Joshua Claybourn regrets news reports that voter registration is way up for this election.
But the reality is that most citizens aren’t informed, and quite frankly I’m okay with them staying home and not voting. Why would anyone want uninformed votes determining the next leader of the free world? Most of the readers of this site are highly informed; does it make sense for those votes to be canceled out by someone who’s casting their ballot because MTV said to do it? I think not. The more voters there are, the less important your vote becomes.
I have to disagree. Indeed, I’d have to disagree strongly. I’d rather have a lot of uninformed votes than only a few informed ones. Of course, I’d like a lot of informed votes best, but voting vs. not-voting is more important to our society, it seems to me, than voting-well vs. voting-poorly.
- It is a truism that those who are most motivated to vote are the ones most likely to do so. That tends to favor, in low turn-out elections, more extreme voting blocs — which leads to more extreme candidates being elected (gaining the power of incumbency) and to candidates pandering more to the extremes. Neither of those is good. More voters means the vote is likely to be more mainstream. That may still lead to a sub-optimal candidate being elected, but that will make that candidate more representative.
- Given a choice between a representative candidate and the best candidate, I have to support the representative one, on principle. Otherwise, we might as well have computers make the selection. But … who would program the computers? Good question. As Churchill put it, democracy is the worst form of government around, save for all the others that have been tried.
- Involvement in the civic process is a good thing — and is a good habit. Indeed, it seems to me that someone is more likely to become an informed voter by starting as a voter than by starting as being informed. If you want informed voters, encourage voting first.
- The opposite of love is not hate, it’s apathy. The opposite of winning an election is not losing an election, it’s not participating in an election. Participation breeds civil strength, it provides buy-in to the process, thus to the society. That, it seems to me, is a good thing.
I know, I know — sometimes (more often than not), I think the guy who won is a dolt, or I can’t believe that “they” voted for some piece of populist crap masquerading as a ballot proposition. But people deserve the government they get, and the best way to lose your political rights is to not exercise them.
Vote. I care less whether you are voting the same as I am or directly opposite, but that you’re beside me in another voting booth on November 2. That’s a bond of unity more important than our ideological (dis)agreement.
I agree with you passionately on this one. It kills me that people do not exercise their right to vote.
I am delighted that voter registration has risen in your country. It bodes well if people are taking an interest.
Stay home
According to several news reports, Americans have registering to vote in record numbers. Most people are happy about it. They
…does it make sense for those votes to be canceled out by someone who’s casting their ballot because MTV said to do it? I think not. The more voters there are, the less important your vote becomes.
… the vote of an honest and informed voter is far LESS likely to
have been purchased or coerced. A VERY good argument for the Electoral system.
I believe in my heart of hearts there should be some minimal test
for lucidity, residency, literacy and basic knowledge of election
process to be passed before filling out the ballot.
Otherwise the weeds select the crops and we all go hungry.
Steel
I believe in my heart of hearts there should be some minimal test for lucidity, residency, literacy and basic knowledge of election process to be passed before filling out the ballot.
I think that’s a great ideal. Most cases where the franchise has been limited, though, it’s usually been far too easily corruptable a system. The question of who defines what makes someone “lucid” or what a “basic knowledge of the election process” should be is too easily manipulated. It’s hard enough to define fair and effective standards of something relatively objective, such as residency.
I don’t think so. There are people voting who do not know the name of the vice president. These people are too ignorant to be making decisions about policies under which my family has to live.
Further, if they are too uninformed or uninterested to make their own voting decisions, then they are voting the way they are told to vote by people who specialize in buying, selling, and otherwise manipulating the votes of the ignorant. The reason for a democracy is to insure that we are not controlled by manipulators.
Voting by citizens who are interested enough to know something about the candidates and issues, and to use a minimal amount of effort to get to the polls during legal hours is quite enough to prevent tyranny, protect liberty, and provide sound guidance to our elected officials. A system that encourages partisans to round up the ignorant and unmotivated by the hundreds or thousands and tell them how to vote is a step toward, not away from tyranny, as our founders well knew when they set up the system.
These people are too ignorant to be making decisions about policies under which my family has to live.
Do we let the majority decide which knowledge is essential? Should people be able to give the gist of at least 7 of the 10 first Amendments? How many cabinet officers should they be able to name? Constitutional trivia?
Is only governmental/civic information essential? What about a general knowledge of history? What if someone asserts, “Someone who can’t recite the Ten Commandments is too ignorant to be making decisions about policies under which my family has to live”?
… [T]hey are voting the way they are told to vote by people who specialize in buying, selling, and otherwise manipulating the votes of the ignorant. The reason for a democracy is to insure that we are not controlled by manipulators.
It’s good to know that you are so well informed with objective knowledge and certainty that your vote is not at all manipulated by others — or by your own emotions.
A system that encourages partisans to round up the ignorant and unmotivated by the hundreds or thousands and tell them how to vote is a step toward, not away from tyranny, as our founders well knew when they set up the system.
Given that describes much of the voting and voter registration practices of much of US history, I’m not sure that follows.
Don’t get me wrong — I think it’s important that we find a way to motivate voters to be better educated. But the point of democracy is not solely to avoid rule by a limited few, but to keep the citizenry involved in the process, buying into the process. Is an uninformed populace a danger? Certainly. So is an uninvolved one, one where folks do not feel they have a stake in the process or the outcome because someone considers their participation to be too shallow, too manipulated, too ignorant.
I would love it if ever voter were well-informed. I’d love it if every person who wrote a letter to the editor were well-informed, too. I’d love it if every couple who decided to get married were well-informed as to how to be married, and that every person who had children were well-informed as to parenting.
But I think there’s a difference between having those as goals and trying to set up some sort of subjective requirement as to who is worthy to do so. I’m not thrilled by folks flocking to the polls only because MTV or their local church or some snappy commercial told them to — but I’m even less thrilled by someone deciding that those folks are somehow unworthy to go to the polls and cannot therefore vote.