PDA

View Full Version : Should the ignorant be given a vote?



B. de Corbin
30 Sep 2016, 07:49
In the U.S., everybody who registers is allowed to vote.

Many - if not the majority - of people seem to be ignorant of some pretty basic stuff, like the U.S. Constitution, local, national, and world events, and that kind of "trivia."

How can we expect to elect good leaders when people who are horrendously ill-informed get the same vote as those who take the time and put in the effort to understand important issues?

Interesting article - The right to vote should be restricted to those with knowledge (https://aeon.co/ideas/the-right-to-vote-should-be-restricted-to-those-with-knowledge). From the article:


Consider an alternative political system called epistocracy. Epistocracies retain the same institutions as representative democracies, including imposing liberal constitutional limits on power, bills of rights, checks and balances, elected representatives and judicial review. But while democracies give every citizen an equal right to vote, epistocracies apportion political power, by law, according to knowledge or competence.

The idea here is not that knowledgeable people deserve to rule – of course they don’t – but that the rest of us deserve not to be subjected to incompetently made political decisions....

So...

Waddaya think?

DragonsFriend
30 Sep 2016, 08:20
The problem with limiting the vote is that someone decides who is knowledgeable and who is not.
The problem with not limiting the vote is you end up with votes you don't agree with.
That is why we have a representative government called a republic. We elect people who are more informed to make the decisions.
The problem with that is we elect liars and thieves.

ThePaganMafia
30 Sep 2016, 11:08
One of the larger criticisms with democratic systems is the ability for a majority to subjugate a minority and the affect that money has on the ability to sway the vote.

I would say that ignorant voters are probably less of a problem than the mechanisms that are used to influence the vote.

Tylluan Penry
30 Sep 2016, 11:53
I'm all in favour of Bassett Hounds being given the vote. Cunning little buggers, they are...

Medusa
30 Sep 2016, 12:13
well apparently they are allowed to actually run for president.
So yes. Yes is my final answer.

B. de Corbin
30 Sep 2016, 13:00
well apparently they are allowed to actually run for president.
So yes. Yes is my final answer.

LOL - but if you answer "no," maybe nobody allowed to vote would let that happen.

My opie-onion...

...great idea, if it didn't have a near 100% likelihood of abuse.

- - - Updated - - -


I'm all in favour of Bassett Hounds being given the vote. Cunning little buggers, they are...

Beagles aren't real bright, but I think they could smell out a candidate overfilled with crap. Let them vote, too.

anunitu
30 Sep 2016, 13:55
I remember in Junior High 8th grade we had to pass a civics class to graduate. Learned all the Government stuff,and our civic duty in understanding how our system of government functions. I do not think they still do that in the schools(this was California) that at about 1960.

Tylluan Penry
30 Sep 2016, 14:04
Recently in the UK there has been a leadership election in the Labour Party. The UK labour party is now the largest party in Europe. And yet... the powers that be (who really wanted to get rid of the present leader, Jeremy Corbyn) disenfranchised about 200,000 of its own members for really weird stuff like liking the foo fighters, or once tweeting in favour of the Green Party (it seems that while MPs can change allegiances, members cannot.) Rules were changes arbitrarily, court cases ensued and all sort of skullduggery.
I did not know it, but according to the great and the good I am apparently some sort of Trot and deluded to boot.

Therefore, I am very much against the idea of 'the ignorant' being excluded from voting because it seems to me that it would result in only those who fit a certain profile will have any say. That is not democracy.
Mind you, democracy is a dangerous beast - witness the recent EU referendum in the UK. The moral of that tale, boys and girls, is never hold a referendum unless you know you can control the result. If you do not know (and do not care) at least have an alternative plan in place.
But I digress. Jeremy Corbyn was re-elected with a bigger mandate.

So yes, allow deluded old Trots like me to vote, by all means.

B. de Corbin
30 Sep 2016, 14:30
...Therefore, I am very much against the idea of 'the ignorant' being excluded from voting because it seems to me that it would result in only those who fit a certain profile will have any say. That is not democracy...

This is precisely how I think the abuse would most likely manifest.

Azvanna
30 Sep 2016, 19:16
As a quick response to the question:

Yes because votes are about opinion - an opinion on who is most likely to do right by 'me.' Even those who may seem likely to be ignorant can be scarily articulate and shrewd when it comes to what is good for them.

Case in point. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-12/duncan-storrar-to-buy-toaster-for-shelter/7406836)


On Monday, Mr Storrar addressed the Q&A panel: "I've got a disability and a low education, that means I've spent my whole life working for minimum wage. You're going to lift the tax-free threshold for rich people."

"If you lift my tax-free threshold, that changes my life. That means that I get to say to my little girls, 'Daddy's not broke this weekend, we can go to the pictures'.

"Rich people don't even notice their tax-free threshold lift. Why don't I get it? Why do they get it?"

This said by a guy with a disability, a low income and low education. A marginalised person for sure and someone who the majority would definitely be prejudiced enough to label as ignorant at first glance.

Ignorance also has a point of view and just because the education is not there doesn't mean it's wrong.

B. de Corbin
30 Sep 2016, 20:46
As a quick response to the question:

Yes because votes are about opinion - an opinion on who is most likely to do right by 'me.' Even those who may seem likely to be ignorant can be scarily articulate and shrewd when it comes to what is good for them.

Case in point. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-12/duncan-storrar-to-buy-toaster-for-shelter/7406836)



This said by a guy with a disability, a low income and low education. A marginalised person for sure and someone who the majority would definitely be prejudiced enough to label as ignorant at first glance.

Ignorance also has a point of view and just because the education is not there doesn't mean it's wrong.

Good, I'd say, quick response, and an excellent example.

People can make choices for their own best self interest - an interest that can be pushed aside by those who may decide that the self interest of others isn't worth considering.

This is much like the point that Tylluan Penry was making, I believe.

anunitu
30 Sep 2016, 20:59
Though this is kind of a joke,consider that if we allow an idiot to RUN for office,then that would seem to allow everyone to VOTE even if the people might at first seem to be less informed,BUT the people KNOW first hand just how stupid politicians can hurt them with bad decisions.

I vote we VOTE!!

- - - Updated - - -

So,this is the new election poster.
http://i.imgur.com/r8T5UHf.jpg

Medusa
30 Sep 2016, 21:34
Serious question: For those who are unable to figure out how to register to vote, should other be allowed to register them? (not I'm blind, I can't see a form. But more like those with mental disabilities that do not have the ability to function in society). In essence can someone like the Rain Man dude vote? Or are we like hey, you are 18 and in a coma, but sure, lemme register you and vote for you.

Denarius
30 Sep 2016, 23:11
Hundreds of years ago the aristocracy were the ones that held the power to influence politics on a national scale. That has since transitioned to corporations and special interest groups... but it's still the same types of people: Politicians, old money, new money, and the people closest to them.

When things seem to go bad, everyone is quick to blame the unwashed masses... but they've rarely, if ever, had any actual say in how things are run. It's always been the rich and educated.

Does anyone actually believe that votes have anywhere near the amount of influence that donations and backroom deals do? The educated and informed are just as often, if not moreso, greedy and corrupt. I'd trust a farmer or mason more than a CEO or lawyer to have a better idea of how this country should be run, every single time.

So yes, the ignorant should be given a vote... and I'd even go further and say that we should get money out of politics entirely so that votes actually matter.

Azvanna
30 Sep 2016, 23:15
Serious question: For those who are unable to figure out how to register to vote, should other be allowed to register them? (not I'm blind, I can't see a form. But more like those with mental disabilities that do not have the ability to function in society). In essence can someone like the Rain Man dude vote? Or are we like hey, you are 18 and in a coma, but sure, lemme register you and vote for you.
Oo wow good debate question. It leads to the obvious that there is a gray area when it comes to capacity to vote. In Australia, everyone over the age of 18 has to register to vote, but people who are deemed by a medical practitioner to be
incapable of understanding the nature and significance of enrolment and voting source (http://www.elections.nsw.gov.au/publications/information_resources/plain_english2/enrolment/fact_sheet_exemption_from_enrolment_and_voting) qualify for exemption. So it leads to the question at what point does a medical practitioner make that call? I wonder how many elderly in my community with dementia there are who would have trouble getting to the polls let alone be able to keep up with current politics to make an informed decision.

I do agree with voting on someone's behalf in the way Power of Attorney might operate. Even if it is exploited, it's one vote. Barring some incredible case of collusion in a nursing home or something like that, I don't think it could have a huge affect on outcome.

anunitu
30 Sep 2016, 23:30
Kinda going with Denarius on the get the money out of politics. No one should be able to "Buy" an election,EVER...money is NOT a vote..and also no corporation is a living,breathing human being,EVER,even if a court says they are!!

- - - Updated - - -

Just completely off topic:

Earth to humans:
Stop all your crazy stupid stuff,you are really harshing my mellow. I just did some really good acid rain,and am digging the bees buzzing,and the cats purring,and the wind singing.
One more stupid thing,and I am going to shake and bake all of you back to the stone age,you dig?

Medusa
30 Sep 2016, 23:46
Hundreds of years ago the aristocracy were the ones that held the power to influence politics on a national scale. That has since transitioned to corporations and special interest groups... but it's still the same types of people: Politicians, old money, new money, and the people closest to them.

When things seem to go bad, everyone is quick to blame the unwashed masses... but they've rarely, if ever, had any actual say in how things are run. It's always been the rich and educated.

Does anyone actually believe that votes have anywhere near the amount of influence that donations and backroom deals do? The educated and informed are just as often, if not moreso, greedy and corrupt. I'd trust a farmer or mason more than a CEO or lawyer to have a better idea of how this country should be run, every single time.

So yes, the ignorant should be given a vote... and I'd even go further and say that we should get money out of politics entirely so that votes actually matter.

NOT to bait you, but out of confusion and hoping you can clear this up. Do you believe farmers are ignorant? I mean they have to know some serious science behind their job. But I get your gist.

Denarius
30 Sep 2016, 23:54
Do you believe farmers are ignorant?

Of "the U.S. Constitution, local, national, and world events, and that kind of 'trivia.'" Not necessarily, but more likely than CEOs and lawyers.

Medusa
01 Oct 2016, 00:13
I don't think you know much about farming practices. Stop watching re-runs of Green Acres. :p

anubisa
01 Oct 2016, 05:47
As the saying goes, it's a free country. I know we have a bunch of ignorant people, but one of our rights is to vote. We can't take that away from some people and let others vote. It wouldn't be fair. As much as I would like to have people be more educated in the system and politics, we have to let it be. The founding fathers wouldn't want us to mess with it.

MaskedOne
01 Oct 2016, 06:18
As the saying goes, it's a free country. I know we have a bunch of ignorant people, but one of our rights is to vote. We can't take that away from some people and let others vote. It wouldn't be fair. As much as I would like to have people be more educated in the system and politics, we have to let it be. The founding fathers wouldn't want us to mess with it.

Err, not only can we restrict voting but we currently do. Convicted felons lose the right to vote. Now whether restricting voting based on knowledge is a good idea might be debatable (I can go either way depending on my mood) but voting isn't an absolute right, it can be lost.

Plus the Founders expected us to screw with the Constitution, that's why steps to do so are built in. They made it difficult to be sure but the option has been there from the beginning. If I trusted the country at all then I'd say that we're well past the time that holding a Constitutional Convention to address various things would be profitable. I don't actually trust the country enough to open the Constitution up to endless revision but I wouldn't mind some Amendments going through.

ThePaganMafia
01 Oct 2016, 06:45
Another issue is that restricting the vote of the "ignorant" can generally be interchanged with restrict in the vote of the "poor" given that is who such a policy would affect the most. The poorest would probably lose more political power(not that they have much).

Tylluan Penry
01 Oct 2016, 09:31
Funny thing, in the UK the Queen is not allowed to vote. I remember querying this when I was very young, and an incense teacher exclaming, 'Well of course her Majesty does not vote, girl! Her wish is our command!'
And people wonder why I'm a republican... ;)

Dumuzi
02 Oct 2016, 09:02
People want to deny the 'ignorant' to vote until they are the ones being denied the vote :D

Shahaku
02 Oct 2016, 19:13
I draw the line at consent. If a person is deemed incapable of consent (dependent adults, minors, etc) then I'm going to assume they are also mentally incapable of voting. I figure that's a decent line. It's still subject to misuse, but just about everything is.

Tylluan Penry
03 Oct 2016, 00:50
I think prisoners should be given the vote.

Medusa
03 Oct 2016, 10:37
I think prisoners should be given the vote.

Hmm. Well we do take away some of their rights as felons, such as hey, no guns for you, no hanging around kids (depending upon your crime etc). But I guess I don't have a problem with them voting.

monsno_leedra
03 Oct 2016, 11:58
Hmm. Well we do take away some of their rights as felons, such as hey, no guns for you, no hanging around kids (depending upon your crime etc). But I guess I don't have a problem with them voting.

That raises an interesting question. One of the reason's people question who should vote is awareness of things which calls into question a prisoner's social awareness and interaction. A life sentence would seem to suggest a lack of connection to social and political influences ongoing in the community which would affect / effect them. Don't have the number's but I vaguely recall statistically a large percentage of long term prisoners who've been released will get re-arrested as the prison system is all they know and the outside system is so foreign to them once they get up in age.

I suppose theory wise being in prison could be seen as another form of social ignorance regarding what is going on within and influencing society and its politics. Not short term incarcerations but long term or life sentences, especially isolation usages. Figure prison or even jail culture has its own set of rules and social structure and permissions.

MaskedOne
03 Oct 2016, 12:14
I'm not necessarily in favor of letting current prisoners vote. I wouldn't mind making the ban on voting by convicts who've served their time temporary though. Apparently though, this is already the case in a number of states

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement

Hawkfeathers
03 Oct 2016, 12:47
People deemed mentally incapacitated by the courts can't vote. But a lot of Alzheimers patients don't get court-certified, and some go vote with no idea what they're doing. No matter where you set the bar, there will be some leeway. We can't really declare ignorance as a reason, because there are some who'll claim religious persecution. I know a local woman, for example, who isn't allowed to read/watch any news because her husband says it upsets her too much and he wants her to be happy. She votes for whoever he tells her to, and has no knowledge of anything going on in the world besides grocery prices. This is their brand of religion. So there's that......

anunitu
03 Oct 2016, 14:22
There were the Jim crow laws that made blacks "Prove" they were intellectually able to decide based on "trick" questions,if you remember that.

as here. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test)

DragonsFriend
03 Oct 2016, 15:09
Let's face it, most of the people who vote in the USA are pretty ignorant of how things work and how they affect the working "middle class".
People vote to raise corporate taxes not realizing that corporation get their money from the products and services they sell to the public. They simply raise their prices to include the amount they pay in taxes plus a little extra. The consumer ultimately pays ALL taxes.
Voting to increase government involvement means that taxes have to pay for that. Those taxes are again paid by the consumer.
Now, if you don't pay taxes and the government is supporting you through programs and payments then voting for improved programs is great for you but the rest of the consumers are paying for it in their taxes.

ThePaganMafia
03 Oct 2016, 17:34
That's not how it works and is a vast over simplification of how corporate tax works.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ref/econ101e.html

Also, other than providing delicious irony I have no idea what any of it has to do with the subject.

Medusa
03 Oct 2016, 21:24
I'm thinking it would be prudent for inmates to vote. I mean let's say they are lifers or death row inmates. Even then politics plays a part in their incarceration. Federal laws gets moved around and then you end up with you know who sentenced to death then life and then whathca gonna do?

Consumers who frequent the basic mall know exactly how taxes work. We already know stores raise prices by 20% then offer a big 'sale' of 20% off. I mean JC Penney's got busted for similar shenanigans. Us dummy consumers know exactly how taxes work. Well us women do. You know them men. Ain't too smart about sales and stuff. Can't even figure out how to use a coupon.


See? I can do the sweeping insulting generalizations too! Go me!:rolleyes:

anunitu
03 Oct 2016, 21:40
Taxman..Beatles. kinda says it all.

https://youtu.be/MbQiVQuiu04

DanieMarie
04 Oct 2016, 11:15
Absolutely. Barring the ignorant (which can be a subjective term anyway) doesn't fix the problem. Combatting ignorance fixes the problem.

"For if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them."

Except swap "thieves" for "Trump voters." Same idea.

B. de Corbin
04 Oct 2016, 12:30
...Except swap "thieves" for "Trump voters." Same idea.

Heeeeyyy...

He who must not be named may be the anti-Christ, but he's OUR anti-Christ...

:p :rolleyes: :eeevil: :cthulhu:

Hawkfeathers
04 Oct 2016, 14:38
Heeeeyyy...

He who must not be named may be the anti-Christ, but he's OUR anti-Christ...

:p :rolleyes: :eeevil: :cthulhu:

Someday this will be a thing, like the Godwin's Law thing!

As far as inmates voting - they're such a mixed bunch it's probably best to leave this alone.

anunitu
04 Oct 2016, 17:04
Voting is a very touchy thing,the whole all men(women) are created equal thing. Also remember Women have only had the right to vote a relatively short time.

History of female voting. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage)

Time: women's voting time,100 year's,give or take a year. US right passed in 1920

Hawkfeathers
04 Oct 2016, 19:13
To clarify - what I meant by "mixed bunch" is some of them spend their time studying and learning and pursuing degrees, and/or were well-educated when they went in. Some are barely literate and have no idea of what's going on in the world. Of course, many people on the outside also fit these categories.....