6 ms·

I understand that your comments are partly in jest (I hope!), but still the basic idea expressed in them is very misguided, dangerous and wrong: Misguided, beca

by Jun8 16y ago

I understand that your comments are partly in jest (I hope!), but still the basic idea expressed in them is very misguided, dangerous and wrong: Misguided, because one can argue that everyone acts according to their beliefs, even an economics professor. You cannot talk about a clear dichotomy between those who vote on their belief and those who vote on "rational principles". It's wrong because voting is an inherent citizenship right; it cannot be made contiguous on intellectual (or any other, e.g. socio-economic class) aspects, e.g. knowledge of economics, full understanding of the issues etc. of a voter. If you open the door to voter discrimination by declaring some votes less equal than others, who knows what other ideologies may walk through it. It is also dangerous because it creates a sense of "right". The one thing that always amazed me in my discussions with liberals in the US is that they argue that their position is, how to put it, "inherently right", i.e. that they are the informed ones, whereas the "others" are the hoi polloi, the uneducated, stupid masses. Years earlier, in the race between Kerry and Bush, when I pointed to these people that Kerry came across as unlovable and stiff, I was met with disbelief: It was Kerry's "right" to be elected because he was "right". The danger of this view, of course, is that it often leads to defeat. In any confrontation, knowing the enemy's full power is crucial and belittling them will not make you win the war.

CWuestefeld 16y ago
I understand that your comments are partly in jest Nope, 100% serious. It's wrong because voting is an inherent citizenship right; it cannot be made... I agree completely. In no way do I advocate any sort of qualification. That's a slippery slope the first step of which is incredibly steep. What I'm advocating is that people self-select. I wish we could each reflect personally, and try to determine whether we really have the knowledge and understanding that's necessary to judge; and then honestly decide whether that the conclusion allows us to impose our thoughts on others. The government enforces its policies, ultimately, by force and violence. If you're going to threaten someone (by way of the government) with force, you'd better be damned confident that there's a good reason to do so.
- Kisil 16y ago
  Perhaps in an ideal world some people should self-select out of voting; I haven't thought enough about that ideal world to say. But HN in general, and this page in particular, is the wrong forum to push for such self-selection. I would be willing to bet that the average HN reader is better informed, and better qualified to understand that information, than the general population. HN readers, please vote today.
- siculars 16y ago
  You have some nerve. You really do. Has it occurred to you that the mere act of participation in and exercising your right to vote is an act of "...knowledge and understanding..." in it's own right? I find the totality of your comments in this thread incredibly offensive. To suggest that citizens abdicate their right to vote is incredulous. I am of the opinion that every citizen should be encouraged to vote by any and all legal means. If for no other reason then to educate people as to the mechanics of democracy let alone exercise a right that generations of people have died to ensure.
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    I'm sorry that you're offended. However, stating that you are offended, and then re-asserting your belief in voting really doesn't do anything to show my where the error is in my argument. I'd have an easier time understanding where I've gone astray if you could address my two questions: 1. Is it immoral to vote by dice? 2. In what ways does an ignorant voter, reacting emotionally to propaganda, differ from voting by dice?
    - siculars 16y ago
      1. No, it is not immoral to vote by dice. 2. Imho, the act of voting in and of itself encompass a conscious decision to act. To act requires thought. Who are we to judge the beliefs or thought process that leads a citizen to vote? Even if the voter was "reacting emotionally to propaganda", so what? I find it interesting that you use three very loaded words within a span of four. Reacting. You paint this voter as reptilian. Incapable of thought and merely reacting to various primal instincts. Emotionally. You impugn this voters ability to remain uncompromised and imply a certain level of deficit. Propaganda. You concern yourself with the message the citizen receives and pass judgment as to whether or not it meets your standards of information. [edit] Allow me to elaborate on your first question. You either have the right to vote or you do not. If I chose to vote based on which side of the bed I woke up on then so be it. To say otherwise is to assert your opinion over my right. You, Sir, are emotionally compromised on this issue.

by Jun8 16y ago

CWuestefeld 16y ago

I understand that your comments are partly in jest Nope, 100% serious. It's wrong because voting is an inherent citizenship right; it cannot be made... I agree completely. In no way do I advocate any sort of qualification. That's a slippery slope the first step of which is incredibly steep. What I'm advocating is that people self-select. I wish we could each reflect personally, and try to determine whether we really have the knowledge and understanding that's necessary to judge; and then honestly decide whether that the conclusion allows us to impose our thoughts on others. The government enforces its policies, ultimately, by force and violence. If you're going to threaten someone (by way of the government) with force, you'd better be damned confident that there's a good reason to do so.

Kisil 16y ago
Perhaps in an ideal world some people should self-select out of voting; I haven't thought enough about that ideal world to say. But HN in general, and this page in particular, is the wrong forum to push for such self-selection. I would be willing to bet that the average HN reader is better informed, and better qualified to understand that information, than the general population. HN readers, please vote today.
siculars 16y ago
You have some nerve. You really do. Has it occurred to you that the mere act of participation in and exercising your right to vote is an act of "...knowledge and understanding..." in it's own right? I find the totality of your comments in this thread incredibly offensive. To suggest that citizens abdicate their right to vote is incredulous. I am of the opinion that every citizen should be encouraged to vote by any and all legal means. If for no other reason then to educate people as to the mechanics of democracy let alone exercise a right that generations of people have died to ensure.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  I'm sorry that you're offended. However, stating that you are offended, and then re-asserting your belief in voting really doesn't do anything to show my where the error is in my argument. I'd have an easier time understanding where I've gone astray if you could address my two questions: 1. Is it immoral to vote by dice? 2. In what ways does an ignorant voter, reacting emotionally to propaganda, differ from voting by dice?
  - siculars 16y ago
    1. No, it is not immoral to vote by dice. 2. Imho, the act of voting in and of itself encompass a conscious decision to act. To act requires thought. Who are we to judge the beliefs or thought process that leads a citizen to vote? Even if the voter was "reacting emotionally to propaganda", so what? I find it interesting that you use three very loaded words within a span of four. Reacting. You paint this voter as reptilian. Incapable of thought and merely reacting to various primal instincts. Emotionally. You impugn this voters ability to remain uncompromised and imply a certain level of deficit. Propaganda. You concern yourself with the message the citizen receives and pass judgment as to whether or not it meets your standards of information. [edit] Allow me to elaborate on your first question. You either have the right to vote or you do not. If I chose to vote based on which side of the bed I woke up on then so be it. To say otherwise is to assert your opinion over my right. You, Sir, are emotionally compromised on this issue.