4 ms·

You state this as an absolute, but taken to it's conclusion it seems to be arguing that no one should attempt to influence the vote of anyone else. I see nothi

• humanrebar 9y ago
  I'm arguing against the government doing things to make sure voters vote the "right" way. Reductio ad absurdum, my argument would turn into this: voters are always right. But that's simple enough to refute. Pick some examples of democratically elected leaders who ended up being terrible. Pick some Jim Crow laws enacted through the democratic process. I think it's more likely in the U.S., at least right now, that the government starts interfering in speech or elections in undemocratic ways than that the electorate would elect a tyrant. That being said, there are some provably false stories floating around out there. There should be a good case for revisiting American libel and slander laws, or at least revisiting how they are prosecuted and enforced. If the slanderer is a foreign power, Washington has a responsibility to judiciously ensure that doesn't happen again. But babysitting the American voter is a bad idea. If they can't be trusted, we've picked the wrong form of government. And while liberal republican democracy has its issues, it has proven better than the alternatives, at least the ones attempted so far