I actually can't vote yet, but this video caught my attention:
I know that there's the age limit for voting to make sure that the voters have some type of competence, but why not have some aptitude test on top of the age requirement. I'm not trying to argue for anything but I'm just kind of annoyed at how incompetent/uninformed some "adults" are.
She's voting for Mitt because that's her cat's name and because he's attractive? Those shouldn't even be reasons to support a candidate let alone vote for them. On top of that she only knew Paul Ryan's last name and yet associates herself with republicans/conservatives. Oh and twitter isn't a medium to "watch" the debate.
I just wrote this blog quickly to vent a little, so take what you will.
Trust me I know. Some girl on youtube said she was voting for obama because of a phone she got from him or something stupid like that rofl. Works both ways, just like when people say they will vote for obama because he's black... (you have no idea how many people told me this during the first election -_-)
It's a sad, sad thing. But freedom is a two-way street: you get bad along with the good, and dumb with the smart. The best thing I can recommend, is to improve oneself as much as possible and be an exemplar to others. Someone will take notice. Someday. It's the most we ultimately can do, and that's what we gotta hope for.
Look that woman may be dumb as bricks but you can't go around restricting universal suffrage based on intelligence. All adult citizens should have the right to vote, not just the ones as smart as you.
Aptitude tests are actually a really, really bad idea. While it makes sense in theory, actual application of aptitude tests would largely result in the exclusion of large swaths of voters who simply do not have as high a level of formal education as others, namely, the lower-class. Such class-based exclusion would undermine proper principles of a truly competitive and free election process. Also, education =/= intelligence, and unfortunately, there's just no proper test format that can weed out dumb cases like your youtube video without getting politicized into a tool.
On October 18 2012 07:43 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: Aptitude tests are actually a really, really bad idea. While it makes sense in theory, actual application of aptitude tests would largely result in the exclusion of large swaths of voters who simply do not have as high a level of formal education as others, namely, the lower-class. Such class-based exclusion would undermine proper principles of a truly competitive and free election process. Also, education =/= intelligence, and unfortunately, there's just no proper test format that can weed out dumb cases like your youtube video without getting politicized into a tool.
[Edit]: typo
But if we didn't care about freedom as much as we did an effective electoral process, what would be the downside to aptitude testing?
I know that there's the age limit for voting to make sure that the voters have some type of competence, but why not have some aptitude test on top of the age requirement. I'm not trying to argue for anything but I'm just kind of annoyed at how incompetent/uninformed some "adults" are.
Thanks.
Unfortunately this is the first step towards a rather different government.. Perhaps we should only allow people with blue eyes or blond hair to vote as well?
Here's a better idea, get people educated. Then you don't have to worry about sounding like you want an underclass and you have all the side benefits of not having to deal with ignorant dumbasses.
On October 18 2012 07:52 ZeaL. wrote: Here's a better idea, get people educated. Then you don't have to worry about sounding like you want an underclass and you have all the side benefits of not having to deal with ignorant dumbasses.
Can't really "get people educated;" people have to educate themselves. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. There's only so much money and rhetoric we can throw at schools to solve the problem, when at the end of the day, it truly depends on a combination of students willing to learn, and teachers willing to teach. And far too many pupils simply don't want to learn.
On October 18 2012 07:43 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: Aptitude tests are actually a really, really bad idea. While it makes sense in theory, actual application of aptitude tests would largely result in the exclusion of large swaths of voters who simply do not have as high a level of formal education as others, namely, the lower-class. Such class-based exclusion would undermine proper principles of a truly competitive and free election process. Also, education =/= intelligence, and unfortunately, there's just no proper test format that can weed out dumb cases like your youtube video without getting politicized into a tool.
[Edit]: typo
Not to mention in America the lower class are disproportionately made up by minorities. If we tried to implement such a thing we'd have the LA riots all over again except across the entire country.
On October 18 2012 07:43 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: Aptitude tests are actually a really, really bad idea. While it makes sense in theory, actual application of aptitude tests would largely result in the exclusion of large swaths of voters who simply do not have as high a level of formal education as others, namely, the lower-class. Such class-based exclusion would undermine proper principles of a truly competitive and free election process. Also, education =/= intelligence, and unfortunately, there's just no proper test format that can weed out dumb cases like your youtube video without getting politicized into a tool.
[Edit]: typo
But if we didn't care about freedom as much as we did an effective electoral process, what would be the downside to aptitude testing?
First, freedom is inherently valuable and a (if not THE) primary purpose behind elections, so it would be silly to say "well excluding freedom" from a conversation about elections. Second, it's definitely about way more than freedom, as I explained, it's about preventing the political elites from getting to manipulate the regime according to particularized interests. "Aptitude" is a vacuous term that can be engineered (and has been engineered) to exclude the non-dominant groups of society, leading to inequalities all across the board and a perpetuation of control by the dominant classes in society.
On October 18 2012 07:52 ZeaL. wrote: Here's a better idea, get people educated. Then you don't have to worry about sounding like you want an underclass and you have all the side benefits of not having to deal with ignorant dumbasses.
Can't really "get people educated;" people have to educate themselves. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. There's only so much money and rhetoric we can throw at schools to solve the problem, when at the end of the day, it truly depends on a combination of students willing to learn, and teachers willing to teach. And far too many pupils simply don't want to learn.
Of course its not a simple process and it won't work 100% but there is clearly room to improve. The problem of ignorant voters is not one that can be resolved through such a simple response as an aptitude test and trying to better your citizens instead of disenfranchising them seems to me to be a much better solution.
On October 18 2012 08:02 N.geNuity wrote: blog title very misleading.
"why I'm" -> post youtube video of someone else (presumably, I watched for as long as it took to move my mouse to x the tab)
It's the name of the video so I just used that sry if it's misleading
Idk about testing, but maybe some way to get sites like yahoo/etc. with a lot of traffic to write about politics (as objectively as possible). A lot of news they have on there is junk anyway. I know testing is not a good solution, but I just think that there should be something to get people more informed so they don't base their vote off of twitter or whatever.
On October 18 2012 07:43 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: Aptitude tests are actually a really, really bad idea. While it makes sense in theory, actual application of aptitude tests would largely result in the exclusion of large swaths of voters who simply do not have as high a level of formal education as others, namely, the lower-class. Such class-based exclusion would undermine proper principles of a truly competitive and free election process. Also, education =/= intelligence, and unfortunately, there's just no proper test format that can weed out dumb cases like your youtube video without getting politicized into a tool.
[Edit]: typo
But if we didn't care about freedom as much as we did an effective electoral process, what would be the downside to aptitude testing?
Trying to agree on a universally fair aptitude test would be like trying to get Congress to be productive. But if we were magically able to create a fair test, and agree on it, I think elections would be more tolerable, reasonable, and effective. But if we are going with an aptitude test, why not just have the country run by the experts of their respective fields? There are many things that make sense to implement, but cannot be done in the real world.
Why not have provide voters with a list of candidates and their stances? Afterwards, they have to match candidates to their stances on issues. People who then fail can't vote.
On October 18 2012 10:09 RAGEMOAR The Pope wrote: Why not have provide voters with a list of candidates and their stances? Afterwards, they have to match candidates to their stances on issues. People who then fail can't vote.
Who's going to write that? If the candidates or their party do, they're going to make all their stances on issues sound good. Or they might leave unfavorable parts out.
Even if one does get written, there are a lot of issues that need to be matched which is just a waste of time/energy.
Oh god it's her. I've seen this video. She follows up later saying how Obama is trying to destroy Christianity. Worse thing is that she's even more ignorant of her own religion than about politics.
Freedom goes both ways. She's free to be completely ignorant just as much as we're all free to pursuit intellect.
EPT
