Just Saying -- the soapbox thread

[somnif]

*If you're informed.

https://ballotpedia.org Is a good place to start, so long as you supplement it with additional info.

[thesmokingman]

while being informed should improve the quality of the result, there's a more serious lack of quantity that makes any result less representative. 

[Frag Magnet]

while being informed should improve the quality of the result, there's a more serious lack of quantity that makes any result less representative.

Do we really need this guy's representation?

(tl;dr, Florida Man broke into a crocodile park, jumped in with the crocodiles, was bit, got out, then jumped in again.)



Frankly, I'm far more concerned with the quality of the candidates than how many people decide to vote for them and lately the two major parties in the US seem more concerned with serving shit sandwiches than they are with fielding high caliber candidates.

[dan.schumaker]

[Muadzin]

Halloween has never been part of the Netherlands, but the constant onslaught of American TV shows, together with shops trying to ram anything down our throats that they think will generate more revenue we see more and more Halloween things happening here. I reckon the tactic works as they managed to ram American christmas down our throats as well.

Have a problem with Americans?

Only with Dutch retailers ramming American valentine's day, halloween and christmass traditions down our throats so they can sell more stuff. Going to foreign places to see strange new cool things and tradition is an awesome thing. To see them get imported and even replace local traditions just so they make a quick buck, not so much.

[midwayfair]

Hey, American folks out there.

You should Totally vote today.

All the cool kids are doing it. So you should too!

*If you're informed.

What the hell?

Everyone's version of "informed" is different. For some people, that's playing team politics because they've decided that enough of their personal beliefs are tied to the goals of a particular party. For some people it's researching every candidate and calling the office of the judges in the city to demand their political orientation if they want a vote. For some people it's voting against incumbents out of principle.

NPR had interviews with people from [a state] today. One of them said that her vote was based on her kids losing their freedom to "do what they want" if a particular party's candidate were in office, and then she said that she was voting for the same party because she wanted them to prevent [certain minority group] from enjoying [a particular institution] because she doesn't approve of their lifestyle, with zero indication that she understood that she was, essentially, saying that she wanted freedom only for her kids and not someone else's.

I bet that person thinks they're informed, but their level of introspection makes them sound, to me, about on par with the species of FloridaMan you posted. But they should absolutely be allowed to cast their vote.

[thesmokingman]

it is easy to throw Florida Man out there as your ad absurdum argument ... I'll offer a counter. It is generally accepted both inside and outside of America that the country's education system is in decline and has been for some time. If being informed is your yardstick, one could argue that there's a systematic quality issue regarding the conversion of raw data into information due to a decline in the quality of the education that is meant to sharpen your ability to apply critical thinking to any given problem. One side calls it alternative facts, the other calls it fake news. If this poor quality of information is to be turned into wisdom to be applied at the polls the results may well be better off in the hands of a bunch of well-meaning idiots rather than fools convinced they are right. The idiots won't know why the clock is broken but the fools will insist the time is always half past three.

[Frag Magnet]

Everyone's version of "informed" is different.

Agreed. This is an inherently subjective observation on my part.

However when you look at the percentages of Americans who can't name all three branches of government (or even one branch), tell you how the government works (and forget about the Liberal (in the John Locke sense of the word) principals the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written under), I think it's clear that there's a fundamental problem here.

For some people, that's playing team politics because they've decided that enough of their personal beliefs are tied to the goals of a particular party.

And depending on the individual, that may or may not be a 'correct' answer.

For some people it's researching every candidate and calling the office of the judges in the city to demand their political orientation if they want a vote.

It would be excellent if more of us had the time to do this.

NPR had interviews with people from [a state] today. One of them said that her vote was based on her kids losing their freedom to "do what they want" if a particular party's candidate were in office, and then she said that she was voting for the same party because she wanted them to prevent [certain minority group] from enjoying [a particular institution] because she doesn't approve of their lifestyle, with zero indication that she understood that she was, essentially, saying that she wanted freedom only for her kids and not someone else's.

I bet that person thinks they're informed, but their level of introspection makes them sound, to me, about on par with the species of FloridaMan you posted.

I'd agree.

But they should absolutely be allowed to cast their vote.

I agree on the grounds that the law is what it is today and we must follow the law.

However, the more history I read, the more I think that if not quite on the exact correct path, the Framers of the US Constitution and thinkers like Heinlen were headed in the right general direction.

What exactly the best path is? I don't know.

EDIT: And regardless of what the 'perfect' answer might be, it could be possible that there's no just way for us to arrive at that answer now and we need to figure out how to make the best of the status quo by working out carrots to encourage more voters to know who they're voting for and why.

That being said, I don't think "even if you don't know what you're doing, just go out and vote for for somebody!" is a constructive approach to this debate. Not saying anyone here is advancing that idea, but I've definitely seen it multiple times on social media today.

[Frag Magnet]

it is easy to throw Florida Man out there as your ad absurdum argument ... I'll offer a counter. It is generally accepted both inside and outside of America that the country's education system is in decline and has been for some time. If being informed is your yardstick, one could argue that there's a systematic quality issue regarding the conversion of raw data into information due to a decline in the quality of the education that is meant to sharpen your ability to apply critical thinking to any given problem. One side calls it alternative facts, the other calls it fake news.

I've argued for a long time now that our education system needs to do significantly better on teaching civics and critical thinking .

If this poor quality of information is to be turned into wisdom to be applied at the polls the results may well be better off in the hands of a bunch of well-meaning idiots rather than fools convinced they are right. The idiots won't know why the clock is broken but the fools will insist the time is always half past three.

If what I saw in combat is any indication, it's actually (at least in the short term) better to take a single course of action and with a purpose than it is for everyone to mill around aimlessly as individuals. The fools are right twice a day, even if by accident; the random gaggle is (in aggregate) always wrong.

[matmosphere]

it is easy to throw Florida Man out there as your ad absurdum argument ... I'll offer a counter. It is generally accepted both inside and outside of America that the country's education system is in decline and has been for some time. If being informed is your yardstick, one could argue that there's a systematic quality issue regarding the conversion of raw data into information due to a decline in the quality of the education that is meant to sharpen your ability to apply critical thinking to any given problem. One side calls it alternative facts, the other calls it fake news.

I've argued for a long time now that our education system needs to do significantly better on teaching civics and critical thinking .

If this poor quality of information is to be turned into wisdom to be applied at the polls the results may well be better off in the hands of a bunch of well-meaning idiots rather than fools convinced they are right. The idiots won't know why the clock is broken but the fools will insist the time is always half past three.

If what I saw in combat is any indication, it's actually (at least in the short term) better to take a single course of action and with a purpose than it is for everyone to mill around aimlessly as individuals. The fools are right twice a day, even if by accident; the random gaggle is (in aggregate) always wrong.

Just curious, but do either of you know anyone who has taken a government or civics class in the past 5-10 years? Growing up in the nineties I went to what was considered a great high school. Now I teach at what's considered an okay school (on the low side for this area) and the kids are getting a much better education than I did. I know it's not true a everywhere, but I take some issue with the argument that the quality of education is declining. School is certainly different than it was when I was a student but I'm not sure it's worse.

And everybody gets to vote regardless of how "informed" they are and there is nothing wrong with that concept. Would I encourage everyone to make sure they understand what they're voting for? Sure, I encourage that, but I wouldn't expect or  require them to.

[Govmnt_Lacky]

[thesmokingman]

well ... where are the wrestling kittens?

[drog_trog]

Damn democrats in the house. Hope Trump gets back in in 2020.

[midwayfair]

We're not arguing about politics, we're arguing about the mechanisms of politics. There's a difference.

The bottom line is that the right to vote extends equally to (nearly) all persons under the law. An individual is and ought to be the sole arbiter of their choice to exercise that vote. The mere suggestion that a person should self-select not to exercise their rights based on another person's criteria for them being "qualified" is highly dangerous. The idea is also, whether Frag realizes it or not, related to an exceptionally ugly history of denying people the vote ("literacy" tests). I would also argue that it is almost certainly anathema to almost every political affiliation: Conservatives and libertarians should be put off by something that would supercede the primacy of the individual's rights. Liberals and progressives should be off-put by a powerful group enforcing or coercing weaker groups (including "idiots") from exercising their fundamental rights.

And from a purely intellectual standpoint, the possibility that you are ruled by "idiots" should discourage you, as a society, from producing enough "idiots" that they form the majority. If you block the "idiots" from voting, they're still around, but now they're mad at you because you aren't listening to them.

I know it probably seems like I'm picking on Frag here about an off-hand comment, but I really think there's something important to discuss behind it. I know for a fact Frag doesn't feel the same way about other fundamental rights based on what he's written here in the past.

By the way, college students seem just about the same to me now as they did in 2002 the first time around, except they're all nicer to each other and seem less likely to blow off their coursework overall.

[madbean]

Damn democrats in the house. Hope Trump gets back in in 2020.

Which part of this is unclear?

It's cool to discuss current events but I will ask to keep away from any tribal type politics or talking about specific political parties. General statements and discussion are fine so long as it is approached with some detachment.