This conversation is closed.

Only informed people should be allowed to vote

The concept of one man one vote as an indication of democracy or equality creates distortion of doing what is good for America (or any other country).

As an informed voter who spent hours learning about a candidate or an issue. Such voter constantly debates the issues with other people, and routinely examines how other countries doing things to see if we can learn something new from others.

On the other hand there are voters, who have never watched C-Span, or discussed political issues. Some people simply watch MTV, or soap opera, or sports? These people as uninformed, and caring, vote as an equal vote to the informed person with hundreds of hours of deliberations about what needs to be done.

So, is that democracy or even efficient way to gather public opinion of anything? I argue BIG NO.

  • Feb 22 2014: Pray tell, what criteria determines whether a person is informed?
    Do you test him/her? Because that'll deteriorate into a dictatorship in no time flat (only the "right" people are allowed to vote).

    There's also the issue of no one person being well informed about everything. What do I do with a voter that's say, very knowledgeable about foreign policy, but doesn't understand the first thing about economics?
    Because if I only take the people who are knowledgeable at everything, I end up with a voting base of about 17 people, pretty much the definition of a dictatorship.

    Paraphrasing Churchil, democracy is admittedly a pretty bad system; its just better then all the other types of government we tried over the years.
    • Feb 24 2014: If you give people free stuff, they will vote for you? At some point, there will be more people riding the cart than pulling the cart?
      • Feb 24 2014: Those sorts of systems do come up every now and again. They tend to collapse soon after, and make way for a system that can actually support itself. Evolution in action.

        It also helps that while some voters may be idiots (did you know that half the population is below average intelligence? Very sad, I know), there are usually enough people smart enough to deliberately avoid voting a system they know will collapse.
        My point is, any attempt to weed out the idiots is doomed to be the end of democracy.
        • Mar 17 2014: So you are saying that the bad system will fall eventually, what if not? I think we should try change things to better, lots of people are just waiting under bad systems and this systems didnt fall, generation after generation.
          I agree that "weed out the idiots" is a bad solution for democracy, therefor is worse, but the problem is still there and still needs a solution, i dont have this solution but i think would be more like changing how the democracy works, making the system better and more democratic
  • Mar 17 2014: You are assuming that informed people are only those that know about politics, candidates, etc... You forget that many other people vote and give opinion based on their experience of the world and their observation of other peoples experiences, and their recognition of what works and what does not work. These people may not have a clue about the political system and its intricacies, but they can certainly deceiver (from their viewpoint) whether one politician is better than another based on each politicians ability to express proposals in a layman way. In fact you could say these people are more informed as their decision is not obscured by the lies and deceits of the political world.

    Additionally you may be very surprised at the breadth of understanding and intellect that many people have. Some people assume the lesser educated are unable to make informed decisions, but education or an individuals IQ has absolutely nothing to do with a persons ability to understand the political system and see it for what it is.

    A rich man may never walk in a poor mans shoes, so is he less informed?

    And believe it or not, MTV, soap opera and sports are all part of the political system.

    Watching C-Span and discussing political issues does not make a person more informed, but makes their viewpoint more obscured and their opinion the byproduct of what they have heard instead of what they recognize as the real truth.
  • Mar 17 2014: From your enunciate >> I argue BIG NO >> are you Tsoukalos??

    Sorry, i couldnt resist
    • Mar 19 2014: Well the sheeple are programmed to have a knee jerk reaction to certain words. You and most Americans are the sheeple! My comment is ment to engage the intellectuals, who think outside the box. For these few are the opinion makers, and the agents of change. Thank you for your comment any way.
      • Mar 19 2014: Do you wanna me to delete my post?

        I am a big fan of Tsoukalos and i thought perhaps you really were him, who knows
  • Mar 17 2014: I have great respect to most of the American people that I encounter, their intelligence, their culture, and their education. But, I have no respect to more than 90% of all the Americans that I encounter regarding their politics.

    The majority are either Republicans or Democrats, and accordingly they repeat whatever the talking points of their respective parties. Perhaps about 1, or 2% of the population read deeper into the behind the front lines.
  • Mar 16 2014: All you need to know to make an informed decision on how to vote is to know whether you are a have or a have-not.
  • thumb
    Mar 9 2014: Your proposition seems valid in theory. How about in practice or reality? Just what Nadav asked, "What are the criteria in determining whether a person is informed or not?" And, who will determine and implement those criteria?

    Honestly, when I was about twenty eight, which was many years ago, I thought about the same thing. After a while I gave up. The idea was driving me nuts.
  • Feb 26 2014: What if we could utilize both the power of the those who are engaged in their democracy, and the 'Sheeples'?

    I've got an idea that might interest you Man on the street, and would like your opinion of it.
  • Feb 25 2014: I am not talking about right or wrong? Basically in this country we have two or three ways of looking at things. Republican, democrat, and libertarian? All three would have different opinion about the same thing, and hence a good democracy is to allow the competent three informed groups to vote. Men who only read the sport section, and women who only read the fashion section of the paper DO NOT QUALIFY AS INFORMED VOTERS.

    Singapore has a benevolent dictator, and a culturally mixed citizens, yet his country became the top economic power house, health, education, ..... I dare to say a good dictator is way better than our banana republic system.
  • thumb
    Feb 25 2014: Even those informed people will be wrong. Politicians change anyway once they'r voted in.
  • Feb 25 2014: I am tired of people who vote according to what their favorite rock star/actor/reality-show star says or their favorite hip-hop DJ opines about, instead of actually accepting the responsibility to inform themselves.

    But to make it a requirement is a slippery slope. Who determines the criteria? Who funds it and polices it? Another layer of bureaucracy. Paid for by taxpayers.

    We have enough government policing us and protecting us from ourselves. As much as I don't like it, people have the right to be ignorant. I am more sick of paying for federal agencies whose necessity has long passed and now simply fabricate their importance to justify their existence.

    We need to stop making everything difficult and complicated. So many things would take care of themselves if we'd stop micro-managing ours, and everybody else's lives.
  • Feb 24 2014: If a person never spend any time watching hearings and political discussions on C-Span, then he/she is not qualified to vote. That is the best measure to illustrate that you care about the issues. People who want to play video games, or watch oprah, or cop chasing and killing the bad guys, or Jerry Springer renting trailer trash low life people to fight on camera, or dudes who never read any parts of the paper except the sport section,......

    All and all, the majority are idiots. We are better having few thousands good voters, than millions of Idiots who wants the government to get in debt to give them things?
  • Feb 24 2014: The Egyptian prime minister was too old. The revolution took place because young people wanted changes. A young well educated with Western values, and experience is a must to install a great work ethics, and vision. The old guards are absolutely worthless SIMPLY because they grew up in a hate infested culture of Arabism. Now Egypt needs to fix the six decades worth of decay. Egypt must capitalize on its own glory, history, and citizens rather than on worrying about uniting the Arabs or liberating Palestine a la Nasser.
  • Feb 24 2014: My point is the American population has majority idiots when it comes to politics. We have so many reasons that have created that much of a lack of participating democracy by interested voters. Chief among them: the notion that if you want to keep the peace, DO NOT DISCUSS RELIGION OR POLITICS. Once, you told the stupid joesixpacks to avoid these subjects, then men talked about sports, and women talked about how stupid men are, and fashion.

    If you would like to know who is qualified to vote, just find out who is watching C-span more than watching cop chasing a killer.

    The bottom line is if your income in $1000/wk, and you spend that in a couple of days, and go to debt to survive the rest of your week? Something has to give! Your will eventually have to refrain from wasting money, and you will run out of credits. To continue on ruination path by having stupid voters, and vulture politicians may lead to collapse of the empire.

    As a country we have ZERO chance of any other country invading us, yet we have a couple of hundred foreign military bases, and causing trouble in a couple of dozen countries at any given day? Our infrastructure is crumbling as we build infrastructure for client states, WHO HATE US. It is only possible to so abusive and arrogant if you have a dictatorship? That is exactly what we are having. Placing one loser after the other in the White House as a figure head for the world to know, and for unwashed masses to look at, just as the guy behind the curtain keep manipulating us.
  • Feb 24 2014: You study the platform of the candidates, and you take a test? If you fail, you don't get to vote this time.

    Remember the video asking people in a California mall to nominate Carl Marx for president since Obama likes him? Every one signed! Another one asking how do you like Sara Palin as Obama Vice President? All said she is doing a great job. These brainless idiots dilute my vote.
    • Feb 24 2014: I hate to have to point this out, but those videos cherry pick the idiots/people going along with the joke.

      Its really not that hard. Say you have five idiots out of a hundred random people, all you have to do is approach around three hundred random people o the street, and you have the fifteen people you need for that type of video. You just edit all the rest of them out.

      Who's to make the test you're supposed to take exactly? Its too easy for the lot of it to deteriorate into the people making the tests deciding the voting base.
      It can't be anyone you vote for, as they have an obvious vested interest. It can't be anyone you don't vote for either, because then the real power sits with the person making the tests--which can't be answerable to an elected body (you know, the whole point of democracy), because again, obvious vested interest.
  • thumb
    Feb 22 2014: There was a really rich guy (a Billionaire) on television not long ago who said that "No one should vote who does not pay at least one dollar in taxes!" [He was a U.S. American so he paid tax in dollars!] So in his view, both freeloaders and the impoverished do not have the fundamental right to vote!

    He went on to say: "In a perfect world, for every dollar paid in taxes, you would earn one-vote to cast in each and every election for every political office!" In other words: "Pay a million dollars in taxes and buy the right to cast one million votes in each election!"

    So much for the idea I grew up with: "One man! One Vote!"

    At least this guy is making no secret as to where he wants to take our society. He want the best government that (his) money can buy! And the government he buys will, no doubt, be a government that he, himself, controls.

    Money seems to be able to do that for you these days.

    Yes, everyone who votes is responsible for being informed sufficiently so as to vote wisely. No one should sell their vote or cast a vote in an election without some foreknowledge of the importance of the choice they are privileged to make. And if nothing else, you can vote for all the candidates of the political party you most agree with. You can vote by party affiliation. Many people do.

    In fact, few people have the time to look up and read up on all six candidates who want to be elected as "County Dog Catcher" or "City Park Ranger." In this latter case, a party vote works.
  • thumb
    Feb 22 2014: how would you screen people to find who is adequately informed?
  • Feb 16 2014: Campaigning through the politically correct buzz words, telling people what they want hear, spin your answer with lies, and exaggerations, tell people one thing, and do whatever the powerful lobbyists tell you; are all the pitfalls that backfires against our attempt to govern ourselves in a democratic way.

    Our politicians need money to run an effective campaign, whoever pay them the big money gets their attention.