General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
troyf4i
 
Should people be allowed to vote on something they don't comprehend?

This is something I've been thinking about lately. People are entitled to their opinions and I am in favor of people having democratic voting power, but should an individual really have a say in something that they don't understand at all?

Sorry if this has been discussed to death before; I do not come to the pit often, but I felt this was a good place to ask the question because there are some very intelligent people with strong opinions in this forum.
__________________
Gen[M]ay [M]otorcyclist Club - 2001 Honda CBR600F4i
Old 02-23-2010, 05:17 PM troyf4i is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
While I agree with you in spirit (see the latest US presidential election and ACORN) ...how are you going to separate those who know from those who don't? Also, who is to say that just because someone is better informed their vote is better by default?
__________________
Rapid-fire double bass of the GenMay dru[M]mers collective

Syndrome of a Downs- drums/songwriter
._--_|\
/ииииииии\
\_.--Bumfuck Egypt
.......v
Old 02-23-2010, 05:31 PM joemama is offline  
Reply With Quote
#2  

_mike_
 
i was pitching this idea during election 2008 -- half serious, half joking. basically the voting machine should give everyone a simple quiz before their vote is cast, just to see whether or not someone actually understands, for example, barack obama's tax platform instead of just "he's the cool one to vote for", or worse reasons. this would also allow for votes to be weighted, so informed votes count more than uninformed ones (i.e. a perfect score on the quiz vs. 50%). as a corollary, we can remove the voting age.

basically i think voting should be a privilege, not a right, even though the constitution disagrees. but i'd bet no one planned on our country turning out as lazy and stupid as it did, and technically the country's founders did set up voting restrictions based on discrimination, but it was their way of ensuring only the "informed" people vote.
Old 02-23-2010, 05:42 PM _mike_ is offline  
Reply With Quote
#3  

Renork
 
Renork's Avatar
 
No.

Our system of governance depends upon and assumes an educated populace.

We do not have an educated populace.

As Joemama points out, this raises the question of how to determine who is qualified to participate or not. Just because this is a difficult issue with lots of historical tension does not mean it s not important or shouldn't be addressed.

WTB a constitutional meritocratic geniocratic technocratic world government.
__________________
.
Old 02-23-2010, 06:02 PM Renork is offline  
Reply With Quote
#4  

AnasSplenium
 
Maybe the bigger problem is should our representatives be allowed to vote on bills they don't read, and can't due to last-minute amendments?
__________________
Omaha [M] Club
Old 02-24-2010, 09:42 AM AnasSplenium is offline  
Reply With Quote
#5  

Renork
 
Renork's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnasSplenium View Post
Maybe the bigger problem is should our representatives be allowed to vote on bills they don't read, and can't due to last-minute amendments?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_the_Bills_Act

This shit needs to get passed asap.
__________________
.
Old 02-24-2010, 09:49 AM Renork is offline  
Reply With Quote
#6  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by _mike_ View Post
basically i think voting should be a privilege, not a right, even though the constitution disagrees. but i'd bet no one planned on our country turning out as lazy and stupid as it did, and technically the country's founders did set up voting restrictions based on discrimination, but it was their way of ensuring only the "informed" people vote.

People were even more ignorant when the country was founded, and stayed that way for a long time until public schooling became widespread. Convincing ignorant morons to vote for you has a long and illustrious history.

The modern era is interesting because everyone is inundated with information, but so much of it is bad and most people can't/don't want to filter the good from the bad, so they just pick whatever stuff they agree with. Confirmation bias run rampant.
Old 02-24-2010, 10:20 AM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#7  

Renork
 
Renork's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
People were even more ignorant when the country was founded, and stayed that way for a long time until public schooling became widespread.

I am not so sure how accurate that is.

Lets say you find some way to work out "quantity" of all human knowledge then and now and then worked out the average level of knowledge in the US at each time I am guessing just due to the sheer volume of information we have access to(even when only looking at good accurate information) I would suspect that people are proportionately similar if not more ignorant now than they were then.

Even if you only examine issues and information pertaining to current politics the shit we have going on now is mind-boggling. It is beyond foolish to expect people to be knowledgeable enough across the whole spectrum of issues to make accurate and informed decisions regarding policy and law in each respective arena. Even the people we elect to be full time representatives could not possibly become knowledgeable enough in enough areas in one human life time to be qualified to vote on ALL the shit that gets voted on.

This is precisely why I feel we need to move at the very least into some version of a constitutional meritocratic technocracy. Essentially having the decisions regarding any field made by a group of the leading members of that field/other fields associated with the issue. The internet makes this kind of micromanaging more possible than ever before. Of course it is more complex than I make it out to be and of course it would take throngs of people much more knowledgeable and intelligent than myself to work out the details but I am relatively certain that what we have now is not a good long term system.
__________________
.
Old 02-24-2010, 11:06 AM Renork is offline  
Reply With Quote
#8  

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
After the revolution the "educated" class (white males wealthy enough to afford higher learning) were the only voters. It wasn't notably more successful than when the poorer sections of society where allowed to vote.

Either way the US isn't in the shape it's in because of "stupid" voters.
Old 02-24-2010, 01:02 PM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#9  

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnasSplenium View Post
Maybe the bigger problem is should our representatives be allowed to vote on bills they don't read, and can't due to last-minute amendments?

I'm not saying this wouldn't be a good idea, but I doubt most Senators and House members don't at least have general ideas summarized for them by staffers on all the bills they vote on. Most bills get picked apart by lawyers as soon as the text is available for public consumption anyway so in most cases it's not like they're ignorant about what they're voting on.
Old 02-24-2010, 01:10 PM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#10  

DigitalChaos
 
OP is suggesting a Meritocracy. I think a good hybrid would work though. Turn ballots into tests. If you can't answer 5 basic answers about what you are going to vote on then it doesn't count.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AnasSplenium View Post
Maybe the bigger problem is should our representatives be allowed to vote on bills they don't read, and can't due to last-minute amendments?
Representatives are no longer needed IMO. We have the technology to implement a direct democracy.
Old 02-24-2010, 01:26 PM DigitalChaos is offline  
Reply With Quote
#11  

Coqui
 
Coqui's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
Representatives are no longer needed IMO. We have the technology to implement a direct democracy.

Agreed
__________________
I lack boobs and have a penis
Old 02-24-2010, 01:28 PM Coqui is offline  
Reply With Quote
#12  

Jason
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
OP is suggesting a Meritocracy. I think a good hybrid would work though. Turn ballots into tests. If you can't answer 5 basic answers about what you are going to vote on then it doesn't count.



Representatives are no longer needed IMO. We have the technology to implement a direct democracy.

Well, direct democracy would be fine if we had a reasonably educated citizenry... and limited voting to local issues. Otherwise you get the largest states voting for things that benefit only them and the smaller states get the shaft.
Old 02-24-2010, 01:35 PM Jason is offline  
Reply With Quote
#13  

DigitalChaos
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason View Post
Well, direct democracy would be fine if we had a reasonably educated citizenry... and limited voting to local issues. Otherwise you get the largest states voting for things that benefit only them and the smaller states get the shaft.

why should the minorities get any compensation just cause they are a minority?
One person's vote is worth just as much as any other person's. Same goes with each persons $1 put into the tax bin.

The only issues I could see here are due to the Federal level handling stuff that should be done at the state level (which we have lots of unfortunately). If you mean county level then.. that is up to the state but a similar model would certainly work.
Old 02-24-2010, 01:40 PM DigitalChaos is offline  
Reply With Quote
#14  

Frenetic
 
Frenetic's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
OP is suggesting a Meritocracy. I think a good hybrid would work though. Turn ballots into tests. If you can't answer 5 basic questions about what you are going to vote on then it doesn't count.

Representatives are no longer needed IMO. We have the technology to implement a direct democracy.

I would see people really contesting those 5 basic questions. It could be seen as the literacy tests election sites would have to keep minorities from voting so many years ago. I'm not saying the 5 questions would be racist, but people could claim they are trying to keep "the right people" voting. This is all hypothetical since I don't even know what the questions would be, but this happens a lot with school testing as well. Even illiterates would protest their rights were being trampled.

And on direct democracy, sure I guess everyone could vote on their twitter feeds or whatever, but I can't see that functioning very well. The people themselves don't vote on most laws passed because they don't understand the wording and implications of most bills. They could vote on lower taxes, but then be surprised when civil services get cut back. And how would the people make revisions to bills, or are there still representatives that make these bills, but they themselves don't vote on them anymore? What would it take for a bill to pass in direct democracy? If all you need is a majority vote, then the states and cultures with the largest populations would rape the minority interests every time. It's why the senate was created in the first place. I'd see direct democracy, especially on a federal level, as a clusterfuck of people just reading the executive summaries of bills, and then voting on whatever keyword hits their buttons.
Old 02-24-2010, 01:43 PM Frenetic is offline  
Reply With Quote
#15  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:27 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.