TheAgitator.com
30 Responses to “Rock or Vote”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Site Features
- Home
- About Radley Balko
- Publications
- Speaking Info
- Multimedia
- Resume
- Picasa Photos
- Recommendations
- RSS Feed
- Buy Agitator Gear
-
-
$12/month Recurring Donation
$6/month Recurring Donation
- My Amazon wishlist
-
Site Credits
Personally I’m in favor of ANYONE who think the bible is a 100% factual text NOT VOTING. Because they are too stupid to vote. But sadly, they have the same right to vote that these morons in the clip have.
Sometimes I think an intelligence test or even a “reality” test would be appropriate but I know these have been so horribly abused in the past as to be unworkable.
By definition 50% of people have below average intelligence. We just have to live with it.
A lot of these voting campaigns do piss me off, when all they say is, “you should vote.” No, you need to educate yourself about the issues and the candidates, and then vote. It’s ridiculous to act like people are doing some great civic duty by simply casting a ballot.
Honestly, I do not think the “uneducated” voter makes a statistical difference. I thik that their votes basically cancel each other out, that is to say, approximately half will vote one way and so on. Their votes for third/fourth parties are statistically unimportant. So, it really doesn’t matter, as a group, which way they vote…
What gets me, though, is this political elitism demonstrated in this video. Just because you cannot recognize Ruth Bader Ginsberg in a photo (I had a guess and was correct, buit wasn’t 100% sure) does NOT mean you could not maske broad, generalistic decisions regarding the Presidency. In fact, to me, it harkens back to the day when only white male land owners could vote. Do we really want that again?
I can’t exactly agree with this little video here. I agree that voting isn’t exactly a civic duty, but the implication that too many people vote seems wrong. On the free market, the American populace “votes” (with their wallets) more often, for more things, and over a much broader age range, and the free market seems to do pretty well. There must be something else going on. I think the problem is that our democratic system isn’t as democratic as the free market.
For example, for president I only get a choice once every four years, and I’m stuck with it until then. I get to vote on what type of milk I prefer about every week, which means the dairy farmer is very much accountable for my up-to-the-minute preferences, and will have to adapt if I don’t like what he’s doing anymore.
There’s also fewer barriers to other contenders entering the milk market. One big barrier in elections is the majority requirement for electors and the all-or-none choice (which pushes the system towards two candidates). Fortunately, my grocery store doesn’t conduct a yearly vote, see which type of milk is most popular, and then only stock that for the next year. They stock many brands, each with variable cream content and size, and they’re open to stocking different brands if one of their current varieties isn’t selling so hot. McCain and Obama will probably get respectively something like 60,000 or 65,000 of the popular vote. That’s around 20% of the overall population. And we have to stick with the one winner, even though they only represent about 20% of us. Companies get power proportional to their share of the vote; imaging if the presidential candidates did too. The system’s not set up for power sharing in the executive branch, but it’s not that complex. The two houses and the supreme court both do it. The Roman consuls did it. It would make the system more democratic.
Also there’s that whole advantage of transparency of information on the market too. It can vary from product to product, but in general I know what I’m going to get, and if don’t get what I expected I can ask for a refund. To be straightforwardly honest, I haven’t the faintest clue what McCain or Obama will do once in the White House. They talk a lot about what they’ll do and there’s lots of speculation swirling around trying to second guess them, but it’s just guesswork. People do surprising things in the White House. And certainly I can’t get a refund on my vote if the president doesn’t turn out like I expect. And then there’s that whole part of all the confidential stuff the executive branch and the military are up to, and the whole problem of the sheer volume of laws that the government produces, that not even the politicians themselves can keep track of all the laws they pass. So, not only do I not know what they’re going to do when in office, I don’t even know everything about what they’re doing while in office. Transparency of information would make the process a lot more democratic.
To me, the problem with the system is not that it’s too democratic or gives the choice to too many people, but that it’s not democratic enough and gives us little chance to give feedback and express our opinion on most issues. Yes, there’s polls, but the polls aren’t that representative and politicians have no obligation to heed them.
Where were the interviews with the bible-thumping, right-wing, Arab Obama haters? I guess it’s okay for these no-nothings to vote, but for young rocker no-nothings not to. I have voted in every election since I was 18 years old (the first year it was legal for under 21′s to vote.) I pride myself in knowing what’s going on, but I wouldn’t dream of telling anyone they shouldn’t vote – this is still a democracy!
I have to give Stossel credit for at least giving some attention to a view that isn’t terribly popular.
It would be doing the country a much bigger favor if these voter registration drives encouraged people to learn something about government, and then let people register themselves. I am not against people voting, but the lack of basic civics knowledge is a real problem. And, I don’t mean recognizing politicians or SCotUS justices. I am more concerned that most people don’t seem to understand the Constitutional role of government at even a basic level. I think if you were to ask the average citizen to explain the concept of a government Constitutionally enumerated powers, you’d get a blank stare.
Of course, that’s also true of the average member of the House or Senate, too… People talk about a basic civics test for voters, but I’d be happy if people in government could pass one.
Should be “government of Constitutionally enumerated powers”…
“Democracy isn’t about taking the most educated portion of society and letting them run things, it’s about letting any fucking moron who has a pulse and no criminal record have a say in how your life is run.”
The basic fallacy in this video is the assumption that more educated (or elite, or whatever you want to call them) people necessarily make “better” choices. Heck, what is the “better” choice anyway? Intelligent, well educated people can and do disagree all the time. Intelligent people can also be remarkably resistant to changing their minds, since they may believe that since they are so smart, their opinion must be right (regardless of the basis of that opinion).
This clip reminds me of an old joke about a reactionary, foolish, politician. When asked about this particular politician, one person quipped, if you think he’s bad, you should get to know his constituents!
I am not going to recommend that a person vote or not vote (for the record, I’m still trying to decide if I’ll even bother this year). That’s a personal decision. But, if you are so inclined, the least you can do is educate yourself. This should not be a beauty pagent or a vote for prom king/queen. Real decisions are being made and real lives are being affected. Perhaps the federal elections should matter less. If we took federalism more seriously, they would. But for now, vitally important decisions are about to be made. Tread carefully, fellow citizens.
What I don’t get is that I hate the political situation in this country, I consider them all immoral scumbags, I avoid as much of the election pablum as possible, yet I can recognize their pictures.
I don’t think “informed” is even the right word – if you don’t know how many states there are or how many senators each state has, you are certainly a government schooling success story, but why would you even want to vote? What possible incentive is there, for someone so lacking in basic knowledge? I have no real understanding of particle physics (I would have to google to see how many types of quarks there are), and so I have no desire to attend a conference of theoretical physicists, or camp out by the super-collider and cheer when it starts up. So why would people unabashedly so clueless about politics or their country, history and all the rest, care about voting?
And #3: Yes. we would be better off if only property owners could vote, or if you had to pass a basic competency test to vote. “Democracy” is not voodoo – just as monarchy “doesn’t work” when an imbecile is on the throne, democracy “doesn’t work” when the imbeciles can vote.
chance, I think the basic assumption of the video is that there is a lot of emphasis on getting people to go vote, even when they know nothing about the issues or people. The video questions whether it is really such a great thing to try and get everyone registered. It never assumes that informed voters would all agree, it just questions the wisdom of working so hard to get uninformed people to the polls.
Like just about anyone, I’d prefer that the people who voted had the same political views that I do. They almost never do. But, when I talk to someone about why he picked this or that candidate or voted one way or another on a ballot initiative (this is in California), I’d find it far less frustrating if the decision was based on more than “I recognized the name” or “I dunno, I just think it’s time for change” or “Damn foreigners” or “I like free stuff”.
Even when knowledgeable people disagree with me and I genuinely think they are mistaken in their reasoning or grasp of the facts, the fact that they bother to try and understand the issue gives me hope that there is a chance to convince them. (Or that they can convince me that their thinking is the better way.) When voting degenerates into “Mister X likes puppies and I like puppies, too!”, then I start wondering if there is some other place I can live or if I just need to start stockpiling ammo.
The problem is not with the education level of the voters – it’s with democracy itself. It’s wrong for one faction of people to dictate to everyone else how to live. Voting just determines which way the guns of government are pointed – but it’s the guns themselves that are the problem. A lot of perfectly intelligent, even brilliant, people are under the impression that they have every right to dictate how much of your income the government should steal and redistribute, how much the government should interfere with the running of your business, the wage you should pay, the benefits you should offer, what kind of foods you should be allowed to eat, substances you should be allowed to consume, etc and so on. The system is the problem – not the clowns running it or the dupes voting for it.
There is a difference between factual knowledge and having an opinion. Everyone has an opinion, at least on the issues that concern them, but few people, if any, know exactly what is going on in Washington.
Of the approximately 10,000 bills initiated within a given cycle, only about 400 come up for a vote. Should we test on the 10,000 or the 400? On the ones that passed or the ones that failed? On how your rep helped a bill or stalled it? How s/he voted and why?
How knowledgeable is your vote?
Screw it. Obama looks better in a suit.
Honestly, I do not think the “uneducated” voter makes a statistical difference. I thik that their votes basically cancel each other out, that is to say, approximately half will vote one way and so on
Read Caplan’s book. Voters have systematically wrong beliefs (about the size of the budget going to foreign aid, for example) and both parties must cater to them.
I’m working on web site to help with this problem. It will match a voter in one district who would vote Republican, with another in the same district who would vote Democratic. Rather than cast votes which would cancel each other out and water down other votes, both agree not to vote. Thus, the remaining votes are made more valuable. Ideally, the only people voting will be the one who make up the winner’s margin of victory. It’ll be easier to count, too.
roy, you lost me there.
Aside from the fact that votes don’t actually cancel each other out because there are no negative votes in our system (votes that can lower a candidate’s total) and that that notion is very wedded to two-party thinking, I am not sure what the advantage is. Suppose candidate A would have gotten 1100 votes and candidate B would have gotten 1000, under the present system. What’s the advantage of having the 1000 voters who would “cancel” one another’s votes staying home so that A gets 100 and B gets 0? Counting the votes isn’t the hard part (despite certain famous counting problems).
And, of course, people go to the polls to vote for more than one office in an election. Coordinating all the proper “cancellations” on the ballot would be a nightmare.
“In fact, to me, it harkens back to the day when only white male land owners could vote. Do we really want that again?”
In a word, yes. The fundamental reason that only white male landowners could vote was not that the social mores of the time were sexist and racist (they were) but that generally speaking, the only people whose opinions were worth listening to were the white male landowners. How many women, slaves, natives, and bums do you think really gave two shits about freedom of speech or the right to bear arms?
It may make me a horrible elitist to say so, but the only people who should have the right to vote are those that know what they’re talking about. We shouldn’t return to the day when only white male landowners could vote, but we should return to the idea that certain people forfeit their right to vote based on the fact that they are an idiot.
On second thought, given that populism is responsible for some of the worst evils foisted on us by our government, I’ll wear my elitist label with pride.
“the only people who should have the right to vote are those that know what they’re talking about.”
A skilled rhetorician or a biased test could make any of us sound like we don’t know what you’re talking about. So are you willing to lose your right to vote because you can’t answer some obscure policy question on ITAR regulations without Googling it?
I’m fine with morons voting. I’m fine with morons running for office. My issue is with the morons refusing to allow candidates not in the republican or democratic party participate in the debates.
It feels like the morons won’t let me into their party and they control the beer and the pool tables. Or, they force me to go to a non-alcohol disco with those goofy lottery games as the only diversion. Nightmare either way.
Point taken. I think we could agree on a fair common baseline standard, such as relatively basic knowledge from the Constitution. A good starting point might be the U.S. citizenship test, especially now that they have redone the test to be less arcane historic americana knowledge and more politically relevant Constitutional knowledge. I think you’d be unpleasantly surprised at how many people would be disqualified by a test that asks questions such as, “Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?” and “What are the first words to the Constitution?”
If you want a good sampling, check this article out.
Mike, even many of the questions on that test are historical knowledge questions that don’t have much to do with understanding the proper role and limits of government. I mean, you and I and most Agitators here will ace that test. But, knowing that Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independence or that Maine wasn’t among the original 13 colonies doesn’t really have much to do with deciding whether McBama’s views regarding the Commerce Clause or the First Amendment are signs of utter retardation or merely disingenuous sophistry.
(BTW, some of those questions were pretty good, as regards useful civics knowledge. I wouldn’t mind if the people who can’t get #11 or #12 correct at least also have the courtesy to not know #15.)
Anyway, as much fun as it may be to talk about, a voting qualification test is a non-starter. I seriously would expect to see Wickard v. Filburn tossed out before voter knowledge testing is on the table. Of course, if that happened, I would be too busy opening champagne to noticed if they turned the Cosmo quiz into the voter qualification test. ;-)
“How many women, slaves, natives, and bums do you think really gave two shits about freedom of speech or the right to bear arms?”
Are you serious? I mean, really? If you want to talk about voting disqualifiers – I think that statement qualifies.
By definition 50% of people have below average intelligence. We just have to live with it.
That’s not true. Are you sure you are smart enough to vote?
Well let’s see if you measure the intelligence of every person find the one most average, excluding that person, half will be higher and half lower. Isn’t that what average means?
Been many years since math class but I’m pretty sure that’s a good summation of the concept.
ktce2, consider this case. You measure the IQ of 5 people. Four of them score 125 each. (You’d probably allow them to vote.) The fifth person has an IQ of 50.
Dust off your rusty math skills and tell me how many of the group of 5 score below the group’s average on the IQ test.
kt
No your talking about: Median – The middle number in an ordered set of data, or the average of the two middle numbers when the set has two middle numbers
Mean – average: approximating the statistical norm or average or expected value
Hand in your voter card!! ;)
ktce2 gets some slack here because I’m pretty sure that IQ is designed to fit the normal distribution, meaning that mean becomes median.
I think #19 and #23 have highlighted the issue perfectly. Any system of tests or qualifications is inherently subjective. It’s great when the self-appointed “smart” people want people like themselves to vote, but I’m guessing you’re going to get some pretty heated disagreement on who else is allowed into the club. Really, it would just be another instance of mob rule: whoever the mob thinks is smart will vote.
Not even getting to the point of whether “smart” people make good decisions, which is a huge question. I think if people think through the actual implications, they’ll quickly realize that open democracy is better than the alternatives.
http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm
Actually, this shows I was correct.
LOL the Disco Biscuits used to be my favorite band, and I think it’s hilarious that Marc Brownstein is a voting advocate. I would probably do whatever is the exact opposite of what he’s suggesting. That would include not voting when you’re on molly.