4 ms·

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 d

by 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.

by 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.