Quote:
Originally Posted by Freebase Dali
Um... the entire voting system is based on individuals having the personal freedom to vote for whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. Whether their vote is based on some kind of political knowledge or ignorance is irrelevant.
|
Exactly. In a democracy we have a right to cast our vote for whatever reason we want and however we want. If I liked Obama because I think he has a nice family, that could have been my reason for voting for him. (I do feel his family is nice, by the way.)
If there is a fear that a lot of people will vote without knowing about an issue, then it is left up to those who truly care to try to educate and persuade voters to vote in a particular way. That is the burden and a challenge in a democracy: the people who care have to try to organize to get some measure passed. And you fight against big money and business interests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schizotypic
So what you're saying is the voting process should have no way to filter out blaring ignorance?
The test would not be long, it would be more like a quiz. If you chose not to vote for a particular subject, you wouldn't have to take the quiz. For example, you go to the poll and before you vote on, say, Prop 123, you have to answer maybe five or ten quick questions about who is for what, what the arguments basically are, etc. Theoretically to pass this test, you could have a IQ of 90, be deaf and illiterate, and could still pass the test if you knew what the prop was about.
Find a reason to disagree with that.
|
A democracy would not be a democracy if people weren't allow to demonstrate blaring ignorance while voting...much as I'd *like* to stop all Republicans from voting for that reason!
So, yes, I'd say the voting process should not screen out ignorance. People have a right to be ignorant.
Sometimes all a person will know about Prop 123 is that a neighbor says it is a bad idea. You trust your neighbor, so you vote against the Prop. Maybe the neighbor really is very knowledgeable; maybe not. The reality is that many people may not have or want to take the time to educate themselves.
Even I sometimes cast a "mom" vote: in other words, my mom is up on all the local news and issues, and I trust her judgement, so if she says, "Vote for X, Y, and Z," and I have found no reason not to do so, I'll probably vote for them. Even though I know nothing about them other than they have my mom's endorsement.
Also, if there is a Democrat running against a Republican, even if I know nothing about their individual views, I will vote for the Democrat. I vote straight party ticket. So, I am voting while being ignorant of specifics, though I generally know that Democrats are for the little people and for labor and for helping people in need, and Republicans want to make sure that businesses and rich people can get even richer, and screw the environment because it is too costly to protect.
And here's another issue, Schizo: people may not have access to the educational material. How would you propose educating the people? At the voting center the day of the vote? That won't give people enough time to read, digest, understand, find counter-views. Via the newspaper? Not everyone gets the newspaper. Via mail? Phone? Not all people have those.
And do you think you'd get the different political parties to agree on what the arguments basically are? I doubt that. So that is an added layer of complexity: who decides what information the government should give people about an item up for the vote?
Rather than create a voter test, I feel we should ensure that the federal government and states are distributing accurate information about items or people up for the vote, reflecting a variety of viewpoints of different groups of constituents.