6 ms·

I agree with the article's premise that a misinformed public is dangerous to democracy, but I disagree with the premise that this is a new development. The publ

• austinjp 11y ago
  Who draws the line, below which are the uninformed/misinformed, above which are the decision makers?
  • dexterdog 11y ago
    Unfortunately the answer is those same decision makers.
• kawera 11y ago
  The problem is how to define "misinformed". The education system could play a role preparing voters, maybe even requiring an exam to become a voter, analog to driving.
  • maxerickson 11y ago
    Nah, the prospect of misinformation driving elections should be used to terrorize people that are informed into voting. The best standard for the right to vote is the ability to correctly complete a ballot that is designed to be easy to complete. Children shouldn't even be disenfranchised. If someone wants to coach their children to vote for Trump, let em.
  • thesagan 11y ago
    Driving is a routine-type task that's fundamentally different than electing representatives – I don't think those two are analogous at all. I think "preparing voters" would move political pressure into the education system, where similar problems would re-emerge as schools become "rating-agencies" of political ideology.
    • kawera 11y ago
      Driving as a "task" is obviously different than voting; I was referring to the fact that to drive you need to demonstrate some basic knowledge of what is involved.
      • thesagan 11y ago
        I guess I'm trying to nail down the point that whatever constitutes the basic "threshold" for voting is also a political argument that would face almost (if not the same) issues within an preparatory system than without. In fact, at least in the U.S. where I am, one of the purposes of primary schooling is to do just that, i.e., provide basic knowledge of what is involved in required a U.S. Civics course. So, where does that line get drawn? Who decides, and how? The current regime? The line seems to have always been in motion. I don't think there's an institutional answer to it.
      • Retra 11y ago
        Basic general education is already mandated.
  • CM30 11y ago
    Problem is, that leads to two issues: 1. If the knowledge required for the exam is just basic stuff like 'how the voting system works', then it's not really much different from how things are right now. Not knowing how your votes affect the system isn't really the issue leading to misinformation right now. 2.If there's absolutely any possibility for political 'bias' to seep in, then such an exam/educational system would have devastating effects. I mean, we've already got problems in some schools and local educational systems with religious folks trying to have 'intelligent design' taught as science. What stops them trying to put Fox News esque talking points in the exam and doing their damn hardest to try and push for religious conservatism among the next generation? Or in areas with opposite political views/population demographics, 'progressive' talking points being snuck into this example/course? Imagine a system where questions about religion and abortion/gay marriage or about 'social justice' issues are in the curriculum and anyone who don't answer them in the way the education leaders don't like doesn't get the right to vote? That could turn very bad, very quickly. At least learning to drive is pretty neutral on a political level. There's no one trying to tie parallel parking and three point turns to Satanism or racism.
    • kawera 11y ago
      I agree and had in mind something like teaching critical thinking/fact checking but than this would probably be the last thing religious schools wound want.
  • dexterdog 11y ago
    The education system as it is would not play a role in preparing voters. It would only play a role in manipulating voters as it already does.
  • csydas 11y ago
    I think that while the intention is perhaps benign (wanting informed voters), the methodology of ensuring this would just be an endless struggle that get stuck in an eternal hell of "how do you do this in a way that is actually meaningful to the voting process without introducing biases or getting stuck in endless arguments about the tests?". While understanding the how and why of US Civics is important, it doesn't much illuminate or educate the average voter when it comes to relatively straightforward ballot items. Imagine a ballot item that is a small sales-tax increase to fund highway renovation for a city; the knowledge of US Civics isn't really necessary to understand that if it goes through, there will be construction to fix a highway, but things like grocery bills will be slightly more expensive. Civics knowledge isn't really necessary to help determine the voter's feelings about such a bill. I think one of the biggest issues is that a lot of times voters just don't know what is on the ballots or are unable to find lay person explanations for bills. When I lived in Washington, every election residents would be mailed a voter's pamphlet by the state. The pamphlet contained a state provided listing of every item on the ballots, what the cost/impact would be, the intended outcome, and then both proponents and opponents were afforded a small section (maybe 500-700 words) to explain their point of view on the item. The pamphlet was super useful, and I could see something like this helping to alleviate at least a little bit of the misinformation and lack of information that is persistent in voting, even if the majority of voters just throw it in the trash (which is what many of my friends and colleagues told me they did). It's a real shame that the pamphlet wasn't more popular, since it was pretty well done during the years I lived there. I wish more states would adopt it.
• stevetrewick 11y ago
  I would rather either fix or live with the information problem than start stripping suffrage from those with whom I disagree. That seems like a very slippery slope. I'm not sure the linked post actually addresses the problem of misinformation. Forming random juries of hundreds of participants and somehow magically causing them to become less misinformed is presented as a solution but I'm not sure people work like that.
• CM30 11y ago
  And what stops this being used by powerful interests to shut down views and policies that challenge them? I'm sure the current politicians think they're more 'informed' than everyone else. I'm sure everyone in the media thinks they're more 'informed' than everyone else. Everyone in the world has a different idea about what 'informed' means in regards to political opinions. Something like this just becomes a tool for the rich and powerful to shut out the people 'too stupid to agree with them' and for the status quo to be maintained in perpetuity. For something like that to work, someone has to decide who can vote. That someone has opinions that a significant amount of people won't agree with.
• maxerickson 11y ago
  The value of democracy is not on display when 51% of the people condemn 49% of the people to do things they do not wish to do. The value of democracy is that it gives every citizen some degree of agency.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• sbuttgereit 11y ago
  Or better still, simply give them a single choice. If your committee/jury/council/etc. are making the call on what actually constitutes information or mis-information, why not have that body simply limit the choices, rather than limit the people making the choice? After all, they will have to decide which side of a disagreement constitutes truth so why even allow the option for those nasty false ideas to be voted on? This way you can simply limit your choices to who is the most competent (or popular, or intimidating) and which of the more trivial details of implementation to choose. Sure, you won't be able to show very open minded ballots (being voted on by a very homogeneously minded electorate), but you do get to avoid those unfortunately allegations of disenfranchisement. Naturally, this could be applied not just at the ballot box, but also for speech in the public square. Why allow misinformed ideas and facts to breed in the minds of those poor, unwashed masses that don't think so clearly as we do? I propose then also licenses, which must be renewed periodically and even subject to snap reviews, for publishing, public speaking, and any other transmission of ideas/thoughts where there is risk of misinformation leading our society astray.
• pinaceae 11y ago
  the moment you impose ANY different limit than age on voting rights it will get abused. gender, race, social status will all get used against people. by giving voting rights to everyone you keep the system in check, you cannot ignore certain parts of the population as you need their votes. the under-class in highly developed countries has been raped by free trade (see the recent articles in bloomberg about this) - hence the rise in new populist movements on both the right and left to cater to their needs. and yeah, good luck with your definition of misinformed. for powerful pieces of society galileo was misinformed (god is the center of the universe). MLK too (blakcs are not equal people). gandhi ditto (the superiority of the anglo-saxon populace is clear and evident). the only way to even be able to argue like you - you have no clue about history, hence you are misinformed. really should not be allowed to vote, eh?
  • larsiusprime 11y ago
    > god is the center of the universe Nitpick: Geocentrism was wrong but this is not geocentrism. In medieval cosmology the center of the universe is the worst place to be (as opposed to the heavenly spheres) and is where hell was traditionally located (in the center of the earth)
• pm90 11y ago
  Better education and development of critical thinking abilities would probably serve a democracy more than disenfranchisement of a large section of the population. It is only in very recent times that voting rights have been expanded to include everyone, and I believe its still a good thing regardless of having to deal with 'misinformed' people.
  • Chinjut 11y ago
    Voting rights still don't include everyone: there are citizenship requirements, age restrictions, felon disenfranchisement, and so on. (I originally intended to keep this post completely neutral, not mentioning my feelings on such things, but, fuck it: felon disenfranchisement is awful and it fills me with sadness that we put up with it)
    • CM30 11y ago
      Both prisoner voting rights and lowered age restrictions are being considered in various parts of the world right now. In the UK there's talk of lowering the voting age, and there have been court challenges against prisoners not having the right to vote. Perhaps the US will see similar stuff happen too. Citizenship is always going to be a requirement for voting though, at least if countries exist. Democracy doesn't work if people from outside a region can have more effect on the laws than the people living there.
      • arrrg 11y ago
        You could have residency requirements, not citizenship requirements. Maybe not doable in the US, but perfectly possible in countries where people are required to officially register the main place they live at, e.g. in Germany. That would make more sense, anyway. Citizenship is just a weird concept, as is much to do with nations and nationalism. Heck, throw in a five year delay (or whatever the voting period is) and you may even be able to placate the eternally xenophobic weird people (nah, not gonna happen …).
      • sos22 11y ago
        It's not that unusual for democracies to allow resident non-citizens to vote. The UK's franchise is broad: -- For European Parliament elections, you need to be UK resident on the day of the election and a citizen of any European country. I think that's pretty similar to the rules in the rest of the EU. -- For local elections, you need to be resident on the day of the election and either an EU or Commonwealth citizen. -- For national elections, you need to be either resident on the day and a Commonwealth or Irish citizen, or you need to be a British citizen who's been resident at some point in the previous fifteen years. -- If you actually want to stand as an MP, you need to be a Commonwealth citizen and resident for the entire term. -- And for ministers, including the Prime Minister, there's no citizenship or residency requirement at all: whoever wins the relevant election or appointment process gets the position. Which made the whole Obama Birther thing seem a bit weird. Admittedly, the UK's history makes it a bit of a special case, but it at least demonstrates that it's possible.
• hodgesrm 11y ago
  The democracy-by-jury opens up some pretty obvious problems. For one thing, having small numbers of delegates for the popular will is easy to undermine by altering the selection process for those delegates. I think you are better off trying to address some of the reasons why the existing system of delegation (i.e., rule by elected representatives) does not select good leaders. Eliminating gerrymandering through non-partisan districting is an obvious example.
• dtornabene 11y ago
  disagree that misinformed people shouldn't be allowed to vote...as that wouldn't really be democratic (to start with...). But it is definitely true that this is far from a "new" problem. Walter Lippmann was writing about this in the 20's ffs.
• Hondor 11y ago
  Misinformed people are already effectively excluded from voting. They're the people who stick to one party no matter what. These blind supporters of each party cancel out each other's votes, leaving the actual decision to people who at least aren't so predictable in their voting, and presumably are a bit more careful.
  • gruez 11y ago
    That only works if the there are equal amount of uninformed voters on each side
• kpil 11y ago
  I think the media can only blame themselves. They are clearly driven by agenda, and biased, and misinformed. The example about Cologne just describes the fact that as the media have been very reluctant to report certain facts for well intended reasons , they have lost a lot of credibility. Also, maybe we could skip voting all together and just use allotment to assign the parliament, drawn from a pool of people with high scores on (say) national tests, no criminal record and over a certain age... That was the definition of democracy from the beginning, and I'm starting to think that it won't be worse than the current plutocracy, or maybe even better, and probably a lot cheaper.