Don't let ignorant people vote

AspenValley wrote:

ComputerBreath wrote: And can it ever be taught without vilifying the other side?

Yes. I think perhaps the single most important thing you could do to educate the voting population is to teach them not to think in terms of "sides", but in terms of issues. So long as people just lazily glom on to whatever position "their side" says to support, you can be quite sure they are not informed enough to be a responsible voter.

Whenever I hear someone say "Oh so and so is not a REAL (Republican/Democrat) because so and so supported such and such and that is the OTHER SIDES position" I know I am hearing a voter who has abdicated all responsibility as a voting citizen in favor of a form of intellectual laziness known as partisanism. It's just a grown-up version of the stupidity of children who do dumb things because of "peer pressure".

Precisely. This is part of the thinking behind suggesting leading proponents of an issue be forced to argue against their stance and thereby promulgate critical thinking instead of emotional diatribe. An educated public would care less for who is what party as opposed to who is making the most sense.

I know I am hearing a voter who has abdicated all responsibility as a voting citizen in favor of a form of intellectual laziness known as partisanism.

Absolutely.

Rockdoc Franz wrote: [The author of the article suggested a test be structured along the lines of that required by immigrant applying for citizenship. It would seem appropriate that American citizens have at least a rudimentary knowledge equivalent to immigrants applying for naturalization. ....................... Obviously, this whole education thing quickly gets into very murky waters that could step on a citizen's basic rights and needs much deeper thought than what I've posed here as a straw man exercise.

I agree, of course it will never happen. The least possible change(which will also never happen) is to do away with mail in ballots w/o a ligitimate hardship. Then pray for rain on election days.

A perspective of the past:

1790 Only white male adult property-owners have the right to vote.
1800
1810
1810 Last religious prerequisite for voting is eliminated.
1820
1840
1850 Property ownership and tax requirements eliminated by 1850. Almost all adult white males could vote.
1855 Connecticut adopts the nation's first literacy test for voting. Massachusetts follows suit in 1857. The tests were implemented to discriminate against Irish-Catholic immigrants.


Read more: U.S. Voting Rights http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/vot ... z1JbznbXfr

neptunechimney wrote: The tests were implemented to discriminate against Irish-Catholic immigrants.

Yes, the history of literacy tests shows that they have been used mostly to exclude "out" groups more than to improve the quality of the voting public. That's why I wondered who would be devising the tests. It's possible to come up with a test that deliberately excludes older people, or younger people, or Democrats or Republicans or Baptists or Hindus.

It's not hard to imagine a scenario where the political party in power came up with a test that effectively disenfranchised those who might vote against them in the next election.

Haven't they proved over & over again, that if we "Don't let ignorant people vote", this country would only have a one party system & that would be REPUBLICAN.

neptunechimney wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote: [The author of the article suggested a test be structured along the lines of that required by immigrant applying for citizenship. It would seem appropriate that American citizens have at least a rudimentary knowledge equivalent to immigrants applying for naturalization. ....................... Obviously, this whole education thing quickly gets into very murky waters that could step on a citizen's basic rights and needs much deeper thought than what I've posed here as a straw man exercise.

I agree, of course it will never happen. The least possible change(which will also never happen) is to do away with mail in ballots w/o a ligitimate hardship. Then pray for rain on election days.

A perspective of the past:

1790 Only white male adult property-owners have the right to vote.
1800
1810
1810 Last religious prerequisite for voting is eliminated.
1820
1840
1850 Property ownership and tax requirements eliminated by 1850. Almost all adult white males could vote.
1855 Connecticut adopts the nation's first literacy test for voting. Massachusetts follows suit in 1857. The tests were implemented to discriminate against Irish-Catholic immigrants.


Read more: U.S. Voting Rights http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/vot ... z1JbznbXfr

This is interesting. i did not know about the evolution of voting elibability.

AspenValley wrote:

neptunechimney wrote: The tests were implemented to discriminate against Irish-Catholic immigrants.

Yes, the history of literacy tests shows that they have been used mostly to exclude "out" groups more than to improve the quality of the voting public. That's why I wondered who would be devising the tests. It's possible to come up with a test that deliberately excludes older people, or younger people, or Democrats or Republicans or Baptists or Hindus.

It's not hard to imagine a scenario where the political party in power came up with a test that effectively disenfranchised those who might vote against them in the next election.

And that is not where we really want to go. Where we do wish to go is with a more knowledgeable general public. As note before, this would also force candidates to think a little more before mouthing off, or making proclamations an educated public would know to be BS.

TPP wrote: Haven't they proved over & over again, that if we "Don't let ignorant people vote", this country would only have a one party system & that would be REPUBLICAN.

Every coin, argument, opinion, philosophy, etc. has opposing sides.

Rockdoc Franz wrote: As note before, this would also force candidates to think a little more before mouthing off, or making proclamations an educated public would know to be BS.

Maybe....But i think there are plenty of politicans and media "personalities" mouthing off stuff their listeners know to be BS...but they don't care so long as it suits their agenda. Let's take the Birther issue. Do you think more than 25% of listeners actually find it plausible that Obama was born in Kenya or wherever? Yet note how few Republican leaders are willing to denounce it as the stupid rubbish it obviously is. It suits their agenda to let it be a "question" among the ignorant 25%, so they remain silent.

Education doesn't fix deliberate intellectual dishonesty.

Rockdoc Franz wrote: [And that is not where we really want to go. Where we do wish to go is with a more knowledgeable general public. As note before, this would also force candidates to think a little more before mouthing off, or making proclamations an educated public would know to be BS.

It would be great if every citizen had to pass the same test as naturalized citizens. I knew a bunch of them who were married to sailors and they were knowledgeable enough to embarrass me.

AspenValley wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote: As note before, this would also force candidates to think a little more before mouthing off, or making proclamations an educated public would know to be BS.

Maybe....But i think there are plenty of politicans and media "personalities" mouthing off stuff their listeners know to be BS...but they don't care so long as it suits their agenda. Let's take the Birther issue. Do you think more than 25% of listeners actually find it plausible that Obama was born in Kenya or wherever? Yet note how few Republican leaders are willing to denounce it as the stupid rubbish it obviously is. It suits their agenda to let it be a "question" among the ignorant 25%, so they remain silent.

Education doesn't fix deliberate intellectual dishonesty.

LOL I must laugh at your concluding statement because it holds true on so many fronts. It is something I face as a scientist too and find very frustrating (perhaps not strong enough).

One particularly put off of the political arena is false accusations. Throw them out there so the other side needs to spend time on damage control. It does seem one is guilty of anything the other side charges as soon as it is said.

Education is not a panacea, but perhaps the start for moving in a more positive direction. Of course, there is the whole matter of personal responsibility. Deliberate intellectual dishonesty shuns personal responsibility and if that is in association with fitting one's agenda, then there is little that can be done to change it. Liars obviously will not change their spots, nor will those who willingly endorse and support them. Idealistically, facts would expose who they are and their role in the political arena eliminated. But, reality is that these are the very people who often thrive politically because they can dupe the public or manipulate by threat their opponents.

Having said all that, I realize this whole exercise is idealistic and the associated problems almost debilitating. I need to remind myself, that if you can positively influence one person, you need to feel satisfied. I'm still working on that one.