• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Uninformed Citizens Vote?

Should Uninformed Citizens Vote?

  • No

    Votes: 36 76.6%
  • Yes

    Votes: 11 23.4%

  • Total voters
    47
...

Ok well, if you can't see it, I will explain it to you, even though I just did.

People have concerns.
Things happen, this is called current events.

Ok, keep these two things in mind.

People react to current events with their concerns and sometimes want a solution.

People vote to improve their lives.

People improving their lives has lots to do with their concerns being addressed.

This is why elections tend to have themes in any given cycle. This time around its mainly about jobs and the economy.
Sigh...
I was hoping you would understand it, but I guess not.
This was already addressed.
Why should they be informed of the issues of the day?
Especially when those issues may not concern them.

The emboldened portion addresses what you keep saying.
We do not need current affairs because, what concerns one may not concern another.


The underline portion of what you say.
Unfortunately we can't get rid of these people, so maybe we can weed them out by other means. :mrgreen:





You do realize that raw intelligence and applied intelligence are different concepts, right?
You do realize that both can be tested right?
If a person doesn't have reasoning skills, they aren't going to be able to reason out who is best to vote for.

And as far as I am concerned it doesn't matter.

If we are setting the standards, then the rest have a chance at increasing their knowledge and IQ, and retesting
Set the standards and be done with it.
 
Ideally, yeah, they should be allowed, but should opt not to. But the sad reality is that most uninformed people don't realize they're uninformed. They figure they watched Glenn Beck and he told them what to do, so they must be more informed that folks who didn't or whatever.
I hardly think Glenn Beck watchers are uninformed. At the very least they are showing interest in politics. The same cannot be said of those who vote after avoiding political programming altogether.
 
I'll do you one better. Those without property should not be voting.

Or perhaps simply those who are net tax payers get to vote? You pay your taxes one day, get your bit notarized, then you go and vote the next day, with how much you are paying still fresh in your mind.
 
Sigh...
I was hoping you would understand it, but I guess not.
This was already addressed.
Why should they be informed of the issues of the day?
Especially when those issues may not concern them.

The emboldened portion addresses what you keep saying.
We do not need current affairs because, what concerns one may not concern another.


The underline portion of what you say.
Unfortunately we can't get rid of these people, so maybe we can weed them out by other means. :mrgreen:

The term issues of the day certainly morphs from one person to the next but it always exists.

You do realize that both can be tested right?
If a person doesn't have reasoning skills, they aren't going to be able to reason out who is best to vote for.

This is not how intelligence works. People will always use subjective measures of value in determining these things, which goes back to my original question.

Whats the standard?

And as far as I am concerned it doesn't matter.

If we are setting the standards, then the rest have a chance at increasing their knowledge and IQ, and retesting
Set the standards and be done with it.

Than you should study human behavior, because this is not how people work in large groups.
 
If people vote strictly along party lines, does it matter if they're informed or not?
 
Note that I'm not asking if uninformed citizens should be allowed to vote. I'm just whether you think they should vote.

Yes, I think all citizens should be allowed to vote.

Especially when our government is keeping everything they are doing a secret, and so are keeping the voters uninformed.
 
Or perhaps simply those who are net tax payers get to vote? You pay your taxes one day, get your bit notarized, then you go and vote the next day, with how much you are paying still fresh in your mind.

No, because the government could just raise taxes to a level most people cannot afford, and thus becomes an oligarchy that rules over them and disenfranchise them.
 
You would have to be a long term hermit without electricity to be uninformed. Many voters might be less informed, but to not ever hear any of the issues or the candidate's positions would be nigh impossible.

Vote away!
 
People who advocate tying voting to property ownership are really only trying to artificially skew the results in their favor. For the most part, they know that property owners are more likely to be and think like them, and that they'd get what they want as a result.

Not really surprising if you understand base human nature, but still intellectually dishonest.
 
If people vote strictly along party lines, does it matter if they're informed or not?
I know several people who vote strict party line, and the split between informed voter and uninformed voter I'd say is roughly 50/50.

Then there's people like my aunt. VERY partisan. Can discuss and debate issues all day long, and usually has her basic facts straight, but... she's still a partisan hack and goes into every candidate and issue with a pre-conceived bias. She votes straight party line as well.

I know others who vote straight party line, but not because they are party-blind. It just ends up working out that way more often than not. They do put honest thought into the process, but the alternatives are too different from their philosophies and aren't appealing to them.
 
No, because the government could just raise taxes to a level most people cannot afford, and thus becomes an oligarchy that rules over them and disenfranchise them.

As if we don't have an oligarchy now whereby those with wealth and power solidify their position through the government? Well, I shouldn't be so general, as there is a difference between those who earned their wealth and those who abused government to do it.
 
People who advocate tying voting to property ownership are really only trying to artificially skew the results in their favor. For the most part, they know that property owners are more likely to be and think like them, and that they'd get what they want as a result.

Not really surprising if you understand base human nature, but still intellectually dishonest.

It's not dishonest. Those with property are most concerned with preserving the value of that property, whether it be land, capital, etc. In this way, those with land are trying to preserve the production apparatus of this country. Those without property do not care, and so can vote to dismantle that property (and pretty much have done so what with the income tax, capital gains tax, corporate tax, Federal Reserve, etc.). In the best interest of wealth, you want to preserve production, and if you must allow voting, you must only allow those to vote whom you know will preserve that productive capacity.
 
Every single US citizen should vote. I hate when people complain about the govt and then say they dont vote. Its the only way to make a difference.
 
Every single US citizen should vote. I hate when people complain about the govt and then say they dont vote. Its the only way to make a difference.

Because having 1 vote among the millions of other people really doesn't make a difference. Your high school civics class was nothing more than propaganda for the state.
 
Because having 1 vote among the millions of other people really doesn't make a difference. Your high school civics class was nothing more than propaganda for the state.

I think it does make a difference. you this election cycle santorum won iowa by 20 votes. now if there are bunch of people in the state that share your opinion they probably didnt vote. There have been so many close elections i think every vote does make a difference.
 
Well, I would say that we should vote as even us on this board are all uninformed by some extent on certain issues even though we may have more knowledge than the average voter.
 
I think it does make a difference. you this election cycle santorum won iowa by 20 votes. now if there are bunch of people in the state that share your opinion they probably didnt vote. There have been so many close elections i think every vote does make a difference.

Well, I think that in presidential elections, your single vote does not make a difference, but as you go down to the state and local levels, your vote increases. For example, in the last presidential election you had about 131 million people voting (Newsroom: Voting: Voter Turnout Increases by 5 Million in 2008 Presidential Election, U.S. Census Bureau Reports), thus my one vote would not make a difference. But if it were a local vote, out of a town of say, only 24,000, then yes your vote would increase dramatically.
 
I think it does make a difference. you this election cycle santorum won iowa by 20 votes. now if there are bunch of people in the state that share your opinion they probably didnt vote. There have been so many close elections i think every vote does make a difference.

Well Santorum didn't win, but that's besides the point. Elections are almost never decided by that close of a margin, and even if they are, you're probably not in the state where it makes a difference. Voting is a ruse that makes you believe that you have some role in the federal government. You have none. This is why I support secession. We need smaller governments (I'd argue down to the size of families) so that we can actually have some real role in the way we are governed.

Your own congressman, the person you have most access to in the federal government, doesn't give two craps about you. You are nothing to him/her.
 
Well, I think that in presidential elections, your single vote does not make a difference, but as you go down to the state and local levels, your vote increases. For example, in the last presidential election you had about 131 million people voting (Newsroom: Voting: Voter Turnout Increases by 5 Million in 2008 Presidential Election, U.S. Census Bureau Reports), thus my one vote would not make a difference. But if it were a local vote, out of a town of say, only 24,000, then yes your vote would increase dramatically.

Yes, that's the point. :)
 
People who advocate tying voting to property ownership are really only trying to artificially skew the results in their favor. For the most part, they know that property owners are more likely to be and think like them, and that they'd get what they want as a result.

Not really surprising if you understand base human nature, but still intellectually dishonest.
It's not dishonest. Those with property are most concerned with preserving the value of that property, whether it be land, capital, etc. In this way, those with land are trying to preserve the production apparatus of this country. Those without property do not care, and so can vote to dismantle that property (and pretty much have done so what with the income tax, capital gains tax, corporate tax, Federal Reserve, etc.). In the best interest of wealth, you want to preserve production, and if you must allow voting, you must only allow those to vote whom you know will preserve that productive capacity.
...will vote like you. Thank you for confirming my point.
 
Honestly no. Here is what I believe in all sincerity. You should be able to look at a questionaire and answer three simply questions:

-Which of these a, b, c answers is the "Pledge of Allegiance"
-Which of these a, b, c answers is the current president?
-Which of these a, b, c answers is how many states are in the union?

If you cannot answer all those questions you should not get to vote.

I have said basically the same thing should apply here where I live. Ridiculously easy questions that anyone should be able to answer and failure to do so indicates you care too little about your country to know the most basic facts about it.
 
Americans should have a licence to vote.

We recognize that a moving vehicle is dangerous. It can cause damage to property and kill. Therefore, we force sixteen year olds to study and pass a test in order to appreciate the privelege. We ensure that there is at least a minimum amount of time is spent establishing the notion that society is trusting this individual.

We recognize that a gun is dangerous. It can be used to torture and kill. Therefore we force permit holders to attend a class. They are forced to appreciate the power they hold in their hands and we establish a minimum training requirement with background checks. Even hunters teach their young sons what end the pellets come out of.

However, we have a twisted attitude about voting. We assume to give the dumbest individual between Hawaii and Main the right to vote for simply having an eighteenth birthday and breathing oxygen. Internally, the governor, senator, etc. dictates policy and guides society. He/she assumes to be the voice for the masses. He/she spends legally stolen money out of our hard earned pay checks (tax dollars) on projects that may or may not benefit anybody. Externally, the American president leads the free world. The entire world hinges on his speeches and our allies constantly look to us for guidance. We have the power to lead the world into war and peace as we see fit. We have the power to elect individuals who provide just the right promise (or bull****) that takes global events in opposite directions.

We can acknowledge all the power that "we the people" have......yet provide no basis of testing that would ensure society that the individual in the booth even knows the difference between a Democrat and a Republican. Too many of our young voters know nothing about what he/she believes in, but they can tell you all about what their parents think and how cool their University professors are.

It seems to me that voting is far more a dangerous game than driving a car. Perhaps we would have far fewer dip****s in Washington if we had far fewer dip****s in booths.
 
Last edited:
Which goes back to my earlier point, how would we construct an objective measurement? Especially given that political issues are always changing.

2 Simple questions.

Is Obama a Kenyan Muslim?
Does Mitt Romney hate poor people?

Answering yes, to either of these questions, would disqualify you from voting. :2razz:
 
Back
Top Bottom