5 ms·

Per this Pew study, Democrats are twice as likely as conservative Republicans to believe that "everything possible should be done to make it easy for every citi

Per this Pew study, Democrats are twice as likely as conservative Republicans to believe that "everything possible should be done to make it easy for every citizen to vote", while the majority of conservative Republicans believe that "citizens should have to prove they want to vote" by taking steps to ensure they have the opportunity to vote. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/31/conservative-republicans-are-least-supportive-of-making-it-easy-for-everyone-to-vote/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/31/conservativ... The founders of the United States also disagreed on this. If I remember correctly, some of them openly worried about the impact of letting poorly educated people vote, whereas Benjamin Franklin argued that the poorly informed vote essentially randomly, and so cancel each other out.

diggernet 6y ago
Interesting. I wonder how Franklin's views would change in a world of social media driven mass emotional manipulation.
- basch 6y ago
  >I wonder how Franklin's views would change in a world of social media driven mass emotional manipulation. Not entirely different than the era of newspapers and the town crier. The volume might be more now, but the end result is roughly the same. A couple loud sources blanketing the majority of public opinion. Also, for his view not to stand up, wouldnt one group or the other need to be more represented on emotionally manipulative platforms?
  - diggernet 6y ago
    Not so much one group, but rather I was thinking of the directionality of emotional arguments. "Think of the children!" and all that. In a competition between a powerful emotional argument and logical counters to it (uninformed vs informed), the uninformed will not be voting randomly.
    - basch 6y ago
      I don't think thats anything new. Misinformation, propaganda, bias, and persuasion have been a part of democracy since forever. They are really parts of it. Theres nothing to say misinformed votes shouldnt count. >In a competition between a powerful emotional argument and logical counters to it Our current situation seems like two powerful emotional arguments pitted against each other, with no logical counters or nuanced precision. They are both yelling the same things too, just in different forms. Most posturing right now boils down to different forms of economic safety and physical safety. Are you safe from the police? Are you safe from crime? Are you safe from unemployment? Are you safe from health care costs? Are you safe from government inefficiency and overspending? Are you safe from having to fund your neighbor? Do you have the freedom to be who you want to be (whether that means not being Christian, or not serving non-Christians?) They are all selling themselves, utilizing the same base fears. The main difference between the parties appears to be one being good at bending the rules to win, and one priding itself in losing with integrity. Utilitarian vs Principled. Neither seems super concerned with facts. If they were, they would more loudly make arguments against their own cases, to demonstrate strength.

diggernet 6y ago

Interesting. I wonder how Franklin's views would change in a world of social media driven mass emotional manipulation.

basch 6y ago
>I wonder how Franklin's views would change in a world of social media driven mass emotional manipulation. Not entirely different than the era of newspapers and the town crier. The volume might be more now, but the end result is roughly the same. A couple loud sources blanketing the majority of public opinion. Also, for his view not to stand up, wouldnt one group or the other need to be more represented on emotionally manipulative platforms?
- diggernet 6y ago
  Not so much one group, but rather I was thinking of the directionality of emotional arguments. "Think of the children!" and all that. In a competition between a powerful emotional argument and logical counters to it (uninformed vs informed), the uninformed will not be voting randomly.
  - basch 6y ago
    I don't think thats anything new. Misinformation, propaganda, bias, and persuasion have been a part of democracy since forever. They are really parts of it. Theres nothing to say misinformed votes shouldnt count. >In a competition between a powerful emotional argument and logical counters to it Our current situation seems like two powerful emotional arguments pitted against each other, with no logical counters or nuanced precision. They are both yelling the same things too, just in different forms. Most posturing right now boils down to different forms of economic safety and physical safety. Are you safe from the police? Are you safe from crime? Are you safe from unemployment? Are you safe from health care costs? Are you safe from government inefficiency and overspending? Are you safe from having to fund your neighbor? Do you have the freedom to be who you want to be (whether that means not being Christian, or not serving non-Christians?) They are all selling themselves, utilizing the same base fears. The main difference between the parties appears to be one being good at bending the rules to win, and one priding itself in losing with integrity. Utilitarian vs Principled. Neither seems super concerned with facts. If they were, they would more loudly make arguments against their own cases, to demonstrate strength.