3 ms·
The danger to democracy has always been uninformed voters. Now it is mis-informed voters.
by amelius 5mo ago
The danger to democracy has always been uninformed voters.
Now it is mis-informed voters.
- userbinator 5mo ago"mis-informed" meaning "not sanctioned by the Ministry of Truth"
- lokar 5mo agoThere is truth
- userbinator 5mo ago...and it's what people have seen in real life with their own eyes, not what the government wants them to see. The Internet has made the former far more accessible to the population.
- lokar 5mo agoNot everything that is true and important can be directly observed and understood by everyone. Expertise is impotent.
- iamnothere 5mo ago> Expertise is impotent. Couldn’t have said it better myself
- phendrenad2 5mo agoSpeaking of eyes, I can hardly believe mine when I see HN downvote posts like this. We all trust the government now, or something? Absolutely wild.
- Joker_vD 5mo agoVoters have always been misinformed, only the degree varied. And most of them decide to believe the things they want to believe anyhow.
- mbrumlow 5mo agoMaybe those who participate in democracy should have to demonstrate some level educations on the topics they vote on? Because if you are right it’s a loosing battle. The masses will always be under informed, and under educated. And the only way to inform and educate them would result very undemocratic society.
- mohamedkoubaa 5mo agoEducated is not the same axis as informed
- mbrumlow 5mo agoCorrect, the word “and” is a coordinating conjunction. It joins two parallel adjectives. They’re related, but they’re not the same axis.
- awesome_dude 5mo ago> Maybe those who participate in democracy should have to demonstrate some level educations on the topics they vote on? This has been raised for decades, if not centuries. The problem is that what is or isn't considered an educated view is /heavily/ dependent on... the political bent of the person(s) articulating the view, and the person(s) making the determination. What's worse is that "fringe" views can often lead us to something that has previously been overlooked. Finally - Australia has 100% compulsory voting - everyone must vote in elections, else receive a fine. That's intended to be sure that everyone is involved in providing their opinion on how the political body that's being voted on is an accurate reflection of the people being governed. What it doesn't do is force people to care, and a phenomena known as a "Donkey vote" occurs. You can force people to attend classes educating them on civics, but you cannot force them to absorb, or even care, because, for a lot of people, politics is so repulsive - all they see is people squabbling about abstract ideas that the voters have next to no understanding how, or even if, it will affect them.
- AnimalMuppet 5mo agoAnd who is going to determine which voters are sufficiently educated on the topics to be allowed to vote? Do you not see how that could become problematic, in the wrong hands? Would you trust that power in Trump's hands? If so, would you have trusted it in Biden's? "Keep it from getting into the wrong hands, forever" is not a workable plan. The correct plan is "the government doesn't get that power".
- phendrenad2 5mo agoCan you give an example of a time when the biggest issue was one that people were uninformed about, not mis-informed? Because it seems to me that misinformation has been with us since ancient times, and has always dominated over simple uninformed behavior. Not a neat little quip though.
- amelius 5mo agoWell, the populist approach is to exploit that people are uninformed about most of the important topics and then induce fear with just one tiny topic. If people were better informed, they would see that the tiny topic didn't matter in the greater scheme.
- Joker_vD 5mo agoThis is such a brilliantly self-defying argument, I am honestly impressed. "If people were better informed, they wouldn't care". People are uninformed/misinformed because they care enough to listen to what they're being told, but not enough to actually go and check if things they're being told are accurate. And again, most people prefer to believe things that align with their world-view and self-interest.
- amelius 5mo ago> "If people were better informed, they wouldn't care" That is not what I said. They might still care, but the point is that the elections should not be hijacked by one topic (this is not in the interest of those voters, but since they are uninformed, what do they know?) I hope that clears it up.
- iamnothere 5mo agoWhat if the people decide that the one topic is the only thing they care about at the moment? Do you dissolve the voting public and elect a new one? Many people seem to want democracy, but only if the public votes in the way that is acceptable to them. That’s not democracy! That’s rubber stamp technocracy!
- lukas221 5mo agothe tragedy of allowing stupid people to vote. pick one: - stupid people vote without understanding what they vote for - stupid people don't vote, but it's not a democracy anymore
- LAC-Tech 5mo agoDemocracy is government of the uninformed, by the uninformed, for the uninformed. Populism is inherent in the whole set up and always has been.