3 ms·

Unpopular opinion: Only those who truly care and spend the time to research issues and candidates should vote.

jfim 2y ago
The problem with that is that there's x% of the voters that won't count, and parties would argue about the correct value of x interminably, especially if the value of x determines who is the winner of the election. That can also end up like the "literacy tests" that were used to disenfranchise certain voters based on their skin color.
cantrecallmypwd 2y ago
We're putting too much focus on popularity and celebrity candidates, and then masses of uneducated people (compared to the knowledge of average Europeans) pseudo-vetting clowns. Instead, we should have a large pool of vetted potential candidates (drawn from, say, all lawyers, architects, professional engineers, doctors, and similar professionals) who are chosen at random through sortition to fill the most contentious roles for 2 years, one and only one time. The roles then become functionary administrators like city managers, but on a larger scale. No more political parties, no more plutocracy, no more drama.
werrett 2y ago
This is the exact opposite of what you should do. More disenfranchisement means more focus on rage bait / single issues that will rile up your side and juice your participation a little more (see ‘guns’, ‘pro-life’, ‘her emails’, et al). This pushes the parties to extreme opposites. If you have compulsory voting, as suggested down thread, then that rump of casual voters dampens the extreme views and ends up pulling the parties towards the middle. Lots of “well there’s hardly any difference” swing voters. Parties do still end up competing on differences (‘gay marriage’, ‘immigration crack downs’) but extreme or patently false views are punished (‘jan 6 was a peaceful protest’). The argument against compulsory voting is it slows ‘political innovation’ and drives a degree of apathy (‘there’s no difference between the bastards’). Minor parties and things like Preferential Voting can help address.
LocalH 2y ago
Even more unpopular opinion: Require a neutral civics test be passed before allowing someone to vote.
- Supermancho 2y ago
  Who decides what is neutral or what falls under the category civics? eg The pledge of allegiance. Is that part of (US) civics?
  - LocalH 2y ago
    The history of it? Absolutely. The discussion of/against "under God" being part of it? Again, neutral from a historic sense (as in, knowing when it was added). It might not be super easy, but a neutral civics test is possible to create. What is neutral? Knowledge of the actual mechanisms of governance. Knowledge of the history of it, without any pro or con moral arguments. The test wouldn't be the place to argue something should or shouldn't be the way it is. The test would just determine if you know what the mechanism of governance is, and why it is that way. And yes, I realize this would probably knock a large amount of people out from the vote, probably myself included. I'd rather not be able to vote myself if people who don't understand the Constitution are also not able to vote.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > What is neutral? Knowledge of the actual mechanisms of governance. As someone with a degree in political science specialized in the pragmatics of the American system of government, let me assure you that questions of the actual mechanisms of government are decidedly not neutral but both highly contentious and with positions highly correlated with political ideology. If you mean, instead, things like “the text of the Constitution”, that's somewhat less contentious, but pretty distant from the actual mechanisms of government.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  Civics isn't neutral. Selecting what is covered by a civics test is non-neutral, even before considering that the answers will often be contentious.

jfim 2y ago

The problem with that is that there's x% of the voters that won't count, and parties would argue about the correct value of x interminably, especially if the value of x determines who is the winner of the election. That can also end up like the "literacy tests" that were used to disenfranchise certain voters based on their skin color.

cantrecallmypwd 2y ago

We're putting too much focus on popularity and celebrity candidates, and then masses of uneducated people (compared to the knowledge of average Europeans) pseudo-vetting clowns. Instead, we should have a large pool of vetted potential candidates (drawn from, say, all lawyers, architects, professional engineers, doctors, and similar professionals) who are chosen at random through sortition to fill the most contentious roles for 2 years, one and only one time. The roles then become functionary administrators like city managers, but on a larger scale. No more political parties, no more plutocracy, no more drama.

werrett 2y ago

This is the exact opposite of what you should do. More disenfranchisement means more focus on rage bait / single issues that will rile up your side and juice your participation a little more (see ‘guns’, ‘pro-life’, ‘her emails’, et al). This pushes the parties to extreme opposites. If you have compulsory voting, as suggested down thread, then that rump of casual voters dampens the extreme views and ends up pulling the parties towards the middle. Lots of “well there’s hardly any difference” swing voters. Parties do still end up competing on differences (‘gay marriage’, ‘immigration crack downs’) but extreme or patently false views are punished (‘jan 6 was a peaceful protest’). The argument against compulsory voting is it slows ‘political innovation’ and drives a degree of apathy (‘there’s no difference between the bastards’). Minor parties and things like Preferential Voting can help address.

LocalH 2y ago

Even more unpopular opinion: Require a neutral civics test be passed before allowing someone to vote.

Supermancho 2y ago
Who decides what is neutral or what falls under the category civics? eg The pledge of allegiance. Is that part of (US) civics?
- LocalH 2y ago
  The history of it? Absolutely. The discussion of/against "under God" being part of it? Again, neutral from a historic sense (as in, knowing when it was added). It might not be super easy, but a neutral civics test is possible to create. What is neutral? Knowledge of the actual mechanisms of governance. Knowledge of the history of it, without any pro or con moral arguments. The test wouldn't be the place to argue something should or shouldn't be the way it is. The test would just determine if you know what the mechanism of governance is, and why it is that way. And yes, I realize this would probably knock a large amount of people out from the vote, probably myself included. I'd rather not be able to vote myself if people who don't understand the Constitution are also not able to vote.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > What is neutral? Knowledge of the actual mechanisms of governance. As someone with a degree in political science specialized in the pragmatics of the American system of government, let me assure you that questions of the actual mechanisms of government are decidedly not neutral but both highly contentious and with positions highly correlated with political ideology. If you mean, instead, things like “the text of the Constitution”, that's somewhat less contentious, but pretty distant from the actual mechanisms of government.
dragonwriter 2y ago
Civics isn't neutral. Selecting what is covered by a civics test is non-neutral, even before considering that the answers will often be contentious.