UPSB v4
Serious Discussion / Should uninformed voters be allowed to vote?
-
Date: Tue, Apr 12 2011 03:37:59
Pretty much what the title says. Most Americans (not sure about other countries) are politically ignorant and don't know a thing about politics. I'm sure if you asked people that voted in the 2008 presidential election to name three points stressed in each party's platform, many people will have no idea. Voters these days vote mainly with their wallet, and with their bias gained from television ads, and the problem here is obvious. For example, Hoover is regarded as one of the most intelligent and well-prepared presidents, but the Great Depression hit several months after he took office, and he was left as a lame duck for the remainder of his term. Giving the privilege of the ballot exclusively to informed voters surely does have its benefits. Public opinion will be better represented regarding government policies and it will definitely encourage more informed people to vote, knowing that their say won't be drowned by a sea of the ignorant. However, giving the ballot to only the informed voters will cause the rest of the people to believe that their government is run by elitists, and will protest with the argument that all people are equal. Since a large percentage of people vote for candidates for non-political reasons, this doesn't seem to accurately reflect the political ideals of the public. For example, my mom voted for McCain in the '08 election simply because she did not trust a black person running the country. So, what do you guys think? Let everyone vote, or only let the people who actually know what they're talking about vote?
-
Date: Tue, Apr 12 2011 03:42:33
I don't think they should, but who will be the ones to evaluate weather someone is informed or uninformed.
-
Date: Tue, Apr 12 2011 03:43:25
very few people would know what they are actually talking about, so that kinda goes against the premise of democracy. Also how would you define whats informed or not? That opens up a pretty big hole for corruption by manipulating whats considered informed
-
Date: Tue, Apr 12 2011 03:49:10
LOL Hoover tbh, I dislike it when people vote on stuff they really have no idea about. A couple years back, there was this one proposition in some state or something that would have cut down on the number of mammograms an insurance company could pay for because the amount of radiation from mammograms were causing more cancer than was being detected initially. Women all over were up in arms shouting stuff like "It's worth it for that one life we save!" and "This is a morally debasing proposition, you're devaluing human life!" or whatever. However, they simply didn't realize that continuing to encourage so many mammograms was causing more cancer than was being detected. However, another issue to consider is the foundation of our nation. Poll taxes + tests were eliminated for a reason, mainly because they were inherently barring certain minority (or majority!) groups from voting. Everyone should have a say in the government, but to what extent is the issue. I feel instead that there should be more enlightening campaigns rather than campaigns based on demagoguery.
-
Date: Tue, Apr 12 2011 03:58:56
I'm just wondering what would be an efficient way to track who is informed and uninformed because of course you can't make sure everyone is informed but would there be a way to make sure a majority of voters is?
-
Date: Tue, Apr 12 2011 04:00:01
I feel as though hundreds of billions of dollars shouldn't be used in advertisement, and some of that campaign money should be used for more useful things. Oh, and did you hear that Obama is already fundraising for the 2012 election? He wants to raise 1 tril in campain funds, ridiculous.
-
Date: Tue, Apr 12 2011 04:06:34
Loanshark wrote: I feel as though hundreds of billions of dollars shouldn't be used in advertisement, and some of that campaign money should be used for more useful things.
If you don't use a lot on advertising, you're not going to win the election, it's just not going to happen unless your first term approval rates are through the roof. As for the original question, it sucks that there are uninformed voters, but if only informed voters were allowed to vote it would work against America as a democracy. Pushing education on issues is a much better choice IMO. -
Date: Tue, Apr 12 2011 04:09:16
same here for Canada
-
Date: Tue, Apr 12 2011 04:13:27
i like how there's been movie stars and stuff as government officials
-
Date: Tue, Apr 12 2011 04:15:17
You don't think spending that money to a certain guy elected is more important then health care, the failing US economy or scientific research? Are you a communist or something, what do you have against democracy D:
Loanshark wrote: I feel as though hundreds of billions of dollars shouldn't be used in advertisement, and some of that campaign money should be used for more useful things. Oh, and did you hear that Obama is already fundraising for the 2012 election? He wants to raise 1 tril in campain funds, ridiculous.
-
Date: Tue, Apr 12 2011 04:20:03
Considering that's like half the voting population. Yes. Plus it's your right as a citizen so screw the rules, oh wait we have a Constitution. Although not really sure if that's in the Constitution, I'm too lazy to go check.
-
Date: Tue, Apr 12 2011 13:13:12
i like the Plato republic: only the elite can vote, the general population doesn't know what's good for them. this is however susceptible to corruption, so the elites have to live a deprived life (no family, no money, etc.)
-
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2011 00:22:30
Regarding campaign spending, Obama raised $750 million for his 2008 campaign, and that number is expected to be $1 billion this time around. I agree, it's still a lot of money, but a huge chunk of his 2008 funds resulted from fundraising. After earning the Democratic nomination, he declined using taxpayer money he was entitled to. If the money would be of better use somewhere else, then it's up to his contributors to donate to a different cause. In an ideal situation, people are aware of the political issues and vote solely based on these criteria. Unfortunately, in the 2008 election, I'm sure party loyalty and personal like/dislike of candidates influenced a lot of votes. This is not just in US but probably everywhere. The truth is that image will always play a part in politics and campaigns will always exploit this fact. That's why it's rare to see a TV commercial where the party's platform is described and things are left at that. Usually the commercial involves a personal attack on the opposing party and/or its leader. But even if politics were only about the issues, denying suffrage to eligible voters for being uninformed (or for whatever reason) is undemocratic. There's no systematic way of determining who is 'informed' without there being disagreement. How would you decide? A quiz or questionnaire? An interview? I can see it taking lots of time and money. Maybe informed people won't vote just because they are turned off by the whole process. The best that can be done, IMO, is hope that most people vote based on issues, and that the result isn't determined by other factors.
-
Date: Thu, Apr 14 2011 03:42:43
why the fuck do you care? voting doesnt mean shit as shown during bushes second term, all that matters is who in the electorial colleges is getting their dick worked by a pocket pussy made of hundred dollar bills under the table and by whom honestly why vote? it does *absolutely* nothing. im never registering to vote either.
-
Date: Thu, Apr 14 2011 21:24:07
I'm not that much into it but as far as I can tell politics is a joke and a game to most of the people involved. So I don't think it really matters. I personally don't vote at all.
-
Date: Thu, Apr 14 2011 22:44:36
Stare wrote: why the fuck do you care? voting doesnt mean shit as shown during bushes second term, all that matters is who in the electorial colleges is getting their dick worked by a pocket pussy made of hundred dollar bills under the table and by whom honestly why vote? it does *absolutely* nothing. im never registering to vote either.
@Stare Bush won 286-251 in the '04 election, so I have no idea what you're trying to say when you refer to him. In regard to voting doing "absolutely nothing", that's definitely not true. What, do you think politicians self-designate themselves to their offices? Of course not, their constituents put them up there. Granted, not every political office is directed decided upon by the people, but all votes do indeed count one way or another. -
Date: Fri, Apr 15 2011 20:09:19
Loanshark wrote: @Stare Bush won 286-251 in the '04 election, so I have no idea what you're trying to say when you refer to him. In regard to voting doing "absolutely nothing", that's definitely not true. What, do you think politicians self-designate themselves to their offices? Of course not, their constituents put them up there. Granted, not every political office is directed decided upon by the people, but all votes do indeed count one way or another.
the point being bush definitely failed in public vote in 2004, but he won anyway. -
Date: Fri, Apr 15 2011 20:13:58
Stare wrote: the point being bush definitely failed in public vote in 2004, but he won anyway.
@Stare http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922901.html Bush won 62 million to 59 million. I still don't know what you're trying to say. -
Date: Sat, Apr 16 2011 02:37:30
Loanshark wrote: @Stare http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922901.html Bush won 62 million to 59 million. I still don't know what you're trying to say.
http://www.warwickonline.com/view/full_story_news/12790634/article-Bill-pushed-to-elect-President-by-popular-vote?instance=secondary_stories_left_column -
Date: Thu, Apr 21 2011 12:47:01
I think any idea of disenfranchising people is dangerous and should be avoided. Accepting this idea that some people are not fit for making these kinds of decisions is a slippery slope which leads away from democracy. I also think that the election of Barrack Obama kinda shows that you don't necessarily have to be the most likable guy to get elected. There are many stages before the general election where politicians have to get approval within the political party. And these parties are usually not controlled by people who are uninformed about politics.
Loanshark wrote: I feel as though hundreds of billions of dollars shouldn't be used in advertisement, and some of that campaign money should be used for more useful things. Oh, and did you hear that Obama is already fundraising for the 2012 election? He wants to raise 1 tril in campain funds, ridiculous.
Obama is not going to raise a trillion dollars in campaign funds. A trillion dollars is the same as the gross domestic product of Mexico or Texas. -
Date: Fri, Apr 22 2011 01:39:29
Stare wrote: the point being bush definitely failed in public vote in 2004, but he won anyway.
1. That was his first term in 2000 not 2004. 2. Popular vote doesn't mean anything outside of specific state polls. 3. Learn about the Electoral College. 4. This was not the first time it happened. 5. Start paying attention in your Social Sciences and History classes.