3 ms·

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 vot

• 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.