh*

1. Knowing how the gov't operates in it's basic functions makes one more qualified to determine what those functions should do.
And you can still choose to vote based on the hairstyles of candidates.

Your test 'weeds' nothing out.



2. Education. That's a 'quality'.
I could have a PhD in economics, and not really clearly understand how the government works to the detail you've laid out.

You would disenfranchise me because of that.

I could have dropped out of school in grade 2, know nothing more than the answers to the questions you've posed, and I would have the 'necessary quality' to be allowed to vote.

The 'education' you have put forth as being a condition precedent to getting to vote is pithy, and guarantees nothing.


Just because you choose a candidate based off of what he or she is wearing doesn't mean you should.
Nor does it mean you shouldn't.

And you can still choose to vote based on the hairstyles of candidates.

Your test 'weeds' nothing out.

Ah, so you're wanting the '100% perfect solution to the world' false dichotomy.



I could have a PhD in economics, and not really clearly understand how the government works to the detail you've laid out.


You would disenfranchise me because of that.


Only if you got that PHD through mailorder.

I could have dropped out of school in grade 2, know nothing more than the answers to the questions you've posed, and I would have the 'necessary quality' to be allowed to vote.

The 'education' you have put forth as being a condition precedent to getting to vote is pithy, and guarantees nothing.

Nothing in life is guaranteed. I never said it was. However a basic education goes a long way.


Nor does it mean you shouldn't.

Did you really just say it's intelligent to vote on a candidate because you like their clothes?

No, actually they don't. In the US, numerous offenses can cause you to lose that right so your claim is false.
You don't understand what 'unqualified' means.

When you have the right to vote, it is absolutely unqualified. You do not have to exercise that right in any particular way. It is absolute.

Don't dither on the particulars of disenfranchisement, we're talking about the rights of the enfranchised.

If you do not have the right to vote, you do not have the right to vote. It's not the case that you HAVE the right to vote but it's qualified.

You automatically have that right as a citizen once you reach the age of majority. It can be taken away in exceptional circumstances.

You want to introduce another exceptional circumstance. Once again, you need to show that the harm in letting certain people vote would be greater than taking away their right to vote.


You've stated that you think that most people couldn't answer even the basic questions. I guess you think the voting habits in the US have been all hunky dorry then?

Would I wish that people would make better decisions? Sure.

Do I think there is even a remotely decent argument to be made for disenfranchising anyone?

No.

And you have absolutely failed to provide me with one.

Ah, so you're wanting the '100% perfect solution to the world' false dichotomy. No, I'm pointing out that your claims 'it would have this result' is not even remotely supported. I'm hoping you'll stop making predicitions, or consulting your local psychic, and go and find some facts to back yourself up with. I would even accept a more detailed and rational argument as to how exactly the test you propose would work, be of benefit, and how it would relate to the outcomes you've predicted.



Only if you got that PHD through mailorder.
It's the glory of specialisation. You can be incredibly educated in a very narrow field, and not know simple things, like how to inflate a tire.



Nothing in life is guaranteed. I never said it was. However a basic education goes a long way. Then your problem is solved, since most people in your country receive some basic instruction on the makeup of the government. Obviously the results you've predicted have come to fruition.

Oh. Wait.



Did you really just say it's intelligent to vote on a candidate because you like their clothes?No. I said it's as valid a reason as any other when you are exercising an absolute and unqualified right.

**snip rant***

Would I wish that people would make better decisions? Sure.

Do I think there is even a remotely decent argument to be made for disenfranchising anyone?

No.

And you have absolutely failed to provide me with one.

And that's you're opinion.

You seem to think that ignorance will result in some sort of wonderful result.

I think that people would make better decisions if they were educated on what they were deciding about. Like Gov't.

*snip rant*


It's the glory of specialisation. You can be incredibly educated in a very narrow field, and not know simple things, like how to inflate a tire.



I thought you said the analogies were stupid. Yet now you say that someone who doesn't know how to inflate a tire should be able to not only say how much air that tire needs but how much air everyone else needs as well.

I was going to make the title "Should you actually be allowed to vote for or against somebody when you don't know their politics?", but that was too long.

Now, I'm most certainly not going into "Should women be allowed to vote", "Should old people be allowed to vote", "Should blacks be allowed to vote", etc.
But I am slightly worried about the motives some people have for casting their votes. And about the level of information they have about who they're voting for/against.
As you can imagine, the BBC and other European news channels are reporting extensively about the USAmerican election campaigns, and are trying to give a feeling for what USAmericans think and feel. Now, while I'm fully aware that all we get are sound bites and far from a complete picture, some of these short interviews left me feeling more than a little concerned.
There was a hunter who went to some length explaining how the US is currently fighting Muslims, and how that's why he wouldn't ever consider voting for Obama because he's a Muslim, too.
There was the mother and housewife who had been a strong Clinton-supporter, and who now told the camera how it was so great that at least the Republicans have a female she could go vote for. When asked about Palin's politics in particular regarding women's rights, the lady said she was "hard-working" and must be therefore a good person.
And then there was this pensioner, sitting in uniform in front of a flag and saying that he felt insulted by the way McCain used the fact that he had been a POW to fight the election with, which was why he himself would for the first time in his life vote Democrat.

I know (or at least I hope really really badly) that those people do not represent the majority of the voting public in the US. Or anywhere else, for that matter.
But it did lead me to an interesting question : Should there be a knowledge test making sure that anybody who votes actually KNOWs who and what they are voting for or against? A short questionaire about the politics of the candidates?

Elitist bullshit...

No. I said it's as valid a reason as any other when you are exercising an absolute and unqualified right.

No such thing. There are qualifications that have to be met everywhere and no right is absolute.

No, I'm pointing out that your claims 'it would have this result' is not even remotely supported. I'm hoping you'll stop making predicitions, or consulting your local psychic, and go and find some facts to back yourself up with. I would even accept a more detailed and rational argument as to how exactly the test you propose would work, be of benefit, and how it would relate to the outcomes you've predicted.




Being that I didn't make any such claim, you're really grasping for straws here.

Be honest w/ yourself if not w/ the readers. You wouldn't accept any argument no matter how detailed or rational because you hold to the fallacy of an "absolute and unqualified right".

I think that people would make better decisions if they were educated on what they were deciding about. Like Gov't.

Yes, but - I'm sorry, I'm having to side with Neesika here - your idea of 'education' is poorly described, and even more poorly fitted to the purpose.

Knowing how many votes it takes to override a veto is very helpful if you're trying to do the math to overcome a veto.

Voters don't do that, though. So there's little purpose in using THAT as a measure of fitness.

What voters DO - is decide the direction that the country will pursue - either directly through referenda, semi-directly through petitioning delegates... or indirectly, through electing representatives.

So - what does a voter NEED to know to get 'the right thing' done? Veto over-ride numbers? No - irrelevent. Nice to know, but nothing to do with the job, so to speak.

If you are going to 'test' the 'voter', it should be on something that actually matters. A good current example would be to ask if Obama is a Muslim, and remove the right to vote in the next election, from anyone that answered 'yes'.

Yes, but - I'm sorry, I'm having to side with Neesika here - your idea of 'education' is poorly described, and even more poorly fitted to the purpose.

Knowing how many votes it takes to override a veto is very helpful if you're trying to do the math to overcome a veto.

Voters don't do that, though. So there's little purpose in using THAT as a measure of fitness.

What voters DO - is decide the direction that the country will pursue - either directly through referenda, semi-directly through petitioning delegates... or indirectly, through electing representatives.

So - what does a voter NEED to know to get 'the right thing' done? Veto over-ride numbers? No - irrelevent. Nice to know, but nothing to do with the job, so to speak.

If you are going to 'test' the 'voter', it should be on something that actually matters. A good current example would be to ask if Obama is a Muslim, and remove the right to vote in the next election, from anyone that answered 'yes'.

I love how you can only focus on one example question instead of taking the context.

Basic function of gov't is very relevant.

Is your 'issue' question relevant to the election? Does it have anything to do w/ the job or just to the biases of certain voters that others would want disenfranchised?

Howabout this one for an 'issue'? What percentage of small businesses earn over $250K/year? Both sides give different answers. Which is the correct one? Why? What are your sources?

I don't feasibly see how in today's society, you can reduce voting rights, without seeing riots and national outrage everywhere.

Its very easy to test.

Question One: Do you believe in the literal interpertation of the Bible?
Question Two: Do you believe the earth is 10,000 years old?
Question Three: Was Roe v Wade "legistlating from the bench"?


If the answer is yes to any of those, you cannot vote.

I don't feasibly see how in today's society, you can reduce voting rights, without seeing riots and national outrage everywhere.

You can't. Not like reality will stop NSG though.

I don't feasibly see how in today's society, you can reduce voting rights, without seeing riots and national outrage everywhere.

The masses are easily distracted. Just announce a tax cut or some populist policy on the same day and no one will bat an eyelid.

I love how you can only focus on one example question instead of taking the context.

Basic function of gov't is very relevant.


You keep saying that, but you've still not given a single reason why.

The job of your elected representative(s) is to do the math about vetoes. You don't get to veto. You don't get to be one of THOSE 'votes' at all, you ELECT a representative to do THAT for you.

And that's why things like vetoes are largely (if not entirely) irrelevent to fitness to be involved in the election/voting process.


Is your 'issue' question relevant to the election?


Absolutely. You shouldn't be picking from candidates unless you have at least a passing familiarity with the candidates.

Anyone who - at THIS late stage - STILL thinks Obama is a Muslim doesn't deserve to be involved in the final decision-making process.


Does it have anything to do w/ the job or just to the biases of certain voters that others would want disenfranchised?


It has to do with being at least somewhat aware of the issue you're supposed to be casting your support behind.


What percentage of small businesses earn over $250K/year? Both sides give different answers. Which is the correct one? Why? What are your sources?

The figure I've seen elsewhere is about 5% of small businesses earn over 250k. Whoever gave the closest answer to that, is probably giving the better answer.

But, you're getting the right idea - that's a MUCH more important question to ask potential voters than 'where in the Whitehouse are the restrooms'... or whatever questions they were that you were asking.

You keep saying that, but you've still not given a single reason why.

Actually I have.

The job of your elected representative(s) is to do the math about vetoes. You don't get to veto. You don't get to be one of THOSE 'votes' at all, you ELECT a representative to do THAT for you.

And that's why things like vetoes are largely (if not entirely) irrelevent to fitness to be involved in the election/voting process.

A familiarity of what the rep. does is kind of important.



Absolutely. You shouldn't be picking from candidates unless you have at least a passing familiarity with the candidates.

Oh, you mean like what their job entails and what they are supposed to be doing?

Anyone who - at THIS late stage - STILL thinks Obama is a Muslim doesn't deserve to be involved in the final decision-making process.

And you think someone who believes that could answer the questions I asked?

It has to do with being at least somewhat aware of the issue you're supposed to be casting your support behind.

Which, if you don't even know how the gov't operates, you probably know as little about as well except for what is spoon fed you.



The figure I've seen elsewhere is about 5% of small businesses earn over 250k. Whoever gave the closest answer to that, is probably giving the better answer.

I think you just made my point for me.

But, you're getting the right idea - that's a MUCH more important question to ask potential voters than 'where in the Whitehouse are the restrooms'... or whatever questions they were that you were asking.

So where the bathrooms are is a 'basic function of gov't'. Perhaps of the officials, yes, but not of the gov't.

Grasp at those straws some more.

GNI: I just want to be clear on this.

You think that knowing it takes a 2/3rds majority to override a veto is MORE complicated than understanding national business trends and taxes?

Actually I have.


No - you really haven't.

A general wave in the direction of something, and a bit of mumbling... just doesn't cut it as a reason'.


A familiarity of what the rep. does is kind of important.


That really rather depends, doesn't it? If the job description of the rep in question is 'Person Who Launches the Nukes", yes, it's somewhat important to have some clue of how and why. If their job is "Tea-boy" it's less important to have a firm grasp on the parameters.

You keep pressing that you think it's important to have 'mechanical' knowledge of government - but you really haven't come close to explaining why that would be AS important as (let alone, MORE important than) knowledge of the issues.


Oh, you mean like what their job entails and what they are supposed to be doing?


That would be a good start, for president, yes.


And you think someone who believes that could answer the questions I asked?


Apparently, there's a surprisingly large percentage of people that still believe Obama to be a Muslim. I wonder if you can show that NONE of them can answer your 'questions'.

I have to say, I doubt it.


Which, if you don't even know how the gov't operates, you probably know as little about as well except for what is spoon fed you.


Utter rubbish. You don't need to know HOW a procedural vote works, to have an informed position on whether Roe v's Wade is constitutional.


I think you just made my point for me.


The your point must have been incredibly vague.


So where the bathrooms are is a 'basic function of gov't'. Perhaps of the officials, yes, but not of the gov't.

Grasp at those straws some more.

Way to avoid the point.

Maybe everyone over voting age should have ONE vote, and everyone could earn a second vote by passing a simple current affairs test.

GNI: I just want to be clear on this.

You think that knowing it takes a 2/3rds majority to override a veto is MORE complicated than understanding national business trends and taxes?

No. Not even close to anything I've said.

I'm trying to decide if I want Chinese food or Curry this weekend. Which is more important, my preferences for spicy food, or the number of spoons it takes to fill my cutlery tray?

No - you really haven't.

A general wave in the direction of something, and a bit of mumbling... just doesn't cut it as a reason'.

Yes, really I have. You just don't like the answers so have to try and pretend you didn't understand.

That really rather depends, doesn't it? If the job description of the rep in question is 'Person Who Launches the Nukes", yes, it's somewhat important to have some clue of how and why. If their job is "Tea-boy" it's less important to have a firm grasp on the parameters.

Right. Because I'm talking about 'tea-boy's.

You keep pressing that you think it's important to have 'mechanical' knowledge of government - but you really haven't come close to explaining why that would be AS important as (let alone, MORE important than) knowledge of the issues.

You've clearly shown that trying to test on 'issues' is biased.

That would be a good start, for president, yes.

But not for the rest of the gov't?


Apparently, there's a surprisingly large percentage of people that still believe Obama to be a Muslim. I wonder if you can show that NONE of them can answer your 'questions'.

I have to say, I doubt it.


'apparently'? 'large numbers'? now who's making a 'general wave in the direction of something as you try and move those goalposts.



Utter rubbish. You don't need to know HOW a procedural vote works, to have an informed position on whether Roe v's Wade is constitutional.

If you inform yourself on why R v W is constitutional, you've just educated yourself on the process of government.



The your point must have been incredibly vague.

Nope, pretty clear. You don't know the actual facts so assume them based on your biased view of the 'issue'.



Way to avoid the point.

What 'point'? That you have to make crap up to try and make an appeal through ridicule?

First of all, the fact that you 'snipped my rant' is problematic, considering I was giving you a definition of the rights based term 'unqualified'.

If you really don't want to understand the terms as used, that's fine. But don't mischaracterise those definitions as a rant. I have gone out of my way to give your 'argument' entirely more attention than warranted, in the hopes you'd actually flesh it out and give it substance. If you don't want to engage in a conversation on the topic, then bow out. Don't pretend that I've ranted you away.

You mischaracterised or misunderstood my original point ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14081773&postcount=131), and attempted to dismiss it en masse by saying, ‘oh but some people can’t vote who are citizens so you’re wrong.’ I then pointed out that you didn’t understand what I said, and just where you went wrong.

Refute me if you can.
And that's you're opinion.

You seem to think that ignorance will result in some sort of wonderful result. No. My position all along has been that voting is an absolute, unqualified right, and that barring some exception reason we should change that, it should remain so. I have made no comments about outcomes, I believe the right stands on its own. YOU are the one making claims about people making decisions in complete ignorance, you are the one asserting that this has such a bad outcome that we need to take rights away from people...you are the one making the claims, and so far, failing to back them up.

I think that people would make better decisions if they were educated on what they were deciding about. Like Gov't. And you’ve not provided a shred of proof to back up your supposition.
You want rights taken away based on your ‘gut feeling’ on the matter. Can you see why I refuse to accept this? You haven’t made an argument. You’ve only made a statement.

If you want to do the latter only, please let me know so I can ignore the rest of your pointless posts.

I thought you said the analogies were stupid. Yet now you say that someone who doesn't know how to inflate a tire should be able to not only say how much air that tire needs but how much air everyone else needs as well.

Sometimes a tire is just a tire.

I wasn't making an analogy. I was pointing out how you can be highly educated in a specific area, and know nothing about another.

Your definition of 'educated' is ill defined. Like every thought you've put forth.

No such thing. There are qualifications that have to be met everywhere and no right is absolute.

Go back and read where I explained how 'unqualified and absolute' relate to voting.

If you can refute me on those grounds, by all means, have at me. It'd be refreshing to see you stop wiggling and actually address the issues, and questions.

I don't mind if they're informed through the media.
But voting for or against someone based on absolutely fuck-all apart from "I like his face" seems frivolous to me.

Unless you make punditry and lies on media punishable by lengthy jail terms or death, the only thing people will get on the media will be no different than what you get today. Political American idol.

If your a fascist trying to make sure your guy always wins. If you are 18 and a citizen you can vote, deal with it.

Being that I didn't make any such claim, you're really grasping for straws here.

Be honest w/ yourself if not w/ the readers. You wouldn't accept any argument no matter how detailed or rational because you hold to the fallacy of an "absolute and unqualified right".

I've made it very clear, and the only one being dishonest here is you.

This is, once again, what you have to do. I believe this is the third time I've said it. Let's see if you ignore it again.

You must prove that the harm caused by people voting 'unqualified' (using your definition, being unable to answer the questions you've given as examples) is GREATER than the harm one would cause by disenfranchising them.

Don't pretend you've tried. Don't use 'oh you wouldn't listen anyway' as an excuse. You rely entirely too much on assumptions, and I'm telling you that's unacceptable.

Yes, really I have. You just don't like the answers so have to try and pretend you didn't understand.


An honest answer there, would have been posting what you believed the reasons were, that you are arguing I 'don't like'.

But, instead - you avoid the issue.


Right. Because I'm talking about 'tea-boy's.


Again, avoiding the issue.

The clear thrust of my response is that the nature of the representative's 'job' is of varying importance, in comparison to the issues. But, you're just going to make a snide comment quibbling over 'tea-boys'.


You've clearly shown that trying to test on 'issues' is biased.


How so?

Opinions on the issues should be biased. The data, not so much.


But not for the rest of the gov't?


Already addressed. It is less important - in the grand scheme of issues before government - to know the precise duties of a filing clerk or intern, than to know the specifics of being House Speaker, or President.

But ultimately, what is MOST important in a voter, is demonstrable knoledge about the ISSUES, not the personnel.


'apparently'? 'large numbers'? now who's making a 'general wave in the direction of something as you try and move those goalposts.


You claimed that people who knew the percentage required for a veto would know that Obama is not a Muslim. I'm calling yuor bluff.

That's not me moving the goalposts, that's me saying yuour argument is horseshit.


If you inform yourself on why R v W is constitutional, you've just educated yourself on the process of government.


That doesn't even make the kind of cute, twee logic that 'all things in moderation is a good thing' has. Because - clearly - understanding how a case relates to constitutional interpretation has absolutely NOTHING to do with any of the thibngs you've been claiming are important.


Nope, pretty clear. You don't know the actual facts so assume them based on your biased view of the 'issue'.


Who said I don't know the facts? You know what they say about when you 'assume', yes?

And - you still haven't made the point you're claiming I'm proving for you...


What 'point'? That you have to make crap up to try and make an appeal through ridicule?

The appeal to ridicule is a valid tactic. You are making claims that some kind of 'mechanical' knowledge of government is MORE important than awareness on the issues.

You've cited three specific (and ridiculous) examples of 'necessary' knowledge, but failed to give a rational delineation of exactly what knowledge it is you think one MUST have... or WHY knowing these arbitrary data is so important.

Over and over again, I've pointed out that one doesn't have to know HOW the machine works, to make sure it heads in the right direction - you still fail to explain why voters must be mechanics, rather than drivers.

By providing such a test, you are basically saying that only people with a certain amount of knowledge should be able to fully particpate in the democratic duty of keeping our leaders accountable.

Except you know, most of them are already unaccountable most of the time, and the rest of the time, they have the willfully ignorant, not a small number, supporting their unaccountability.

And you’ve not provided a shred of proof to back up your supposition.
You want rights taken away based on your ‘gut feeling’ on the matter. Can you see why I refuse to accept this? You haven’t made an argument. You’ve only made a statement.
Somin, I. 2004. When Ignorance Isn't Bliss: How Political Ignorance Threatens Democracy, Policy Analysis, 525. (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2372)

There you go. Yay, for links being needed to point out common sense.

Maybe everyone over voting age should have ONE vote, and everyone could earn a second vote by passing a simple current affairs test.
That's an interesting idea. It wouldn't completely disenfranchise anyone, but still give greater weight to the more knowledgeable. Of course, it remains unfair for the same reasons complete disenfranchisement is unfair, only lessening the blow.

I don't see a knowledge test having any real practical applications, anyway, even if it is perfect and unabusive. If we see voting as a way of measuring the will of the people, there's no point in disenfranchising voters who have a bad reason for willing what they do; why they want what they want is irrelevant. If we see voting as a safeguard against tyranny, disenfranchisement is probably the worst thing we can do. If we see voting as the more effective way of choosing the most competent candidate, then we are saying one candidate is objectively better than the other and we may as well do away with voting. Anyone you look at it, I don't see how it could help.

Somin, I. 2004. When Ignorance Isn't Bliss: How Political Ignorance Threatens Democracy, Policy Analysis, 525. (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2372)

There you go. Yay, for links being needed to point out common sense.

Neu Leonstein, you're libertarian (I think). This article summary (I didn't read the whole thing yet) reminded me of a book by Objectivist economist Bryan Kaplan (sp?) about the myth of the rational voter, how people don't choose the best candidate or even think rationally about choosing. He even said libertarians have to be elitist nowadays. Obviously he isn't representative of an entire political philosophy, but I am curious: how did the philosophy that individual choice is good become so elitist in recent years?

EDIT: I just saw the author teaches at George Mason Law School. George Mason is also where Kaplan (maybe Caplan?) teaches. Any explanation for that?

*Snip nonsense*

Over and over again, I've pointed out that one doesn't have to know HOW the machine works, to make sure it heads in the right direction - you still fail to explain why voters must be mechanics, rather than drivers.


And over and over I pointed out that you need to know how the car functions and the rules of the road before you can be a driver. You have ignored that and tried to move the goalposts.

You've clearly shown that you did NOT know that answer and went off what you thought on an issue.

BTW, an appeal to ridicule is not a 'valid tactic'. It's a logical fallacy. You can't even defend your claims against the three examples I gave (which is all you can focus on, neglecting the big picture and context, very telling) so need to invent nonsense like 'tea boys', interns , and bathrooms.

I mean come on. You claim that understanding RVW beyond "we have the right to abortions" DOESN'T give you an education to the workings of gov't? Instead you just whine "LALALALA NO IT DOESN"T!! ".

Me, and only me.

I've made it very clear, and the only one being dishonest here is you.

This is, once again, what you have to do. I believe this is the third time I've said it. Let's see if you ignore it again.

You must prove that the harm caused by people voting 'unqualified' (using your definition, being unable to answer the questions you've given as examples) is GREATER than the harm one would cause by disenfranchising them.

Don't pretend you've tried. Don't use 'oh you wouldn't listen anyway' as an excuse. You rely entirely too much on assumptions, and I'm telling you that's unacceptable.

Ignorance is bliss in your world apparently.

Define 'harm'.

No I couldn't disagree more. The vote is for all citersens, to make it exclusive to an elite of any kind for any reason is not democratic. Might as well have stuck with the monarchies.

The vast majority of citizens are unqualified to have a knowledgeable voice in the government, much less vote one in. The best you can hope for is one that looks and sounds pretty, and if you're lucky, does a decent job. More often than not, you end up with one that looks pretty, but is run by incompetent and corrupt money grubbers. All democracy does is pander to the most ignorant and stupid of the mob, and make that ignorance and stupidity the preferred state for the majority of citizens to those in power.

Sometimes a tire is just a tire.

I wasn't making an analogy. I was pointing out how you can be highly educated in a specific area, and know nothing about another.

Your definition of 'educated' is ill defined. Like every thought you've put forth.

Actually you did make an analogy. I made another one which you have been unable to refute either.

And what 'definition' did I give?

Somin, I. 2004. When Ignorance Isn't Bliss: How Political Ignorance Threatens Democracy, Policy Analysis, 525. (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2372)

There you go. Yay, for links being needed to point out common sense.

Common sense? Seriously? You are really going to support taking away the right of certain people to vote based on 'common sense'?

At least you've provided a fucking source outside of 'ummm, I think it's bad, but I can't say why cuz I haven't actually thought about it very much, and too bad you don't just understand the argument I WOULD make if I got off my ass and did it'.

However, I don't think you've read the link you provided. If you did, you'd notice that nowhere does the author suggest disenfranchising the 'ignorant'. In fact, his solution, as stated on page two (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/html/pa525/pa525index.html), near the bottom is, "...efforts to increase the stock of knowledge possessed by voters are unlikely to be more than modestly effective. A more promising path for reform would be to reduce the amount of knowlege required for democratic control of public policy."

Look at that! Instead of taking away fundamental rights, necessary to even have a democratic government, the author suggest reforming the systems themselves, so that even Joe Sixpack can figure out how to vote on public policy issues without needing to get a law degree first.

Go back and read where I explained how 'unqualified and absolute' relate to voting.

If you can refute me on those grounds, by all means, have at me. It'd be refreshing to see you stop wiggling and actually address the issues, and questions.

Oh, yes, I read it. You make lots of explanations and definitions that don't mesh w/ the real world.

Even franchised voters can lose it. Therefore they are NOT 'unqualified' nor 'absolute'.

There ARE qualifications. So, by definition, you are wrong.

At least you've provided a fucking source outside of 'ummm, I think it's bad, but I can't say why cuz I haven't actually thought about it very much, and too bad you don't just understand the argument I WOULD make if I got off my ass and did it'.



Aww, are Neesika's widdle feewings hurt?

No. And even if you were to administer a test to determine one's eligibility to vote, an intelligence test, rather than one which measures knowledge would be more logical, for that would, to some degree, make it more fair for the economically disadvantaged. The reliability of IQ tests is debatable, though.

I suppose my main reason for opposing such a requirement is not the unethical nature of it, but rather the fact that those who make the test and draw the line between 'smart enough' and 'not smart enough' can manipulate it to fit their desires.

Ignorance is bliss in your world apparently.

Define 'harm'.

No, you go ahead...define it how you'd like, this is your argument to make. Realise of course that when you pick a definition to work with, it has to apply to both parts of the equation.

Listen, instead of spending all this time saying, "I've already said it, yes I have, you just don't understand/have ignored it"...instead of repeatedly ignoring questions asked of you...instead of all the slimy little things you're doing to avoid having an actual debate...why don't you just restate your point? If it's so easy to understand, I'm sure you'll be able to do it without breaking into a sweat.

Actually you did make an analogy. I made another one which you have been unable to refute either. Your analogies are much less interesting to me than clear answers to clear questions. Try it.
And what 'definition' did I give?

EXACTLY.

You don't get that either, do you?

No, you go ahead...define it how you'd like, this is your argument to make. Realise of course that when you pick a definition to work with, it has to apply to both parts of the equation.

Listen, instead of spending all this time saying, "I've already said it, yes I have, you just don't understand/have ignored it"...instead of repeatedly ignoring questions asked of you...instead of all the slimy little things you're doing to avoid having an actual debate...why don't you just restate your point? If it's so easy to understand, I'm sure you'll be able to do it without breaking into a sweat.

YEah, that's what I thought.

My point was clearly stated in my first post. You re-interpreted it in your own mind to some sort of absolute claim of the perfect system, now refusing to back up your own claims w/ red herrings and insults.

Your analogies are much less interesting to me than clear answers to clear questions. Try it.


EXACTLY.

You don't get that either, do you?

So you don't like analogies, use them, then don't like when they're turned around on you.

That's what I get.

That, and you can't back up what you claim I said.

Aww, are Neesika's widdle feewings hurt?

I notice you still haven't answered the question I asked you.

So you don't like analogies, use them, then don't like when they're turned around on you.

That's what I get.

That, and you can't back up what you claim I said.

You haven't said anything really.

That's the point.

If you actually come up with an argument, why don't you TG me and let me know? I'll be happy to deal with it then.

Up to this point, you've just been chatting with no purpose.

I notice you still haven't answered the question I asked you.

You mean the ones you refuse to provide definitions for?

I'm ignoring, for the moment, the fact that you lack common courtesy enough to actually respond to my post, after I spared time to sift through your attempt.

And over and over I pointed out that you need to know how the car functions and the rules of the road before you can be a driver.


1) You have 'pointed that out'. But you haven't PROVED it.

2) In order to be certified as a driver in the State of Georgia, I was required to be able to operate a vehicle safely, and within the laws of the road - and I was expected to have a fairly comprehensive knowledge of those rules.

There was no requirement to know how the machine worked. I didn't even have to know how to fuel the thing.


You have ignored that and tried to move the goalposts.


I haven't tried to move the goalposts at all. That's twice you've claimed it, and you've not yet shown where.


You've clearly shown that you did NOT know that answer


I thought, by referencing the figures, I was actually 'clearly showing' that I didn know the answer?


...and went off what you thought on an issue.


You'll have to explain what you mean by that.


BTW, an appeal to ridicule is not a 'valid tactic'. It's a logical fallacy. You can't even defend your claims against the three examples I gave


It would be a logical fallacy if we were talking about an actual 'appeal to ridicule'. what I actually employed could probably be better defined as reductio ad absurdum.

Perhaps if you restate these 'three examples', I can see what you mean by not being able to 'defend my claims' against them.

As far as I'm aware, you're arguing that voters need an understanding of factors like - the number of seats required to overturn a veto - in order to be 'qualified' to vote...?


...(which is all you can focus on, neglecting the big picture and context, very telling) so need to invent nonsense like 'tea boys', interns , and bathrooms.


You made a nonsensical generalisation about how important it might be to understand the specific duties of the positions representatives fulfill. I explained why this wasn't a uniform 'truth', by example.

That's not 'inventing nonsense', that's 'illustrating' your argument.


I mean come on. You claim...


If you're going to say I claim something, you better be damn sure you're about to cite something I actually said...


...that understanding RVW beyond "we have the right to abortions" DOESN'T give you an education to the workings of gov't?


Actually: You said "If you inform yourself on why R v W is constitutional, you've just educated yourself on the process of government." And I replied that, basically, I don't think that logically follows.

How about illustrating why I should believe otherwise.


Instead you just whine "LALALALA NO IT DOESN"T!! ".

I'm pretty sure i didn't do that, actually.

Your demeanour suggests you know your 'argument' isn't standing up particularly well.

You don't even attempt to actually defend it any more.

You mean the ones you refuse to provide definitions for?

I made it clear I'd accept your defintion of 'harm' if it is consistent.

Go on now. Explain yourself (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14082108&postcount=161).

All you've been asked to do is make an actual argument. It's not really that hard. For this part, you don't even need to provide sources, or reasearch...I just want you to honestly work through the issue in a rational manner. Explain your position, break it down.

You haven't said anything really.

That's the point.

If you actually come up with an argument, why don't you TG me and let me know? I'll be happy to deal with it then.

Up to this point, you've just been chatting with no purpose.

The point is you don't like what I've said, that I think people who actually know at least how the gov't operates would be better at making decisions that those who don't.

Your claim is that people who are completely ignorant are just as 'valid' based off a false concept of rights.

That's the point.

I made it clear I'd accept your defintion of 'harm' if it is consistent.

Go on now. Explain yourself (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14082108&postcount=161).

All you've been asked to do is make an actual argument. It's not really that hard.

An argument based off an undefined question that you presented. Now you want me to define it as well. Perhaps someone (that would be you )should get off their ass and do it.

Oh, yes, I read it. You make lots of explanations and definitions that don't mesh w/ the real world.

Even franchised voters can lose it. Therefore they are NOT 'unqualified' nor 'absolute'.

There ARE qualifications. So, by definition, you are wrong.

If an enfranchised voter can lose the right to vote, then - surely - since that is a DISqualification, they must have been intrinsically 'qualified' to begin with?

Obviously he isn't representative of an entire political philosophy, but I am curious: how did the philosophy that individual choice is good become so elitist in recent years?
If I had to be obvious about it, I'd say it's because people consistently vote against that philosophy, as contradictory as it is.

But it may also be that if you philosophically value the capacity of man to make choices, and you think choices made with self-interest in mind ultimately lead to superior outcomes for all, then you obviously have an interest in people making choices properly, using their brains and all the information available to them.

And if he is indeed an objectivist (I have no idea), then obviously he's an elitist. It's the most elitist philosophy out there, except that objectivists obviously don't accept any negative connotations of the word.

Common sense? Seriously? You are really going to support taking away the right of certain people to vote based on 'common sense'?
I haven't actually said what I support. Suffice to say though that from my point of view, people with limited knowledge deciding about things that require a lot of knowledge is less than ideal. So the current system should be improved.

Look at that! Instead of taking away fundamental rights, necessary to even have a democratic government, the author suggest reforming the systems themselves, so that even Joe Sixpack can figure out how to vote on public policy issues without needing to get a law degree first.
To be fair, I think it's a little more complex than that. You would have watched the debates - if anything, the candidates don't given enough meaningful information about actual policy issues. Making the process of choosing any less taxing on intellect or knowledge - well, I'm not sure I could imagine what that would really look like.

If there is a way to do it without turning the process any less shallow than it already is, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I think voter education is the way to go - and a reasonable means of trying to get people to actually participate is either to make it compulsory, or to tie it to the ability to vote.

I like the idea of an extra vote based on a test. Hell, why not have 100 votes and you get to use a percentage of them based on how well you did on a test? Why not have a test before you enter the booth, and if you fail you need to go and spend 2 hours in a remedial class where they teach you the positions of the candidates and what they actually mean before you get to make your mark?

It's not that I want to exclude people, but I do want them to make the decisions that are in their best interest. If they're misinformed, chances are they won't do it.

YEah, that's what I thought.

My point was clearly stated in my first post. You re-interpreted it in your own mind to some sort of absolute claim of the perfect system, now refusing to back up your own claims w/ red herrings and insults.

For the benefit of those watching:

THIS post, is Kecibukia's response to Neesika asking for the point to be re-stated.

I haven't actually said what I support. Suffice to say though that from my point of view, people with limited knowledge deciding about things that require a lot of knowledge is less than ideal. So the current system should be improved. Fair enough...you jumping in where you did suggested you were leaning in the 'strip them of their vote!' direction.


To be fair, I think it's a little more complex than that. You would have watched the debates The Canadian ones, yes. - if anything, the candidates don't given enough meaningful information about actual policy issues. Making the process of choosing any less taxing on intellect or knowledge - well, I'm not sure I could imagine what that would really look like. Ahhhahaha...well I don't actually think that's what the author is saying. He's not saying 'dumb it down', he's saying make the system inherently less complex, bloated, and difficult to understand. One is just translation, the other is systemic change.

If there is a way to do it without turning the process any less shallow than it already is, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I think voter education is the way to go - and a reasonable means of trying to get people to actually participate is either to make it compulsory, or to tie it to the ability to vote.He starts giving ideas on about page 19. He also discusses issues other than voter ignorance, such as apathy based on a (verified) belief that you cannot affect very much control over government by voting. But yeah, or if you want, just scan the conclusion (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/html/pa525/pa525index.html) where he sums up his various suggestions.

I like the idea of an extra vote based on a test. Hell, why not have 100 votes and you get to use a percentage of them based on how well you did on a test? Why not have a test before you enter the booth, and if you fail you need to go and spend 2 hours in a remedial class where they teach you the positions of the candidates and what they actually mean before you get to make your mark? Are you going to be making voting mandatory as well? Because being faced with a remedial class if I don't pass some sort of test would cause me to stay at home.

It's not that I want to exclude people, but I do want them to make the decisions that are in their best interest. If they're misinformed, chances are they won't do it.
And I believe that people should never have others telling them what their best interests are.

I'm ignoring, for the moment, the fact that you lack common courtesy enough to actually respond to my post, after I spared time to sift through your attempt.

You've ignored lots of things.

1) You have 'pointed that out'. But you haven't PROVED it.

2) In order to be certified as a driver in the State of Georgia, I was required to be able to operate a vehicle safely, and within the laws of the road - and I was expected to have a fairly comprehensive knowledge of those rules.

There was no requirement to know how the machine worked. I didn't even have to know how to fuel the thing.

Thank you for making my point. You DID know how the basics worked to be able to operate it.



I haven't tried to move the goalposts at all. That's twice you've claimed it, and you've not yet shown where.

Your own posts. What. You want me to play the cutnpaste game?

I thought, by referencing the figures, I was actually 'clearly showing' that I didn know the answer?

Figures you 'saw somewhere else' w/o sources. You stated you 'thought' they were accurate. Not that you knew for a fact because you've researched the issue.

You'll have to explain what you mean by that.

You are going off of what you thought based off of unsourced information. Not the facts from an unbiased source.


It would be a logical fallacy if we were talking about an actual 'appeal to ridicule'. what I actually employed could probably be better defined as reductio ad absurdum.

ANd now who's missing the point.

Perhaps if you restate these 'three examples', I can see what you mean by not being able to 'defend my claims' against them.

You have a back button, yes?

As far as I'm aware, you're arguing that voters need an understanding of factors like - the number of seats required to overturn a veto - in order to be 'qualified' to vote...?

Then your awareness is limited.

Voters should have a basic understanding of gov;t in order to be qualified to vote for the gov't.

You made a nonsensical generalisation about how important it might be to understand the specific duties of the positions representatives fulfill. I explained why this wasn't a uniform 'truth', by example.

That's not 'inventing nonsense', that's 'illustrating' your argument.

It's only 'nonsensical' if you equate the members of congress et al to interns.

If you're going to say I claim something, you better be damn sure you're about to cite something I actually said...

So show me where I said anything about 'teaboys' if you want to play that game.

Actually: You said "If you inform yourself on why R v W is constitutional, you've just educated yourself on the process of government." And I replied that, basically, I don't think that logically follows.

How about illustrating why I should believe otherwise.

What laws were being contested? How did it get to the SCOTUS? Which judges ruled which way? What constitutional issue was it decided on?

All basic functions of gov't.



I'm pretty sure i didn't do that, actually.

Your demeanour suggests you know your 'argument' isn't standing up particularly well.

You don't even attempt to actually defend it any more.


Close enough. What is there to defend against? Logical fallacies and deliberate ignorance?

If an enfranchised voter can lose the right to vote, then - surely - since that is a DISqualification, they must have been intrinsically 'qualified' to begin with?

By what source are they?

For the benefit of those watching:

THIS post, is Kecibukia's response to Neesika asking for the point to be re-stated.

So I need to repeat myself? Does reading it more than once help you or should I just type slower?

By what source are they?

Which is the part of 'intrinsic' that has you stumped?

So I need to repeat myself? Does reading it more than once help you or should I just type slower?

Yes, you need to repeat yourself.

That is if - mind you - you are interested in the debate. If all you want is to pretend like you're scoring points, you need do nothing more than you're doing.

Which is the part of 'intrinsic' that has you stumped?

Oh, I know what the word means. Somewhere in the basic workings of the gov't, they recognize natural rights for it to claimed such .

Where is it and how do you know?

But yeah, or if you want, just scan the conclusion (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/html/pa525/pa525index.html) where he sums up his various suggestions.
Am I to understand you agree with the conclusion that cutting the size of the government is an important way to reduce complexity that follows from voter ignorance? I do, obviously, but it would be refreshing to get someone other than the usual suspects to agree with me. ;)

Are you going to be making voting mandatory as well? Because being faced with a remedial class if I don't pass some sort of test would cause me to stay at home.
In which case you wouldn't make a misinformed decision either. Would that be good for you? Maybe, probably not.

Even more likely if you're a truly misinformed voter is that you wouldn't care.

And I believe that people should never have others telling them what their best interests are.
That goes without saying. But you have to admit that the probability of you choosing a politician who accurately reflects your own interests in what the government should be doing increases as you learn more about what this politician actually believes and does.

Yes, you need to repeat yourself.

That is if - mind you - you are interested in the debate. If all you want is to pretend like you're scoring points, you need do nothing more than you're doing.

No, I don't 'need' to. You have a back button and can reread the thread as easily as anyone else. I'm not going to jump through hoops because you refuse to.

I really don't care about 'scoring points' either.

You've ignored lots of things.


I know. I'm a fucking saint, me.


Thank you for making my point. You DID know how the basics worked to be able to operate it.


No - I had to know what happened when I made my input to the machine. The actual machine itself was quite comfortable (according to the test procedure) to be accepted as effectively deus ex machina.


Your own posts. What. You want me to play the cutnpaste game?


If you're claiming I did it, then you have to show where I did.

The onus is on you. In absence of evidence, you lied.


Figures you 'saw somewhere else' w/o sources. You stated you 'thought' they were accurate. Not that you knew for a fact because you've researched the issue.


There's research and research. I have seen the data, but I didn't COLLECT the data. I think the data was accurate, but without access to the source, it's hard to be sure.

I think you're trying to catch me in something, but there's no trap where you think there should be - I answered the question you asked, and I qualified it as being recollection, rather than me having the data to hand. You haven't conflicted the data, you haven't shown me why I was wrong - you've just tried to act like it's significant.


You are going off of what you thought based off of unsourced information. Not the facts from an unbiased source.


I can't claim that the source was unbiased because, off the top of my head, I couldn't tell you what the source was. Believe it or not, I don't codify everything I read.

Meanwhile - you presented NO data, and failed to actually address mine.

What did you think the point of that exercise was supposed to be?


ANd now who's missing the point.


If you are trying to claim reductio ad absurdum as evidence of a logical fallacy? Errr... that would be you.


You have a back button, yes?


Not one that will clearly restate what it is you're supposed to be arguing, without the conflict.

Which.. I notice you're avoiding doing...


Then your awareness is limited.


Only by the quality of data you're providing.


Voters should have a basic understanding of gov;t in order to be qualified to vote for the gov't.


Which means what? As far as I've seen - you mean a MECHANICAL understanding. The numbers of votes required to overturn the veto is just the perfect example of this.


It's only 'nonsensical' if you equate the members of congress et al to interns.


No - it's nonsensical if you try to apply that kind of blanket response to literally hundreds of data.


So show me where I said anything about 'teaboys' if you want to play that game.


I already explained that the 'teaboys' are an illustration. I didn't claim you cited teaboys. It's an example of the extremity.


What laws were being contested? How did it get to the SCOTUS? Which judges ruled which way? What constitutional issue was it decided on?

All basic functions of gov't.


Which judges ruled which way... is a basic function of government?

Okay - that's making even less sense.


Close enough. What is there to defend against? Logical fallacies and deliberate ignorance?

Those might be on the list. Hard to be sure, since you balked at 'honest questions'.

Oh, I know what the word means. Somewhere in the basic workings of the gov't, they recognize natural rights for it to claimed such .

Where is it and how do you know?

You're the one who claimed the right could be revoked.

Thus, even you recognise it as intrinsic.

No, I don't 'need' to. You have a back button and can reread the thread as easily as anyone else. I'm not going to jump through hoops because you refuse to.


I have a 'back button'. Relevence?

You're claiming I'm ignoring your points, and I'm saying I must be missing what it is you think the point is.

If you re-state your points, clearly, we can move forward with intellectually honest debate.

If you refuse, you are opting out of that 'intellectually honest debate', which IS your choice - but it's not going to move things forward.

Up to you. Do you want everyone else to stop debating with you because they're no longer sure where you stand?

No - I had to know what happened when I made my input to the machine. The actual machine itself was quite comfortable (according to the test procedure) to be accepted as effectively deus ex machina.

Right. And you learned nothing about how it operated.


If you're claiming I did it, then you have to show where I did.

The onus is on you. In absence of evidence, you lied.

That's really sad that you are reduced to playing that game when the back button is right on your keyboard.


There's research and research. I have seen the data, but I didn't COLLECT the data. I think the data was accurate, but without access to the source, it's hard to be sure.

I think you're trying to catch me in something, but there's no trap where you think there should be - I answered the question you asked, and I qualified it as being recollection, rather than me having the data to hand. You haven't conflicted the data, you haven't shown me why I was wrong - you've just tried to act like it's significant.

I can't claim that the source was unbiased because, off the top of my head, I couldn't tell you what the source was. Believe it or not, I don't codify everything I read.

Meanwhile - you presented NO data, and failed to actually address mine.

Right. It was 'recollection'. Not absolute knowledge of the issue. Hence biased. Which is why 'issue' tests are even worse than an objective test.


I didn't present any data because I didn't make a claim now did I? I said that there were different numbers out there by biased sources and asked which was right.


Not one that will clearly restate what it is you're supposed to be arguing, without the conflict.

So basically you refuse to even read my first post.

Which.. I notice you're avoiding doing...

Only if you ignore the posts.


Only by the quality of data you're providing.

And what 'data' am I supposed to provide?

Which means what? As far as I've seen - you mean a MECHANICAL understanding. The numbers of votes required to overturn the veto is just the perfect example of this.

ROund and round we go, where we stop, nobody knows.



No - it's nonsensical if you try to apply that kind of blanket response to literally hundreds of data.

What is that supposed to mean? I talk about congress and the SCOTUS, you talk about interns and bathrooms.


I already explained that the 'teaboys' are an illustration. I didn't claim you cited teaboys. It's an example of the extremity.


And I continue to use it as an example of you drawing the argument into the absurd to ridicule it.


Which judges ruled which way... is a basic function of government?

Okay - that's making even less sense.

So knowing how many judges voted and which way isn't? What it 9-0 , 5-4? What?

Those might be on the list. Hard to be sure, since you balked at 'honest questions'.

"Honest questions' using undefined subjective language.

Right.

You're the one who claimed the right could be revoked.

Thus, even you recognise it as intrinsic.

Wow, talk about not answering the question. Not all places recognize rights as 'inherent'. Some do. Where do they recognize it?

Of course answering that question would show that one needs a basic knowledge of how the gov't works to answer an issue.

I have a 'back button'. Relevence?

You're claiming I'm ignoring your points, and I'm saying I must be missing what it is you think the point is.

If you re-state your points, clearly, we can move forward with intellectually honest debate.

If you refuse, you are opting out of that 'intellectually honest debate', which IS your choice - but it's not going to move things forward.

Up to you. Do you want everyone else to stop debating with you because they're no longer sure where you stand?

No, you're refusing to recognize the points that I have several times and want me to repeat myself over and over in the hopes that I'll state it differently and contradict myself.

Since I refuse to jump through your hoops, you're now going to play the "you're not honest" game.

All "everyone else" needs to do if they care is read back a little.

I don't think you guys are ever going to agree on this. Dance-off for victory?

And if he is indeed an objectivist (I have no idea), then obviously he's an elitist. It's the most elitist philosophy out there, except that objectivists obviously don't accept any negative connotations of the word.

His website (which is oddly tacky for a professor) mentions his epiphany after reading Atlas Shrugged. And actually after thinking about it some it does make sense an objectivist would be elitist, but an elitist libertarian still sounds strange. Thanks for the explanation, though, it's a little clearer now. (I wholeheartedly disagree, but it's clear.)

I don't think you guys are ever going to agree on this. Dance-off for victory?

Battle-axes at 10 paces.

I don't think you guys are ever going to agree on this. Dance-off for victory?

No. I won't waste any more time on Kecibukia. He's been offered the opportunity of honest debate, and has declined. Thus, he is beneath worth for consideration. Having seen him being equally dishonest with others I do not consider his 'disagreement' to be any kind of loss.

I know I'm coming in late to this debacle, I mean debate, but, I believe that every citizen who has a stake in the outcome of an election should have the right to vote. Either that, or no one should have the right. Unfortunately, we'll always have voters who choose to remain ignorant, that's one of the disadvantages to the system.

The US has had @ 230 years of moderate success, or at least lack of failure (if you factor in the Civil War and the Great Depression - both of which we survived) under this system (as it has evolved over the last 2+ centuries). We've denied people the right to vote based on gender, literacy and race/culture, but eventually, those disenfranchised were given the franchise and we still limp along. The strange thing is that we aren't doing any worse than any other country and some areas we've done marginally better.

Didn't read the whole thread, but I wanted to chime in.

Should there be a knowledge test making sure that anybody who votes actually KNOWs who and what they are voting for or against? A short questionaire about the politics of the candidates?

I'd settle for a 10 question multiple choice test on the Constitution...you should be eligible to take the test as soon as you're old enough to pick up a pencil. If you pass, you are eligible to vote for the rest of your life. If you fail, you can retake the test in the next election (local, state, or federal)...

...perfect? Of course not...but neither is the current system.

I don't have to understand how a bus works in order to choose which one to take to school. I choose based on which ride has the nicest scenery, or perhaps which driver is hottest (we have some nice young drivers these days), which bus I can take my bike on, or maybe even the bus that has my lucky number on the side.

How I choose is irrelevant and I need know nothing about its inner workings.

No, but I think you need to know the bus schedule, and the routes they take.

And that's what I'm on about : Not knowing how the bus works, but knowing where it will take you and when.

Because they are citizens, and citizens have the unqualified and absolute right to vote.



They don't, though.
The qualifications for the right to vote (even for citizens) are :

Being above an arbitrary age line
Not being in jail (in some countries extended to never having been in jail)
Not suffering from certain mental diseases


Personally, I find point one and two to be completely arbitrary, while point three seems to indicate that yes, we do already exclude people who we can assume not to be mentally capable of understanding the voting process and its consequences.

You must prove that the harm caused by people voting 'unqualified' (using your definition, being unable to answer the questions you've given as examples) is GREATER than the harm one would cause by disenfranchising them.


Intersting question.
I honestly don't see how you could possibly prove that, given that voting is anonymus. All you could go by is polls...

Then again, could you prove that the harm caused by letting 5 year olds vote will be greater than refusing them the right to vote straight-out?

And I believe that people should never have others telling them what their best interests are.

No, certainly not. I don't think anybody suggested that.
But I think NL made exaclty the point I was trying to get across : people can only vote for or against their interests if they know which party acutally represents those interests best.
I don't want them indoctrinated with who they should vote for before they can vote. But I think that if you have a choice between A and B, you can only really make the choice if you know what A and B stand for.
Sure you can flip a coin, always an option, but in the case of something as important and massive as a general election I think that's rather frivolous.

I don't want them indoctrinated with who they should vote for before they can vote. But I think that if you have a choice between A and B, you can only really make the choice if you know what A and B stand for.

Ahhh, I see what you mean. Yes, that does seem workable, except when you encounter the "too lazy to think in either case" crowd. Still, there is some small hope that such people are of the insignificant portion of the demographic, and probably wouldn't care anyway if they weren't allowed to vote.

In my Philosophy class today (the class focus is on proper argumentation), a girl said that she will be voting for Obama because "he's a cool dude and everyone is going to do it anyways." She was not joking. Yet another reason why Democracy sucks and Plato is right. I am all for a litmus test that dictates who can and cannot vote. Stupid people ruin a lot of stuff, especially elections.

I tend to think that in a perfect world, a knowledge test would be great. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world and there are people who would be disadvantaged needlessly. I often despair at the idea of compulsory voting because so many people just vote to avoid the fine.

But the flip side to the argument for a knowledge test, is that people have a right to be wilfully ignorant if they want to. They also have a right to have a say in their political future. If they cast their vote for someone because they both like the same sports team (the reason so many people voted for our Premier), that is their prerogative.

How about we just complicate the voting system so much that the 'challenged' won't be able to vote? Like an Instant Runoff Voting based system? ;)

People are often much more willing to embrace restricting rights in groups THEY don't belong to.

Arnt they just.

So you're saying a person who doesn't even know how the gov't operates knows enough to have a say in the direction it takes?

Yes, all that is realy needed is to know what you want your goverment to do for you. Typicaly come election time, you can't move for respective parties telling you exactly what they are going to do.

So all you really need to do is be able to listen. Damn me that means we have to take the vote back from them deaf bastards!

Yes, all that is realy needed is to know what you want your goverment to do for you. Typicaly come election time, you can't move for respective parties telling you exactly what they are going to do.

So all you really need to do is be able to listen. Damn me that means we have to take the vote back from them deaf bastards!

Now if we can get this alligned to "knowing which of the parties/candidates actually claims they're going to take government in the direction you want them to go"...

Now if we can get this alligned to "knowing which of the parties/candidates actually claims they're going to take government in the direction you want them to go"...

I really think that the majority of voters know this.

I really think that the majority of voters know this.

It's hard to say, but I honestly have started to develop doubts there.
My grandmother votes for whoever the priest tells her to (funnily, depending on the priest she talked to last, that can be either left or right). My mother votes green, because she's always done so (regardless of the fact that the Green party now endorses practices that are a direct contradiction to their original party program).
And those sound bites about people not voting for Obama cause he's a Muslim and people voting for him cause "everybody else does" don't really help restore my faith in the general mental capacity of the average voter.

I think I ought to point out that my objective with this suggestion is NOT to exclude anybody from voting. It's more like an incentive to actually get to know what you're voting for before you cast your vote.

Except you know, most of them are already unaccountable most of the time, and the rest of the time, they have the willfully ignorant, not a small number, supporting their unaccountability.

If that is true, reducing enfranchisement and accountability would only make the problem worse. Therefore, limiting the number of people who vote is a bad idea.

Somin, I. 2004. When Ignorance Isn't Bliss: How Political Ignorance Threatens Democracy, Policy Analysis, 525. (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2372)

There you go. Yay, for links being needed to point out common sense.

Mmmmmmmmm. Cato......



1)How does knowing something like, "What percentage is needed to override a presidential veto" magically make someone a qualified voter?

2)What is 'qualified'? What quality is possessed now that wasn't there before?

I don't think anyone's answered these questions yet.

They don't, though.
The qualifications for the right to vote (even for citizens) are :

Being above an arbitrary age line
Not being in jail (in some countries extended to never having been in jail)
Not suffering from certain mental diseases


Personally, I find point one and two to be completely arbitrary, while point three seems to indicate that yes, we do already exclude people who we can assume not to be mentally capable of understanding the voting process and its consequences.

I wouldn't say age is COMPLETELY arbitrary. Let's face it, if you're 16 years old your brain simply hasn't fully matured yet. If we're going to assume that a voting decision is a rational choice based on complex factors such as economic or foreign policy (which seems to be one assumption that is made), then it's going to take a few more years before many people are capable of making their best decisions. I'm saying that strictly on the basis of the average timeline for brain maturation, and evidence suggesting that cognitive performance on tasks that require abstract reasoning changes as well.

But, if we assume that voting isn't all that rational (which, to be fair, it doesn't appear to be) and that it's often based on emotional choices that are informed by little more than brief exposure to sound bytes, or the body language of the candidates, or the fact that their friends all vote a certain way - sure, the age limit is pointless. In that case we can reasonably expect a 15 year old to make their decision using the same information that an adult does.

My thinking is, an age limit at least attempts to keep voters who aren't truly cognitively capable of making the best decisions they will be capable of out of the voting booth. I'm not talking about intelligence. I'm talking about people who haven't even reached THEIR OWN cognitive potential yet. Again, I'm not talking about trying to keep out people who don't reach some minimum standard of intelligence, whatever that would be.

I wouldn't say age is COMPLETELY arbitrary. Let's face it, if you're 16 years old your brain simply hasn't fully matured yet. If we're going to assume that a voting decision is a rational choice based on complex factors such as economic or foreign policy (which seems to be one assumption that is made), then it's going to take a few more years before many people are capable of making their best decisions. I'm saying that strictly on the basis of the average timeline for brain maturation, and evidence suggesting that cognitive performance on tasks that require abstract reasoning changes as well.

But, if we assume that voting isn't all that rational (which, to be fair, it doesn't appear to be) and that it's often based on emotional choices that are informed by little more than brief exposure to sound bytes, or the body language of the candidates, or the fact that their friends all vote a certain way - sure, the age limit is pointless. In that case we can reasonably expect a 15 year old to make their decision using the same information that an adult does.

My thinking is, an age limit at least attempts to keep voters who aren't truly cognitively capable of making the best decisions they will be capable of out of the voting booth. I'm not talking about intelligence. I'm talking about people who haven't even reached THEIR OWN cognitive potential yet. Again, I'm not talking about trying to keep out people who don't reach some minimum standard of intelligence, whatever that would be.

I can understand the rationale behind the age limit, definitely. However, considering that individuals reach maturity at different times, I still think it's a rather arbitrary line.
I've known 16-year-olds who were more mature than I am now, and I know 25 year-olds who have to thank sheer luck for not being able to apply for a Darwin Award yet. Intelligence and maturity are nice to have, but I don't think they can be assumed from the age of the person in question, nor am I entirely sure I would want them as the basis of who gets to vote and who doesn't. After all, even relatively immature people have hopes and needs, and a right to see those reflected in their country's politics.

What I'm trying to advocate here is not necessarily knowledge of the political system, or intelligence, or maturity. What I would like to see is voters actually knowing the politics of the party-candidate they want to vote for or against.
Doesn't need to be much... you could for example get a leaflet together with a list of the key issues of today's politics ( 6 or 7 points) and each party's approach next to them. And I definitely would say that there should be someone there to read them out for illiterate people. Make it as simple and easy and accessible as possible.

If that is true, reducing enfranchisement and accountability would only make the problem worse.

Not if you make the knowledgeable and the responsible capable of voting without being overriden by the much greater number of ignorants.


I don't think anyone's answered these questions yet.

I'd settle for basic factual knowledge. What the country is doing, what it's done, what the candidates promise, that sort of thing.

Not if you make the knowledgeable and the responsible capable of voting without being overriden by the much greater number of ignorants.

So, you're saying that to increase government accountability, we have to reduce the government accountability to a segment of the population so that the rest of the population can hold the government accountable more effectively.

You have not shown that the 'interefrence of the ignorant' reduces government accountability, which is central to your argument. On the other hand, it is obvious that if you disenfranchise people, you automatically reduce accountability. Do you see how your proposal definitely reduces accountability while only promising more accountability based on your unproven assumptions?

I'd settle for basic factual knowledge. What the country is doing, what it's done, what the candidates promise, that sort of thing.

Sure. Whatever. But that doesn't answer Sinhue's questions.

I can understand the rationale behind the age limit, definitely. However, considering that individuals reach maturity at different times, I still think it's a rather arbitrary line.
I've known 16-year-olds who were more mature than I am now, and I know 25 year-olds who have to thank sheer luck for not being able to apply for a Darwin Award yet. Intelligence and maturity are nice to have, but I don't think they can be assumed from the age of the person in question, nor am I entirely sure I would want them as the basis of who gets to vote and who doesn't. After all, even relatively immature people have hopes and needs, and a right to see those reflected in their country's politics.

What I'm trying to advocate here is not necessarily knowledge of the political system, or intelligence, or maturity. What I would like to see is voters actually knowing the politics of the party-candidate they want to vote for or against.
Doesn't need to be much... you could for example get a leaflet together with a list of the key issues of today's politics ( 6 or 7 points) and each party's approach next to them. And I definitely would say that there should be someone there to read them out for illiterate people. Make it as simple and easy and accessible as possible.

I understand what you're saying, and in the end an age limit is necessarily arbitrary (to a degree) because of the individual differences in development that you alluded to.

And I also don't disagree that it would be nice to have people voting based on their knowledge of the candidates. What about this? Rather than voting for a candidate, you go into the booth and fill out a survey indicating your position on a variety of different issues (e.g., gay marriage, immigration, taxes). At the end, you are told which candidate you tend to agree with the most and either A) a vote is automatically cast for that ticket (I personally wouldn't go that route for many, many reasons) or B) you are simply informed of which candidate you are most in agreement with (vote as you wish).

Sort of like this cutesy little "Match-o-Matic" thing from ABC:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/MatchoMatic/fullpage?id=5542139

If everyone did that, would it make you feel better about people making informed choices?

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

...bolded section is trumped by the 15th, 19th & 26th Amendments, which gave the vote to all races, women, and changed the voting age to 18 (respectively).

So: The law already allows everyone over 18 to vote... and I'd hate to see a Jim Crow like law stating people have to answer a quiz or read something to vote.

If everyone did that, would it make you feel better about people making informed choices?

Sounds like a good idea.
I would even settle for making them watch or listen to a short summary of each party's/candidate's policies. After all, I'm not after only allowing people voting for a certain person or certain party. I would just like to see people knowing what the party they're voting for stands for.

i think everyone should be allowed to enjoy the ego boo of voting from as soon as the learn how to write or print their own name in kindergarten, untill the're six feet under of old age. the randomization factor of ignorance is can sometimes be a positive thing.

i think everyone who qualifies by passing an origeonality test, and who votes, ought to be eligable to be elected, even if they didn't campaign or volunteer to run for office though.

i mean democracy has never guaranteed freedom, and the majority has always been gullible to its own detriment, that much is certainly true, but i don't believe in any sort of devine right of hierarchy either, and i don't see economic fortune as proof of anything.

basically i see every excuse for not allowing anyone to vote as so much doubletalk. but i do think, people who inform themsleves on an issue, take an intrest in it, ought to be able to vote more directly on it, on the same scale as an elected parlimentarian, rather then as just another voter having to depend on their issue comming up for public referendum.

So, you're saying that to increase government accountability, we have to reduce the government accountability to a segment of the population so that the rest of the population can hold the government accountable more effectively.

Let me put it this way. Which would you rather have doing your surgery. A qualified surgeon, or a dozen random people who all think they'd make good surgeons, better than anyone else, and of which one or two of them are actually surgeons?

Accountability only comes into play when three conditions are fulfilled. The first is the ability to actually hold someone accountable. Voting someone out fills that condition (barely). The second is the competency of the ones doing the judging, and whether they are competent enough to know when the ones they elected to do a job are doing it wrong and screwing them over. This condition is rarely fulfilled. The third condition is the interest of the ones doing the accounting, and whether they can be arsed enough to demand accountability. Beyond a tiny segment of the populace, I don't ever see this happening in most cases.


You have not shown that the 'interefrence of the ignorant' reduces government accountability, which is central to your argument.


Let me put it this way. In times of abundance, normality and minor hardship, the guy promising "good times and free beer" without actually doing a lick of work will more often than not find a large supporting group driven by selfish desires and not very much brain cells compared to someone who is actually working hard to make sure the people aren't screwed over.

When the majority of your voting public are too lazy to give you more than a cursory look and too ignorant to really know what you are doing, you'll never have to worry about accountability.


On the other hand, it is obvious that if you disenfranchise people, you automatically reduce accountability.

If you trim the dead weight, no, not really. The only problem is making sure that the tests aren't corrupted, and that the right is seen as desirable enough to strive for.

There are a lot of problems with the idea, least of all making it practical in the long term, but if done right, it might at least raise the bar a bit.


Sure. Whatever. But that doesn't answer Sinhue's questions.

It answered her second question.

Let me put it this way. Which would you rather have doing your surgery. A qualified surgeon, or a dozen random people who all think they'd make good surgeons, better than anyone else, and of which one or two of them are actually surgeons?

Accountability only comes into play when three conditions are fulfilled. The first is the ability to actually hold someone accountable. Voting someone out fills that condition (barely). The second is the competency of the ones doing the judging, and whether they are competent enough to know when the ones they elected to do a job are doing it wrong and screwing them over. This condition is rarely fulfilled. The third condition is the interest of the ones doing the accounting, and whether they can be arsed enough to demand accountability. Beyond a tiny segment of the populace, I don't ever see this happening in most cases.

Surgery requires years of specialised training. Since you are not advocating such training for the average voter, your analogy fails.

Restricting the vote to those who pass some sort of test would not affect these conditions in any way that would increase government accountability. I have already shown that it would make the first condition worse. The second relies on unproven assumptions about competency and the percentage of the voting population that has it, and the third deals with how motivated they are which is exclusive of their level of ignorance.

Let me put it this way. In times of abundance, normality and minor hardship, the guy promising "good times and free beer" without actually doing a lick of work will more often than not find a large supporting group driven by selfish desires and not very much brain cells compared to someone who is actually working hard to make sure the people aren't screwed over.

When the majority of your voting public are too lazy to give you more than a cursory look and too ignorant to really know what you are doing, you'll never have to worry about accountability.

This problem of yours only exists when ignorant people outnumber smart people. So in order to solve your problem, you would have to take the vote away from the majority of people. Unless you think disenfranchising the greater part of a population is a good idea, I suggest you look at your math.

It answered her second question.

Not that I can see.

Surgery requires years of specialised training. Since you are not advocating such training for the average voter, your analogy fails.

Awareness of political consequences, decisions, factors, and their affect on past and present actions of the nation, and understanding all of it, would reasonably require years of at least some level of study and/or experience.


Restricting the vote to those who pass some sort of test would not affect these conditions in any way that would increase government accountability.


And why is this? Can you explain your reasoning?


I have already shown that it would make the first condition worse.


A search of your posts on this thread have do not show to me where you have proven this statement. Can you elaborate?


The second relies on unproven assumptions about competency and the percentage of the voting population that has it,

From a statistical point of view, you are correct that it is unproven, but it is rather aside from the problem to begin with.


and the third deals with how motivated they are which is exclusive of their level of ignorance.

One can only imagine that if one were motivated enough to be concerned with political going ons, one would at least take some measures to educate one's self.


This problem of yours only exists when ignorant people outnumber smart people.

This seems to be the majority case most of the time. It's not a unique phenomenon. Rulers from time immemorial have always striven to keep their populace at the very least partially ignorant of their actions, or gloss them over with pretty and not so pretty equivalents of "don't think about it".

If you can find some way to reverse this trend and make it last, I would be quite happy to recant my current position.


Not that I can see.

Obviously not, otherwise we wouldn't be having the whole debate of the above mentioned now would we?

Awareness of political consequences, decisions, factors, and their affect on past and present actions of the nation, and understanding all of it, would reasonably require years of at least some level of study and/or experience.

...and it may not change anything at all.

And why is this? Can you explain your reasoning?

That's what the following sentences were about. It's why I use paragraphs; to group together sentences that develop an idea.

A search of your posts on this thread have do not show to me where you have proven this statement. Can you elaborate?

Voting is a process by which the government is held accountable. Therefore, limiting voting will limit accountability.

From a statistical point of view, you are correct that it is unproven, but it is rather aside from the problem to begin with.

Since it seems to be the crux of your argument, I don't think it's an aside.

One can only imagine that if one were motivated enough to be concerned with political going ons, one would at least take some measures to educate one's self.

An abortion clinic bomber is very motivated, and has educated himself because of his particular stance on that specific 'political going-on'. Would you claim that this has reduced his ignorance in such a way as to make our society better or government more accountable? Of course not. therefore, you can't claim that motivation will necessarily help.

This seems to be the majority case most of the time. It's not a unique phenomenon. Rulers from time immemorial have always striven to keep their populace at the very least partially ignorant of their actions, or gloss them over with pretty and not so pretty equivalents of "don't think about it".

If you can find some way to reverse this trend and make it last, I would be quite happy to recant my current position.

It may seem that way to you, but I don't think we should disenfranchise a majority of the population based on what you think things seem like.

Obviously not, otherwise we wouldn't be having the whole debate of the above mentioned now would we?

Unless you elaborate or otherwise attempt to show how you're answering those questions, we're not having a debate. We're having a situation where people are avoiding debate.

I fully support not only that voters should have some general knowledge of what they are voting for
[including that all relevant data of the candidates is made available to the voters, and located in areas where anyone on either end of the economic scale can get to it, and have some clue]

But also, that the political sides only make any major party changes before getting elected - if any major changes are made after, then there should be a new election held based on how these changes affect voter opinion
[god knows one time i voted for a party that seemed okay, then the day after they got elected, they replaced a normal party member with a transvestite - somewhere during my swearing fit i said something about wanting my vote back to choose a different party]

But also, that the political sides only make any major party changes before getting elected - if any major changes are made after, then there should be a new election held based on how these changes affect voter opinion
[god knows one time i voted for a party that seemed okay, then the day after they got elected, they replaced a normal party member with a transvestite - somewhere during my swearing fit i said something about wanting my vote back to choose a different party]

Gosh, how awful for you. How dare they replace someone "normal" with ONE OF THEM??? :rolleyes: I presume it wasn't their policy differences or the undemocratic nature of the change that changed your mind, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned the fact it was a non-"normal" replacement, as that would most surely be irrelevant if it was a matter of political principle.

I'll just restate what I said earlier:

I would make the test simple. When you come in to vote, before being allowed to cast your ballot in a Federal Election you must be able to name:

1. The current president
2 The current V.P.
3. Your 2 state senators
4. The congressman who represents your district

If you can correctly name all these people then you get to vote. Otherwise, we turn you away until you establish you are smart enough to at least know who you may be voting for/against.

I am amazed when I hear "man on the street" stuff where people say they think Clinton or Gore are in power, etc.

Any test beyond this opens the door for abuse and discrimination. But know who is in power before you vote should be required. I don't care what age you allow people to vote at and I don't care whether we let convicted felons vote or not, I don't even care if we let drooling, mentally incompetent, schizophrenics vote, if they can recite when asked the names of those currently in power, then fine, let them vote.

Tests about the constitution, our system of government, reading/writing skills, political philosophies, etc. can be manipulated. I don't see how a test that asks simply "who is currently in charge" can be used to effect a discriminatory purpose.

I suggest minimum IQ of 120, or a certain minimum income like 120k a year(with a fee at the polls of say 5 k.) would be great way to determine who gets to vote.

also forgot University degree waivers IQ test as well as Income.

I'll just restate what I said earlier:

Any test beyond this opens the door for abuse and discrimination. But know who is in power before you vote should be required. I don't care what age you allow people to vote at and I don't care whether we let convicted felons vote or not, I don't even care if we let drooling, mentally incompetent, schizophrenics vote, if they can recite when asked the names of those currently in power, then fine, let them vote.

Tests about the constitution, our system of government, reading/writing skills, political philosophies, etc. can be manipulated. I don't see how a test that asks simply "who is currently in charge" can be used to effect a discriminatory purpose.

What relevence does your local representative, or your state senators have - when deciding who you want to be president?

Similarly - if all you care about is a senator, why do you need to know who is VP?

Not that I'm saying you're asking bad things - I like the idea that people should have a passing familiarity with the issues and those involved... but I'm not sure your idea is the way to do it... or is legal... or, and this is most important to me... I'm not sure it's fair.

I suggest minium IQ of 120, or a certain minimum income like 120k a year(with a fee at the polls of say 5 k.) would be great way to determine who gets to vote.

I think any income basis is inherently stupid and wrong - and I suspect you do too, really. Joke, right?

I think any income basis is inherently stupid and wrong - and I suspect you do too, really. Joke, right?

No income is a measure of success in this country.
Few people making a high income are dumb.
on top of that charging them 5 k every election to vote would likely cover the cost of the election and then some allowing the government to do better.

No income is a measure of success in this country.
Few people making a high income are dumb.
on top of that charging them 5 k every election to vote would likely cover the cost of the election and then some allowing the government to do better.

Given the market these days, I seriously question that assumption!! :(

No income is a measure of success in this country.
Few people making a high income are dumb.
on top of that charging them 5 k every election to vote would likely cover the cost of the election and then some allowing the government to do better.

Income is a measure of FINANCIAL success in this country - and has no bearing at all on how smart a person is, or how worthy they would be as electors. But your idea for a return to feudalism is interesting.

Effectively, you're arguing that the way to cure the 'problems' of corruption and inequality in America... is to ignore them.

What relevence does your local representative, or your state senators have - when deciding who you want to be president?

Similarly - if all you care about is a senator, why do you need to know who is VP?

Not that I'm saying you're asking bad things - I like the idea that people should have a passing familiarity with the issues and those involved... but I'm not sure your idea is the way to do it... or is legal... or, and this is most important to me... I'm not sure it's fair.
First, I don't see how it could possibly be unfair.
Secondly, you answered your own question - "people should have a passing familiarity with the issues and those involved" before we let them vote. Even if you are voting for a Senator, I think it important to know who the VP is that your senator will have to work with/against. Note, also, I was speaking of federal, not local, elections. I never mentioned local representatives at all. I meant who is YOUR congressman, not your local rep, but the guy in congress that reps YOUR district of the state.

If you only voted in federal elections and nothing else you have to vote for/against a congressman every 2 years and a pres/V.P. every 4 and both your senators will come up in their rotation every 6 so know who they are for every election, even in the ones where possibly no senator or Pres/VP is on the ticket is a way to establish that you "have a passing familiarity with the issues and those involved."

First, I don't see how it could possibly be unfair.


It's 'not fair' because it's arbitrary. You don't NEED to know who even the President is, to have an opinion on politics. Knowing the positions currently occupied is actually somewhat irrelevent, to be honest.

Knowing something about the candidates on the other hand, would be a lot less arbitrary.

But again - still not sure it's 'fair'. Why discriminate based on ability to remember names?


Secondly, you answered your own question - "people should have a passing familiarity with the issues and those involved" before we let them vote. Even if you are voting for a Senator, I think it important to know who the VP is that your senator will have to work with/against. Note, also, I was speaking of federal, not local, elections. I never mentioned local representatives at all. I meant who is YOUR congressman, not your local rep, but the guy in congress that reps YOUR district of the state.

If you only voted in federal elections and nothing else you have to vote for/against a congressman every 2 years and a pres/V.P. every 4 and both your senators will come up in their rotation every 6 so know who they are for every election, even in the ones where possibly no senator or Pres/VP is on the ticket is a way to establish that you "have a passing familiarity with the issues and those involved."

The problem is - these factors are somewhat irrelevent. The politicans should be irrelevent. What is important is the issues, and the way in which the country is being run.

Example: A voter thinks that capitalism is intrisically evil, that government is implicitly evil - and wants to cast their vote in favour of a communo-anarchic candidate. This person doesn't need to be able to name a single politician to be aware that the nation isn't currently meeting their preferred model. They certainly don't need to know the identities of a couple of other senators, in order to be able to pick their candidate off of the ballot.

Given the market these days, I seriously question that assumption!! :(

that's a matter of opinion I am more likely to blame the fed reserve and the president the dumb masses elected as president.

No income is a measure of success in this country.
Few people making a high income are dumb.
on top of that charging them 5 k every election to vote would likely cover the cost of the election and then some allowing the government to do better.

You've heard of this thing called inheritance, right?

Disclaimer: I have not yet read the entire thread.

Not only does any voter qualification test have a potential for abuse, there is a long and nasty history of such abuse in the United States and any proposed tests must be evaluated in that context.

Try taking the Alabama Literacy Tests (http://kpearson.project.tcnj.edu/interactive/imm_files/test.html) and read about how they were administered. See, e.g., link (http://www.crmvet.org/info/lithome.htm).

Given this historical context, no. I don't support any voter qualification tests.