Voting test

Schizotypic · 11-11-2010, 12:44 PM

It just seems to me that we, the people, are getting most of our facts about the candidates from our social groups. Perhaps we don't have easy enough access to the material, or perhaps there isn't enough pride and propaganda spread to get everyone involved in research. In any case, the anxiety is that were being taken advantage of.

For instance, what if those in charge of running the campaigns say something like, "Vote to clean-up the streets" and what the law is really about is making it really hard for people to get paroled out of prison. It's misleading. After thinking about it though, I think my debate is falling apart. In the end, if a third of the middle class knows what the argument is, then they pass that information on to others and the population gets a somewhat decent idea of what they're voting for and why.

I suppose the biggest obstacle isn't blaring ignorance, so much as denial. For instance, I know someone with a lot of money who always votes republican; he loves Sarah Palin's miniskirt, and her traditional values. He could understand the concepts of post gender households, of social equity and equal opportunity, of why welfare isn't communism (he gets a little ridiculous), but he wants to have the acceptance from his family and social group instead. Not a wise choice in my opinion, but it isn't blatant ignorance and my test idea certainly won't fix it. Perhaps Prop 123 is best in the form of word of mouth, after all it takes large groups of people time to come to a reasonably majority agreement. It's my guess on the reason that real social change happens so slowly, but in the end I suppose it does happen.

11-11-2010, 12:44 PM	#1 (permalink)
Schizotypic Souls of Sound Sailors Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Mojave Posts: 759	It just seems to me that we, the people, are getting most of our facts about the candidates from our social groups. Perhaps we don't have easy enough access to the material, or perhaps there isn't enough pride and propaganda spread to get everyone involved in research. In any case, the anxiety is that were being taken advantage of. For instance, what if those in charge of running the campaigns say something like, "Vote to clean-up the streets" and what the law is really about is making it really hard for people to get paroled out of prison. It's misleading. After thinking about it though, I think my debate is falling apart. In the end, if a third of the middle class knows what the argument is, then they pass that information on to others and the population gets a somewhat decent idea of what they're voting for and why. I suppose the biggest obstacle isn't blaring ignorance, so much as denial. For instance, I know someone with a lot of money who always votes republican; he loves Sarah Palin's miniskirt, and her traditional values. He could understand the concepts of post gender households, of social equity and equal opportunity, of why welfare isn't communism (he gets a little ridiculous), but he wants to have the acceptance from his family and social group instead. Not a wise choice in my opinion, but it isn't blatant ignorance and my test idea certainly won't fix it. Perhaps Prop 123 is best in the form of word of mouth, after all it takes large groups of people time to come to a reasonably majority agreement. It's my guess on the reason that real social change happens so slowly, but in the end I suppose it does happen.