Nope, 100% serious.
It's wrong because voting is an inherent citizenship right; it cannot be made...
I agree completely. In no way do I advocate any sort of qualification. That's a slippery slope the first step of which is incredibly steep.
What I'm advocating is that people self-select. I wish we could each reflect personally, and try to determine whether we really have the knowledge and understanding that's necessary to judge; and then honestly decide whether that the conclusion allows us to impose our thoughts on others.
The government enforces its policies, ultimately, by force and violence. If you're going to threaten someone (by way of the government) with force, you'd better be damned confident that there's a good reason to do so.
I find the totality of your comments in this thread incredibly offensive. To suggest that citizens abdicate their right to vote is incredulous. I am of the opinion that every citizen should be encouraged to vote by any and all legal means. If for no other reason then to educate people as to the mechanics of democracy let alone exercise a right that generations of people have died to ensure.
I'd have an easier time understanding where I've gone astray if you could address my two questions:
1. Is it immoral to vote by dice?
2. In what ways does an ignorant voter, reacting emotionally to propaganda, differ from voting by dice?
Let me state it simply: Voting is a right given to a citizen who meets certain definitions (i.e. inmates cannot vote). It's not up to you, or me, or the government to dictate or judge what they will do with their vote. They can roll a dice, use Tarot cards, be influenced by O'Reilly, whatever. It's their right to use however they see fit.
Ideas like yours do great damage because they provide fuel to idiotic movements like the Tea Party.
Would you want an uninformed, unintelligent leader? If not, would you want uninformed, unintelligent people to choose a leader?
Of course, I do agree that there are issues with the proposal - self-selection would be a bad choice thanks to Dunning-Kruger [2] - and I do agree that any kind of 'you must have an IQ this high to vote' would be a bad idea, due to those entrenched in power setting the requirements.
Personally, I would prefer a solution based on better political and economic education, but that's such a difficult problem.
[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Problem is, rarely I find myself in a setting where these interesting topics can be discussed in a rational setting. But that's the subject of another post.
My rational argument against CWuestefeld's suggestions is simple (based on entropy minimization): Do not make any complex issue even more complicated by your actions.
Let me explain: In its essence CWuestefeld suggestion rests on the notion that some voters' votes are off less value. If we accept this, then the question becomes, how do we determine the value: who should be allowed to vote. He says that it should be contingent on "knowledge of economics, full understanding of the issues etc.". I might counter with a different definition, e.g. "Most politics is dominated by men, so men should know better" or the somewhat better "without knowing the reality of a factory worker, how can you vote on issues that affect us". This leads to murky, philosophical debate that makes the issue even more complex and intractable than the one it's trying to solve.
how do we determine the value: who should be allowed to vote
To be clear, I believe that everyone should be allowed to vote. I'd go so far as to say that even felons should be allowed to, for fear that the legal system could otherwise be used as a tool to stifle electoral dissent.
My suggestion that some people not cast a vote is intended to be entirely personal, as a matter of conscience and reflection. If anyone honestly believes that his ideas are the product of rational thought applied to an understanding of the situation, then by all means, cast that vote.
I don't think that your murky water criticism can apply, because I'm not asking -- nor trusting -- anyone else to judge. I'm asking for a person's own, honest, self-evaluation. No one else need know if you exercised this option or not, and it's none of their business.
Moreover, this doesn't relate to a single person monolithically. A person might have very well informed ideas about one topic, yet be ignorant about another. The decision ought to be made on a vote-by-vote basis. For example, this morning I did not cast a vote for County Freeholder. Although I know who the incumbent is, and don't have anything in particular against him, I don't know enough about county-level politics, nor the candidates, to make an informed decision, so I abstained. Yet I did cast a vote for US Representative, County Sheriff, etc.
I'm also sympathetic to the criticism that Dunning-Kruger might make this backfire.
Why would you so blatantly misrepresent what someone said? All CWuestefeld said is that if you don't know that much about politics, don't vote. Or does that somehow equate to denying someone the right to vote in your mind?
> Voting is a right given to a citizen who meets
> certain definitions (i.e. inmates cannot vote).
I got curious, so rather than going lunch, did some Wikipedia reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_Sta.... Turns out the right to vote cannot be denied based on :
* Religion (in Constitution is found in Article VI, section 3. * "Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (15th Amendment, 1870) * "On account of sex" (19th Amendment, 1920) * "By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" (24th Amendment, 1964)
Conversely, this means that the right can be denied based on other factors, just not one of the above.
It also says: "As of July 2007, fourteen states, eleven of them in the South, ban anyone with a felony conviction from voting for life." This is outrageous, and should be considered a cruel and unusual punishment! When someone servers their term, they should be given their citizenship rights back.
I agree that this is heinous. Through this means, the political process can hijack the judicial system to eliminate dissent. This means, for example that anyone who had been convicted of sodomy (back when that was still a crime, and if it had been a felony) would be barred from participating in the democratic process, e.g., for pursuing gay marriage.
When someone servers their term, they should be given their citizenship rights back.
But: are you willing to also return to them their 2nd Amendment right to keep & bear arms? (for the record, I am)
2. Imho, the act of voting in and of itself encompass a conscious decision to act. To act requires thought. Who are we to judge the beliefs or thought process that leads a citizen to vote?
Even if the voter was "reacting emotionally to propaganda", so what? I find it interesting that you use three very loaded words within a span of four.
Reacting. You paint this voter as reptilian. Incapable of thought and merely reacting to various primal instincts.
Emotionally. You impugn this voters ability to remain uncompromised and imply a certain level of deficit.
Propaganda. You concern yourself with the message the citizen receives and pass judgment as to whether or not it meets your standards of information.
[edit] Allow me to elaborate on your first question. You either have the right to vote or you do not. If I chose to vote based on which side of the bed I woke up on then so be it. To say otherwise is to assert your opinion over my right.
You, Sir, are emotionally compromised on this issue.
HN readers, please vote today.
It's wrong because voting is an inherent citizenship right; it cannot be made contiguous on intellectual (or any other, e.g. socio-economic class) aspects, e.g. knowledge of economics, full understanding of the issues etc. of a voter. If you open the door to voter discrimination by declaring some votes less equal than others, who knows what other ideologies may walk through it.
It is also dangerous because it creates a sense of "right". The one thing that always amazed me in my discussions with liberals in the US is that they argue that their position is, how to put it, "inherently right", i.e. that they are the informed ones, whereas the "others" are the hoi polloi, the uneducated, stupid masses. Years earlier, in the race between Kerry and Bush, when I pointed to these people that Kerry came across as unlovable and stiff, I was met with disbelief: It was Kerry's "right" to be elected because he was "right". The danger of this view, of course, is that it often leads to defeat. In any confrontation, knowing the enemy's full power is crucial and belittling them will not make you win the war.