4 ms·
The implied supremacy and paternalism in the post is pretty problematic. What is your threshold for informed? Should we have tests at the polls to make sure p
by brennenHN 14y ago
The implied supremacy and paternalism in the post is pretty problematic.
What is your threshold for informed?
Should we have tests at the polls to make sure people have researched before they vote?
Do you really want to make a case for an "informed" electorate instead of a more representative one?
I know this post isn't saying to deny the vote to the "uninformed", just not to encourage them, but that sentiment implies a) that those people and their opinions are less valuable and b) that the atmosphere of excitement around civic duty which accompanies those posts is itself a problem. I would reject both of those premises.
- gojomo 14y agoActually, the implied threshold is self-assessment. JWZ is suggesting: if you don't feel like you know or care enough to vote, feel free to not vote. That's actually pretty fair and efficient.
- jkn 14y agoLooks like a very bad idea to me, since people who know more are more likely to think they don't know enough (e.g. Dunning-Kruger effect).
- alanhenry 14y agoAgreed. It's difficult to address the problem of underinformed and uninformed voting, which is indeed an issue, or even address the issue of people who care little about the political system and their voice in it, and therefore don't vote because they feel uninformed. It's also difficult to turn uninformed people into informed voters who are active in their communities. It's easy to say "fuck you" and tell people to stay home from the polls. It looks like the author of the piece prefers the easy road.