Should people be allowed to vote on something they don't comprehend?

[Patriotic Eagle]

Originally Posted by andje

I think most genmayers are actually smarter than the avg american
probably a higher % of genmayers have college degrees than if you just took a sample of avg americans - usually people that graduated from their little school with a retarded piece of paper learned something but them governnments

why should the uneducated have a say? they are probably making the wrong decision anyway

This board is full of people with CS and engineering degrees and a lot of them have dumb opinions (in my dumb opinion). Most college graduates either have a very narrow technical focus, or liberal arts/business focus, neither of which necessarily does anything to create a person that is significantly more informed politically (beyond some basic quantifiable facts) than a guy who started working after high school.

Not that disenfranchising the poor/uneducated would de facto be any different from the system we have now.

[DigitalChaos]

To clarify, when I speak of and "educated person" I am talking strictly of the topic at hand in the vote. Yes, there is a correlation between people able/willing to do so and people who have gone through a formal education system but that isn't the point.

There are plenty of votes open to me that I have zero business weighing in on and plenty that I do.

For instance, I have business weighing in on Net Neutrality while McCain doesn't. Somehow, McCain gets to introduces Net Neutrality legislation though.

[loner]

Originally Posted by DigitalChaos

Call it 6 questions. 3 questions crafted by the "for" side and 3 by the "against" side. All questions have to be vetted as having relevant and factual answers.
Climate legislation:
Is CO2 emitted via consumption of fossil fuels?
What is the current ppmv level of CO2?
Select which of the follow 5 gases are classified as greenhouse gases:
-CO2
-Methane
-O2
-H2O
.... etc

And here are where issues come into play with your ideas of who is educated and who isn't based on a test.

Is CO2 emitted via consumption of fossil fuels?

By all accounts, this seems like a simple question. But I would wager many people know the name "carbon dioxide" AND know that it is emitted by the consumption of fossil fuels, but don't know what "CO2" is. Further, consumption is an ambiguous word. What if you offered this question instead?

Is methane emitted via the consumption of various grasses and plants?

On the surface, this is obviously a "no" question. Unless of course, you are talking about the consumption of grass by cattle, in which case it is a huge "yes," and a huge contributing factor to current atmospheric methane levels. There goes a lot of the "educated" people's vote. Whoops.

What is the current ppmv level of CO2?

I consider myself pretty damn educated on many, many issues, and fuck if I know the answer to this question. For credentials sake, someone else was saying we should use SAT/ACT scores for voting rights, and I made a 31 on the ACT. Further, the question is RIDICULOUSLY ambiguous. Where are we talking about, exactly? Average atmosperic CO2 ppmv of the whole world? Of the United States? Of the room I'm voting in? I'm sure you would clear this up, but I don't really see this as "basic shit." Most people know fossil fuels = CO2 = greenhouse effect = climate change. THAT's basic. Your question really isn't.

Select which of the follow 5 gases are classified as greenhouse gases:
-CO2
-Methane
-O2
-H2O

I only have 4 choices.

And why "methane" and not "CH4" when all of the others had chemical formulas instead of common names? Consistency would say either all chemical formulas or all common names, in which case, your question becomes that much simpler to answer:

Carbon dioxide
Methane
Oxygen
Water

What you deem fair simply isn't. And likely what someone else from D.C. would deem fair also wouldn't be. Which is why we can't test someone to vote. It was outlawed before, and should have been.

I hate having debates with people who have no clue about issues, but their right to vote is just as valid as mine.

[DigitalChaos]

dude, they were fucking examples that i pulled off the top of my head. I didn't spend anywhere near the amount of time that should be if they were real. I knew there were flaws in them as I was typing them.

A question of some sort relating to the ppmv of CO2 would be highly relevant though. It is one of the big parts of the climate change justification.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by DigitalChaos

dude, they were fucking examples that i pulled off the top of my head. I didn't spend anywhere near the amount of time that should be if they were real. I knew there were flaws in them as I was typing them.

A question of some sort relating to the ppmv of CO2 would be highly relevant though. It is one of the big parts of the climate change justification.

But it changes monthly. Do they need to know the yearly average? That months measurement? What about the kind of error range they might have? It peaks in May, but what if the last time they checked the number was in the low point in October? That is at least a 5 point variance just from that.

[DigitalChaos]

think real hard. i bet you can come up with a ppmv question that completely satisfies all those concerns
THIS IS NOT THE GLOBAL WARMING THREAD!!!!

[Jason]

Originally Posted by DigitalChaos

think real hard. i bet you can come up with a ppmv question that completely satisfies all those concerns
THIS IS NOT THE GLOBAL WARMING THREAD!!!!

Oh I know, but these would be real concerns with trying to formulate that type of a question for voters to answer... Honestly, do you think they would be any more likely to guess our current national debt than the level of CO2?

[AnasSplenium]

Originally Posted by DigitalChaos

dude, they were fucking examples that i pulled off the top of my head. I didn't spend anywhere near the amount of time that should be if they were real. I knew there were flaws in them as I was typing them.

A question of some sort relating to the ppmv of CO2 would be highly relevant though. It is one of the big parts of the climate change justification.

How do these questions fit in if you're not talking about direct democracy, but feedback to the representatives?

[DigitalChaos]

Originally Posted by Jason

Oh I know, but these would be real concerns with trying to formulate that type of a question for voters to answer... Honestly, do you think they would be any more likely to guess our current national debt than the level of CO2?

And that is exactly the process that would occur for finalizing questions for a ballot. We have tests for a lot of things. Somehow people managed to come up with questions that have been agreed upon as being essential knowledge. Drivers test? Alcohol serving/selling licenses? Some states have a test for firearms, etc etc etc.

For the climate change thing... If you cant tell me at a bare minimum if the ppmv levels of CO2 are drastically higher than they have ever been in the last 400k years based on current science then you definitely shouldn't be voting on the climate change shit. That is just my opinion. It is something that should be discussed with many people to refine the question in a way that leaves little or no objection. Refine it until it is phrased in a way that is acceptable and considered to be essential information to the vote.

[DigitalChaos]

Originally Posted by AnasSplenium

How do these questions fit in if you're not talking about direct democracy, but feedback to the representatives?

Well, when you vote today... what do you vote on? Those would be where the questions come into play. I wish a large portions of the propositions on the CA ballot required basic competency levels.

The climate change topic was chosen just as a hypothetical. The people aren't going to be voting on this. Their reps are. It does bring up a good point though... Should some of this process be modified? Should hot topics allow for a public voting system that gives their Reps a better idea of the wishes of the people they represent? The current method of writing a letter to your rep seems a bit... dated and lacking.

[AnasSplenium]

Originally Posted by DigitalChaos

Well, when you vote today... what do you vote on? Those would be where the questions come into play. I wish a large portions of the propositions on the CA ballot required basic competency levels.

The climate change topic was chosen just as a hypothetical. The people aren't going to be voting on this. Their reps are. It does bring up a good point though... Should some of this process be modified? Should hot topics allow for a public voting system that gives their Reps a better idea of the wishes of the people they represent? The current method of writing a letter to your rep seems a bit... dated and lacking.

Well, here's the thing. We might as well write letters our reps can throw out, because they don't give a fuck. Opinion polls and things already provide feedback. Would some sort of system like you're talking about be more wide-reaching and accurate? Sure. But what's the point when your reps just follow the party line?

In fact, here's a better idea: For every issue you're providing feedback on, you can just push one of two buttons. Democrat or Republican, to show which side you're on.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by DigitalChaos

And that is exactly the process that would occur for finalizing questions for a ballot. We have tests for a lot of things. Somehow people managed to come up with questions that have been agreed upon as being essential knowledge. Drivers test? Alcohol serving/selling licenses? Some states have a test for firearms, etc etc etc.

For the climate change thing... If you cant tell me at a bare minimum if the ppmv levels of CO2 are drastically higher than they have ever been in the last 400k years based on current science then you definitely shouldn't be voting on the climate change shit. That is just my opinion. It is something that should be discussed with many people to refine the question in a way that leaves little or no objection. Refine it until it is phrased in a way that is acceptable and considered to be essential information to the vote.

I can tell you that everything is disputable
The chemical absorbtion measurement (1-3%) that was used prior to 1955 isn't much less accurate than a single observation station (<0.1%) next to a volcano or ice core data that doesn't line up with known historical values. Same thing with the tree ring data and temps... yes, this isn't the global warming thread... still makes it an issue when you assume that it is assumed or accepted.

Besides, few enough people actually vote that it wouldn't really make it an issue either way.

[DigitalChaos]

Originally Posted by AnasSplenium

Well, here's the thing. We might as well write letters our reps can throw out, because they don't give a fuck. Opinion polls and things already provide feedback. Would some sort of system like you're talking about be more wide-reaching and accurate? Sure. But what's the point when your reps just follow the party line?

In fact, here's a better idea: For every issue you're providing feedback on, you can just push one of two buttons. Democrat or Republican, to show which side you're on.

It sure as shit would be more accurate and wide-reaching than the latest Fox News poll.
If it was an official system that was part of the process then it would be some pretty firm grounds to knock your rep around for being an asshole. For instance, if the Rep was consistently voting against his people's wishes (which all data would be on record for all to see) then it would be grounds for an automatic replacement election ... or something along those lines. Good luck getting the power in place to allow a system that reduces their power but... it would work!

What is stopping the Reps now? The threat of not being reelected the next time elections roll around?

[Renork]

Originally Posted by DigitalChaos

What happens when the educated vote in a way that would produce unfavorable results for the uneducated? It increases the gap between the two groups and only increases the legitimate grievances of the uneducated. That shit builds up over time and gets released in... bad ways.

Any meritocratic system would have to have a base constitution protecting the rights of and providing for the well-being of all with restrictions on modifications to the constitution in such a way that those with the ability to participate could not fuck those unable to participate.

[DigitalChaos]

Originally Posted by Renork

Any meritocratic system would have to have a base constitution protecting the rights of and providing for the well-being of all with restrictions on modifications to the constitution in such a way that those with the ability to participate could not fuck those unable to participate.

Yea, that would be a complete overhaul to what the US has in place. I am not sure we could do it without throwing out the constitution or adding some heavy amendments to it. It wouldn't be fair to ask those who are unable to vote to pay their taxes, serve in the military, etc. unless there was protection for their interests.