Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

If we extrapolate this, these narcissists would be asking for an end to the Universal adult franchise and say that only the "properly informed" people should be allowed to vote.

I've heard this argument in my country already from certain circles



sort by: page size:

Yes, very pertinent. The hypocrisy is obvious that voting 'adults' need to be protected from 'misinformation'.

If the listeners are adults of voting age, I see absolutely no problem with that. If you think that people are too stupid, I think we should talk about stripping their voting rights. If people are too stupid to consume misinformation aren't they too stupid to vote?

Do you honestly believe we should restrict their ability to vote based on your preconceptions about their understanding of the world?

Edit: I do agree that lots of people don't posses the quality of information to make good voting choices. I just think that isn't a good justification for disenfranchising people.


These hordes of extremely naive people that are so easily fooled: if they exist, why should they be allowed to vote at all in the first place?

Nah, the prospect of misinformation driving elections should be used to terrorize people that are informed into voting. The best standard for the right to vote is the ability to correctly complete a ballot that is designed to be easy to complete.

Children shouldn't even be disenfranchised. If someone wants to coach their children to vote for Trump, let em.


How would you feel if Donald Trump removed your right to vote, and then instituted a bunch of experts with whom you viscerally disagree?

If you think some people are not educated enough to vote, then persuade them that they need to be educated.


Restricting voting to only "informed" voters would eventually lead to aristocracy and elitism.

Why would you want to force people who don't have enough knowledge or interest to make an educated opinion to vote?

People who want to control the illiterate and subjugate their voting power to their own ends.

I'm not quite sure i agree with it, but it's worth at least thinking about the converse of this argument:

Perhaps we let too many people vote already? The average American isn't just a little uninformed, but is provably wrong about a number of issues, like what the government spends its money on, who holds the power to do various things, and the resources and governments of our neighbors. Heck, I'd bet that a non-zero percentage of voters don't even understand how the marginal tax rate works.

We don't let unqualified people fix our cars, work in our hospitals, or teach our kids, so why should they have the ability to make our political decisions?

Society has plenty of ways to accredit people to be 'knowledgeable' about these subjects (Basic civics test -> high school diploma -> college degree -> Degree in econ/poli sci -> masters -> phd, or perhaps business owners, workers in gov't service, etc).

We already treat voting as a privilege, not a right, (It can be taken away, as with felons) why not weight votes based on your investment in learning??

Obviously this plan is harebrained in that it would massively disadvantage everyone other than upper class white people, and probably lead to a civil war, but it's interesting to think that voting is probably the one place in society where are an objectively recognized expert in the field (I'm thinking more on the Econ side than the Poli Sci side) has exactly the same say as someone who just picks one at random.

The whole idea that some privileged group has the ability to say whether I can vote makes me a little uneasy, so personally I think I'd give a firm no to the idea.

If you're interested in the idea, the economist Bryan Caplan wrote a book called 'The Myth of the Rational Voter' that discusses the common fallacies and provides hard evidence. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0691138737?tag=bryacaplwebp-20&...;

He also has the single ugliest web page that i've ever seen for an academic (a high bar indeed): http://www.bcaplan.com/


“Informed” and “motivated to vote” don’t correlate well. I’d even argue that they might be negatively correlated; the people most fanatical about voting are the same people who get their news from extremely biased and inaccurate sources. Mandatory voting takes power away from the crazies.

> people get "informed" and "activated" by propaganda on any given side

Yes, in other words, they get manipulated into tribalized group think.

> Australia has compulsory voting and it's arguably better in terms of outcomes than the US.

There could be many reasons for this other than voting being compulsory.


I think your comment is repugnant. We all have areas of our life where we can be a little naive. We, as a society, should work to protect the weakest among us - not blame them for their weaknesses.

If your problem is that these people aren't smart enough and shouldn't be voting, then a democracy probably isn't for you.


>It's not surprising that this push comes amid the understanding that the less educated one is, the more likely they are to vote R [2].

I saw the article, and it does indeed show this, however, I'm not sold that education is the only criterion when it comes to how someone votes... or does anything else, for that matter

It's far too simple of a cause-and-effect type of deal for this to be the only factor, or even, for this to be a factor at all, perhaps. The world is a bit more complex than chucking everything up to how someone does something based solely on their administered level of institutional education

I've been just a tiny bit more skeptical of all of these cause-and-effect type stories ever since I read Nassim Taleb


While I agree, we would all be better off if the populace was more intelligent, I can't deny that this is a very narcissistic attitude.

National elections carry vastly more importance for the people than EP elections, just look at the voter turnout statistics.

And rightfully so. Just look at the daily news of Denmark, Netherlands or Germany. Countries that are compared to other sets of nations remarkably similar. Yet, languages aside, have vastly different daily concerns and thus vastly different needs. A parliament where your nations needs are watered down is guaranteed to offend your nations voters over each iteration where such offending decision takes place.

The bigger the electorate, the lesser a vote counts, thus less participation and ultimately less democratic legitimacy.


And you want these willfully ignorant people voting more?

Not saying it's a bad idea. Questioning whether you're contradicting yourself.


The real questions are therefore: how can we educate those people or how can we remove them from the voting pool?

I think you can argue that that assumption is wrong, and that that is also the biggest problem with democracy and voting. You are asking people to vote on a topic they are often not well informed on, or are unwilling/unable to spend time to educate themselves thoroughly. Also anybody of a certain age is allowed to vote, regardless their level of education, and their ability to make sound decisions.

If you want to drive a car, you have to proof you are able to do so. Why not demand the same if you want to vote?


The converse view:

Surely people who are so stupid/ignorant that this system would stop them voting, are too stupid/ignorant to be able to vote effectively in any election.

You may argue that it sounds a bit elitist, but personally, I want an electorate capable of making informed choices in the voting booth.

next

Legal | privacy