Don't let ignorant people vote

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.

**ShumaGorath**

warpcrafter wrote:
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?

Boiler plate anti government political opinions that are totally unactionable and essentially useless in conversation because they are essentially the same as "I don't like how things are run." say hi. Having the opinion of "presidents are teleprompter PR babies" is pretty lazy.

**Chibi Bodge-Battle**

There is only one way to get people engaged and voting at a level they understand.

Reality TV show.

**Guitardian**

Samus_aran115 wrote: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.

This is a bad thing?

**KingCracker**

At the worst, I say make them take that American civics test like they posted on that link. 10 common knowledge questions. I didnt cheat/refresh myself and scored 8 on it. Not hard. Problem is, its peoples right to vote currently.

Also, I think that article was mainly just placing blame for why people in power keep fething things up

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:There is only one way to get people engaged and voting at a level they understand.

Reality TV show.

You do know Trump is planning on running. Supposedly he is tracking well

**warpcrafter**

ShumaGorath wrote:
warpcrafter wrote:
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?

Boiler plate anti government political opinions that are totally unactionable and essentially useless in conversation because they are essentially the same as "I don't like how things are run." say hi. Having the opinion of "presidents are teleprompter PR babies" is pretty lazy.

Lazy? So I should work hard to convince myself that the lies they spew are truth? Once a mind has been awakened to the reality of the world, it cannot be put back to sleep.

**ShumaGorath**

warpcrafter wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
warpcrafter wrote:
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?

Boiler plate anti government political opinions that are totally unactionable and essentially useless in conversation because they are essentially the same as "I don't like how things are run." say hi. Having the opinion of "presidents are teleprompter PR babies" is pretty lazy.

Lazy? So I should work hard to convince myself that the lies they spew are truth? Once a mind has been awakened to the reality of the world, it cannot be put back to sleep.

Once a mind has decided to just roll with black and white good vs evil apathy that essentially puts him in the club of the enlightened that don't have to care because the world are a bunch of phones it's... Ok, I don't have anywhere to go with that. I guess you could pretend to be one of those deaf mutes or something.

**sebster**

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

This is a problem.

Worse, the people most keen to vote are the true believers and the ideologues, who are the worst voters.

This is a big problem.

You should consider mandatory voting.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

warpcrafter wrote:Lazy? So I should work hard to convince myself that the lies they spew are truth? Once a mind has been awakened to the reality of the world, it cannot be put back to sleep.

The problem is that what you've written is very dramatic, but ultimately very silly. It's very exciting to believe in this great lie, and it's also very easy because then you never have to bother doing the hard yards to learn how things really work.

Unfortunately it's bs.

**Daba**

I define ignorant as everyone who won't vote for me.

**SilverMK2**

It would probably be better if anyone caught doing something either against the law or against the code of conduct for politicians was barred from being a politician.

There would be no politicians left, but that would almost certainly be an improvement anyway.

**whitedragon**

Before we tackle stricter voting requirements, (which will never happen in this country btw), we should make it more difficult to obtain a driver's license. You should have to also renew more frequently with an actual road test, and test again at the dealership before you buy a new car.

**DarkDrgon**

some states are allready pushing for tighter voting restrictions.... in a completely biased and generally corrupt way. Note this isn't meant to start an argument about the parties, but....

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110308/ts_yblog_theticket/ahead-of-the-2012-campaign-states-debate-voting-rights][source]]/url]

If some GOP lawmakers get their way, it could be a whole lot tougher for people across the country to cast a ballot in the upcoming 2012 presidential election.

Boosted by major electoral gains in state legislatures nationwide in the 2010 campaign, Republican lawmakers in 32 states are pushing measures that would require citizens to show a state identification or proof of citizenship to vote. Meanwhile, in New Hampshire, GOP lawmakers are proposing new limits on college students who vote in the state, potentially eliminating a key base of electoral support for Democrats in the state ahead of the upcoming presidential election.

As the Washington Post's Peter Wallsten writes, the measures have set off a partisan battle over voting rights across the country, with Democrats accusing Republicans of trying to suppress voters, including young people and minorities, who would cast their ballots for President Obama and other Democratic candidates next year.

In New Hampshire, Republicans are pushing to end rules that allow same-day voter registration in the state, which has often provided key swing votes for candidates from all parties in the state. State GOP lawmakers are also proposing new limits on students, including a bill that would allow them to vote in college towns only if they or their parents had established permanent residency in the state.

Some GOP lawmakers in New Hampshire have billed the measures as an attempt to crack down on voter fraud in the state--but recent remarks from the newly elected GOP state House speaker have suggested otherwise.

In a recent speech to a tea party group in the state, House Speaker William O'Brien described college voters as "foolish." "Voting as a liberal. That's what kids do," he said, in remarks that were videotaped by a state Democratic Party staffer and posted on YouTube. Students, he said, lack "life experience" and "just vote their feelings."

GOP lawmakers in the state have distanced themselves from O'Brien's remarks.

"It's a war on voting," Thomas Bates, vice president of Rock the Vote, a youth voter-registration group, told the Post. "We'd like to be advocating for a 21st-century voting system, but here we are fighting against efforts to turn it back to the 19th century."

Meanwhile, Republicans have also revived measures that have been debated on and off over the last several election cycles that would require voters to provide state-issued IDs at the polls.

In Wisconsin, GOP lawmakers are moving forward with legislation that would block students from using school-issued identification to verify their identity at the polls. Meanwhile, in North Carolina, Republicans are preparing to introduce a similar measure requiring state IDs--a plan that the North Carolina Board of Elections has said could be problematic for African-American voters, a key base of support for Obama in 2008.

The part that bothers me the most is when O'Brien says that students shouldn't be allowed to "vote with their feelings".... when a lot of people that are hurt by republican economic policies vote for them because of the stance on Moral issues, like religion.

**Mannahnin**

O'Brien's a scumbag. And I can say that, because he's from my state. And my clan.

College students are a lot better qualified to vote than people who only know it's election day because their preacher told them to get out there and keep those gays from getting the "special right" to get married.

sebster wrote:
biccat wrote:Anyone who is sophisticated enough to understand that they shouldn't vote is sophisticated enough to vote.

This is a problem.

Worse, the people most keen to vote are the true believers and the ideologues, who are the worst voters.

This is a big problem.

You should consider mandatory voting.

I agree with you both.

Actually, allowing mail-in ballots has been shown to reduce voting. Social pressures actually reinforce and encourage participatory democracy.

Mandatory voting wouldn't be a bad idea.

**micahaphone**

And what would be the punishment for not voting? Lower-income people might not be able to step away from their jobs to vote. We don't want to favor those who have the time to wait in line and vote.

**Lord Scythican**

But isn't this pointless? I thought the president was chosen by the Illuminati?

**Mannahnin**

micahaphone wrote:And what would be the punishment for not voting? Lower-income people might not be able to step away from their jobs to vote. We don't want to favor those who have the time to wait in line and vote.

The law already guarantees that everyone has the right to go vote. Your employer can't legally prevent it.

Punishment for not voting? I hadn't bothered to think it through; more just playing with the idea. Maybe make it mandatory in order to accomplish some day to day necessary task. Like how you can't register your car until you've paid your parking tickets.

**warpcrafter**

ShumaGorath wrote:
warpcrafter wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
warpcrafter wrote:
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?

Boiler plate anti government political opinions that are totally unactionable and essentially useless in conversation because they are essentially the same as "I don't like how things are run." say hi. Having the opinion of "presidents are teleprompter PR babies" is pretty lazy.

Lazy? So I should work hard to convince myself that the lies they spew are truth? Once a mind has been awakened to the reality of the world, it cannot be put back to sleep.

Once a mind has decided to just roll with black and white good vs evil apathy that essentially puts him in the club of the enlightened that don't have to care because the world are a bunch of phones it's... Ok, I don't have anywhere to go with that. I guess you could pretend to be one of those deaf mutes or something.

sebster wrote:
biccat wrote:Anyone who is sophisticated enough to understand that they shouldn't vote is sophisticated enough to vote.

This is a problem.

Worse, the people most keen to vote are the true believers and the ideologues, who are the worst voters.

This is a big problem.

You should consider mandatory voting.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

warpcrafter wrote:Lazy? So I should work hard to convince myself that the lies they spew are truth? Once a mind has been awakened to the reality of the world, it cannot be put back to sleep.

The problem is that what you've written is very dramatic, but ultimately very silly. It's very exciting to believe in this great lie, and it's also very easy because then you never have to bother doing the hard yards to learn how things really work.

Unfortunately it's bs.

It's so nice that your skill at biting wit is so highly developed. Unfortunately, it's wasted on me. Have fun finding out who's a worse president than Barry Soetero, suckers!

**juraigamer**

Actually the simplest fix would be to force our media to stop spewing propaganda filled lies and contorting what is news and what is opinion.

If the news literally only reported the news as it was confirmed, then we would be having at least 50% less of the fools and morons in the voting booths. Oh and I made up that stat, but it sounds about right...

**Mannahnin**

Spanish American War, anyone?

You can't really prevent news organizations from editorializing or taking sides. But it would be nice if they were held to higher standards than they presently are.

When I visit Europe I'm always pleasantly surprised at how their news isn't presented in such a way as to maximize my fear and anger, and thus try to elicit ratings, so as to maximize advertizing revenue.

**sebster**

micahaphone wrote:And what would be the punishment for not voting? Lower-income people might not be able to step away from their jobs to vote. We don't want to favor those who have the time to wait in line and vote.

The punishment here for not voting is a fine of around $50.

The law says people are required to be able to have time during the day to vote. You could also make it easier to vote, by having more election booths open, to reduce waiting times. Or keeping booths open longer, so that someone on an 8-6 shift at work can still vote, maybe until 8 at night. Or you could move voting to a Saturday, when a far greater number of people are not working.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:I agree with you both.

I wasn't looking to disagree with biccat's point, I agreed with it and was looking to add another similar thought. I believe that most people who are smart enough to make an informed decision are smart enough to realise that their vote almost certainly won't matter. I also believe that the people who are really enthusiastic about voting are the true-believers of one side or the other, and among the people who've applied the least consideration to how they'll vote, but they are unfortunately the ones most likely to vote.

Actually, allowing mail-in ballots has been shown to reduce voting. Social pressures actually reinforce and encourage participatory democracy.

Interesting. Here mail in votes have been shown to significantly increase voter numbers in local elections, which aren't mandatory, are terribly attended and receive little public attention.

It's probably because there's no social pressure to vote in these elections.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

warpcrafter wrote:It's so nice that your skill at biting wit is so highly developed. Unfortunately, it's wasted on me. Have fun finding out who's a worse president than Barry Soetero, suckers!

I have no intention of debating you. You have no intention of being rational, so what would the point be?

**micahaphone**

sebster wrote:
micahaphone wrote:And what would be the punishment for not voting? Lower-income people might not be able to step away from their jobs to vote. We don't want to favor those who have the time to wait in line and vote.

The punishment here for not voting is a fine of around $50.

The law says people are required to be able to have time during the day to vote. You could also make it easier to vote, by having more election booths open, to reduce waiting times. Or keeping booths open longer, so that someone on an 8-6 shift at work can still vote, maybe until 8 at night. Or you could move voting to a Saturday, when a far greater number of people are not working.

I'm all for making voting more accessible, now I actually want a greater fine. I'm afraid that might cause "paid guilt".
"Paid Guilt" is when, to steal the experiment from "Freakenomics", the amount of children picked up late from daycare actually increases when a fine is charged, as the parents feel as if they are paying for this extra time and their guilt is no longer necessary. A much larger fine would be needed, in my opinion.

**Bromsy**

Fining me for embracing Apathy is treading on my religious freedoms.

I think what we ought to do is change to pure democracy in federal elections and make it so if a person wants to vote for anything, they need to sever a finger, toe, or ear from them self, then write their choice on it. This would insure only people who really care would vote, increase the positive attributes of fortitude and penmanship; reduce the overall number of votes to something manageable, and let you know if someone is crazy into politics right when you meet them so you know if it's okay to make jokes about politics. Win for everyone!

**sebster**

micahaphone wrote:I'm all for making voting more accessible, now I actually want a greater fine. I'm afraid that might cause "paid guilt".
"Paid Guilt" is when, to steal the experiment from "Freakenomics", the amount of children picked up late from daycare actually increases when a fine is charged, as the parents feel as if they are paying for this extra time and their guilt is no longer necessary. A much larger fine would be needed, in my opinion.

Yeah, I've read Freakonomics too (don't read the second book, by the way, it was terrible).

Fair point. Mandatory voting is a non-option in the US anyway, better to look at making voting more convenient.

**micahaphone**

Bromsy wrote:Fining me for embracing Apathy is treading on my religious freedoms.

I think what we ought to do is change to pure democracy in federal elections and make it so if a person wants to vote for anything, they need to sever a finger, toe, or ear from them self, then write their choice on it. This would insure only people who really care would vote, increase the positive attributes of fortitude and penmanship; reduce the overall number of votes to something manageable, and let you know if someone is crazy into politics right when you meet them so you know if it's okay to make jokes about politics. Win for everyone!

But then I'd only vote 8 times....

(all toes but the big ones are unnecessary)

**Andrew1975**

if a person wants to vote for anything, they need to sever a finger, toe, or ear from them self, then write their choice on it.

Could you imagine what a hanging chad would look like in this situation?

But then I'd only vote 8 times....

Well, +1 if you're a man, but you really would have to want to pass that one.

Maybe we need a test for who gets to run for office!

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/381282/april-11-2011/pap-smears-at-walgreens

**Ouze**

The current system we have is perfect as it is. We get exactly the government we deserve, every time.

To whit:

It's reasonably beyond dispute, regardless of your ideology, that the government spends too much taxpayer money in general; yes?
It's reasonably beyond dispute, regardless of your ideology, that a very large percentage of that money goes in part to Defense, Social Security, Medicare, et al; yes?
It's reasonably beyond dispute, regardless of your ideology, that any politician who suggests making significant and immediate changes of any kind to these programs will become unlectable, to the point that no politician seriously suggests making immediate, significant cuts to these programs. Yes?

So, we all agree: we spend too much money, we want politicians who say they won't spend so much money in general, but if they suggest actually not spending so much money by cutting where most if it goes, we won't elect them. We have an entrenched system in which we actively seek liars because we desire to be lied to, and we aren't let down once every 4 years, regardless of which false choice we pick, because ultimately we're ordering the same dish.

**Bromsy**

Well, my solution is and always has been to embrace systematic industrial scale looting across the globe.

**Kilkrazy**

corpsesarefun wrote: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).

Factual knowledge, comprehension and cognitive skills, can all be tested objectively. We require people to qualify for lots of everyday things by such tests.

Many countries test foreign people who want to become citizens. It doesn't seem totally unreasonable to require native born people to pass some kind of qualification to vote.

The tricky thing is who gets to set the standards?

There is a danger of creating a disenfranchised underclass. We already have enough trouble with semi-permanently unemployed people. If they were politically excluded too, the consequences could be serious.

**Ahtman**

I think people who say things like "ignorant people shouldn't be allowed to vote" are the first people we should take the vote from.

**jmurph**

Ahtman wrote:I think people who say things like "ignorant people shouldn't be allowed to vote" are the first people we should take the vote from.

What??? You would have those unwashed masses and cretins selecting our leaders? I will not sully my mind with such talk.

I say, "Good day, sir!"

**dogma**

Mannahnin wrote:
I agree with you both.

Actually, allowing mail-in ballots has been shown to reduce voting. Social pressures actually reinforce and encourage participatory democracy.

Mandatory voting wouldn't be a bad idea.

One other thing to keep in mind. In America, we vote on something political at least once a year. It has been demonstrably shown that voter turnout increases as the number of actual elections goes down. As such, there is good evidence to suggest that, if you want to increase voter turnout, you should either reduce the overall number of elections, or reduce the number election days (so, consolidate state, municipal, and federal elections into one day).