> Unless you're pre-informed on the issues, whoever presents it to you can just pick the side that gets you to the answer they want.

This summarizes a good 75% of modern political discourse.

Ironically, this is why a lot of people argue everyone shouldn't vote. Basically, if you add some minor barriers to voting you'll get only those who know and care about what's going on to vote.

Otherwise, you'll have lemmings. Where people with a bit of propaganda will drive everyone else off the cliff.

"Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" - Churchill

There's a reason this quote gets echoed so frequently. Picking special electors to drive the government in a more informed manner is a dangerous path which includes a lot of danger around how to pick those electors.

It might be nice if there was a way to fairly filter out the politically illiterate but then again even the best system is likely just going to result in systemic discrimination against the disenfranchised class... and I think it's pretty damn likely that the filter would be quickly manipulated to shape the voting block in some partisan direction beyond just political literacy.

The argument I've seen is making a national voting day (everyone's off), then they have to travel to a particular area vote.

You can combine it with ID checks and/or proof of residency.

All of which are minor, but easily doable and universally accessible. You don't need a test, just a little bit of effort to remember to bring your wallet and travel 10-30 minutes.

> universally accessible

Somewhat - these things take money. State IDs aren't free and neither are proofs of residency. ID laws are discriminatory against the poor which is likely somewhat aligned with political illiteracy but through a correlation in our current system.

A national voting day coupled with advanced voting would probably help our vote equality quite a bit and having the actual voting day be a holiday would likely discourage folks who'd rather spend a day at the beach.

> ID laws are discriminatory against the poor which is likely somewhat aligned with political illiteracy but through a correlation in our current system.

To get public services in the U.S. you need to have an ID, i.e. food stamps. It's a talking point that is not a real problem. Identifiers of who you are, are a requirement for free and fair elections. Otherwise, everyone just cheats and there is no democracy.

Further, everyone can get an ID, it costs $5-$10 in most states and most states will waive fees if you cannot afford it. Finally, if people can't get to a voting booth during a pre-designated, national holiday, then they don't care enough to vote. Even the homeless could make it happen, if they wanted to.

> A national voting day coupled with advanced voting would probably help our vote equality quite a bit and having the actual voting day be a holiday would likely discourage folks who'd rather spend a day at the beach.

The whole point of my statement was to present the argument (without judgement), the goal is to create a less equal and more discouraged voting system, bias towards those who actually care / follow politics. We want to limit it to the politically literate.

Unless one of the two parties decides that your race is less likely to vote for them, so goes around making the forms of ID most commonly held by people of your race ineligible as voter ID.

> Basically, if you add some minor barriers to voting you'll get only those who know and care about what's going on to vote.

You'll get people with a lot of time on their hands for sure, that's about the only thing one can say with certainty.

(It's not «everyone shouldn't vote», it's «not everyone should vote».) «Minor barriers» are not the only way to achieve that - you can use sophisticated voting systems -, and the definition of such «barriers» is not trivial on many levels (of effectiveness, of fariness etc).

Except the people voting on these laws are not everyone but those that have been chosen to act as informed agents on behalf of the people. How is that working out again?

I have come to believe Yes Minister needs to be required viewing for everyone. Just yesterday, my son shared with me this excellent BBC look back at the show:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=GRocvuyAMeI

If you're a Yes Minister fan, it's a must see IMO.

>Unless you're pre-informed on the issues, whoever presents it to you can just pick the side that gets you to the answer they want.

You don't need to be "pre-informed".

You just need to be skeptical. Some knowledge of history is a good start.

Hence the recent crackdown on “misinformation”. Skepticism and dissent can’t be prevented, but its spread can be suppressed. Many otherwise good people have fallen hook line and sinker for the “misinformation pandemic” propaganda campaign.

There's a huge difference between skepticism (expressing some contrary opinion) and misinformation (putting forward lies as facts), although I have to admit the spreaders of misinformation have gotten very good at innocently claiming they're "just asking questions."

Skepticism is not "expressing some contrary opinion". It is a rationalist discipline, very much rooted in logic. A true skeptic will do one of two things:

- put forward sound arguments why a specific viewpoint or presented fact could be wrong

- reserve judgement altogether

Expressing a contrary opinion is not in the skeptic's playbook, because it would be self-defeating: they would be making the same categorical error as they're arguing against.

That isn't a viable critique. You have to prepare the right answers and bad faith questions are easy to counter. Or maybe not, but you still have to be able to do that. I have seen much more instances where no answers could be provided when people asked legitimate questions that weren't in bad faith at all.

Yes, they are different, but it’s extremely easy to conflate them if the skepticism is contrary to the interests of the powerful and you hold the power to censor.

> crack down on child abuse

Actually today you don't use cracking down on child abuse as a reason, you use the danger of the far-right. All the leading left-wing publications, New York Times, The Guardian, Washington Post, CNN, Vox have been running articles about how dangerous encrypted chat apps are:

> Why right-wing extremists’ favorite new platform is so dangerous. Telegram’s lax content moderation and encrypted chats make it a convenient tool for extremists.

https://www.vox.com/recode/22238755/telegram-messaging-socia...

> In collaboration with anti-fascist research group the White Rose Society, the Guardian has tracked McLean’s activity through the rabbit warren of largely unregulated Telegram groups and found that he describes a vastly different version of his intentions.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/26/where...

> Far-right groups move online conversations from social media to chat apps — and out of view of law enforcement

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/14/telegram-war...

> White supremacists openly organize racist violence on Telegram, report finds

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/26/tech/white-supremacists-t...

> Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot? Telegram and Signal, the encrypted services that keep conversations confidential, are increasingly popular. Our tech columnists discuss whether this could get ugly.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/technology/personaltech/t...

> A report this week found that the messaging app had emerged as a central hub for several conspiracy movements espousing antisemitic tropes and memes, including QAnon, as well as others on the extreme right promoting violence.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/15/parler-...

Nah - cracking down on child abuse remains the best way to get anything done. That is how Florida officials sold HB 1557 and it continues to be a mainstay, especially, in the UK.

Why Telegram is mentioned (which according to HN has no security)? Is Signal mentioned?

A few of them mention both, but generally Telegram has more users, and gets more mentions accordingly.

There's no well-known millionaire founder behind Signal

I thought Signal has some three letter agency with a budget that has a dozen digits behind it.

But these are the good guys to these media. So they keep silent about it.