Why high voter turnout isn't necessarily a good thing...

[lawrocket 3]

Because voters are not eductaing themselves. In california, Proposition 91 went down in defeat. But 42% of people voted for it, anyway.

The problem? The proponents of Proposition 91 were against it - stating that Proposition 1A took care of it, which did a better job of it than Prop 91 did.

Still, some organziations were behind it - including that California Republican Assembly (why? I do not know.)

The freaking AUTHORS said to vote no - and it was right there in the sample ballot. Yet, 42% of the people, 99% of whom probably never read the sample ballot, voted Yes for it.

So, high voter turnout can be a negative - when people have no idea what the hell they are doing.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

This assumes that the marginal voters and the uninformed voters are one and the same. The assumption is unfounded.

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So, high voter turnout can be a negative - when people have no idea what the hell they are doing.


The last 2 presidential general elections are evidence of that....

[shermanator 3]

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So, high voter turnout can be a negative - when people have no idea what the hell they are doing.


The last 2 presidential general elections are evidence of that....

really? it couln't have been people voting for what appeared to be teh lesser of two evils?

CLICK HERE! new blog posted 9/21/08
CSA #720

[Zenister 0]

Quote

when people have no idea what the hell they are doing.

when has it ever been any different in the modern democracy?

Polling laws have usually be used in unfair discriminatory fashions, but when it is to separate the 'informed from the uninformed' I see nothing wrong with them..

simply breathing for 18 years is not qualification enough to decide who should lead.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[billvon 2,470]

>The proponents of Proposition 91 were against it . . .

Yes, I noticed that. At first I thought it was a pretty monumental typo until I got on line and checked it out. Strange.

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

simply breathing for 18 years is not qualification enough to decide who should lead.

Which qualification should be required in your opinion? And who should be determining which qualifications and whether they are met or not?

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

simply breathing for 18 years is not qualification enough to decide who should lead.

Which qualification should be required in your opinion? And who should be determining which qualifications and whether they are met or not?

well that is and has always been the difficult question..

I see no issues with a basic literacy test. If you cannot read you cannot be reasonably informed. Unfortunately this would require 1 (or more) Official Languages.. if you cant read the official language then you really should have no say in the Official Voting process either.

beyond that it gets much more difficult, but I would support something that illustrated a basic understanding of history and the current national/world issues. I wouldn't be hard to create a simple test and at minimum would require those who wanted a say in the political system to educate themselves to a minimal level***

tbph I would not be against a system that required X years of mandatory Military/Social Service prior to being allowed a say. Citizenship should be easier, but 'voting citizens' should require a more involved commitment than simply breathing for X amount of time.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Polling laws have usually be used in unfair discriminatory fashions, but when it is to separate the 'informed from the uninformed' I see nothing wrong with them..

Who gets to establish the criterio?
You, me, Mike Huckabee, or Bill Maher?

Quote

simply breathing for 18 years is not qualification enough to decide who should lead.

This morning’s NPR "Weekend Edition" had a story about Sarah Boltuck, a 17-year old from Bethesda Maryland who was so motivated, interested, and informed (to know voting practices in her State for the last 100 years) in voting that she led a successful effort to have the State reinstate a practice allowing 17-yo’s who will be 18 by next year's general election to vote in this week’s primary. Another story from local news: http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1207/482181.html.

That’s fantastic! When somewhere around 50% of the eligible voting electorate voluntarily exercises their right to apathy/not vote, here’s a young person so excited about exercising the right to be engaged in the process!

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

Polling laws have usually be used in unfair discriminatory fashions, but when it is to separate the 'informed from the uninformed' I see nothing wrong with them..

Who gets to establish the criterio?
You, me, Mike Huckabee, or Bill Maher?

this is a silly question.. the government ofc.. the same one who establishes every other criteria you live under in this country.

how is more difficult.. who is easy.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Who gets to establish the criterio?
You, me, Mike Huckabee, or Bill Maher?

this is a silly question.. the government ofc.. the same one who establishes every other criteria you live under in this country.

how is more difficult.. who is easy.

Fair enough in that there may have been some silly-ness in the rhyming. At the same time, someone is likely to resurrect Heinlein's Starship Troopers voting criterion. The "who" is neither "easy" nor evident to me.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Heinlein's Starship Troopers voting criterion. The "who" is neither "easy" nor evident to me.

something along those lines yes, except expanded beyond simple military service, society needs more than soldiers and the soldier experience to guide it.

I'm not sure why 'who' is difficult? its the same people who make every law you live under currently.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Heinlein's Starship Troopers voting criterion. The "who" is neither "easy" nor evident to me.

something along those lines yes, except expanded beyond simple military service, society needs more than soldiers and the soldier experience to guide it.

What percentage of the population has served in the military? The flip side is what percentage of the population are you proposing to disenfranchise? Is that really an effective strategy to address the inceasing civil-military divide? (And that's not just my assertion, GEN Petraeus and SecDef Gates have written/spoken on the topic).

Since our government is based on rule of law, how about the criterion be that only those educated and certified (i.e., passed the bar) be allowed to vote?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Zenister 0]

Quote

The flip side is what percentage of the population are you proposing to disenfranchise?

this is the more important side really..

everyone who cant be bothered to educate themselves about their government, the world and the issues at hand. Sitting in your living room in front of your TV for 18 years shouldnt be the sole criteria to decide how the country runs.

The point is to force those who want a say to educate themselves and actually do something (not simply military service as that is to limiting dont create the strawman that I am advocating such a simplistic system) to affect society beyond simply 'sucking off the tit'

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Andy9o8 0]

The only thing worse than universal, unrestricted suffrage and high voter turnout is...everything else.

As they say in chess, "See the whole board."
Be careful what you wish for, gentlemen. You just might get it.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

The only thing worse than universal, unrestricted suffrage and high voter turnout is...everything else.

paraphrasing a cliche' does not make it true..

in actuality an enlightened monarchy is the best form of government for progress, the downside of it is that it easily becomes a dictatorship.

being hanged by a dictator vs an ignorant mass makes little difference to the individual.

Universal suffrage only works if there is also universal responsibility..

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[lawrocket 3]

Andy:

I'm not saying it's a bad thing. But what I am saying is that there is some serious stuff that people are going for and just doing without any idea of it.

I am careful with what I do. And I am concerned that people will vote for things that are not what they think they are.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

some serious stuff

you mean like voting for 'Leader of the Free World'?

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[champu 1]

Quote

>The proponents of Proposition 91 were against it . . .

Yes, I noticed that. At first I thought it was a pretty monumental typo until I got on line and checked it out. Strange.

This was really screwy to me too. I love how in the voter information guide it says "Argument in favor of prop 91: VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 91. IT'S NO LONGER NEEDED.... etc..." and then on the following page it says, "Argument against prop 91: No argument against prop 91 was submitted."

I read that the first time and thought, "uh-what?"

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The point is to force those who want a say to educate themselves and actually do something (not simply military service as that is to limiting dont create the strawman that I am advocating such a simplistic system) to affect society beyond simply 'sucking off the tit'

The core issue is more than just who is or isn't enfranchised, by what criterion enfranchisement is granted, and who gets to craft/implement such policy.

The underlying issue goes to whether participation in a democratic republic is an *inalienable right,* an *entitlement* or a *privilege*?

Government (ideally and is supposed to) derives its just (and limited) powers from the people. Under the US government, the people do not derive their rights from the government. The distinction is incredibly important.

The Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" was written to prohibit the government from infringing on those implicit and natural rights (to make them entitlements or privileges or deny them.)

Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights, inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government, laying it’s foundation on such principles & organising it’s powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness."

Jefferson saw a fundamental connection amongst universal suffrage (to white men at that time), limiting tyranny of the government, and education. He wrote:

“It has been thought that corruption is restrained by confined the right of suffrage to a few of the wealthier of the people: but it would be more effectually restrained by an extension of that right to such numbers as would bid defiance to the means of corruption”

“But of all the views of this law none is more important, none is more legitimate, than that of rendering the people safe, as they are the ultimate, guardians of their own liberty. Apprising them of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and of other nations; it will quality them as judges of the actions of other men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views. In every government on earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ of corruption and degeneracy, which cunning will discover, and wickedness insensibly open, cultivate, and improve. The people themselves therefore are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe their minds must be improved to a certain degree. This indeed is not all that is necessary, tough it be essentially necessary. An amendment of our constitution must here in aid of the public education. The influence over government must be shared among all the people.”

Our government, the Constitution, and the citizenry are strong enough to prosper with universal suffrage.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Butters 0]

I don't know or care what we're voting for because I'm an optimist and optimists always vote yes ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Andy9o8 0]

I'm not a cliche' kinda guy. I do, however, enjoy plagiarizing good quotes, especially when they jibe with my own feelings. This is a rip-off of Churchill's quote:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

(Plus, I'm a big fan of Churchill.)
So, from time to time, I do borrow the gist of that quote, both for its general proposition (as in here), and sometimes in support of legal systems that guarantee trial by juries of ordinary citizens.

I think anything other than unrestricted, universal suffrage is extremely dangerous to the viability of a just democracy, and could be subject to all sorts of abuse by a self-defined elite to define-out of participation those who they dislike, or oppose. It effectively creates more than a single "class" of citizens.

(Witness, for example, poll taxes and literacy tests at the polls in the pre-civil rights U.S., or restriction on suffrage exclusively to property owners during the first couple of decades of the US's existence. The former were enablers of institutionalized racial discrimination, and the latter essentially relegated to second-class citizenship those who were not bred in the wealthy upper-crust.)

Therefore, with all due respect, I stand by my admonition.

[livendive 8]

Quote

I see no issues with a basic literacy test. If you cannot read you cannot be reasonably informed.

Perhaps those people would vote for a candidate whose platform included improving education, so their children wouldn't also be illiterate. Do you think such people shouldn't be able to vote in favor of education?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

If you cannot read you cannot be reasonably informed.

First of all, that is, as the Brits say, bollocks. Illiterate people can still watch and listen to the news, documentaries, etc. on TV and radio. The ability to read it does not equate to the ability to know it.

Second, literacy does not necessarily equate being "reasonably informed." We've all seen those "man-on-the-street" interviews where the people are asked basic knowledge questions, and get them shockingly wrong. Chances are, all of those people are literate.

Third, who gets to officially define what level of being informed is, and is not, "reasonable"? You? Me? How about that guy at your job who you think is a f-ing moron? How about we have an act of Congress? I know, let's have a jury trial for each and every voter who's knowledge-based eligibility to vote has been challenged?

I have a better idea: How about we have universal, unrestricted suffrage, and, like many other countries, we encourage large turnout by making Election Day a national holiday, or by holding it on a weekend.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So, high voter turnout can be a negative - when people have no idea what the hell they are doing.


The last 2 presidential general elections are evidence of that....

really? it couln't have been people voting for what appeared to be teh lesser of two evils?

I can't assume the purpose for people voting whichever way they do, all I can do is to read the vote and realize that there are lots of stupid voters out there. I base this on 2 things:

1) Bush advertised who he was and hasn't lied about that.

2) The results are what we could have expected, both on election and reelection.

To assume Gore and/or Kerry wold have been worse is just that and we can't logically hide behind voting for a total loser by rationalizing we were just trying to kee another guy out. Hell, you could have voted for Nader, which some claim is what happened to teh first election when some Nader voters strayed from Gore. It would have the same effect, or perhaps 1/2 the effect, but ultimately the same outcome. A vote for Bush is just that, a vote for Kerry is just that, a vote for Gore is just that; quit rationalizing for stupid people, as I'm sure YOU didn't vote for Bush, right?