Don't let ignorant people vote

Ice wrote:

major bean wrote: The arrogant and elite are the ones who determine who is ignorant and label them as such. That is the problem with "qualifications" for voting, those in power will determine what is the political correct "knowledge". If you do not agree with the criteria, then you are ignorant and uninformed.

Don't you get it?

I gotta agree here, ignorance is in the eye of the beholder. Litmus tests on voters is just not doable. I agree that many if not most voters are poorly informed. The price of democracy.

Ignorance is a measurable attribute of knowledge. That is what all tests do, is measure knowledge. It is not purely a subjective label place on an individual by another. We are not talking about politically correct "knowledge". That is simply an asinine sidetrack of what this whole discussion is about. And just because I choose not to agree with you does not make me ignorant or uninformed as you have it. It simply means we have a difference of opinion on an issue where the fundamental question is what is really being debated. Basically, if you do not know what a candidates position is on matters that are important to you, then you probably ought to refrain from casting an ignorant vote. At least, that is what an intelligent responsible individual would do.

Whenever "knowledge" is connected to politics it always becomes politically correct.

Consider all of the past scientists who were banned and excommunicated by the Catholic Church which held the political power at the time. Their knowledge did not match the testable facts of the political government. They were officially deemed to be wrong and ignorant.

Now we realize that their scientific observations were fact, but back then they were inconvenient political heresies.

Now, fast forward to what you are proposing. You say that "facts" can be measured for testing for voter participation. Do you see no similarity to the past? Maybe our "facts" are just as relative as those a few hundred years ago.

The following quote of my post was written referring to those who were to be tested for qualification to be able to vote: "If you do not agree with the criteria, then you are ignorant and uninformed." This was not in reference to those in power who would determine who should be able to vote.
Sorry that I did not construct this sentence in such a way that it would be clearly understood.
It should have been written as: If the prospective voter does not agree with the criteria, then the prospective voter is ignorant and uninformed."
Sometimes I write "conversationally" which requires inflexion and tone to understand my meaning. I try to avoid this failing, but do not always proofread close enough to totally avoid my lack of writing clearly.

major bean wrote: The arrogant and elite are the ones who determine who is ignorant and label them as such. That is the problem with "qualifications" for voting, those in power will determine what is the political correct "knowledge". If you do not agree with the criteria, then you are ignorant and uninformed.

Don't you get it?

I raised questions much earlier in this thread, and repeatedly, as to the potential misuses of a "qualifying test". Can't you read?

And then you turned around and accused those who would vote contrary to you as ignorant of the issues. You sound rather arrogant and elitist in your protest.

So what do you propose MB? That we continue with our current way that reaps us an irresponsible government? It appears to me you are adverse to acknowledging that people vote on issues about which they have little or no understanding.

Criticalbill put it best when he said:

All you have to do is watch Jay Leno's "Jay Walking" to know that even people who are not back woods hillbillies, who are dressed nice and walking down big city streets can be as dumb as a stump. IMO, people who don't pay attention to political issues, don't know who is representing them, and have no clue where the country is heading, can only vote based on appearance or what other people tell them to vote for. It's like a blind man judging a beauty contest when all he can go by is the voices.

The dumber our population becomes, the more bad choices it will make.

This is neither elitist or arrogant, simply fact. Whether or not a an ignorance test ever evolves (i'm doubtful) is not as important as is the matter of smartening up the voting population. But here you fear that the information will be controlled by the powers that be and no one will ever gain any knowledge because you fear we will revert back to the middle ages in terms of enlightenment. Times have changed. There is too much information available to have it all censored by the powers that be. Even in the days of yesteryear, there was always someone somewhere who found a way of getting alternative views brought forward. The main issue is to expose poor candidates and have people become aware of the choices they have.

What is my suggestion?........the marketplace of ideas.
If a group has an issue they must broadcast their view of the issue publicly and loudly in order to "educate" the voter to their point of view.
If a group opposes an issue they must also put forward their POV publicly and loudly.

Please consider that if their POV is rejected by the voter, the losing side will always say that the voter is ignorant and ill informed.

If the voting public is truly ignorant of an issue, the the failure is due to the various proponents of an issue. This is how it works.

The proponents or opponents of an issue must not shirk their responsibility of educating the public actively and then blame the voting public.

This is what Freedom of Speech is about and why it is so very important.

We do not have to go back very far into history to see that government knows more than the populace: Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, etc. etc.

You do not think that it would come to the U.S.? That is a dangerous attitude. The arrogant and elitist attitude would hasten its arrival into our country.

major bean wrote: And then you turned around and accused those who would vote contrary to you as ignorant of the issues.

False. I did no such thing. I guess we have established that you are, in fact, reading challenged.

You sound rather arrogant and elitist in your protest.

You're going to find I don't cringe and run away like a cockroach just because someone pulls the bogus "elitist" card. It's usually used by people with a big, fat, chip on their shoulder and says one heck of a lot more about the person using it than it does about the person they're applying it to. Thanks for ratting yourself out.

major bean wrote: What is my suggestion?........the marketplace of ideas.
If a group has an issue they must broadcast their view of the issue publicly and loudly in order to "educate" the voter to their point of view.
If a group opposes an issue they must also put forward their POV publicly and loudly.

Please consider that if their POV is rejected by the voter, the losing side will always say that the voter is ignorant and ill informed.

If the voting public is truly ignorant of an issue, the the failure is due to the various proponents of an issue. This is how it works.

The proponents or opponents of an issue must not shirk their responsibility of educating the public actively and then blame the voting public.

This is what Freedom of Speech is about and why it is so very important.

This is all fine and good except for the contention that "If a voting public is truly ignorant, the failure is due to the various proponents of an issue". The voting public has a responsibility, namely taking an interest. If they do not, no matter how well an issue is espoused for or against by anyone, the voting public still remains ignorant. You have got to listen and think.
Freedom of Speech has nothing to do with this thread, unless you feel that a voter's freedom of speech is denied if he were not allowed to vote for a particular set of candidates because he demonstrated no knowledge of who either of them was or what the stood for on various issues. That kind of voting ignorance is all together too common and why the question of allowing people to vote came up in the first place, a realization that we reap what we sow.

Please consider that you are saying that other voters are not pleasing you with their voting habits and criteria. That they are not informed to the level of your standards.

Why do you consider the majority of voters to be less thoughful than yourself? Their method of voting may be just as valid as yours. A little introspection might be in order here. What is your attitude toward the majority of mankind? Are they mindless cattle?