5 ms·

And if that happens, take note of which political parties/groups fight tooth and nail because they know that voter turn out is bad for them. (It's not difficult

by baddox 6y ago

And if that happens, take note of which political parties/groups fight tooth and nail because they know that voter turn out is bad for them. (It's not difficult to predict.)

umvi 6y ago
Isn't too much voter turnout bad though? Do we really want every poor ignorant impoverished (or rich) American voting? Or just the people that take democracy seriously and vote after having puzzled it out? If you reduce the friction too much (or even force people to vote) you'll get a lot of voting based on who promised the most goodies/handouts or emotional appeal rather than rational reasoning.
- lreeves 6y ago
  There are quite a few countries with compulsory voting (1) and it seems to work; it'd make more sense to bolster education than to gatekeep voting to "good" education which slowly over time in the US has moved to private, expensive schools. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting
- viraptor 6y ago
  > every poor ignorant impoverished There's some serious bias here. There are poor and impoverished people who are not ignorant. There are also ignorant millionaires. The moment you start saying who shouldn't be voting, make sure you realise how many people think you shouldn't be voting either. At an extreme of that, see what the threshold of "rich" is for people saying "eat the rich".
  - umvi 6y ago
    I thought someone might interpret it that way, which is why I quickly edited to say "or rich" as well. However, you must admit that the ignorant poor vastly outnumber the ignorant rich.
    - mfarris 6y ago
      The poor vastly outnumber the rich, so what point are you making exactly?
      - umvi 6y ago
        precisely that one, that the poor vastly outnumber the rich
        SauciestGNU 6y ago
        So doesn't it stand to reason that the poor should have a greater say in the operation of our government than the rich do, given that vast outnumbering?
    - viraptor 6y ago
      In the same way highly intelligent poor outnumber the highly intelligent rich. + some slight skew due to living in poverty actually impacting your development, but it's not enough to overcome the overall distribution.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- 16bytes 6y ago
  This line of reasoning isn't new and has been used numerous times historically to disenfranchise, prohibit or otherwise block "undesirable" groups of people. To answer the question, yes. You absolutely want every single eligible person in the electorate to vote.
- tchaffee 6y ago
  Poor and impoverished? No need to repeat yourself. Maybe there should be a writing test before one could vote. We could come up with all sorts of elitist barriers.
  - Fjolsvith 6y ago
    How about the one that R. A. Heinlein proposed, that one needed to serve honorably in the military to earn a vote.
- snowwrestler 6y ago
  Voting is not a structured intellectual exercise like taking a test or writing a paper. There's not a single "right" answer that you have to be smart to figure out. Voting is an exercise in representation. People vote based on what they want, not what they know. Desires, dreams, and concerns are not knowledge. Smart people, educated people, still have emotions, can still have hugely different values, and want wildly different things. The purpose of democracy is to adjudicate between competing desires without violence. If you try to exclude a category of people from this process, you harm its legitimacy and it stops working well for everyone. The end point of that trajectory is revolution.
  - umvi 6y ago
    In an ideal democracy, that's how it works. But we see in a corrupt democracy, the elite politicians manipulate people that think with emotions, and buy their votes with false promises and handouts. And they can never be blamed because "4 years is not enough to accomplish much"
    - tchaffee 6y ago
      They aren't always false promises and handouts. Lobbyists get paid big bucks to bribe, oops, I mean to inform politicians on policy. Those promises often get delivered. Unfortunately.
    - snowwrestler 6y ago
      Somehow it's always other people who are too emotional or ignorant to vote properly. I can't remember seeing someone raise their hand and say, "I'm too emotional and poorly informed, please take away my right to vote." Wonder why that is.
zests 6y ago
Political posts aren’t pleasant for anyone. They are also often meaningless. Watch as I essentially take the contrapositive of your statement and say << Democrats fight hard to make voting as easy as possible because they are supported by people who are not engaged politically and by people who aren’t invested enough to vote if it takes any effort at all. >> See? Not pleasant. I’d wager a lot of people have problems with that statement and I’d also wager that I could use each of their counter arguments to my statements as counter arguments to yours. I see this pattern a lot. Its strange to me.
- neotek 6y ago
  >Democrats fight hard to make voting as easy as possible because they are supported by people who are not engaged politically and by people who aren’t invested enough to vote if it takes any effort at all. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Fighting to increase voter turnout is infinitely preferable and authentic to the stated principles of the country than fighting to suppress voter turnout.
  - zests 6y ago
    If increased voter turnout helps your political party, you are likely to support it. If it hurts your political party, you are likely to be against it. When talking about politics its hard to tell whether or not people "believe X because Y" or "believe X because it helps the party". Maybe they don't actually care about X but have meta-awareness and claim to believe X because it helps the party. This is what makes political discussions annoying and frankly inappropriate. There is no possible way to argue in good faith and people have vested interest in arguing outside of good faith. I'd wager that some people believe they are arguing in good faith but do not realize that they are dramatically influenced by the orthodoxy of their political party.
    - neotek 6y ago
      >If increased voter turnout helps your political party, you are likely to support it. If it hurts your political party, you are likely to be against it. If you care about democracy in the slightest then you support an increased voter turnout regardless of how it affects your party.

by baddox 6y ago

And if that happens, take note of which political parties/groups fight tooth and nail because they know that voter turn out is bad for them. (It's not difficult to predict.)

umvi 6y ago

Isn't too much voter turnout bad though? Do we really want every poor ignorant impoverished (or rich) American voting? Or just the people that take democracy seriously and vote after having puzzled it out? If you reduce the friction too much (or even force people to vote) you'll get a lot of voting based on who promised the most goodies/handouts or emotional appeal rather than rational reasoning.

lreeves 6y ago
There are quite a few countries with compulsory voting (1) and it seems to work; it'd make more sense to bolster education than to gatekeep voting to "good" education which slowly over time in the US has moved to private, expensive schools. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting
viraptor 6y ago
> every poor ignorant impoverished There's some serious bias here. There are poor and impoverished people who are not ignorant. There are also ignorant millionaires. The moment you start saying who shouldn't be voting, make sure you realise how many people think you shouldn't be voting either. At an extreme of that, see what the threshold of "rich" is for people saying "eat the rich".
- umvi 6y ago
  I thought someone might interpret it that way, which is why I quickly edited to say "or rich" as well. However, you must admit that the ignorant poor vastly outnumber the ignorant rich.
  - mfarris 6y ago
    The poor vastly outnumber the rich, so what point are you making exactly?
    - umvi 6y ago
      precisely that one, that the poor vastly outnumber the rich
      - SauciestGNU 6y ago
        So doesn't it stand to reason that the poor should have a greater say in the operation of our government than the rich do, given that vast outnumbering?
  - viraptor 6y ago
    In the same way highly intelligent poor outnumber the highly intelligent rich. + some slight skew due to living in poverty actually impacting your development, but it's not enough to overcome the overall distribution.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
16bytes 6y ago
This line of reasoning isn't new and has been used numerous times historically to disenfranchise, prohibit or otherwise block "undesirable" groups of people. To answer the question, yes. You absolutely want every single eligible person in the electorate to vote.
tchaffee 6y ago
Poor and impoverished? No need to repeat yourself. Maybe there should be a writing test before one could vote. We could come up with all sorts of elitist barriers.
- Fjolsvith 6y ago
  How about the one that R. A. Heinlein proposed, that one needed to serve honorably in the military to earn a vote.
snowwrestler 6y ago
Voting is not a structured intellectual exercise like taking a test or writing a paper. There's not a single "right" answer that you have to be smart to figure out. Voting is an exercise in representation. People vote based on what they want, not what they know. Desires, dreams, and concerns are not knowledge. Smart people, educated people, still have emotions, can still have hugely different values, and want wildly different things. The purpose of democracy is to adjudicate between competing desires without violence. If you try to exclude a category of people from this process, you harm its legitimacy and it stops working well for everyone. The end point of that trajectory is revolution.
- umvi 6y ago
  In an ideal democracy, that's how it works. But we see in a corrupt democracy, the elite politicians manipulate people that think with emotions, and buy their votes with false promises and handouts. And they can never be blamed because "4 years is not enough to accomplish much"
  - tchaffee 6y ago
    They aren't always false promises and handouts. Lobbyists get paid big bucks to bribe, oops, I mean to inform politicians on policy. Those promises often get delivered. Unfortunately.
  - snowwrestler 6y ago
    Somehow it's always other people who are too emotional or ignorant to vote properly. I can't remember seeing someone raise their hand and say, "I'm too emotional and poorly informed, please take away my right to vote." Wonder why that is.

zests 6y ago

Political posts aren’t pleasant for anyone. They are also often meaningless. Watch as I essentially take the contrapositive of your statement and say << Democrats fight hard to make voting as easy as possible because they are supported by people who are not engaged politically and by people who aren’t invested enough to vote if it takes any effort at all. >> See? Not pleasant. I’d wager a lot of people have problems with that statement and I’d also wager that I could use each of their counter arguments to my statements as counter arguments to yours. I see this pattern a lot. Its strange to me.

neotek 6y ago
>Democrats fight hard to make voting as easy as possible because they are supported by people who are not engaged politically and by people who aren’t invested enough to vote if it takes any effort at all. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Fighting to increase voter turnout is infinitely preferable and authentic to the stated principles of the country than fighting to suppress voter turnout.
- zests 6y ago
  If increased voter turnout helps your political party, you are likely to support it. If it hurts your political party, you are likely to be against it. When talking about politics its hard to tell whether or not people "believe X because Y" or "believe X because it helps the party". Maybe they don't actually care about X but have meta-awareness and claim to believe X because it helps the party. This is what makes political discussions annoying and frankly inappropriate. There is no possible way to argue in good faith and people have vested interest in arguing outside of good faith. I'd wager that some people believe they are arguing in good faith but do not realize that they are dramatically influenced by the orthodoxy of their political party.
  - neotek 6y ago
    >If increased voter turnout helps your political party, you are likely to support it. If it hurts your political party, you are likely to be against it. If you care about democracy in the slightest then you support an increased voter turnout regardless of how it affects your party.