(Untitled)

Nov 02, 2009 21:00

Would you be in favor of requiring voters to answer some questions correctly regarding the MAJOR (and hence extremely obvious) positions of the primary candidates before voting?

Leave a comment

Comments 12

londo November 3 2009, 02:09:02 UTC
Only if there were a way to phrase such things totally objectively.

Reply

nightskyre November 3 2009, 02:13:59 UTC
This post inspired by a girl going to vote for Menino tomorrow. Because her father is a Menino fan.

You think differently then me? Please, vote your conscience. You don't know anything about who you're voting for? Sit down, shut up, and stay home.

Reply

londo November 3 2009, 02:16:12 UTC
I agree with the concept - everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but if you're going to formalize it with a vote it would be nice if you at least had an informed opinion.

I think the execution would be... difficult, if not impossible.

Reply


elenuial November 3 2009, 02:24:02 UTC
That question would be a lot scarier and harder to decide if I believed our democratic republic was truly representative. But considering the popular vote only kind of matters for what is mostly a false choice intended to give the public the illusion of agency, uneducated "mob rule" (whatever it means in this case) through the polls doesn't scare me all that much. If it did, though, I would still have serious apprehensions about initiating what could functionally be a kind of poll tax.

Even so, it would be nice if people generally made some attempt at educated civic engagement.

Reply

nightskyre November 3 2009, 02:30:08 UTC
Yeah, it's true. I realized as I was typing up my hypothetical question that it could easily transition into a utility designed to keep certain people away from the polls and for that reason alone it was pretty much a bad idea. However, I figured this was my personal space and really, I was doing it to relieve aggravation and not drum up responses designed to mold a policy to submit for legislation.

Its my understanding the Electoral College only exists for the election of the President, and there is no such lesser body to serve the same function for other elections (Like the Boston mayoral election tomorrow which is the root cause of this post to begin with)

Reply

elenuial November 3 2009, 02:35:37 UTC
However, I figured this was my personal space and really, I was doing it to relieve aggravation and not drum up responses designed to mold a policy to submit for legislation.

Your post was received in the light it was intended. :)

Its my understanding the Electoral College only exists for the election of the President, and there is no such lesser body to serve the same function for other elections (Like the Boston mayoral election tomorrow which is the root cause of this post to begin with)

We share an understanding (though it might not be a correct one, of course ~_^). I was speaking to my disgruntledness with some more deeper-rooted aspects of American politics up and down the scale.

Reply

nightskyre November 3 2009, 02:43:57 UTC
We share an understanding....

Ah. Well hopefully my perception of your statement (however misguided) was not completely crazy.

Reply


daedaleandeus November 3 2009, 14:45:02 UTC
In short, I think it would be a bad idea for many reasons. Ultimately I think it would mean that a lot of poorer people from less well-off (and thus less well-connected) areas might get the shaft. Remember, we live in the Northeast where tech is big and television and internet are CLOSE to ubiquitous. Other places in the US... well not so much.

That said, I also think that a lot of 'unaware' voters ARE influenced by their friends and family, and maybe that isn't as big a deal as you perceive it to be. I think that if someone feels passionate enough about a candidate to convince others, that might not be the worst reason for that candidate to have a few more votes. I think that chain-reaction style of thing had a lot to do with Obama's success.

Blah. It is the morning. I have no opinions. I am a bee.

Reply

nightskyre November 3 2009, 14:48:02 UTC
Anyone with the credentials to vote has the credentials to get into a public library where periodicals are available for free.

This isn't a rich/poor discussion. Rich and poor people alike should be voting in equal (high) number.... As long as they are informed.

I don't care who the voter is, but if they can't tell me anything about the candidate they're voting for or against, they shouldn't be voting.

Reply

daedaleandeus November 3 2009, 20:24:20 UTC
Eh, I disagree with your intellectualist filtering, but whatever. I think its better to vote for any reason than to not vote at all.

Also, if they can't afford a car and the library is far away... :-D

Reply

nightskyre November 3 2009, 21:18:24 UTC
You disagree with my intellectualist filtering? It's not about filtering anything. It's about having a clue. I'm not saying the people should be able to engage in intellectual debate, they should just know something beyond "xyz is a democrat" or "abc is the right color"

Reply


Leave a comment

Up