3 ms·

One problem with this is that whether you understand it or not, it will impact you. Simply not weighing in does not address the problem at all, it allows the p

One problem with this is that whether you understand it or not, it will impact you. Simply not weighing in does not address the problem at all, it allows the problem to continue. I would say this is simply unavoidable, but it could be mitigated if such proposals were written (or at least summarized) with an eye to fostering universal understanding of the proposed legislation. Failing that effectively excludes people who should have a say from doing so. If you are incapable, for whatever reason, of understanding something, then that's one thing. Being incapable of understanding it because of the way it's phrased or the manner in which it's presented is vastly more common (the existence of the term "legalese" should be a strong indicator of this) and a far more serious problem, as it does actively exclude people who should and probably could express an informed opinion if being informed were more feasible.

analyst74 14y ago
If you don't understand an issue, how do you make a good decision that represent YOUR interest? Or worse, you are mis-informed through media manipulation to vote against your own interest? Requiring at least x% of people to understand an issue before the vote is legit would be a logical choice.
- obviouslygreen 14y ago
  That's exactly my point. You shouldn't be voting on something you don't understand; the problem is that when too many people don't understand what's being voted on, you can't get a well-reasoned result from a vote. I think the percentage requirement is an interesting idea, and I think we're on the same page in that requiring a concerted attempt to write legislation in a more accessible way would result in a natural increase in that percentage.
- Steko 14y ago
  "If you don't understand an issue, how do you make a good decision that represent YOUR interest? " You follow the advice of someone you trust who has similar interests to you. Don't overthink it. "Requiring at least x% of people to understand an issue before the vote is legit would be a logical choice." No, it's a silly nondemocratic choice that can only end with the foxes running the henhouse. Who really understands this 2000 page telcom bill other than the Comcast lawyers that wrote it? Oh well I guess only they can vote. That's an absurd extreme but it's illustrative of the problems you're asking to introduce. The solution to low information voters is not disenfranchisement on a large scale but instead to go back to the core of republicanism: vote for some person or party to represent you and who's job it is to be informed about the issues. In it's purest form the voter at large only ever makes that one choice although he can change that vote more frequently.

analyst74 14y ago

If you don't understand an issue, how do you make a good decision that represent YOUR interest? Or worse, you are mis-informed through media manipulation to vote against your own interest? Requiring at least x% of people to understand an issue before the vote is legit would be a logical choice.

obviouslygreen 14y ago
That's exactly my point. You shouldn't be voting on something you don't understand; the problem is that when too many people don't understand what's being voted on, you can't get a well-reasoned result from a vote. I think the percentage requirement is an interesting idea, and I think we're on the same page in that requiring a concerted attempt to write legislation in a more accessible way would result in a natural increase in that percentage.
Steko 14y ago
"If you don't understand an issue, how do you make a good decision that represent YOUR interest? " You follow the advice of someone you trust who has similar interests to you. Don't overthink it. "Requiring at least x% of people to understand an issue before the vote is legit would be a logical choice." No, it's a silly nondemocratic choice that can only end with the foxes running the henhouse. Who really understands this 2000 page telcom bill other than the Comcast lawyers that wrote it? Oh well I guess only they can vote. That's an absurd extreme but it's illustrative of the problems you're asking to introduce. The solution to low information voters is not disenfranchisement on a large scale but instead to go back to the core of republicanism: vote for some person or party to represent you and who's job it is to be informed about the issues. In it's purest form the voter at large only ever makes that one choice although he can change that vote more frequently.