This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Occupy Wall Street Protests
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Jubilee
Someone has a low opinion of people who voted for Obama =P
Post by
MyTie
Someone has a low opinion of people who voted for Obama =P
Not at all. The other options were not spectacular. I just think that there are some people who can only conjure the name of the current president when asked about anything political or having to do with the US. I filled in the current president's name, regardless of my opinion of him. What about the questionare was negative about him? It would be like putting "Yoda" down for an option on any question about Star Wars.
Post by
gamerunknown
People must answer all 5 questions correctly to vote. In my opinion, this wouldn't be biased.
I wouldn't have a problem with that test if it were available in spoken format (to counter the problem of illiteracy) and if it were available in languages other than English as well (as English is not the official language of the United States). Well, I may also have an issue about including the history of the United States, since that wouldn't be relevant to the platform of any of the candidates. In fact, none of those issues would be directly relevant to the platform, but the first four at least serve to demonstrate some familiarity with modern politics in the US. It'd also exclude the people that don't bother to read a little about issues before an election (of course, if they've got a finite time it may be better spent reading the manifesto of the various parties rather than about the electoral system).
But then it'd bar people that are committed to some moral or economic ideal, but do not read contemporary politics and again, enforcing that the test isn't applied selectively may be difficult.
These sorts of problems are encountered with direct democracy as well if there is literature accompanying a question. But again, it'd be better to test whether an individual can distinguish between the differing views on offer than whether they're familiar with the electoral system, but even in that scenario there may be a risk of a disenfranchised underclass.
Post by
MyTie
It'd also exclude the people that don't bother to read a little about issues before an election (of course, if they've got a finite time it may be better spent reading the manifesto of the various parties rather than about the electoral system).
This is who it is intended to exclude. The point of the test isn't to make sure that nobody is left out, but to leave out those who have no idea who they are voting for and why. This test would do a good job of weeding out voters who mark (D) or (R) without any knowledge of politics.
I would agree on the different languages thing, as well as a spoken version of the test, for the blind and illiterate. I might even agree on leaving out historical things. However, I would not insist on platform related questions, because they are so open for interpretation, and a lot of times a politician won't be up front about a lot of platform issues.
I also wouldn't get too specific. I'm not looking to exclude anyone without a degree in political science, but if a person doesn't know basic basic knowledge about current political affairs, they have no business influencing those affairs.
Post by
Jubilee
I also wouldn't get too specific. I'm not looking to exclude anyone without a degree in political science, but if a person doesn't know basic basic knowledge about current political affairs, they have no business influencing those affairs.
I disagree. If you don't want a certain group of people influencing your politics, then they should not have to be subject to it. One's political knowledge is not what makes him or her a free citizen any more than money, color of skin, or religion does.
Post by
gamerunknown
Well, that's the least objectionable basis for an exclusion (meant to qualify that but forgot) I think, those that are only interested in politics once every four years.
Then again, having every issue on a platform be decided by referendum would be another way.
Oh, the only issue with that would be that there'd have to be a sufficiently long period to vote, otherwise it'd exclude those that work long shifts like doctors. That'd make paper voting impractical, so electronic voting would be necessary. Those without immediate access to a polling station or the internet (if security protocol were enough to allow internet voting at some point in the future) would be at a disadvantage. In fact, there's an effect in the UK that's borne out with evidence that election days with poor weather show a general decline in voters, but especially on the left, as they're less likely to own their own means of transport and thus less inclined to leave the house.
On an individual basis, it's disappointing, but we can't always identify with people that might have half an hours walk each way to a polling booth, where the incumbent has always been a Conservative (and in fact, the Labour party doesn't adequately support your own views, so you were thinking about voting for the Pro-Life Labour party instead... except they have no chance of winning) and you are struggling to pay heating bills so you really don't want to catch a cold and besides you've got to be up at 6 in the morning for work... As opposed to the guy that can hop in his car for a bit of a murky ten minute drive.
That kind of issue would be compounded by direct democracy. Not by proportional representation though and not if the government was really committed to providing access to everyone in the democratic process (apart from the above examples, say).
Edit:
Jubilee, I'm going to muddy the waters even more now by bringing in two concepts.While I agree in principle that every citizen has the right to vote, it's entirely possible that non-citizens could know more about the politics of a country and have the best wishes of Americans at heart. Possible example Christopher Hitchens (one of the biographers of Jefferson), who'd been living in America on a permanent visa but didn't have citizenship.
The other principle would be the social contract: by existing in a society that provides roads, education, the police and fire departments, healthcare (in some cases), one agrees to live by the rules establishes by the consensus of the people (theoretically). For example, my mother is an American citizen living in England that doesn't have the right to vote here, but she still obeys the laws and pays taxes. I happen to think that provisions should be made for those that do not agree to the social contract, that they could be given their own autonomous region like Alaska and perhaps a few minimal provisions on the way out. No distinction could really be made on the basis of whether it was for entrepreneurial or Sadistic reasons though. The US would also essentially have the possibility of a fiasco in the style of Pitcairn island where they'd have to intervene anyway to save face and protect innocents. Hrhm.
Post by
Heckler
Things are ugly in Oakland again. The police are still using tear gas, flashbangs, bean bags, and rubber bullets (maybe -- conflicting information from the OccupyOakland livestream, twitter, and various news outlets).
After monitoring the Livestream for about 30 minutes and watching Twitter, the police aren't even in the area. OccupyOakland moved back into the park, tearing down the fences the police put up this morning. Rumor is there is a raid planned on OccupySF at 3am. New story out of Oakland events last night:
Apparently sometime last night they hit a 24-year old Iraq veteran, Scott Olsen, in the head with one of these so-called "less than lethal" rounds (possibly a tear gas canister, still unclear), fracturing his skull and causing brain swelling. He's currently in the ER, sedated, in critical condition (some sources reporting "serious, but stable condition").
Story (Local news)
Alternate Source (The Guardian)
Keith Olbermann's interview with Olsen's fellow veteran, Keith Shannon.
Post by
Squishalot
One method of combating this (and raising some revenue) would be to fine all eligible able-bodied people that do not vote (excluding if they abstain). Australia utilises this model and they have turnout rates among the highest in the world as far as I'm aware.
High turnout rates aren't necessarily ideal, as they can vote some
unwanteds
into parliament at times. Having the great unwashed voting out of obligation will not always get you an ideal outcome.
Post by
gamerunknown
the great unwashed
Hmm... *takes a trip back to page 10*
shows a divorce from the democratic argument.
that's something you've inferred. I'm referring to 'plebs' as exactly what they are - the people.
I know the phrase has historical significance, but perhaps there's a more deep rooted misanthropy at play here? :p
I think there are four or five necessary issues raised here.
The first is that of abstention. It should be promoted as an option when one is ignorant about the candidates, but there should be ample information about each party's manifesto available at the polling booths.
The second is that of devolution. Should each individual issue any candidate raises on a platform be voted on, they are less likely to win on a vague, non-committal platform.
The next few points are interrelated. Having lower turnout is no bar to electing demagogues, as in Palestine and Afghanistan in my opinion. If the views of those that don't vote are roughly the same as those that do under current proposals, then does that mean we should do something to exclude the unenlightened that already currently vote out of a sense of civic duty? Or do we accept that, despite our commitment to enlightenment values concerning equality, liberty, fraternity, those sorts of things, we have to accept the consensus or risk falling into despotism ourselves?
Finally, as a sort of addendum, shouldn't we make it our duty to inform the voters rather than ignore their opinions? Did Pauline Hansen have the backing of Rupert Murdoch during her campaign? If not, I suppose the issue wasn't so much that she was the recipient of the best campaign funds. Rather, it probably had to do with the outdated Parliamentary system, where the executive is drawn from the legislature: those that wished for a Liberal head of government could only influence the governance of the people through their constituent: again, this is a problem that is solved by either democratic reform (titular head of government not important when platform issues are voted on), or by electoral reform (allowing parties to declare by-elections based on their withdrawal of support for a candidate pre-election, separating the legislature and executive).
Edit: Oh yeah,
Steve Fielding
is funny too.
Post by
Squishalot
No, in this case, I actually meant those who really don't give a crap and are only doing it to avoid the fine, as opposed to the broader plebiscite (i.e. the broader community which do), and intended to refer disparagingly towards them.
If Australia allowed abstentions, characters like Pauline Hanson and Steve Fielding would never have made it in, because the uprisings of their personalities occurred due to their availability as a 'protest vote' (i.e. you vote for them to show the major parties that you disagree with their policies, in the knowledge that your vote doesn't really make a difference). If enough people make protest votes, especially with the way our Senate is voted in, guys like Steve Fielding get put into positions of power. Those who are lodging protest votes aren't lodging because they have a particular desire for one person / party to get into power, but instead, primarily do so because they're forced to vote, and "don't want to vote for her or the other guy".
That said, Pauline Hanson won her initial lower house seat through a bureaucratic snafu; hers and Fielding's Senate seat was won purely on the back of the way senators are voted for in Australia (i.e. proportional vote). That makes protest votes from the guys who don't give a f*** disproportionately powerful.
Post by
gamerunknown
It's also possible to make "none of the above" an option, or not fine people from spoiling their ballots.
If you're proposing that legitimate candidates were not chosen over "joke" candidates because the majority of the population would prefer a joke candidate, that's a problem of all democracy rather than representative democracy. In England the designated joke party (the monster raving lunatic party) rarely collects its deposit for elections - but the argument holds that people are more likely to value their vote when it actually makes a difference to the constitution of the legislature. Proportional representation just means the representatives more accurately represent the political allegiance of their voters. Basing a candidate on geography is as arbitrary as basing it on whether one's last name is similar to theirs (i.e people whose surnames end with "Ca" could vote for "Cameron" or "Campbell").
Post by
MyTie
I also wouldn't get too specific. I'm not looking to exclude anyone without a degree in political science, but if a person doesn't know basic basic knowledge about current political affairs, they have no business influencing those affairs.
I disagree. If you don't want a certain group of people influencing your politics, then they should not have to be subject to it. One's political knowledge is not what makes him or her a free citizen any more than money, color of skin, or religion does.
I'm having a little trouble understanding this. Are you saying that participation in politics is what makes someone a 'free citizen'? Are you saying that only people who are eligible to vote should be subject to the law? What about felons?
I suppose where I disagree with you is that you are under the belief that a person, no matter what they know about current political affairs, should be allowed to vote. Here is the overall question I pose to you: How effective is democracy, when the electorate is ignorant of politics?
Post by
MyTie
We all knew that OWS doesn't represent 99% of American Opinion. Interestingly, Wall St
doesn't represent 1%
of top earners.
Post by
Jubilee
Taxation without representation was one of the injustices that helped precipitate our revolution from the British. The effectiveness of democracy really is not germane. The principle defining this country is not efficiency but freedom.
Post by
MyTie
Taxation without representation was one of the injustices that helped precipitate our revolution from the British.I don't think ignorance should be represented in our government. It's not as if the people who would be excluded have no choice but to be excluded. I'd be interested in a study that demonstrates what section of the voter block is most ignorant of basic political facts.The effectiveness of democracy really is not germane. The principle defining this country is not efficiency but freedom.It is a combination of the two. A pure side of either would end in collapse. Right now, we have an all time high of voters who have no idea what they are voting for.
Post by
Jubilee
I don't think ignorance should be represented in our government.
Thankfully the constitution protects people from what you think they deserve or don't deserve.
Post by
MyTie
I don't think ignorance should be represented in our government.
Thankfully the constitution protects people from what you think they deserve or don't deserve.
Thankfully? Protection from me?
Here, let's break it down a bit. I'll explain why I think people who choose to be ignorant of politics should not be represented, and you explain why you do think they should be represented.
I think that people who choose to remain ignorant of politics should not be allowed to vote because they cannot be accurately represented. The term "taxation without representation" indicates that an individual should be allowed to choose people to represent them in government. Therefore, a person who is completely ignorant of politics cannot be represented in government unless they vote for a person whose platform is one of self professed ignorance. Much of OWS is protesting the large amounts of money invested into politics. The huge amounts of money are a problem because they can overcome smaller amounts of money due to people's easily influenced opinions, due to ignorance. Certainly, responsible government can only be expected from an electorate with at least a cursory understanding of government. Much of the targeted electorate is the ignorant, to be pried and pushed by ads and catch phrases (Hope and Change, Yes we Can, Yes America Can, Country First, etc). By either demanding that the electorate pay attention, or be eliminated from the voting block, we can expect a massive reform in government. We can expect politicians who understand that the electorate is paying attention to more of the facts, and less of the smiles and slogans.
Post by
Squishalot
It's also possible to make "none of the above" an option, or not fine people from spoiling their ballots.
That, by definition, is allowing abstention, no?
Post by
Heckler
It's also possible to make "none of the above" an option, or not fine people from spoiling their ballots.
That, by definition, is allowing abstention, no?
Voting for no one isn't the same as not voting... right? Does Australia not have Write-ins where someone could write "Herman G. Notreal" or maybe "Myself" for Senate?
Seems to me we should be finding ways to positively encourage voting and being informed, not negatively punishing apathy or ignorance. Sort of like you can't force Democracy onto a country from without, I don't think you can force democratic ideals into a people through coercion or force. It's quite possible there's some level of intelligence between 0 and maximum where you are
more
of a political danger, not less -- most radicals are not completely ignorant of politics for example.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.