Would you deny the right to vote to "uninformed" people?

[D G]

I think this question needs to be asked, although it is harsh and a bit rhetorical/theoretical.

I am hearing from people who don't support Kerry or Edwards that their recent success in the primaries has been due to people who were undecided up until the last minute; therefore, theses voters are dismissed as being uninformed, duped by the media, or just following "the herd." (I detest the word "sheeple" but that is basically what I am talking about.)

So if you believe this is the case -- do you think these people's votes are somehow less valid? Should these people be prevented from voting because their reasons are too superficial?

Personally, I give my fellow voters a little more credit for critical thinking. But I'd like to hear from those who disagree.

[Drifter]

1. Who gets to define uninformed ?

That's where the fraud would move to.

I looks like the AWOL cabal may have been trying to do this in Florida 2000 by calling them Felons. And we all see how that turned out.

No, I don't think it is a good Idea. Equal is Equal.

Cheers
Drifter

[Dookus]

2. No, I would not...

every single one of us is uninformed about a great deal of things.

[mdmc]

3. I am uninformed, but I must be allowed to vote.

There are enough people not voting already. We should try to limit and reduce ignorance, not voter participation.

[JasonDeter]

4. If they're not voting for my candidate, Yes.

[Fenris]

5. No. Not ever. They have a right to vote. Ignorance shouldn't be

punished. It is sad that people are uninformed, but they have a right as the rest of us do.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. If they don't support my candidate, they're uninformed, right? n/t

[waldenx]

7. yes

After these primaries, I am glad this is not a direct democracy.

[rfjockey]

8. In a perfect world, Yes

but I know of no good way to sort out the sheeple from the qualified voters, so it's a moot point. I still remember a commentary from the 2000 election on CNN by Jeff Greenfield. A couple of days before the election he basically said: If you haven't been paying attention and still don't know who you are voting for, then just stay home, so that you don't screw up the votes of those of us who do have an informed opinion.....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. There's a lot of nasty history behind that idea

In the old South, voters were required to pass "literacy tests." White people got ridiculously easy tests, like reciting the alphabet, while black people got tests that only someone with a law degree could pass.

I wish voters were more informed. Perhaps that's a job for party organizers and publicists between elections.

[D G]

12. I realize that there is nasty history behind the idea

And to get this on the record - I don't support any kind of requirements for voters. (although requiring all citizens to vote, mentioned in the post below, is intriguing)

It's just that I see all of these primary voters being dismissed as "uninformed sheeple" - if that is the problem other people are seeing, what do they propose as a solution?

[cprise]

10. No. I would fine people for not voting.

There should be an incentive to sustain at least a nominal level of interest. Several western countries do this, because they consider voting to be a duty.

[D G]

13. This sounds like a good idea to me too

Imagine 100% turnout... now that's democracy.

[truhavoc]

Would not fining those who don't vote help the incombent?

I think it would, because you would have a bunch of people coming to the polls that haven't followed an ounce of politics. They might think, well everything is still okay by the way I see it so why vote for someone else?

[cprise]

38. They wouldn't want to give money to the 'wrong' person if he/she wins

Neither side would want that, so you get high turnouts.

[David__77]

11. Ideally, I would deny the right to be uninformed.

I don't think anyone has the "right" to be ignorant. Instead, people have the right and the obligation to find the truth. Certainly, this view doesn't sound democratic, does it?

[Catholic Sensation]

14. Yes it's in the constitution

Because "ignorance is bliss." Bliss is happiness, and Americans have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or bliss) :D

[rfjockey]

17. Perhaps a simple test right on the ballot....

like being able identify the correct political party and state of residence for the candidate that you voted for in order for your vote to count. At least it would weed out the totally braindead.... come to think of it, it might even help when they are doing the Florida recounts and trying to figure out which of the multiple candidates that were punched was the one they were trying to vote for :P

[David__77]

25. The libertarians would say that.

But the preamble states that the "general welfare" must be defended. I think that people's acculturation fits into their welfare. Citizenship is an obligation as well as a benefit.

[ieoeja]

15. I don't understand that assumption?

What makes people think they are uninformed? I am VERY informed, yet undecided. I quickly narrowed it down to three candidates. But no particular factor(s) has made any one of them rise about the other two to my mind.

[mountebank]

26. People who do not decide based on issues, but on "electability."

I think he's saying that uninformed people decide based on appearances and hype and momentum, not on the issues.

But I am curious: if you know yourself, your ideals and morals, and what issues are important to you, and you have researched the candidates, how could you not pretty quickly land on one candidate that best represents those views?

Maybe I'm wrong, but all this indecision (not just yours, but in general) seems to be based on momentum and "electability."

For me, I had my ideals before any of the candidates arrived. Then they did, I looked into them, and found the one that best matched me. (Dennis J. Kucinich!!!)

That's why my support is totally unwavering. To stop supporting Kucinich would basically mean I would have to stop supporting myself. Or a better candidate would have to come along (highly unlikely).

[D G]

27. See, I think that there are more people like you

than others give the general public credit for.

I think that, as you suggest, people know what's important to them as far as issues and priorities, and they can decide on a candidate based on that knowledge fairly quickly. I do not believe that the majority who have voted for Kerry or Edwards are "uninformed" - but some other people here sure seem to.

(By the way, I'm the original poster, and for the record I'm a gal.)

;)

[mountebank]

28. sorry!

(I suppose I could turn it around and say that I'm a gal, too - but we'd both know that I was lying! Anyway, apologies....)

You're right - I think a lot of people support Kerry and Edwards on the issues. And I've got no problem with that. But you have to admit, this body of voters that switches from frontrunner to frontrunner (i.e. Dean to Kerry) is pretty uninformed on the issues and highly susceptible to "electability" arguments, image, and media hype.

Furthermore, I think Dean's base - those that are with him solely on the issues - is larger than Kerry's base. Only an opinion - but I reference early grassroots support as an indicator.

After all of that, I will say that I don't think anyone should be denied the right to vote.

[D G]

29. No apologies necessary

I don't think I even set up "gender" in my profile, so how would you know? (Unless you took a real close look at the rubber duckie, LOL)

Thanks for your thoughtful posts.

[ieoeja]

32. I believe electability IS an issue

Though I believe you meant that in a different way than me. The electability issue for me is, "how will this guy handle the rightwing onslaught during the general election". In '88 (or was that '92) I started out supporting Gary Hart. Then he dropped out because someone took a picture of a pretty woman sitting in his lap. When he jumped back into the race after finding out that nobody cares about women sitting in his lap, I was one of the legions of supporters who dropped him.

If he couldn't handle a little thing like that, how could you expect him to handle what would be thrown at him in the general election even before the new era of Rightwing dominance of the airwaves?


I think you're talking about electability "during the primary". And I mostly agree with you. Where I would factor in that is where A is my favorite but doesn't stand a chance while B is my second favorite and running a close race with C. Then I might vote for B hoping to help push B over C.


In this particular primary, for me Dean started with a very slight edge over Kerry. Dean's record in Vermont was very impressive. And I am pro-gun and have been praying (in my atheistic way) for a pro-gun Democratic presidential candidate. Then I found myself leaning Kerry as Dean seemed really unimpressive as a campaigner initially. Then Dean got his legs under him, and I frankly had to hold myself in check to prevent myself from being carried away by the excitement. He has continued impressing me by his refusal to completely cave, but I worry about his inability to quash the RW demagoguery against him (I see through it, but the general public will not).

When Clark entered the race it really didn't do much for me. However, he does the hands down best job of responding to criticism. Clark's "I am a Liberal" statement and subsequent definition was the best response I have ever heard to the charge of "being Liberal". I would hate to base my vote on just this one thing, but I am so sick and tired of "liberal" being defined by the rightwing. I would love to see the other candidates steal Clark's words for themselves.

Unfortunately, Kerry, for one, seems to be continuing the practice of denying liberalism. This is my single biggest complaint against Kerry. And NOBODY wants a wishy-washy President. Kerry is a liberal and should defend liberalism with the fervor in which he defended his fellow soldiers, sailors and Marines (with them in 'Nam and then for them on the Hill).

If I voted today, Dean would be the man. But I don't get to vote til mid March (in Illinois) by which time Dean will be gone.

[mountebank]

39. I like your analysis. Just one little thing....

And that's that I don't think it's right to define one's politics based on fear of how the Right is going to attack. I see the practicality and all - and so I understand "electability." I'm not like, from the Moon or something.

Yet, I think this fear is what perpetuates the system, the Establishment, our current political system. It makes people decide between two safe choices, who may have some policy differences on the liberal/conservative axis, but who can both rally behind the idea that the people should never be allowed to have more power. They should be governed, but they should not govern.

This, in my view, is what's behind "electability" - and it's all part of the ingenious design of the Establishment.

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

16. That's just sour grapes and arrogance

Their assumption is that if you support Kerry it's because you are uninformed and the media made your choice for you and if you chose Dean it's because you are smart. That's just bull.

The media made Dean the front runner for most of the past year and he got a lot of free press indicating such. It was an illusion because it didn't translate into votes. The media didn't do that.

When it came time to make a decision people compared the candidates and made a decision. Kerry is the front runner now because people decided they liked what they saw in him and voted for him.

[UTUSN]

18. Faux Viewers Have Been Found to Be Uninformed

I would be in favor of denying Faux viewers the vote.

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

20. I wish!

[HereSince1628]

19. Oh, God, literacy tests in the Democratic Party?

All I can say is well, maybe in the "South" party of the Democratic Coalition, but the "Others" party isn't going to have ANY of that.

[D G]

22. I hope you understand I am *not* advocating anything of that sort

It is more of a theoretical question, in response to something that has been presented as a "problem" in more than one post on DU.

[Dr.Phool]

21. Yippee!!!!! I win everything

According to my best information, I'm the only well informed person in the country.:evilgrin: Of course this means yours truly, being the only one informed:crazy: gets to cast the only vote:toast: and I vote for me, for everything.:party:

I now pronounce myself Cheney-in Chief:puke:, so start licking my boots or else:spank:

[mmonk]

23. no

If they stay uninformed, then that's just the way it is. I believe a person should know as much as possible about their candidate of choice and what's going on in the world, but it's their responsibility.

[D G]

24. This pretty much echoes my view. n/t

[genius]

30. This would be used by the bad buys to discriminate against minorities

But I cannot believe that any informed voter would vote for Dean.

[Kanary]

31. some days yes, some days no

I *do* know that I'm really frustrated with people who obviously know nothing about the issues voting with such dogmatic certainty.

What I *do* believe is that we shouldn't be going out of our way to make it easier -- "motor-voter", same-day registration, etc. If people can't be serious enough to get themselves registered in time, then they aren't serious enough to actually educate themselves about the issues, and the consequences thereof.

We've certainly paid the price for the rampant ignorance.

Kanary

[woofless]

33. Sure, We'll give them a civics test

right after they pay their poll tax.

Sheesh!

[D G]

35. I am not advocating any such requirements

or any requirements for voters, actually. Just wanted to clarify (although I thought my initial post was sufficiently clear, I guess it's not)

[ibegurpard]

34. Sometimes I'd like to but how would you define or test for it?

No way. And who decides what's "informed?" VERY bad road to start down.

[D G]

36. I agree - the "who decides" issue is huge

I wouldn't want to start down this road at all.

[Mairead]

37. Tempting, but no. We already tried that once: it gets bent too quickly

and the test, whether for involvement, or literacy, or what-have-you, somehow always seems to disproportionately disenfranchise pariah groups.

[nancyharris]

40. For 150 years or so

Women were not allowed to vote in part because of people who felt that they could never understand the issues discussed in the political world.

I think any reason for voting for a candidate whether issue orientated or impression oriented (like electability, honesty, eloquence, forcefulness…) is perfectly valid.