Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[GE Morton]

I'd settle for electors proving that they know the different functions of different levels of government. Not in detail, just to have some semblance of an idea to demonstrate that they can make at least a somewhat informed vote.

Every contributor — i.e. every adult citizen — has a right to a vote. I see no reason to compel, or try to, an "informed" vote. Yes, the desirability of an informed vote is clear, but as a necessary qualification? Too restrictive. Anyone who contributes gets their say, I think.

"Every contributor — i.e. every adult citizen . . ."

Huh? Every adult citizen is obviously not a "contributor." Many are parasites. In the past some US states limited voting to taxpayers, but the Supreme Court struck down that restriction.

The "brick wall" issue in the voter ignorance/voter qualification debate is the moral one, i.e., whether every person subject to a law is entitled to a say in its enactment, ignorant or parasitic or not.

[Sy Borg]

I'd settle for electors proving that they know the different functions of different levels of government. Not in detail, just to have some semblance of an idea to demonstrate that they can make at least a somewhat informed vote.

Every contributor — i.e. every adult citizen — has a right to a vote. I see no reason to compel, or try to, an "informed" vote. Yes, the desirability of an informed vote is clear, but as a necessary qualification? Too restrictive. Anyone who contributes gets their say, I think.

Then we implacably differ.

My mother voted for the Liberal Party in 1972 because she didn't like Gough Whitlam. What did she not like? His "oily, squid lips". She did not know a single policy but she had the same say in our democracy as those with an informed vote. Under no circumstance, was my other fit to vote.

If we are to allow the completely clueless to vote, then voting should be made available to all people of any age. There are ten year-olds capable of far more informed votes than millions of adults.

[Robert66]

Was it Plato who identified the one foreseeable problem with democracy: that anyone could become a politician.

Or... Plato actually identified an enduring strength of democracy. There are a lot of politicians I do not agree with, however I prefer a system which offers all the opportunity to serve as a politician.

Similarly, I prefer a system which allows as many as possible to cast their vote, even though the outcome is not always the one I seek. I am more troubled by the behaviour of many politicians once they attain office, and think a lot more needs to be done to identify and punish corrupt politicians. If someone wants to run for public office, then they must agree to intense scrutiny.

As for any scheme which seeks to prevent those 'without any political literacy' from voting, I think the problems with that line of thought have been well described. Returning to Plato, it seems he originated a form of elitism which endures to this day. How would I feel if told I knew too little about politics or government to be allowed to vote? Not happy at all.

I appreciate the frustration of Sy Borg and others - I share it - however I think there are more useful areas to investigate reform of democracy. In Australia the real problem is not the outright number of people 'without any political literacy' aka idiots or morons, but the fact that our 2 party-dominated system allows for the unscrupulous vote-buying in specific, marginal electorates. I would much prefer larger, multi-member electorates which would more closely reflect voting intentions, rather than the "first past the post" system we have, whereby most voters do not get the representative they voted for.

If there were to be any disallowing of the right to vote, rather than targetting idiots or morons, or plain clods (as determined by some statutory Board for Determining Individual Political Literacy or such) I prefer something along the lines of the (now prohibited) type referred to by GE Morton, whereby those who fail to pay their fair share of tax would be denied the vote.

And to answer GE Morton's question of Tommo: in Australia we are required to have our name on the electoral roll checked off on election days. Lodging a formal vote remains optional, and interestingly the fastest growing category of vote in recent times has been the informal vote. I have made informal votes myself at times, because of living in electorates where the possibility of anything other than an absolute blue-blooded fukkmit being elected is extremely remote, and I have gained more satisfaction from venting my anger on the voting paper. Failure to have one's name checked off incurs a small fine, or at least that is what is meant to happen. I know of people who have been fined, and people who have not, for not having their name checked off on election days.

[GE Morton]

If there were to be any disallowing of the right to vote, rather than targetting idiots or morons, or plain clods (as determined by some statutory Board for Determining Individual Political Literacy or such) I prefer something along the lines of the (now prohibited) type referred to by GE Morton, whereby those who fail to pay their fair share of tax would be denied the vote.

In the US those restrictions typically applied only to elections seeking a tax, such as as annual school levies and bond issues to pay for some specific project, the bonds to be serviced by property tax levies. Voting in such elections was limited to property owners who would be liable for that tax.

Given the Newspeak meaning widely accepted these days for the phrase "fair share," limiting voting to persons who paid it would just enable more parasitism.

[Robert66]

If there were to be any disallowing of the right to vote, rather than targetting idiots or morons, or plain clods (as determined by some statutory Board for Determining Individual Political Literacy or such) I prefer something along the lines of the (now prohibited) type referred to by GE Morton, whereby those who fail to pay their fair share of tax would be denied the vote.

In the US those restrictions typically applied only to elections seeking a tax, such as as annual school levies and bond issues to pay for some specific project, the bonds to be serviced by property tax levies. Voting in such elections was limited to property owners who would be liable for that tax.

Given the Newspeak meaning widely accepted these days for the phrase "fair share," limiting voting to persons who paid it would just enable more parasitism.

Lawmakers should be wise enough to avoid the pitfalls of so-called Newspeak, and rely instead on information held by the tax department to determine whether or not an individual owes a tax debt. What can be considered a fair amount of income tax to be paid will always be contested, however for the sake of this argument the amount set by law can be taken as a fair share. I don't see how more parasitism would be enabled by such a restriction on voting rights.

***

Having thought more about this matter since my last post where I sympathised with Sy Borg about people 'without any political literacy' being allowed to vote, I do have one suggestion for consideration (at least in the Australian context where compulsory voting - or thereabouts - is the law). If a person does not want to vote in elections, they could be given the option to forfeit their voting right, and thereby avoid the risk of receiving a fine. The Forfeiture of Voting Franchise document they sign would include the condition that they of course remain subject to all other laws.

[Pattern-chaser]

I'd settle for electors proving that they know the different functions of different levels of government. Not in detail, just to have some semblance of an idea to demonstrate that they can make at least a somewhat informed vote.

Every contributor — i.e. every adult citizen — has a right to a vote. I see no reason to compel, or try to, an "informed" vote. Yes, the desirability of an informed vote is clear, but as a necessary qualification? Too restrictive. Anyone who contributes gets their say, I think.

Then we implacably differ.

My mother voted for the Liberal Party in 1972 because she didn't like Gough Whitlam. What did she not like? His "oily, squid lips". She did not know a single policy but she had the same say in our democracy as those with an informed vote. Under no circumstance, was my other fit to vote.

If we are to allow the completely clueless to vote, then voting should be made available to all people of any age. There are ten year-olds capable of far more informed votes than millions of adults.

Your mother's vote was hers to use as she saw fit. The alternative would seem to be that you give her a vote, and then mandate how she might use it. That isn't a vote, it's you, imposing your vote on her. I do not argue for ignorance, or anything like that, but only on the free choice of a voter to use their vote as they see fit. Maybe to spoil the ballot paper, and thereby abstain. Why is that wrong?

[GE Morton]

If you want to go there, then let's go there.

First, while private school students outperform public school students, if you control for parental education level and income, there is no difference in performance.

That will always be the case --- education levels, income, and school performance are all correlated, and reflect genetic differences. The advantage of a competitive, privatized school system is that it will yield a variety of schools, with different educational philosophies, different curricula, catering to students and parents with different interests, values, and abilities.

Second, since private schools don't require teaching certification and the teachers aren't unionized (their benefits are way lower) and private schools don't have the expense of special education, of course their costs are lower.

Yes indeed. Each school can decide for itself who is qualified to teach at their school, and, like all other businesses, will be forced to pay what they must to get the caliber of help they want. Some schools would specialize in hard-to-educate kids.

The goal of universal, "one-size fits all" education is misguided. Not all kids will benefit from 12 years in school; some should probably drop out after grade 3 and their parents consider some sort of apprenticeship program.

[Sy Borg]

I'd settle for electors proving that they know the different functions of different levels of government. Not in detail, just to have some semblance of an idea to demonstrate that they can make at least a somewhat informed vote.

Every contributor — i.e. every adult citizen — has a right to a vote. I see no reason to compel, or try to, an "informed" vote. Yes, the desirability of an informed vote is clear, but as a necessary qualification? Too restrictive. Anyone who contributes gets their say, I think.

Then we implacably differ.

My mother voted for the Liberal Party in 1972 because she didn't like Gough Whitlam. What did she not like? His "oily, squid lips". She did not know a single policy but she had the same say in our democracy as those with an informed vote. Under no circumstance, was my other fit to vote.

If we are to allow the completely clueless to vote, then voting should be made available to all people of any age. There are ten year-olds capable of far more informed votes than millions of adults.

Your mother's vote was hers to use as she saw fit. The alternative would seem to be that you give her a vote, and then mandate how she might use it. That isn't a vote, it's you, imposing your vote on her. I do not argue for ignorance, or anything like that, but only on the free choice of a voter to use their vote as they see fit. Maybe to spoil the ballot paper, and thereby abstain. Why is that wrong?

If people are okay with uninformed votes being treated the same as informed ones, then they are okay being lead by the likes of dishonest populists Trump, Bolsonaro, Erdigan, Morrison and Johnson - the very types that Socrates warned against. IMO it's a shame that not many heeded him.

[Robert66]

Every contributor — i.e. every adult citizen — has a right to a vote. I see no reason to compel, or try to, an "informed" vote. Yes, the desirability of an informed vote is clear, but as a necessary qualification? Too restrictive. Anyone who contributes gets their say, I think.

Then we implacably differ.

My mother voted for the Liberal Party in 1972 because she didn't like Gough Whitlam. What did she not like? His "oily, squid lips". She did not know a single policy but she had the same say in our democracy as those with an informed vote. Under no circumstance, was my other fit to vote.

If we are to allow the completely clueless to vote, then voting should be made available to all people of any age. There are ten year-olds capable of far more informed votes than millions of adults.

Your mother's vote was hers to use as she saw fit. The alternative would seem to be that you give her a vote, and then mandate how she might use it. That isn't a vote, it's you, imposing your vote on her. I do not argue for ignorance, or anything like that, but only on the free choice of a voter to use their vote as they see fit. Maybe to spoil the ballot paper, and thereby abstain. Why is that wrong?

If people are okay with uninformed votes being treated the same as informed ones, then they are okay being lead by the likes of dishonest populists Trump, Bolsonaro, Erdigan, Morrison and Johnson - the very types that Socrates warned against. IMO it's a shame that not many heeded him.

Not so much 'okay with uninformed votes being treated the same as informed ones', more not okay with the alternatives.

[GE Morton]

Not so much 'okay with uninformed votes being treated the same as informed ones', more not okay with the alternatives.

That is reminiscent of Winston Churchill's comment, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried."

[Sy Borg]

Not so much 'okay with uninformed votes being treated the same as informed ones', more not okay with the alternatives.

That is reminiscent of Winston Churchill's comment, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried."

A democracy where the massively uninformed are sidelined would work best IMO. After all, we sideline teenagers up to 17, some of whom are vastly more informed than many, many adults.

The trouble with "merit" in this situation is that some leaders determine merit by loyalty, not knowledge or ability, and their suffrage tests would reflect this.

[Pattern-chaser]

Every contributor — i.e. every adult citizen — has a right to a vote. I see no reason to compel, or try to, an "informed" vote. Yes, the desirability of an informed vote is clear, but as a necessary qualification? Too restrictive. Anyone who contributes gets their say, I think.

Then we implacably differ.

My mother voted for the Liberal Party in 1972 because she didn't like Gough Whitlam. What did she not like? His "oily, squid lips". She did not know a single policy but she had the same say in our democracy as those with an informed vote. Under no circumstance, was my other fit to vote.

If we are to allow the completely clueless to vote, then voting should be made available to all people of any age. There are ten year-olds capable of far more informed votes than millions of adults.

Your mother's vote was hers to use as she saw fit. The alternative would seem to be that you give her a vote, and then mandate how she might use it. That isn't a vote, it's you, imposing your vote on her. I do not argue for ignorance, or anything like that, but only on the free choice of a voter to use their vote as they see fit. Maybe to spoil the ballot paper, and thereby abstain. Why is that wrong?

If people are okay with uninformed votes being treated the same as informed ones, then they are okay being lead by the likes of dishonest populists Trump, Bolsonaro, Erdigan, Morrison and Johnson...

A moment's examination seems to show that your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.

In my darker moods, I am often tempted to follow your line of thought; to think as you do. Then I remind myself that around 80% of people think they're above average, and that applies pretty much across the board, whatever skill or ability you ask about. And I can see such people for myself, and see for myself that they are clearly mistaken, but don't know it. And if all those people can deceive themselves so successfully, is it reasonable to believe that I am somehow immune from the stupidity that apparently afflicts so many of my species?

Better, I think, to allow everyone their right to speak, or vote, without superior types trying to tell them what to say.

[Pattern-chaser]

A democracy where the massively uninformed are sidelined would work best IMO.

And what if someone tried to make out that you are one of the "uninformed", and tried to disenfranchise you???

[Robert66]

Not so much 'okay with uninformed votes being treated the same as informed ones', more not okay with the alternatives.

That is reminiscent of Winston Churchill's comment, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried."

This from www.Churchill.org:

'Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’

Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947

[Sy Borg]

A democracy where the massively uninformed are sidelined would work best IMO.

And what if someone tried to make out that you are one of the "uninformed", and tried to disenfranchise you???

I already covered that above.