Too uninformed to vote?

[Cowperson]

This column in the LA Times today, asking if there should be a knowledge qualification level in order to vote, reminded me again of the poli-sci professor a million years ago who opined to a class I was in: "Seventy-five percent of people are chronic know-nothings and shouldn't be allowed to vote."

He was talking about Canadian voters. That's an observation I've never forgotten. Nor do I agree with it.

However, this gentleman makes some interesting points. And yes, although directed at the American electorate, this could easily be applied to Canadian voters, European voters, Argentinian voters, etc.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...ome-commentary

Debate!!!

Cowperson

[Slava]

I am very politically involved, and it has never ceased to amaze me that when you go door-to-door at the height of an election (with signs all over and headlines in the paper) that some people don't even know it's taking place!

That being said though, even the most apathetic have to have the right to vote.

[Alana Flames]

It really frustrates me to see the non-interest some people have towards politics. Many people have told me that they just vote for the person with the best name. That may have been fine for jr. high school elections but there is a reason there is a legal age to vote. A voter is supposed to be responsible and informed- and involved enough to make a decsion that best benefits them and agrees with their values.

But so many don't care- I'm not sure why there is such disregard for their own interests. I have pondered many a time whether there should be some sort of knowledge requirment in order to vote. Often it seems like the best option- but then I think- are the less-informed any less entitled to a vote- even if that vote is flawed?

Surely many people would fail the test and the voter ratio would drop even more...Or many would just not bother to go through the trouble. And those who do decide to vote and be informed could pottentially make for a very lop-sided vote. After all, extremeists can be informed- that doesn't mean they will make a responsible decision.

It's a tough call. Very frustrating and I wish more citizens showed interest towards their government and society. A lot of people seem to not to vote because they feel they aren't informed enough, so perhaps this system is alreday in effect voluntarily to a certain degree. Is Australia any better off by having a forced vote, or does it result in an election where in the majority of the votes are based on no paticular facts or any sort of platform?

Very very frustrating and definatly a good debate. Unfortunatly there never seems to a be a clear answer.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Alana Flames

It really frustrates me to see the non-interest some people have towards politics. Many people have told me that they just vote for the person with the best name. That may have been fine for jr. high school elections but there is a reason there is a legal age to vote. A voter is supposed to be responsible and informed- and involved enough to make a decsion that best benefits them and agrees with their values.

But so many don't care- I'm not sure why there is such disregard for their own interests. I have pondered many a time whether there should be some sort of knowledge requirment in order to vote. Often it seems like the best option- but then I think- are the less-informed any less entitled to a vote- even if that vote is flawed?

Surely many people would fail the test and the voter ratio would drop even more...Or many would just not bother to go through the trouble. And those who do decide to vote and be informed could pottentially make for a very lop-sided vote. After all, extremeists can be informed- that doesn't mean they will make a responsible decision.

It's a tough call. Very frustrating and I wish more citizens showed interest towards their government and society. A lot of people seem to not to vote because they feel they aren't informed enough, so perhaps this system is alreday in effect voluntarily to a certain degree. Is Australia any better off by having a forced vote, or does it result in an election where in the majority of the votes are based on no paticular facts or any sort of platform?

Very very frustrating and definatly a good debate. Unfortunatly there never seems to a be a clear answer.

i don't vote because there are no decent options that make me want to vote. the liberals are too corrupt and pussified, i disagree with the conservative viewpoints, and the NDP is just loonytunes. i feel like Stan in that episode of South Park where the only electoral options are between a giant ###### and a turd sandwich. and i refuse to get registered and spend my time to vote only to try and figure out which candidate sucks the least

[KAI]

I think it is a sorry excuse to say that you don't vote because there is no viable option. In politics you will never find a party that represents your views 100%, the only thing you can do is vote for the least worst option. And even if they are all equally bad go out and vote even if it means you just purposely spoil your ballet. If ever disinfranchised voter spoiled their ballot it would be documented and a message would be sent.

[Alana Flames]

Ah yes, South Park. That was a good episode. But, I remember it being that the disinterested and uninformed children chose to put those two up for election because they thought it was a joke.
The episode showed that when people don't show an interest or seek knowledge into their politicians- the vote becomes tarnished or ridiculous and you end up voting between a turd sandwich and a giant ######.

There are many independent candidates in most elections that represent different views. However, even if there is not one single candidate that reprisents all youtr views, you have to choose the one that does so best. Otherwise you are just allowing the mis-representation to continue. Just because they don't get elcted doesn't mean your vote doesn't count. Also, parties and candidates get funds for each vote received- so even if you like someone who you know won't win, your vote helps them for next time.

Everyone hates politics because they suck so they don't vote. But politics sucks BECAUSE people don't vote. It's a vicious circle that cna be easily broken if people would make an effort to stay informed and vote.

[Burninator]

Remember you don't always have to vote for the candidate that best suits your interests. You can always vote AGAINST another party/candidate.

[ken0042]

Not trying to gang up on you HC- but I hear your comment all too often. The issue is that there will never be the exact right candidate for you unless we go to a 257 party system; and thanks to there being 4 or 5 federal parties in the last decade or so; there was little done to change the polictical landscape.

Plus with you note voting, that makes the vote of the proverbial "guy voting for the candidate with the best name" all that much more inportant. Because it isn't just you not voting; it's 30-50% of the population not voting. And a significant potion of the candidates win with one of the following: less than 50% of the total votes, or fewer than 10% more votes than the 2nd place guy.

As for the original topic; I think everybody should be allowed to vote; it's the vote of us common folk that decides who we want to make the votes that count. I can't vote on any bills that get proposed; so I want to appoint somebody who will look out for my interests.

What I would like to see is the voting age lowered; but only if those young kids can pass a test. (I'm talking 14-17 year olds.) Get them involved in the political process early; and get their interests up.

[Buff]

I'm not a fan of following politics, but I do pay attention to what is happening so that I am not totally out of the loop come election time. I'm not voting for names.

I have a friend who refuses to vote until they come up with a system that makes the candidates follow through with their claims once they are elected.

[Cal-Gal]

Just before Canada Day, Ipsos Reid released a poll stating that 60% of Canadians would fail the Citizenship Test.
Never-mind being too uninformed to vote.....Apparently most Canadians are too uninformed to even be Canadians.

Putting conditions on who can vote is always problematic - and as the article states - its essentially anti-democratic to do so. If we did have such a test to qualify voters, who would be disqualified?? The mentally handicapped?? Perhaps new Canadians who's grasp of English or French was not up to par?? The very elderly whose minds may have wandered on them??

That said....I also disagree with the notion of Mandatory Voting. Somehow coercing people to vote seems as bad as excluding them from the process.

The probelm with having such low voter turnout, as we do in Canada is that no one really knows why those who didn't vote, didn't vote. Was it because they are like Hemi-Cuda and can't find an appealing option on the ballot?? Was it because they feel uninformed?? Is it just apathy?? Did it rain on election day, and they decided not to bother??

I guess this kind of sums it up for me....

[Alana Flames]

Originally Posted by ken0042

What I would like to see is the voting age lowered; but only if those young kids can pass a test. (I'm talking 14-17 year olds.) Get them involved in the political process early; and get their interests up.

That's a really interesting a valid idea. When I turned 18 the thing I was most excited about was that I could vote. Maybe you are sitting there calling me a nerd. That's fine. The point is that there are a LOT of younger people interested in and involved in politics. Many of them are far more informed than the majority of adults.

However, if we do this, and make only the youth take a test, it starts to become discrimination on some level... and then the vote can become lopsided again because there are a portion of adults voting blind but not youth doing so.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."

"The most effectual means of preventing [the perversion of power into tyranny are] to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes."

"Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to, convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty."

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government;... whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."

Thomas Jefferson said all of these things while discussing the government, the people, the elective process, and the oversight of government. Without education and an understanding of the issues democracy becomes illiberal and corrupt. The media is our greatest source of information today, and we rely on it for much of our education on the issues that shape our lives, yet we allow them to feed us nothing that is relevant to our lives. The Fourth Estate instead focuses on mindless fluff and distraction. Whether it by accident or by design, the electorate is subject to a dumbing down, and with that comes a weakness in our democracy in the long term. It was like Jefferson had a window into the future and left many warnings of the abuses that could/would take place in our times. We can still learn much from listening to what this brilliant individual had to say.

[worth]

The political party I want to vote for didn't have a representative in my riding last election, so if the next election comes around and they still dont, i don't know if I will vote. And this is coming from someone who has never abstained from voting be it on the municipal, provincial or federal level in the 5 years i've been able to vote.

The ability to vote is a democratic basis, when we start limiting that to people who are "smart" or only know certain things or can pass a certain test is the day we lose what's left of our democracy.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Buff

I'm not a fan of following politics, but I do pay attention to what is happening so that I am not totally out of the loop come election time. I'm not voting for names.

I have a friend who refuses to vote until they come up with a system that makes the candidates follow through with their claims once they are elected.

that's a great point as well, how many election promises has Harper backed out on now? that makes it even harder to pick a candidate to vote for as half the time their stance on issues change the moment they're elected

and as for finding the candidate that best matches my views, i know it doesn't have to be an exact match. as far as my political views go i think the liberals are probably the closest match. but i have no real desire to vote for them after the Paul Martin debacle and i absolutely despise Stephane Dion

personally my view is that it's up to the parties and candidates to make people want to vote for them, otherwise why not just make it mandatory? and until that time where someone comes along that makes me say "ok i really want this guy in office" then i'll continue to put in my own act of protest by abstaining from the whole f$%#ed up process entirely

EDIT: oh and i also refuse to buy into the whole "voting against someone" because that only reinforces negative campaigning, which i think is the absolute lowest form of politics. just look at the states, half the democrats (hell and even some republicans) whole campaign is that they're "Not Bush". i want to see who can get their views and ideas across the best, not who can dig up the most dirt

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

EDIT: oh and i also refuse to buy into the whole "voting against someone" because that only reinforces negative campaigning, which i think is the absolute lowest form of politics. just look at the states, half the democrats (hell and even some republicans) whole campaign is that they're "Not Bush". i want to see who can get their views and ideas across the best, not who can dig up the most dirt

That's not what I meant by voting against someone, if you are referring to me. I'll make up an example. I don't support the Conservative party, but they are the most likely party to win here in Alberta. And let's say I vote Liberal, not because they most represent my views, but because they are the closest competition to the Conservatives. In this case I wouldn't be voting for the Libs because they support my views, I would be voting for them in the hopes of ousting the Cons. Make sense?

[J pold]

I know nothing about politics nor do I really care

However I do vote but simply because so many people had to sacrifice so much to have the right to do it…I basically vote for who ever my grandfather does we seem to value the same things

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Burninator

That's not what I meant by voting against someone, if you are referring to me. I'll make up an example. I don't support the Conservative party, but they are the most likely party to win here in Alberta. And let's say I vote Liberal, not because they most represent my views, but because they are the closest competition to the Conservatives. In this case I wouldn't be voting for the Libs because they support my views, I would be voting for them in the hopes of ousting the Cons. Make sense?

but see then the liberals can see that, and then start campaigning about why the conservatives shouldn't be in power, not why the liberals should be. everytime i see a negative attack ad on someone, i hate the party sponsoring the ad more than the person they're attacking

[ken0042]

To continue with Burnator's train of thought- let me give you an example. Years ago in Winnipeg I was living in a riding that was largely Liberal/NDP. The two parties would go back and forth for who had power in that riding. Now myself; I really wanted the PC candidate to win; but I knew he didn't stand a chance. So I voted Liberal; because their views were closer to mine, and because I really didn't have any issues with the Liberal candidate, but the NDP one was out of touch.

Just another example of how you can vote against somebody; but still not really support the person you want.

[burn_baby_burn]

I was living in Australia during their election in 1998. I thought the whole idea of being forced to vote was ridiculous for a free society. Not only that, the government scheduled the election on a saturday of a long weekend. The tv news showed brides coming into vote with their wedding gowns on. More than one Aussie asked me if it was manditory by law to vote in Canada. When I told them "no". They would ask why? "Because Canada is a free county", I would tell them.

[Salt Water Cowboy #10]

I think some people aren't interested in the voting process for the same reasons people are losing interest in the Tour de France. to much bs and cheating. I do vote, but, it pains me every time I do.