Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/12/granderson.ignorant.vote/index.html?hpt=C2

Please read the article, don't bother watching the video, it's stupid.

It kind of makes sense, but could really lead to a lot of abuse. What are your thoughts?

I like that it might actually get more people better engaged in the system. I don't really care for the elitist mentality though.

We actually already do this. Representative government.

Andrew1975 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/12/granderson.ignorant.vote/index.html?hpt=C2

It kind of makes sense, but could really lead to a lot of abuse. What are your thoughts?

Then 90% of the population would not get to vote. Of course I made that percentage up. It is probably more like 99% of the population.

Who and who isn't "ignorant" is hugely subjective and as such I strongly disagree with the above statement (that ignorant people should not be able to vote).

<Insert ignorant statement here>

*Gets popcorn*

corpsesarefun wrote:Who and who isn't "ignorant" is hugely subjective and as such I strongly disagree with the above statement.

Now that 1% of the population largerly contains members of this forum.


Of course don't take it too literally. It was meant to be taken in a sarcastic manner.

Lord Scythican wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:Who and who isn't "ignorant" is hugely subjective and as such I strongly disagree with the above statement.

Now that 1% of the population largerly contains members of this forum.


Of course don't take it too literally. It was meant to be taken in a sarcastic manner.

Don't worry scythican You ninja'd me.

This is a great idea! We should totally have a competency test in order to vote. Make it sufficiently difficult so that anyone who didn't attend college can't vote.

That should do a decent job of making sure all those "undesirables" stop voting. But, is it enough?

We could try bringing back poll taxes. But, I think we should cut right to the chase: It's time to revoke women's suffrage and take away the right of minorities to vote! And, let's bring back the requirement to own land in order to vote!


Wait... wait...

Sorry, it seems like my bizzaro version tried his mind control device on me again. I'm better now.

In all seriousness, ignorance among voters is a serious issue. But, rather than discreminate, perhaps, we should focus ON A BETTER EDUCATION SYSTEM!

We should also root out highly undesirable potential voters by taking into account their physiognomy.

There is no group of people more qualified to vote than the entire mass of humanity. There is no criterion you could create that would lead to better decisions. Different, maybe, but probably not beter.

In all seriousness, ignorance among voters is a serious issue. But, rather than discreminate, perhaps, we should focus ON A BETTER EDUCATION SYSTEM!

But said voters never vote for that!

There is no group of people more qualified to vote than the entire mass of humanity. There is no criterion you could create that would lead to better decisions. Different, maybe, but probably not beter.

True, I mean the politicians who are supposedly educated in politics don't really seam to do a better job than the masses.

In a way don't we already kind of do this in a representative government?

Polonius wrote:There is no group of people more qualified to vote than the entire mass of humanity. There is no criterion you could create that would lead to better decisions. Different, maybe, but probably not beter.

Who judges what decisions are better?

Hrm, this is a democracy so we should probably vote on it.

Oh wait.

Polonius wrote:There is no group of people more qualified to vote than the entire mass of humanity. There is no criterion you could create that would lead to better decisions. Different, maybe, but probably not beter.

I'd disagree with that statement. There should be an age cutoff. People young enough haven't had a chance to really consider long term consequences and haven't formed their own opinions distinct from their parents.

I'm not saying 18 is the exact right age, but I do believe there is one. Definitely somewhere between 6 and 25.

Mr. Burning wrote:We should also root out highly undesirable potential voters by taking into account their physiognomy.

I cannot support this statement more wholeheartedly. Furthermore, I suggest that we revive the oft neglected science of phrenology in order to objectively judge the ignorant based on their phrenological properties.

Just get rid of the social pressure to vote. No more voter registration drives, no more "get out the vote" programs. Get rid of the "I voted" stickers.

People who genuinely care about what's going on will vote, and no one will care. People who don't and are only doing so because of social pressure won't vote, and no one would care.

Unfortunately, politicians have too much investment in appealing to uninformed voters. It's a lot easier to get uninformed voters to support you than it is to get informed voters to support you.

Grakmar wrote:

Polonius wrote:There is no group of people more qualified to vote than the entire mass of humanity. There is no criterion you could create that would lead to better decisions. Different, maybe, but probably not beter.

I'd disagree with that statement. There should be an age cutoff. People young enough haven't had a chance to really consider long term consequences and haven't formed their own opinions distinct from their parents.

I'm not saying 18 is the exact right age, but I do believe there is one. Definitely somewhere between 6 and 25.

Well, sure, you can stick with the age of majority, but even that is arbitrary.

The problem this has is that it forgets that we're a representative democracy. I don't need to understand the issues, I just get to pick who votes on them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Just get rid of the social pressure to vote. No more voter registration drives, no more "get out the vote" programs. Get rid of the "I voted" stickers.

People who genuinely care about what's going on will vote, and no one will care. People who don't and are only doing so because of social pressure won't vote, and no one would care.

Unfortunately, politicians have too much investment in appealing to uninformed voters. It's a lot easier to get uninformed voters to support you than it is to get informed voters to support you.

I agree completely with this. I think that a person can and should make the decision to not bother to vote.

It would lead to less of "my pastor told me Obama is Islamic and the endtimes will come if a Muslim becomes president" (and yeas I actually knew someone who thought this). I'm all for it. Can we tack on child rearing and driving as part of the bill?

Polonius wrote:

biccat wrote:Just get rid of the social pressure to vote. No more voter registration drives, no more "get out the vote" programs. Get rid of the "I voted" stickers.

People who genuinely care about what's going on will vote, and no one will care. People who don't and are only doing so because of social pressure won't vote, and no one would care.

Unfortunately, politicians have too much investment in appealing to uninformed voters. It's a lot easier to get uninformed voters to support you than it is to get informed voters to support you.

I agree completely with this. I think that a person can and should make the decision to not bother to vote.

Anyone who is sophisticated enough to understand that they shouldn't vote is sophisticated enough to vote.

This is a problem.

The whole "election" process is just a public relations exercise. Your leaders are not elected, they are chosen. They really don't care what you think or want.

corpsesarefun wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:Who and who isn't "ignorant" is hugely subjective and as such I strongly disagree with the above statement.

Now that 1% of the population largerly contains members of this forum.


Of course don't take it too literally. It was meant to be taken in a sarcastic manner.

Don't worry scythican You ninja'd me.

Oh! Well that's good. I thought you were referring to me. I guess playing ninja can make posts clash.

warpcrafter wrote:The whole "election" process is just a public relations exercise. Your leaders are not elected, they are chosen. They really don't care what you think or want.

That's the truth of it.

warpcrafter wrote:The whole "election" process is just a public relations exercise. Your leaders are not elected, they are chosen. They really don't care what you think or want.

The idiot choosing the 2000 election better have been fired.

RustyKnight wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:The whole "election" process is just a public relations exercise. Your leaders are not elected, they are chosen. They really don't care what you think or want.

The idiot choosing the 2000 election better have been fired.

Every president since Kennedy has been nothing more than a figurehead, a suit-wearing teleprompter-reading public relations tool.

warpcrafter wrote:

RustyKnight wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:The whole "election" process is just a public relations exercise. Your leaders are not elected, they are chosen. They really don't care what you think or want.

The idiot choosing the 2000 election better have been fired.

Every president since Kennedy has been nothing more than a figurehead, a suit-wearing teleprompter-reading public relations tool.

Clinton says Hi.

All been done before, I fear. Ever seen Birth of a Nation?

Ignorance is debatable. Have an ignorance 'test' for people to take when they renew their licenses. If they fail, they get a big fat "IGNANT" stamped on their license

This is silly.

The question is , would the none ignorant 1% be able to govern and make up laws that will work with the 99% of the ignorant people.

It wouldnt ... so at the end it all works out lol

LunaHound wrote:The question is , would the none ignorant 1% be able to govern and make up laws that will work with the 99% of the ignorant people.

It wouldnt ... so at the end it all works out lol

And ignorant people can self govern?



Heres a little test. How many people here would consider themselves able to vote in a system that precludes the "ignorant"?

LunaHound wrote:The question is , would the none ignorant 1% be able to govern and make up laws that will work with the 99% of the ignorant people.

It wouldnt ... so at the end it all works out lol

That's what a representative government does though.

Andrew1975 wrote:

LunaHound wrote:The question is , would the none ignorant 1% be able to govern and make up laws that will work with the 99% of the ignorant people.

It wouldnt ... so at the end it all works out lol

That's what a representative government does though.

Yeah.. that seems to be working out fine for the world.

RustyKnight wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:The whole "election" process is just a public relations exercise. Your leaders are not elected, they are chosen. They really don't care what you think or want.

The idiot choosing the 2000 election better have been fired.

That's actually one of the best examples of this. Gore won the popular vote, but still didn't win the election. Seems kind of pointless to me to vote, when some elite group is going to make the final decision.

Karon wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:

RustyKnight wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:The whole "election" process is just a public relations exercise. Your leaders are not elected, they are chosen. They really don't care what you think or want.

The idiot choosing the 2000 election better have been fired.

Every president since Kennedy has been nothing more than a figurehead, a suit-wearing teleprompter-reading public relations tool.

Clinton says Hi.

Which one, slick willy or Darth Hillary?