4 ms·
Okay, but isn't the point that there's no objective way to evaluate those results? If you're limiting people's voting rights in order to get the results you wan
by jgwil2 6y ago
Okay, but isn't the point that there's no objective way to evaluate those results? If you're limiting people's voting rights in order to get the results you want, then of course you will think less voting is better. It's the political equivalent of begging the question.
The point of democracy is to trust people to be able to make those decisions, and give them the tools to hold their leaders accountable.
- nickff 6y agoI have preferred results, but I can accept a range of democratic outcomes that I see as reasonable. I think most other people take the same view; those 'get out the vote' campaigns are usually targeted towards demographics with predictable preferences, so they're also results-oriented. I'd rather that electoral outcomes reflect what people would vote for if they were well-informed (which is what the cited book is about). You can predict how more information and understanding would impact voting trends (there are various techniques for this), and the results are not that everyone agrees on everything, but the impact would be an improvement (in my opinion).