Should we stop encouraging uninformed people to vote?

[Ryika]

Let's face it: Most people have no idea about politics. And by "no idea about politics" I don't mean that they have opinions that are wrong, or silly, no, I mean that they literally have no idea about politics. So many people I speak with can exactly parrot a few phrases they heard on television, but when you start poking them for more information, they quickly out themselves as utter morons who don't even understand what they just said.

It's sad. Very sad. So why do we keep encouraging people to vote, even though they are obviously too uninformed to make an informed decision? "Because that's democracy!" we say, but I call BS on that. In reality, it's just because it helps the bigger parties. Because what do people vote for when they don't know much about the parties? Yeah, those parties that they're familiar with, and that's the big parties.

I think we should discourage voting. We should continue to do our best to make people become interested in politics of course, but I think people who are interest will go and vote without having to be encouraged. Telling people that voting is important only encourages the morons to make uninformed decisions.

/edit: Title changed from "Should we discourage people to vote?" to "Should we stop encouraging uninformed people to vote?"

 

[Disgustipated]

short answer is No, long answer is no.

You either believe in Democracy or you don't.

 

[warpus]

Let's face it: Most people have no idea about politics. And by "no idea about politics" I don't mean that they have opinions that are wrong, or silly, no, I mean that they literally have no idea about politics.

A big reason for this is that mainstream American media portrays politics in a dumbed down black vs white way. They push it on people as entertainment, not as something to learn and know about. People have bought into it, and now y'all are paying the price.

If you want to stop people from voting, just get rid of democracy. If you want a more informed citizenry, you gotta.. try.

edit: I can't quote

 

[Ryika]

You either believe in Democracy or you don't.

Sure. But democracy is a system that gives everybody the _right_ to vote, not necessarily a system that must encourage everybody to vote.

Getting people to be interested in politics is important, and like I said should be encouraged. The process of doing that might need improvements, yes, and those are certainly things that I would like to see us working on.

But in the end there's nothing in the idea of democracy itself that necessitates that we encourage those who are not interested in the system to take part in the system anyway.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

Its not so much about uninformed voters as it is about politicians being paid to go against the interests of their own constituencies. I'm not sure how bad this is in Germany but in the US a wealthy individual or corporation can invest in both parties to buy influence and no matter which way people vote their interests will take a back seat to donors.

We could only allow informed voters and still be in the BS mess we are experiencing right now. Paul Ryan was able to push a rotten healthcare bill with a 17% approval rating through the House because gerrymandering, fear mongering and big money are keeping his party in power. They can do very unfavorable things with little to no fear of repercussions. If he, or other high profile representatives, lose their seats they just move on to a lobbying job with a salary that makes his/their congressional salaries chump change.

Remember Howard Dean, that progressive candidate the Democrats had a few years ago? He had quite a few solid populous positions including grassroots donations to fight lobbying. He got slammed hard by the media until his support faltered. Wonder what he's doing now? Works for a lobbying firm...

 

[Gori the Grey]

Disgustipated gave my answer: No. That's not the solution to the problem. Better civics education.

At least in the US, you already have this last envisioned situation:

in the idea of democracy itself that necessitates that we encourage those who are not interested in the system to take part in the system anyway.

Plenty of eligible voters do in fact not bother to vote because of lack of interest. That's an indication that those that do vote have some minimal level of interest. Those people get their say.

During the election, though, I saw a C-SPAN feature about some guy who was trying to work out systems that only allowed certain kinds of voters. Interesting as a thought experiment.

 

[Hrothbern]

short answer is No, long answer is no.

You either believe in Democracy or you don't.

agree

As parents you have like the government the responsibility and the obligation to educate your children. Not only the Math and Science, but also their understanding of the institutions and the values of your country.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It really annoys me when women shrug off voting. They might as well spit on the graves of the suffragettes, who fought via letters and protests - and were arrested and abused in prison - for the right to vote.

The men of that time couldn't understand why women should be allowed to vote. "They'd only vote the way their husbands voted and that would only mean twice the work to count them, so why bother?" was one view.

There was a politician here in Canada who pontificated that allowing women to vote would lead to complete breakdown of marriages and families. Then he uttered the words "Nice women don't want the vote."


I had a terrific social studies teacher in junior high. He didn't think kids aged 11-15 were too young to be exposed to real-time/real-world politics, and we were assigned to follow the news reports of the provincial election going on in my Grade 7 year, we attended public meetings about a controversial dam project in my Grade 8 year (some of the students and the teacher presented briefs), and my Grade 9 year was the year when the Parti Quebecois came to power in Quebec and suddenly there was all this worry about Quebec separation.

When I turned 18, I couldn't care less that I was now old enough to enter a liquor store or go to a bar. What mattered to me was that I was old enough to vote.

I've worked for Elections Canada as an enumerator, poll clerk, and Deputy Returning Officer. People show up at the polling station ready to do their civic duty, and that's a good thing in my view. Otherwise we'd be like a lot of countries on Earth whose only recourse to government actions they don't like is to commit terrorism, engage in assassination, or start a civil war.

Well, there's not a lot of terrorism here (some, but not a lot), the last political assassination here happened nearly 50 years ago (carried out by the aforementioned domestic terrorists), and we haven't had a civil war.

We may not always like the outcomes of our elections, but it would appear that our system is functioning as it's supposed to, and to continue, people should be encouraged to become informed and then vote.

 

[Ryika]

No. That's not the solution to the problem. Better civics education.

But the two aren't mutually exclusive. You could even use the resources wasted in campaigns to get uninformed people to use their vote, and put them into education.

In an ideal world, obviously every single person in the country would have an understanding of politics and be interested in voting, and we should work towards that perfect world even though it is impossible to reach that perfect status, but I don't see how telling people that voting is important without telling them to get all the important information first, is helpful.

 

[inthesomeday]

Why do you think people are uneducated? As in what is the root of the poor education?

 

[Ryika]

Why do you think people are uneducated? As in what is the root of the poor education?

Because..

So many people I speak with can exactly parrot a few phrases they heard on television, but when you start poking them for more information, they quickly out themselves as utter morons who don't even understand what they just said.

 

[warpus]

I bet the 2 big parties in the U.S. themselves don't want people educated on the issues, because if they were they would stop voting for either of them.

 

[MilesGregarius]

Because..

Which doesn't answer:

As in what is the root of the poor education?

 

[Ryika]

Which doesn't answer:

To be honest, I don't see how that question is related to the topic. Again, I'm all for increasing education in that regard, and yeah, I know there are problems that prevent that from happening. Those are two different discussions.

Maybe the differences between the German situation that I'm thinking about when I'm proposing the question in the op and the situation in America are just too different to have an actual discussion about this. Here in Germany, we have at around 7-8 parties that are big enough to have some impact on the elections, and those parties are not affiliated with big companies in the same way they are in America, so the idea that people who just vote for one of the two big parties without really understanding even the basics of what those parties stand for might actually have a negative impact on the overall election seems a lot more real to me in that context.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I'm not sure discouraging people from voting is wise, but I agree there's no real point in encouraging them. There's no point in encouraging the uninformed and uninterested as their vote is just noise. Let the people who want to vote vote, and leave it at that.

That's in principle though, but in practice I'm not sure. If you reduce the number of people voting then you just open up avenues for people to start complaining about the voter base being unrepresentative of "the people" if decisions don't go their way. We already see that now. How many times have you seen things like "only 30% of the population voted for this, so it's not the will of the people", even if that 30% is actual 60% of the people who actually voted.

It really annoys me when women shrug off voting. They might as well spit on the graves of the suffragettes, who fought via letters and protests - and were arrested and abused in prison - for the right to vote.

They fought for the right to vote, not the obligation to vote. The right to vote necessarily includes the right not to vote.

Also, the majority of men/Chartists etc.

 

[MilesGregarius]

So your argument is "people should be discouraged from voting because they are too uneducated," but determining why they are uneducated is "unrelated" to the topic?

 

[metalhead]

Well this is ridiculous. One doesn't need to understand politics or even the issues to be qualified to vote. The whole point of representative democracy is that voters are electing who they think will do the best job representing them.

The intellectual snobbery on display here is nauseating. People are quite capable of choosing representatives for themselves, well apart from their education level. Our elected officials suck because people are terrible, but the members of this forum aren't in any way separate from that terribleness. We're making the same base lizard-brained decisions as everyone else, we're just dressing it up in intellectual terms to make ourselves feel superior.

 

[inthesomeday]

The thinking here is really shocking.

Here we have an outspoken proponent of liberal democracy who would have the uneducated poor not vote, a position disarming any claim liberal democrats could ever even pretend to have to representing the people. When the poor are discouraged from voting-- and we all know you're really talking about poor people-- it strengthens the de facto political oligarchy already so well established in the party system. I mean I don't really think voting changes anything but this is the most transparent yet that the connection between liberals and actual oligarchy has gotten here in this discourse.

If you truly believe in liberal democracy, then OBVIOUSLY every single person should be encouraged to vote, and rather than abandon them and eschew their involvement in the system that governs them education must be the only priority.

 

[metatron]

In reality, it's just because it helps the bigger parties. Because what do people vote for when they don't know much about the parties? Yeah, those parties that they're familiar with, and that's the big parties.

This. Duh.
I'm amazed that this is to be contested in this thread.
And it's not just familiarity, of course. People want to do the thing they are supposed to do, don't know anything and make conservative choices - i.e. major parties - as a result, in an effort to "not screw it up".
Major parties encourage this precisely for that outcome, to stifle dissent and competition, not because they "believe in democracy".

If you truly believe in liberal democracy, then OBVIOUSLY every single person should be encouraged to vote, and rather than abandon them and eschew their involvement in the system that governs them education must be the only priority.

Yeah, that's a peachy sentiment. But following that one should be non-interventionist regarding the motivation to vote and invest heavily in the education you mentioned.

In practice they do the exact opposite.

Case in point: Russia.
Usually they don't have to cheat much. An uninformed, disoriented public will rubberstamp the system anyway.
A higher turnout results in less of a chance for the opposition (or rather a need to actually cheat).
You may find this to be a stark comparison. I will remind you next time you lament the state of US news media.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yeah stop bashing poor people!!