News Should Organizations Encourage Informed Voting, Not just Voting?

[jduster]

There are numerous organizations that encourage people (especially younger people who have recently attained majority), as if it is a service to the country. People who are politically informed are going to vote regardless, but would our society benefit from a mob of apathetic uninformed people rushing to the polls? No, and those who encourage apathetic people to go out and vote aren't doing a service to the country either.

Am I requesting that uninformed people should be forced not to vote? No, but it would be best if they chose not to.

I do not mind a surge of new young voters: as long as they are informed.

I think the message of these organizations should not be: "Go out and vote".

The message should be: "Be informed" (and voting will come as a natural consequence).

Agree or disagree?

 

[Proton Soup]

disagree. young people especially are the ones being disenfranchised by older voters getting organized and voting themselves benefits.

 

[Jack21222]

I agree 100%.

Proton: Even if young people vote, they're not necessarily informed enough to vote in their own interests. The message is to be informed, and informed people tend to vote. I think being politically informed is far more important than being a just a voter.

 

[Proton Soup]

I agree 100%.

Proton: Even if young people vote, they're not necessarily informed enough to vote in their own interests. The message is to be informed, and informed people tend to vote. I think being politically informed is far more important than being a just a voter.

think so? i kind of think that once they get enough people voting, that politicians will take notice and start pandering to their interests. all sorts of information will be coming their way. vote for me, you'll get lower tuition rates, or insurance rates.

 

[NeoDevin]

The problem is that your average person watches a single news station and decides that they are informed.

 

[nismaratwork]

There are numerous organizations that encourage people (especially younger people who have recently attained majority), as if it is a service to the country. People who are politically informed are going to vote regardless, but would our society benefit from a mob of apathetic uninformed people rushing to the polls? No, and those who encourage apathetic people to go out and vote aren't doing a service to the country either.

Am I requesting that uninformed people should be forced not to vote? No, but it would be best if they chose not to.

I do not mind a surge of new young voters: as long as they are informed.

I think the message of these organizations should not be: "Go out and vote".

The message should be: "Be informed" (and voting will come as a natural consequence).

Agree or disagree?

Laughable given the intelligence and level of knowledge the average adult voter is packing.

 

[talk2glenn]

Laughable given the intelligence and level of knowledge the average adult voter is packing.

Let me translate: "Laughable given the average adult voter doesn't vote the way I'd like". The fact is the average voter is significantly better educated and informed than the average person (and this is likely more true during off-year elections); see below.

Am I requesting that uninformed people should be forced not to vote? No, but it would be best if they chose not to.

Generally speaking, they don't vote, fortunately. Voting has costs, and the people most willing to pay those costs are those with the greatest stake. By nature, these people also tend to be the most politically informed; if the cost of voting is high, then you will make an effort to "get your moneys worth". Ie, regular voters tend to be those involved with government routinely, those who pay more in taxes, the older, and the educated.

This is the unintended consequence of policies which make voting easier or even mandatory - when you make voting cheaper (or not voting more expensive), by definition people value their vote less, and you end up with voters who are poorly informed. I recall the recent episode of Alvin Greene; after his primary victory in South Carolina there was an interview with a voter. When asked why she checked off Alvin, she said (with an embaressed giggle) that his name reminded her of the singer and that she never thought he'd actually win.

Imagine if voting had been relatively more expensive for a person like her (ie, a poll tax - this is illustrative, I'm not suggesting it as a policy). Do you think she still would have voted, and if so, would she have chosen her candidate for the same reasons?

This theory is born out in the data; education is the single strongest predictor of turnout statistically, but educational achievment is highly correlated with income, intelligence, political interest, etcetera, so it's probably capturing some of these effects.

http://cpe.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/D3B3E236-3C3C-42B3-BB5F-B1A16A8645E0/0/voting_edpays.pdf

 

[humanino]

It is a civil duty to be informed, and that is a logical consequence of the civil duty too vote.

 

[Jack21222]

It is a civil duty to be informed, and that is a logical consequence of the civil duty too vote.

I disagree with this. There are many people who vote without being informed... they are basically peer-pressured into voting, basically. If they don't vote, their friends say things like "Well, then I don't want to hear you complaining if something happens you don't like." So, they vote based on their parents' political party. Or at random. Or based on a list somebody in front of the polls handed them.

Additionally, I do not see voting as a duty. I see no reason why everybody MUST vote. Voting is a RIGHT, and we can waive that right if we wish.

I can agree that people have a civil duty to be informed, and a logical consequence of that is people will vote, not the other way around.

 

[jduster]

The biggest thing that bothers me is that some regard voting registration and organizations that recruit voters as a service to society. If more people donated to charity or volunteered to a soup kitchen, it would be a service to society, but voting is based on percentages.

I'd rather have 100,000 informed people vote than 1,000,000 uninformed people vote. And of course, there are informed people could be wrong just as their are uninformed people who pick the right candidate, but overall, the less dumb people voter, the better.

 

[Proton Soup]

you know, the absolute worst has got to be busing a bunch of dementia patients to the polls to vote for someone simply because they look familiar.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/item_spfLmBVGY1t0nHd4gXNn0M

 

[AlephZero]

The only rational reason to vote is because you get paid for it.

The most direct method would be straightforward open bribery. Since that has out of fashion in some countries (though not all), you have to hope the winners will pay you after they get elected. If they are not going to do that, why bother?

An irrational but pragmatic reason to vote is because it is compulsory.

Any other arguments are hypocrisy, IMHO.

 

[Office_Shredder]

An irrational but pragmatic reason to vote is because it is compulsory.

If not voting is going to get me fined or give me jail time, how is it irrational to vote?

Any other arguments are hypocrisy, IMHO.

Why?

 

[cobalt124]

think so? i kind of think that once they get enough people voting, that politicians will take notice and start pandering to their interests. all sorts of information will be coming their way. vote for me, you'll get lower tuition rates, or insurance rates.

Agreed. The point of voting is to be represented. Being "informed", "intelligent" or whatever shouldn't come into it. As for the OP, people should be encouraged to vote, it shouldn't be taken for granted, we may lose it if we do. I see voting as a civic duty. And it will make politicians sit up and take notice, which is what they are supposed to do.

 

[nismaratwork]

Let me translate: "Laughable given the average adult voter doesn't vote the way I'd like". The fact is the average voter is significantly better educated and informed than the average person (and this is likely more true during off-year elections); see below.

No, that's nolt what I mean at all, but you're welcome to take it however you choose. Better eductated is a bit like saying you used 2 beans instead of 1 to make your pot of coffee... you're right, but it's still weak coffee.

As for how I vote... how do I vote?

Generally speaking, they don't vote, fortunately. Voting has costs, and the people most willing to pay those costs are those with the greatest stake. By nature, these people also tend to be the most politically informed; if the cost of voting is high, then you will make an effort to "get your moneys worth". Ie, regular voters tend to be those involved with government routinely, those who pay more in taxes, the older, and the educated.

This is the unintended consequence of policies which make voting easier or even mandatory - when you make voting cheaper (or not voting more expensive), by definition people value their vote less, and you end up with voters who are poorly informed. I recall the recent episode of Alvin Greene; after his primary victory in South Carolina there was an interview with a voter. When asked why she checked off Alvin, she said (with an embaressed giggle) that his name reminded her of the singer and that she never thought he'd actually win.

Imagine if voting had been relatively more expensive for a person like her (ie, a poll tax - this is illustrative, I'm not suggesting it as a policy). Do you think she still would have voted, and if so, would she have chosen her candidate for the same reasons?

This theory is born out in the data; education is the single strongest predictor of turnout statistically, but educational achievment is highly correlated with income, intelligence, political interest, etcetera, so it's probably capturing some of these effects.

http://cpe.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/D3B3E236-3C3C-42B3-BB5F-B1A16A8645E0/0/voting_edpays.pdf

@AlephZero: I thought that's how we did it already? I know that's how I vote, with my wallet in every way I can, up to and including legalized bribery.

 

[BobG]

you know, the absolute worst has got to be busing a bunch of dementia patients to the polls to vote for someone simply because they look familiar.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/item_spfLmBVGY1t0nHd4gXNn0M

That's a rather offensive assumption.

Only about 5% to 10% of people over the age of 65 suffer from dementia, so, probably, only about 75 to 150 of the 1500 elderly that were helped to the polls suffered from dementia.

And, considering they had enough sense to take a bus instead of clogging up the road by driving real slow, they were probably less likely to be suffering from dementia than the average elderly person.

Besides, there's no pictures of the candidates on ballots, so their looks wouldn't matter.

 

[Proton Soup]

That's a rather offensive assumption.

Only about 5% to 10% of people over the age of 65 suffer from dementia, so, probably, only about 75 to 150 of the 1500 elderly that were helped to the polls suffered from dementia.

And, considering they had enough sense to take a bus instead of clogging up the road by driving real slow, they were probably less likely to be suffering from dementia than the average elderly person.

Besides, there's no pictures of the candidates on ballots, so their looks wouldn't matter.

yes, i agree that it is offensive. but so is not wanting youthful voters to vote. which is much of the point of offering it in contrast.


and yes, looks do matter. looks always matter. how many voters do you think don't know what their candidate (the major ones, at least) looks like? and what politician isn't obsessed with his appearance?

 

[BobG]

how many voters do you think don't know what their candidate (the major ones, at least) looks like?

The ones suffering from dementia.

And maybe most of the people from Palm Beach County, Florida that voted for Pat Buchanon in 2000.

 

[ThomasT]

There are numerous organizations that encourage people (especially younger people who have recently attained majority), as if it is a service to the country. People who are politically informed are going to vote regardless, but would our society benefit from a mob of apathetic uninformed people rushing to the polls? No, and those who encourage apathetic people to go out and vote aren't doing a service to the country either.

Am I requesting that uninformed people should be forced not to vote? No, but it would be best if they chose not to.

I do not mind a surge of new young voters: as long as they are informed.

I think the message of these organizations should not be: "Go out and vote".

The message should be: "Be informed" (and voting will come as a natural consequence).

Agree or disagree?

It depends on your point of view. If your interest is in the continuation of the status quo, represented by the major parties, then lots of uninformed new voters is a good thing in that, presumably, they'll vote for either a Democrat or a Republican.

 

[mugaliens]

The only rational reason to vote is because you get paid for it.

People only sometimes receive monetary incentives for voting. Often, the incentives involve the furtherment of one's non-monetary believes, including right and wrongs. However, I'll grant you that ultimately, it all boils down to ensuring the best chances for survival for one's self and one's progeny.