alansmithee

I was just wondering what other people's views were on a discussion some of my friends were having earlier. It started with debating straight-party voting, and then moved on to this.
Alot has been made about voter turnout. Many celebrities, politicians, civic leaders, issue groups, and others have been telling everyone to get out and vote. It is being stressed how it's your civic duty, you need to have a voice, your decision counts, etc. I have been thinking for awhile, is this really good? Now, I have no different solution, and this idea might actually belong more in philosophy, but I thought I would try here first.

It seems to me that many of the people voting aren't really informed about the truth in issues. I was saying to someone that I don't believe in straight-party voting, and as we were discussing he was saying he just votes what his union tells him to. He said he dosen't have the time to actually read up on issues, see how reps vote, etc. so he used the union to decide. He also said it was better than just getting information from ads, which can often be biased or flat-out wrong. And even many "news" sources show bias or don't report the correct facts.

This got me thinking, is it really good having numerous people who are misinformed deciding important issues? To make an economic comparison, for a free market to succeed, there must be perfect information. If any participant has flawed information, a free market breaks down. Why would politics be any difference? Aren't politics a "free market of ideas"? I personally am starting to think that all the effort being spent on getting the most people to the polls be better spent on making sure that those who do vote are well informed. I don't see this happening, simply because presenting unbiased info will get your candidate/party less votes than simply getting the most people to show up and vote how you want. But I think that the idea might have merit, and would like to hear other people's positions.

guy44

This is the most common and, in my opinion, most compelling argument against mandatory voting (like they have in Australia). Many people who would ordinarily not vote simply vote straight ticket, and there are undoubtedly plenty who vote with little to no knowledge of the issues.

I agree that having numerous people misinformed about the issues is a bad thing. But then, [factually correct but infuriating statement in 3, 2, 1...] how else would you have large numbers of people supporting the Republican Party?

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

alansmithee

That actually came up in the discussion. But, suprisingly (or not, not sure anymore) Republicans usually are against straight-party voting. And, the average repubican voter has a higher education level. But, I do agree that Republicans (both parties, really) have a largely uneducated (about facts) voting block.

Willravel

Good post. First off, don't ever do anything P. Diddy tell you to do.
There seems to be a paradox created by uninformed voters. We are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In other words, in the truest form of our government the co-leaders of our country are the voters. It is up to the citizens of this country to make key decisions that effect the world. Of course, that is way too much responsibility. In reality, we live in a world where people try to spread their influence so that the citizens follow allong with whatever they want the voters to believe. We have things like WMDs (Weapons of Media Distortion) being thrown in our faces 24 hours a thought. People think about what they see for a minute, then go back to living their lives. Let's take Jessica Lynch. Here is a reasonabally attractive young heroine who survived torture from the evil Iraqis, right? This icon of Americana was said to have been shot stabbed, then tortured by doctors and there was an amazing rescue by US Special Forces. Ummmm, no. Actually, she was cared for and fed by Iraqi doctors. They gave her three bottles of blood, two of them from the medical staff on site! She was in a road traffic accedent. There was no sign of a gunshot wound at all. Not even a stab wound. The Iraqi military had abandoned the hospital a full day before US Special Forces arrived. (information mostly taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...956255,00.html but go to BBC to get the whole main stream corrrection)

So here we sit in a country where roughlt 30-40% of it citizens believe that there was a connectionm between Hussain and 9/11. BTW, Bush himself has said that there was no connection. Now we have Christina Agulera telling us to vote.

Bottom line: I think you should only vote if you consider yourself to be an informed voter. Even if that idea stops only one Christian Agulara from voting, I've done my job.

Ustwo

We have already discussed the Pipa report and I pointed out its obvious bias as well as Kerry supporters follies in it, but being such a smart and educated guy you most likely already know that.

What does it say about you to take someone’s word on it without relying looking at the raw data or thinking about what kind of questions were asked? Are you misinformed or was it a flaw in your education?

In short when you are going to make an infuriating statement, do yourself a favor and hold back because someone like me will come along and point out that perhaps it is you who fit the very description of "misinformed" you are tying to place on the Republican voters.

Thanks and I hope you learned something useful.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

guy44

Ustwo - I'd like to point out that I never said that Kerry supporters weren't misinformed on any issues. Before accusing me of doing so, please note what I actually wrote.

As to PIPA's biases...well, I'll be honest, I can't find what they are. I read through the earlier threads on the PIPA report and the closest thing to a discussion of PIPA's biases was this post, by djtestudo, which I am reprinting in its entirety:


Now, I may indeed be missing the detailed scholarly work referenced on this board that provides sound reasons why the PIPA work is biased. And I apologize if I simply missed that, and would appreciate it if someone could point it out to me. However, lacking that, I would reply: the only evidence of PIPA's biases is a single post, wholly unsupported by facts, on this board. I might ask you, Ustwo: What does it say about you to take someone’s word on it without relying looking at the raw data or thinking about what kind of questions were asked? Are you misinformed or was it a flaw in your education?

Furthermore, I have indeed looked into the polling methods used by PIPA. It turns out that PIPA actually used the firm Knowledge Networks to conduct random nationwide polls with an error margin of 3.5% in this case.

In fact, Ustwo, I decided to engage in further research and will now quote on PIPA polling methods from the end of a very similar PIPA report in the book American Hegemony, published by The Academy of Political Science in 2004:

I will admit to not being an expert on polling biases. But I do believe that this is a fair sampling of the U.S. populace.

Until someone proves that PIPA, a respected program attached to a well-regarded institution of of higher learning, is biased or is somehow entirely misrepresenting the situation with regards to the public perceptions of Bush supporters, I will continue to believe their report.

Thanks and I hope you learned something useful.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"