BF2S Forums Ignorance... A Huge Problem In Modern Politics

me wrote:

Democracy also demands an informed voter base, and I think this is the biggest fundamental area that current republics are showing so much room for relatively easy improvement. I don't want to racially discriminate at the polls, I don't want to economically discriminate, I don't want to intellectually discriminate, but I do want to informatively discriminate. If you are not informed, you should not be allowed to vote, period. We have tests to make sure you have the knowledge base to drive a car, but we don't care how informed you are about the direction of our nation. A simple, easy, 5-10 question test about the campaign that season could go a long way towards weeding out the completely uninformed at the polls and discouraging people we don't want from voting from even trying. Maybe even weight the vote slightly according to the score of the test.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

me wrote:

Democracy also demands an informed voter base, and I think this is the biggest fundamental area that current republics are showing so much room for relatively easy improvement. I don't want to racially discriminate at the polls, I don't want to economically discriminate, I don't want to intellectually discriminate, but I do want to informatively discriminate. If you are not informed, you should not be allowed to vote, period. We have tests to make sure you have the knowledge base to drive a car, but we don't care how informed you are about the direction of our nation. A simple, easy, 5-10 question test about the campaign that season could go a long way towards weeding out the completely uninformed at the polls and discouraging people we don't want from voting from even trying. Maybe even weight the vote slightly according to the score of the test.

If you are an American citizen (non felon of age) you can vote period.  You can vote for whoever he/she wants for whatever reason he/she has no matter how stupid it may be to another person.  It is yer' right as an an American.
 
All men are created equal, thus no vote weighting... Reminded me of the free slave= 3/4 vote or something.

The founding fathers weren't stupid, and dare I say they probably discussed something along the lines of your post. That's why there's an electoral college.

I don't quite see how any of your post applies to mine...I know everyone can vote, I never said men weren't created equal, and I really don't know wtf the electoral college has to do with this.

usmarine wrote:

Parker wrote:

usmarine wrote:

i have a pitching wedge.  thats my weapon.

not enough reach man....at least a five, if not the three iron

i beg to differ.

Open faced club sandwedge tbh

Another great example.

In this sort of work-safe audio clip, Howard Stern sends interviewer Sal to Harlem to find out why Obama supporters are planning to vote for the candidate in November.

Sal wants to know if it’s more because Obama is pro-life, or because Obama wants to stay in Iraq as long as it takes to win the war.

As a bonus question, Sal asks how they feel about Obama’s choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate.

It's just general ignorance, it doesn't have anything to do with blacks voting for Obama because he's black.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

me wrote:

Democracy also demands an informed voter base, and I think this is the biggest fundamental area that current republics are showing so much room for relatively easy improvement. I don't want to racially discriminate at the polls, I don't want to economically discriminate, I don't want to intellectually discriminate, but I do want to informatively discriminate. If you are not informed, you should not be allowed to vote, period. We have tests to make sure you have the knowledge base to drive a car, but we don't care how informed you are about the direction of our nation. A simple, easy, 5-10 question test about the campaign that season could go a long way towards weeding out the completely uninformed at the polls and discouraging people we don't want from voting from even trying. Maybe even weight the vote slightly according to the score of the test.

A better way to do it (without fucking up the entire system and people's civil rights) would be to invest in education more than we do now.  Educate kids to be informed.  I know thats what we're doing now, in theory, but its not working as well as it should.  Don't tell kids what to think, tell them how they can have their own opinions. 

Democracy does not demand an informed voter base.... in a democracy, everyone's vote is worth the same.  Doesn't matter if you're uninformed. 

Of all the uninformed people out there voting, do you really think it makes that much of a difference during elections?  There are uninformed people who vote for all kinds of people.

The problem with having a test is that it will start off a chain reaction.... how is it that the government gets to decide who's informed or not?  Etc.  Everyone old enough to vote, should be able to vote, no questions asked.  That's my opinion.

Last edited by Spearhead (2008-10-17 16:46:11)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It's just general ignorance, it doesn't have anything to do with blacks voting for Obama because he's black.

Maybe, maybe not. I wasn't trying to imply that that haaaaad to be the reason.. although I think Stern was.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It's just general ignorance, it doesn't have anything to do with blacks voting for Obama because he's black.

Do you actually think that or are you being sarcastic?

Kmarion wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

no maybe about it, its stated in first few seconds of the video by the interviewer

I'm saying maybe they are... maybe they aren't voting on skin color. Forget the interviewer and his "some people" speculation. I understand the implication. My point is we truly don't know the reason, but we do see the ignorance. That is the topic at hand.

Yeah like I said before, the ignorance is what the issue is and not necessarily his race as is stated in the video. <3

Spearhead wrote:

A better way to do it (without fucking up the entire system and people's civil rights) would be to invest in education more than we do now.  Educate kids to be informed.  I know thats what we're doing now, in theory, but its not working as well as it should.  Don't tell kids what to think, tell them how they can have their own opinions.

You can't educate someone on what their perspective they should have on life, and you most certainly can't educate an entire generation. Throwing money at the problem and telling school boards to "fix it" is not a remotely viable solution.

Spearhead wrote:

Democracy does not demand an informed voter base.... in a democracy, everyone's vote is worth the same.  Doesn't matter if you're uninformed.

The success of democracy demands an informed user base. I don't know why people keep telling me the obvious fact that everyone's vote counts the same, duh. The point is you don't want people that don't know what they're doing having the same weight in a decision as people who do, it's like political Russian roulette.

For example say you ask two engineers to draw up specs for a bridge to be built. Then you take those plans and ask a group of 100 people off the street to evaluate both plans and pick the best one. Will the best one be picked from the mere fact that a democratic process was used? Wouldn't it be much better to only allow other people who know what they're talking about (other engineers for example) vote between them?

I was not even asking for that level of voter confidence though it would be ideal, I'm only asking that the people who have actually seen the plans to both bridges are the only ones who get to vote.

Spearhead wrote:

Of all the uninformed people out there voting, do you really think it makes that much of a difference during elections?  There are uninformed people who vote for all kinds of people.

Well let's say for example one candidate was a handsome, young, well-spoken individual while the other seems much older and more than a little boring. Will the votes be 50/50 from people who don't know where each stands on the issues? There is a distinct advantage for someone.

Spearhead wrote:

The problem with having a test is that it will start off a chain reaction.... how is it that the government gets to decide who's informed or not?  Etc.  Everyone old enough to vote, should be able to vote, no questions asked.  That's my opinion.

As I said before, how are they allowed to tell us who is able to drive or not? Uninformed voting is every bit the danger to public safety as driving without a license.

JahManRed wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

reminds me of when euro's post those "jaywalking" type videos at an attempt to illustrate how stupid Americans are.

Jay walking. That's where they arrest you for not crossing your own mother fuckin street where you want to isn't it? I couldn't understand that one when I was in the states. I can cross my street where ever I want. I own it. Not the cops.

No, the city owns the streets. Jaywalking laws are really only enforced in high traffic areas where it's actually an issue.

The jaywalking being refered to here is when Jay Leno goes out and finds the dumbest people he can find and asks them common knowledge questions that they wont know for laughs.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

If you are an American citizen (non felon of age) you can vote period.  You can vote for whoever he/she wants for whatever reason he/she has no matter how stupid it may be to another person.  It is yer' right as an an American.
 
All men are created equal, thus no vote weighting... Reminded me of the free slave= 3/4 vote or something.

The founding fathers weren't stupid, and dare I say they probably discussed something along the lines of your post. That's why there's an electoral college.

I don't quite see how any of your post applies to mine...I know everyone can vote, I never said men weren't created equal, and I really don't know wtf the electoral college has to do with this.

You used the terms... discourage from voting and simple test....  I can vote for whoever the hell I want simply based on eye color.  Freedom is a bitch huh?

You threw out a 150 year old concept of discrimination.  Check out Jim Crowe laws.  Ha... He was a dem too.  You want a test?  Cool, but I get to write the test.  I'd bet  you wouldn't pass and get to vote.  Get my point?

You can vote for someone based on eye color if you demonstrate any semblance of knowledge of the major candidates. I don't care what you do up to the point that it effects me, and people like the ones in the video Kmarion posted who don't know why the hell they're voting for someone is seriously detrimental to the health of myself and my country.

Racial discrimination, competency discrimination...yeah you're right it's practically the same thing.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I don't quite see how any of your post applies to mine...I know everyone can vote, I never said men weren't created equal, and I really don't know wtf the electoral college has to do with this.

You used the terms... discourage from voting and simple test....  I can vote for whoever the hell I want simply based on eye color.  Freedom is a bitch huh?

You threw out a 150 year old concept of discrimination.  Check out Jim Crowe laws.  Ha... He was a dem too.  You want a test?  Cool, but I get to write the test.  I'd bet  you wouldn't pass and get to vote.  Get my point?

You can vote for someone based on eye color if you demonstrate any semblance of knowledge of the major candidates. I don't care what you do up to the point that it effects me, and people like the ones in the video Kmarion posted who don't know why the hell they're voting for someone is seriously detrimental to the health of myself and my country.

Racial discrimination, competency discrimination...yeah you're right it's practically the same thing.

I agree with your plan only if I get to write the competency standards voting test.  "I don't care what you do up to the point that it effects me"....  So how do you feel about higher taxes then?

*edit, discrimination is discrimination.

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2008-10-17 19:02:10)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

FEOS wrote:

1. You want a test to filter out those "unworthy" to vote due to their ignorance. You don't want just anyone to be able to vote...so not everyone would be able to vote under your proposal.

2. You want the vote weighted (possibly) according to the score of the test. You don't want all votes to be equal. Since men (non-gender-specific, politically correct colloquialism) are voting, you are saying that one man's vote should count for more than another man's vote based on some criteria. That implies one man is worth more than another, and hence they are not equal.

3. The electoral college removes a lot of the problems created by uninformed voters (clearly a minority of the overall voting population)...just as it removes a lot of the problems caused by ballot box-stuffing and other forms of voter fraud.

1. Yes you can read.

And apparently you can't, based on the response from you I quoted.

FM wrote:

2. Yes you can read, but you don't know the meaning of "created".

Yes. I do. I also understand what is meant by "all men are created equal" (see your other thread, same subject).

FM wrote:

3. Bullshit? How?

Which situation? Uninformed voters or ballot box stuffing?

Either way, it comes down to districts. There can be 10M votes for one candidate in a district that only has 1M people in it, but the electoral college vote for that person is still just 1. If the uninformed make a poor choice (by your definition, I guess), then they only affect one electoral vote. However, since they are likely in the minority and statistically would be roughly evenly split, it's a wash.

It's even less of an issue in the 48 states that cast their electoral votes as "winner takes all".