4 ms·

One in five Americans cannot name any of the branches of government. Only 46% know each state has two senators. It is extremely difficult to get people to retai

One in five Americans cannot name any of the branches of government. Only 46% know each state has two senators. It is extremely difficult to get people to retain any knowledge they neither use nor care about. Teaching children how to organize to solve their own problems would be antithetical to the incentives of any normal school’s administration. Children who can self-organize to oppose them are a threat. If people wanted children to learn how to organize, be capable and be self-efficacious democratic schools like Summerhill or Sudbury would be vastly more popular. They don’t. They want childcare that teaches children to sit down, shut up and do as they’re told.

rayiner 7y ago
> They don’t. They want childcare that teaches children to sit down, shut up and do as they’re told. They certainly don’t teach that. Kids who can’t sit down and shut up are given free reign to disrupt everyone else.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  Lack of universal success is poor evidence for failure here. School is the only environment in which anyone spends most of their day sitting down with minimal freedom to choose when to get up or freedom over when to use the bathroom. I spent about five hours a day sitting in high school. I imagine you did the same, as do the overwhelming majority of children who graduate. This is unnatural behavior and school teaches it. It also teaches obedience to authority and tolerance for pointless busywork. That not all children learn the lesson is not evidence it’s not taught.
someguydave 7y ago
The solution to this problem is not education but limiting the vote to those who have shown themselves to be responsible and competent voters.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  Who do you trust to administer that test? I don’t trust anyone with the power to deprive other people of all effective power. If you don’t have a vote even the best “representative” in the world will place less effort into helping you than someone who also needs their help who can vote for them.
  - someguydave 7y ago
    The people who choose not to vote deprive themselves of the vote. Do you trust them to do so?
    - barry-cotter 7y ago
      Yes. They do not deprive themselves of the power to vote as your proposal does. You may not care about the difference between the plausible candidates currently on offer enough to vote. But if the Communist Party seems likely to get into government suddenly a lot more people will care. A power not exercised is still relevant insofar as it can be.
      - someguydave 7y ago
        I'm not proposing to deprive anyone of the vote if they are willing to show themselves to be responsible. I would make a simple criteria: if you are a net taxpayer, you get to vote. If you are a net loss to the government, you don't get to vote. If people have control over their circumstances, then they will be able to arrange their life in such a way that they can enable their voting power and vote responsibly.
- irrational 7y ago
  We are sorry to inform you someguydave that you have not shown yourself to be sufficiently competent. Your voting rights have been revoked. Have a nice day!
  - someguydave 7y ago
    That is fine. The idea is that those responsible for paying for government are the ones who have a say in how government operates.
- Psyladine 7y ago
  Say, limited to white male property owners?
- randcraw 7y ago
  Alternatively, you could augment the vote of people who show themselves to be better informed than average. Let people earn "brownie" points by demonstrating 1) knowledge about the costs inherent in important issues before congress and the courts (economic, social, opportunity, etc), and 2) fairmindedness (by showing they know both sides of the issues). This could be accomplished by taking a voluntary test based on free reading materials, or by earning a grade on free classes made available online and in community colleges and perhaps high schools. Your grade then decides how much your vote counts. Your vote impact score might scale your vote linearly (0 to 1), or it could decide how much to augment a baseline of, let's say, 1.0, where the max augment is to add another 1.0 for a max of 2.0. I'm sure there are lots of ways this might be done. The main point is to encourage voters to be better informed and more fair. Another goal would be to counteract mass media manipulators who spew disinformation and manipulate the underinformed. Until we can somehow accomplish (especially) the latter, America will sink ever deeper into a political system governed by anger and stupidity.
  - someguydave 7y ago
    I'm not sure a test is the best idea for sorting responsible voters because it would encourage game-playing and cheating. I would go by the quantity of taxes paid - it's hard to game and it is morally right that taxpayers should have more say in government for which they pay. I'm not sure what level of taxation would be appropriate to earn a vote though.
AlgorithmicTime 7y ago
>One in five Americans cannot name any of the branches of government When I hear these stats like these, I think about the bell curve of human ability. When you put it in those terms, the bottom 20% of people have IQs lower than 88. So it becomes unsurprising that they may not be all that up on the branches of government, especially given the irrelevance to their day-to-day existence.

rayiner 7y ago

> They don’t. They want childcare that teaches children to sit down, shut up and do as they’re told. They certainly don’t teach that. Kids who can’t sit down and shut up are given free reign to disrupt everyone else.

barry-cotter 7y ago
Lack of universal success is poor evidence for failure here. School is the only environment in which anyone spends most of their day sitting down with minimal freedom to choose when to get up or freedom over when to use the bathroom. I spent about five hours a day sitting in high school. I imagine you did the same, as do the overwhelming majority of children who graduate. This is unnatural behavior and school teaches it. It also teaches obedience to authority and tolerance for pointless busywork. That not all children learn the lesson is not evidence it’s not taught.

someguydave 7y ago

The solution to this problem is not education but limiting the vote to those who have shown themselves to be responsible and competent voters.

barry-cotter 7y ago
Who do you trust to administer that test? I don’t trust anyone with the power to deprive other people of all effective power. If you don’t have a vote even the best “representative” in the world will place less effort into helping you than someone who also needs their help who can vote for them.
- someguydave 7y ago
  The people who choose not to vote deprive themselves of the vote. Do you trust them to do so?
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    Yes. They do not deprive themselves of the power to vote as your proposal does. You may not care about the difference between the plausible candidates currently on offer enough to vote. But if the Communist Party seems likely to get into government suddenly a lot more people will care. A power not exercised is still relevant insofar as it can be.
    - someguydave 7y ago
      I'm not proposing to deprive anyone of the vote if they are willing to show themselves to be responsible. I would make a simple criteria: if you are a net taxpayer, you get to vote. If you are a net loss to the government, you don't get to vote. If people have control over their circumstances, then they will be able to arrange their life in such a way that they can enable their voting power and vote responsibly.
irrational 7y ago
We are sorry to inform you someguydave that you have not shown yourself to be sufficiently competent. Your voting rights have been revoked. Have a nice day!
- someguydave 7y ago
  That is fine. The idea is that those responsible for paying for government are the ones who have a say in how government operates.
Psyladine 7y ago
Say, limited to white male property owners?
randcraw 7y ago
Alternatively, you could augment the vote of people who show themselves to be better informed than average. Let people earn "brownie" points by demonstrating 1) knowledge about the costs inherent in important issues before congress and the courts (economic, social, opportunity, etc), and 2) fairmindedness (by showing they know both sides of the issues). This could be accomplished by taking a voluntary test based on free reading materials, or by earning a grade on free classes made available online and in community colleges and perhaps high schools. Your grade then decides how much your vote counts. Your vote impact score might scale your vote linearly (0 to 1), or it could decide how much to augment a baseline of, let's say, 1.0, where the max augment is to add another 1.0 for a max of 2.0. I'm sure there are lots of ways this might be done. The main point is to encourage voters to be better informed and more fair. Another goal would be to counteract mass media manipulators who spew disinformation and manipulate the underinformed. Until we can somehow accomplish (especially) the latter, America will sink ever deeper into a political system governed by anger and stupidity.
- someguydave 7y ago
  I'm not sure a test is the best idea for sorting responsible voters because it would encourage game-playing and cheating. I would go by the quantity of taxes paid - it's hard to game and it is morally right that taxpayers should have more say in government for which they pay. I'm not sure what level of taxation would be appropriate to earn a vote though.

AlgorithmicTime 7y ago

>One in five Americans cannot name any of the branches of government When I hear these stats like these, I think about the bell curve of human ability. When you put it in those terms, the bottom 20% of people have IQs lower than 88. So it becomes unsurprising that they may not be all that up on the branches of government, especially given the irrelevance to their day-to-day existence.