Systematic Disenfranchisment, Good or Bad?

[Kuciwalker]

If someone memorized the answers, they'd have learned something about the candidate and the test would have been effective.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Asher



Wiglaf is carrying this thread.

:bow:

I thought you might have something to say about this suggestion from Wiggie:

Therefore, it seems that to the best of our ability, we ought to restrict fat people from voting on food laws, gay people from voting on marriage amendments, etc

To which you might reasonably have replied "so how about restricting non-gay people from voting on gay issues".

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Not only did you not vote for Kennedy, you voted for his rival. Are you telling me you're justified in voting for a candidate you know nothing about just to spite someone?

It's not "spite", it's in our general interest to not have scumbags in office.

Originally posted by Wiglaf Why not just abstain?

My vote has less impact

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Isn't there a big risk of electing someone who doesn't represent your interests or the best interests of the country/state/whatever, when you vote blind? THE ANSWER IS YES.

Well, I already know that this scumbag doesn't represesent my best interests. I vote in accordance to the two party system.

I should also note that I actually did get an idea of the character of his opponants and they seemed much better then him.

Originally posted by Wiglaf
This is another technical problem. Assuming you have competent and unbiased people designing the tests, it should be fairly easy to determine whether voters have a basic idea of who they are voting for. Perfect knowledge is unnecessary of course...

The problem is is a "basic idea" can be different for different people. My "basic idea" of Huckabee is "Christian right tax-hating loonball", which certainly not shared by everyone. I don't know nor care about his stance on every issue because I know enough to know he sucks. Why should I need to know say what exactly he says on the War in Iraq and the Education system (which I honestly don't know his positions about)? I generally base my decisions on a few issues that I care a lot about and don't bother looking at the nitty gritty of each canidate's views.

Originally posted by Wiglaf
The tests can be short. Maybe a minute a candidate if you know what the hell you're doing.

If they're that short, then they're not going to be that accurate in assessing voter credibility.

Originally posted by Wiglaf Also, you do not have to vote in multiple elections.

Well the problem is that ballots as they are today are made so that we do vote in multiple elections on the same ballot.

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Presumably questions could be randomized from a large bank, or somehing.

If they're randomized from a large bank then we aren't getting the "general idea" of a canidate we're getting specific issue questions, which is not legitimate because a given voter need not know a small set of issues to have a legitimate reason to vote.

And even then a person could print and carry the answers to all the questions.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If someone memorized the answers, they'd have learned something about the candidate and the test would have been effective.

Knowing the answers to 5 multiple choice questions isn't going to make someone an educated/legitimate voter.

The questions themselves also would impact the results by focusing the election on certain issues and neglecting others.

[Wiglaf]

Well, I already know that this scumbag doesn't represesent my best interests. I vote in accordance to the two party system.

Hard to say, right. It's possible if you did more research you'd realize what really is in your best interests. Knowing something about the person you're voting for

In this scenario you apparently let your moralizing get in the way of every single issue in the campaign. This is a flawed vote because it could result in a disastrous candidate taking office. It is the same complaint you liberals have about Bush..warble warble everyone thinks Iraq did 9/11 and they vote for bush because he doesn't have a thing for fat chicks. Well which is it? Are people misled or not?

The problem is is a "basic idea" can be different for different people. My "basic idea" of Huckabee is "Christian right tax-hating loonball", which certainly not shared by everyone. I don't know nor care about his stance on every issue because I know enough to know he sucks. Why should I need to know say what exactly he says on the War in Iraq and the Education system (which I honestly don't know his positions about)? I generally base my decisions on a few issues that I care a lot about and don't bother looking at the nitty gritty of each canidate's views.

Again, the test would primarily be about the person you ARE voting for, not the others.

Well the problem is that ballots as they are today are made so that we do vote in multiple elections on the same ballot.

You don' have to, and I think this is a great reason to have the tests -- people vote just because they have the chance to, I'm sure, and not because they really understand the candidate.

If they're randomized from a large bank then we aren't getting the "general idea" of a canidate we're getting specific issue questions, which is not legitimate because a given voter need not know a small set of issues to have a legitimate reason to vote.

Huh? The questions can be like, what does he want to do about health care, Iraq, or like 10 other issues. Yes, people can wikipedia the issues and easily ace the test. But like kuciwalker says, that is the whole point.

Knowing the answers to 5 multiple choice questions isn't going to make someone an educated/legitimate voter.

You'd be surprised how many people voting for Obama couldn't answer more than one or two questions about his campaign.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Hard to say, right. It's possible if you did more research you'd realize what really is in your best interests. Knowing something about the person you're voting for

It's possible, but very unlikely!

Originally posted by Wiglaf In this scenario you apparently let your moralizing get in the way of every single issue in the campaign.

Morals are important! You're voting for a person not just a series of issues!

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Again, the test would primarily be about the person you ARE voting for, not the others.

That prevents voting against someone, which certainly is important!

Originally posted by Wiglaf
You don' have to,

I don't think you could design a small test such that anyone who knows a lick about any issue would pass but someone who knows nothing would fail. You keep talking about "main points", but what exactly is that?

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Huh? The questions can be like, what does he want to do about health care, Iraq, or like 10 other issues. Yes, people can wikipedia the issues and easily ace the test. But like kuciwalker says, that is the whole point.

Yeah, but a fair number of them are things some people wouldn't care about. The difference between someone who only knows a few things and a random guesser would be pretty small.

Originally posted by Wiglaf
You'd be surprised how many people voting for Obama couldn't answer more than one or two questions about his campaign.

Why is this always about Obama?

You have a bad case of "OMG, liberals are stoopid".

[Wiglaf]

Morals are important! You're voting for a person not just a series of issues!

Right, but the issues are more important. It's insane that you think it is a good idea for people to vote for someone based entirely on the morals of his challenger, with no regard whatsoever for who they actually are voting for.

I don't think you could design a test such that anyone who knows a lick about any issue would pass. You keep talking about "main points", but what exactly is that?

Yes/no: There is conclusive proof that Saddam orchestrated and funded 9/11. Or, True/False, Hillary supports immigration reform. A test with questions like this that people can't get at least 50% correct indicates to me that the voter is dangerously misinformed.

The ultimate effect of these tests would be that the electorate would become more informed. Those who STILL don't care enough to know anything basic about the candidates, especially who are running for president, should not be voting in the first place.

Yeah, but a fair number of them are things some people wouldn't care about. The difference between someone who only knows a few things and a random guesser would be pretty small.

It's not a perfect system, but it'd root out a lot of the trash voters out there

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Right, but the issues are more important. It's insane that you think it is a good idea for people to vote for someone based entirely on the morals of his challenger, with no regard whatsoever for who they actually are voting for.

Well preferably everyone would know everything, but that ain't gonna happen. My reason was perfectly legitimate.

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Yes/no: There is conclusive proof that Saddam orchestrated and funded 9/11. Or, True/False, Hillary supports immigration reform. A test with questions like this that people can't get at least 50% correct indicates to me that the voter is dangerously misinformed.

Yeah, but a random guesser would get in 50% of the time, so as far as a test it really sucks.

Originally posted by Wiglaf
The ultimate effect of these tests would be that the electorate would become more informed. Those who STILL don't care enough to know anything basic about the candidates, especially who are running for president, should not be voting in the first place.

Why especially the prez election? And failing that list doesn't mean they don't know anything, just that they don't know what that test is testing.

Originally posted by Wiglaf
It's not a perfect system, but it'd root out a lot of the trash voters out there

It would take out legitimate ones just as effectively.