Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
IMO, Ignorant People Should Not Vote  
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1984 times:

Unfortunately, in my experiences, the ignorant do not know/think they are ignorant. So to them, they know enough to make conclusions, hence don't need to know any more info.

I think every ballot should have some kind of assessment test to evaluate each voter's knowledge of what or who they are voting for and weight their vote accordingly.

If people only vote because they think they have to and don't score well, either they will not vote or study harder next time.

As of a passing score, I don't know what would be appropriate. I'd say 100% and I'd make the test completely objective, requiring people to be critical of their favorites.


The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSean1234 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 411 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1976 times:

No.

This is a democracy; every voice is heard. The talk of weighting votes is somewhat reminiscent of the 3/5 compromised this nation used long ago. You want to go back to that? Were blacks inferior to whites, only 3/5 of a person?

Though arguably the misinformed voter, however you want to define it, is a shortcoming of democracy. One hopes the majority opinion will be the "right one".


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1973 times:

Voters can vote on whatever basis they want, dont try and force an issue onto them.

User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10336 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1964 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Thread starter):
Unfortunately, in my experiences, the ignorant do not know/think they are ignorant.

Which means that EVERYONE could be ignorant, and NO ONE would know.

Quoting Sean1234 (Reply 1):
No.

This is a democracy; every voice is heard. The talk of weighting votes is somewhat reminiscent of the 3/5 compromised this nation used long ago. You want to go back to that? Were blacks inferior to whites, only 3/5 of a person?

Though arguably the misinformed voter, however you want to define it, is a shortcoming of democracy. One hopes the majority opinion will be the "right one".

 yes 



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1964 times:

An arrogant, patronising and fascist view to take.

User currently offlineNeilYYZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1964 times:

Who is ignorant in your view, may not be ignorant in mine or others people's mind. In my opinion, your idea is completely asinine and is in direct contradiction of how a democracy runs, one person, one vote. It seems that you would like to segregate people based on what your perceived view of ignorance is, a laughable idea at best.

User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7811 posts, RR: 16
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1956 times:

Based on the OPs statements, I hearby decree he should no longer be able to vote.


Poll taxes, qualification tests have all been declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. And there is no such thing as a purely objective test. Never mind that we live in a democracy based upon the principle of one person, one vote.



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineMBMBOS From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2615 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1956 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Thread starter):
I'd say 100% and I'd make the test completely objective, requiring people to be critical of their favorites.

Objective? How do you ever make a test objective? According to whom?

And how ignorant must a person be before you disallow them to vote? Or, to put it another way, what level of comprehension must a person have in order to determine they are capable of making a decision?

And why set any sort of ignorance standard, by the way? Can you demonstrate, empirically, that voters have made poor decisions based on ignorance?

This is fraught with problems. The only example of anything like this in our history was literacy tests adminstered to voters. This was aimed, specifically, to exclude black voters in southern states.

It would become politicized in a second and we would never get to a point of agreement on how to test for ignorance.


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1952 times:

Quoting Sean1234 (Reply 1):
Though arguably the misinformed voter, however you want to define it, is a shortcoming of democracy. One hopes the majority opinion will be the "right one".

That's my point. Democracy is crippled when those that vote are misinformed. But, we are going to protect and defend their right to be stupid? Where are we headed when these people ARE the majority??

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 2):
dont try and force an issue onto them.

I could say the same for your opinion.

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 3):
Which means that EVERYONE could be ignorant, and NO ONE would know.

That is how you and anyone that agrees with you will see it. Are other ways of seeing it possible?

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 4):
An arrogant, patronising and fascist view to take.

Elaborate. That statement is in fact your view of what I said, which means I cannot take responsibility for your interpretation. I cannot read your mind.

Quoting DesertJets (Reply 6):
Based on the OPs statements, I hearby decree he should no longer be able to vote.

I don't anymore, I don't take sides and there are no parties that sound like they have my interests in mind.

Quoting NeilYYZ (Reply 5):
Who is ignorant in your view, may not be ignorant in mine or others people's mind

How democratic, majority viewpoint says what is right then? Who needs school when we have Wikipedia.  Yeah sure

[Edited 2006-11-10 20:11:40]


The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineNeilYYZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1937 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 8):

That's my point. Democracy is crippled when those that vote are misinformed. But, we are going to protect and defend their right to be stupid? Where are we headed when these people ARE the majority??

Sorry King Lephron, I was not aware that you were so superior that it was up to you to decide that in your opinion the majority of people ignorant. Could you create a list of all the people that are allowed to vote, I'd hate it if I voted out of ignorance and offended you.


User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7811 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1937 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 8):
Democracy is crippled when those that vote are misinformed. But, we are going to protect and defend their right to be stupid? Where are we headed when these people ARE the majority??

Incorrect. Democracy is crippled when artificial limits are placed on who can and cannot participate in the process. Whether you realize it or not, what you propose borders heavily on a fascist, autocratic regime. Where the state acts as is if knows better than the people it governs.

Remember in a democracy the government serves at the will of the people, not the other way around.



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10336 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1932 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 8):
I could say the same for your opinion.

Which means that there is no objective way to determine whether someone is ignorant or uninformed.

Personally, I think your view is completely wrong. But you seem to think that it's not wrong. So who decides???

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 8):
But, we are going to protect and defend their right to be stupid?

You're goddamn right we are. We're going to protect MY right to be stupid, and YOUR right to be stupid as well. Because we do not live in a perfect world where people don't fuck up.

If you don't like the way the country is headed, there are two things you can do:

1.) Leave

2.) VOTE

I prefer #2, personally.

EDIT:

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 8):
How democratic, majority viewpoint says what is right then?

Uhhh, dude....YES. We elect our government, don't we???

[Edited 2006-11-10 20:27:00]


How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17824 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1923 times:

It's a nice idea but it's totally impractical. What I don't understand is the groups like "Vote or Die" which just ask people to vote no matter what....regardless whether they know what they're voting for or against. I don't understand what benefit there is, if any, to people voting for the sake of voting, rather than voting for the sake of making your voice heard. There's a huge difference, and it doesn't surprise me that people like Paris Hilton and P Diddy can't grasp it.


E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1921 times:

Quoting DesertJets (Reply 10):
what you propose borders heavily on a fascist, autocratic regime

What you and others think (or insist) am I proposing, not what I am proposing. What is the point of standardized tests in schools? If this example is different to you, fine, not different to me. Why not standardize voting?

Quoting NeilYYZ (Reply 9):
Sorry King Lephron, I was not aware that you were so superior that it was up to you to decide that in your opinion the majority of people ignorant. Could you create a list of all the people that are allowed to vote, I'd hate it if I voted out of ignorance and offended you

I'm far from offended...you however are quite. I hope you do not expect me to be responsible for your opinions? Brilliant use of name-calling.

Quoting DesertJets (Reply 10):
Remember in a democracy the government serves at the will of the people, not the other way around.

I don't think in black&white, I've never considered the latter of your statement.

[Edited 2006-11-10 20:29:21]


The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineNeilYYZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1903 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 13):
I hope you do not expect me to be responsible for your opinions? Brilliant use of name-calling.

I'm glad you're not offended, however, calling you King Lephron I thought would be a compliment, you want to filter out who can and can't vote. King implies that you have knowledge clearly well beyond my meager thought process.


User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10336 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1895 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 8):
I don't anymore, I don't take sides and there are no parties that sound like they have my interests in mind.

So.....you refuse to utilize your legal right to vote (even refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils, whichever it may be), and yet you propose placing limitations on those who wish to vote???  confused 

I'm actually quite amazed.

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 8):
That is how you and anyone that agrees with you will see it. Are other ways of seeing it possible?

Sure. I'm not a single-minded asshole, even if I come across that way. I also said "could" which seems to have escaped your notice.

My point was that there are an infinite amount of other ways one could look at it. Which, in turn, means that everyone could be ignorant, in someone else's view. So where does that leave us?



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1894 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 8):
I could say the same for your opinion.

You are the one suggesting forcing an issue on others here, so dont take that attitude.


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1890 times:

Just so everyone knows, I only came up what is being called my viewpoint a minute prior to posting the thread. This is not something that has been on my mind. If you come to the conclusion I have not thought this through, its yours.   Read signature.

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 11):
If you don't like the way the country is headed, there are two things you can do:

1.) Leave

2.) VOTE

I prefer #2, personally

How is it you claim opinion on your choice, but do not acknowledge that the criteria was an opinion as well? That in your opinion, "there are two things you can do"? IMO, if you truly believ in freedom of speech, you should be responsible for every opinion you make and NOT talk like things are obvious.

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 11):
Quoting Lehpron (Reply 8):
How democratic, majority viewpoint says what is right then?

Uhhh, dude....YES. We elect our government, don't we???

Here's a few ideas:

1) What if that statement I made was an analogy?
2) What if I associate voting to something else and this whole thread has nothing to do with government or politics?

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 11):
Personally, I think your view is completely wrong. But you seem to think that it's not wrong. So who decides???



Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 12):
It's a nice idea but it's totally impractical.

I agree it can be somewhat impractical due to finding a reference point. Though in my mind, such a reference would have to be calibrated through a series of questionares and only those who may actually vote should participate. Seems to me unfair for someone to vote and their say was not calibrated, of course that would be their fault for not filling out the questionaire. Which makes this true:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 2):
Voters can vote on whatever basis they want


Quoting NeilYYZ (Reply 14):
however, calling you King Lephron I thought would be a compliment, you want to filter out who can and can't vote. King implies that you have knowledge clearly well beyond my meager thought process.

You're funny. I'm supposed to take a compliment by what you think the word means. BTW, you used the word 'meager'.

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 15):
I'm actually quite amazed.

I agree, but for different reasons. You are slowly finding the holes in my 'argument'.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 16):
You are the one suggesting forcing an issue on others here

Dude, if you gather from my original thread that I suggest forcing, then those are your opinions as long as you see fit. How on Earth am I really suggesting force? Their your interpretations, not mine! I'm not about to combine what we are both saying and insist that standardization equates to force.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 16):
so dont take that attitude.

I'm not the one who used the word "force".

Quoting Dash8King (Reply 18):
I agree but why be so liberal about it?

Huh? Could you use a different word than 'liberal', I use categories to distinguish, not generalize.

[Edited 2006-11-10 21:06:50]


The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineDash8King From Canada, joined Nov 2001, 2743 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1877 times:

I agree but why be so liberal about it? People that are successful have obviously made the best choices in life so only they should vote. So the new rules should include that you make at least 100k a year, drive an american car, be 25+ and pass your brilliant ignorance test. Thats the only way we can eliminate ignorance. One thing that should be considered as well is, should women vote? I think they are to emotional and I dont want that coming out in the elections.

User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1870 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 17):

I'm not the one who used the word "force".

Your entire first post was about forcing a test on voters to determine their 'fitness' to vote - so no, you use the word 'force' but in no way did your post imply it was voluntary.

Voters dont have to be fit to vote, they have to be a citizen - thats fitnes enough.

Voters are allowed to vote on whatever basis they want, including flipping a coin.


User currently offlineGunsontheroof From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3509 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1863 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Thread starter):

I think every ballot should have some kind of assessment test to evaluate each voter's knowledge of what or who they are voting for and weight their vote accordingly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965



Next Flight: 9/17 BFI-BFI
User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10336 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1839 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 17):
Here's a few ideas:

1) What if that statement I made was an analogy?
2) What if I associate voting to something else and this whole thread has nothing to do with government or politics?

1.) I am not responsible for your implied intent or implied messages. I can only call them as I see them, through my interpretations and perceptions  Wink
2.) See 1.

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 17):
I agree, but for different reasons. You are slowly finding the holes in my 'argument'.

I'm pretty sure most of us saw the glaring hole right away...

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 17):
How is it you claim opinion on your choice, but do not acknowledge that the criteria was an opinion as well? That in your opinion, "there are two things you can do"? IMO, if you truly believ in freedom of speech, you should be responsible for every opinion you make and NOT talk like things are obvious.

I honestly don't understand this paragraph; I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Although, talking like things are obvious has little to do with anything. Besides, we're typing all this anyway....



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2477 posts, RR: 24
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1839 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Thread starter):
IMO, Ignorant People Should Not Vote

Yes they should. They can vote blank if they don't know who to vote on.

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 8):

That is how you and anyone that agrees with you will see it. Are other ways of seeing it possible?

I don't know. You tell us if you don't agree with us.

[Edited 2006-11-10 22:45:59]

User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5743 posts, RR: 19
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1825 times:

Quoting Dash8King (Reply 18):
People that are successful have obviously made the best choices in life so only they should vote. So the new rules should include that you make at least 100k a year, drive an american car, be 25+ and pass your brilliant ignorance test.

"Drive an american car" and "best choice in life" both in the same sentence...?
 scratchchin   duck 


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1823 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 19):

Apologies, quite obviously theres a 'dont' missing from my post - somehow it disappeared during the re-composition of my post while I worked out what to say!


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Some People Should Not Buy Hummer H2's posted Tue Sep 2 2003 08:14:28 by JAL777
Why Gays Should Not Serve In The Army posted Fri Sep 22 2006 00:10:03 by Braybuddy
Chavs Should Not Be Allowed Into My Work (rant) posted Mon May 15 2006 02:21:57 by Cadet57
Who Said White People Could Not Dance. posted Fri Oct 7 2005 01:30:11 by AAFLT1871
I Think Hurricanes Should Not Be Named! posted Fri Sep 2 2005 16:02:47 by Birdwatching
South Beach - What Should I Not Miss? posted Sun May 15 2005 21:35:13 by Canuckpaxguy
America Should Not Garrison The World: It's Wrong posted Wed May 4 2005 04:43:07 by MD-90
US Govt :"Foreigners Should Not Interfere In Iraq" posted Tue Jul 22 2003 13:23:13 by B747-437B
Why The Iraqi People Will Not Accept A US Invasion posted Fri Mar 14 2003 22:39:41 by Cedarjet
So, Do People Just Not Value Life Anymore? posted Mon Oct 7 2002 20:14:03 by Silverangel