posted
For as long as it lasts? Ignorance only lasts as long as they choose not to become informed. Thus, it is not a parameter, but part of the choice.
You don't say, for instance, that "It's okay to break the law as long as your ignorance of the law lasts." You don't say "It's okay to be a bad parent as long as your ignorance of parenting lasts." You don't say "It's okay to spread lies as long as your ignorance of the truth lasts." And you don't say "It's okay to not vote as long as your ignorance of the election lasts."
No - instead, you get informed. Until you do that, you've made the wrong choices.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd argue that there's a very significant category of people missing from your classifcation Dag: the voters who think they're informed when they actually aren't. I think they make up a large majority of the people you classified as informed voters.
If we restricted people who could pass a reasonable test or some other way substantiate that they are sufficiently informed about political matters, I think we'd drastically reduce the amount of people who could vote in this country.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ignorance only lasts as long as they choose not to become informed.
I think MrSquicky's post refutes this nicely.
quote:I'd argue that there's a very significant category of people missing from your classifcation Dag: the voters who think they're informed when they actually aren't. I think they make up a large majority of the people you classified as informed voters.
Probably. But I'd bet it's impossible to truly determine which people belong in that group.
quote:If we restricted people who could pass a reasonable test or some other way substantiate that they are sufficiently informed about political matters, I think we'd drastically reduce the amount of people who could vote in this country.
I doubt there's any fair way to create such a test, since the very wording of the questions would reflect some political opinion or another, no matter how carefully formed.
quote: If we restricted people who could pass a reasonable test or some other way substantiate that they are sufficiently informed about political matters, I think we'd drastically reduce the amount of people who could vote in this country.
Even if it were possible to do this effectively and fiarly, it would be too open to abuse. Too many people believe that you can't hold X opinion unless you are ignorant and/or stupid.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Access to information doesn't matter in this day of spin.
I'd say that access to information is more important to combat spin. I wouldn't know that those nunbes being thrown around are inaccurate if I didn't have easy access to the correct numbers, or to the data they were drawn from.
Spin is not information. Spin is telling you how you should feel about a specific and not necessarily accurate version of the information.
[ October 14, 2004, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually i was wrong. Spin is information, if you know how to read it. How a candidate spins a fact can tell you an awful lot about that candidate...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
WASHINGTON, DC—According to Gallup Poll results released Monday, 6 percent of Americans are still undecided about whether to vote against President Bush or Democratic challenger John Kerry in November's presidential election.
"At first, I was really leaning toward voting against Kerry, because the way he tried to hide his ambivalence about his military service made him seem like a political operator," poll participant and Trenton, NJ resident Amber Barthelme said. "But then, the Bush Administration's mishandling of the Iraqi prisoner-abuse scandal got me thinking that there's a lot to not like about the current administration. It's almost impossible to decide which side I don't want to be on."
According to the poll, 46 percent of the registered voters surveyed would vote against Bush if the election were held tomorrow, while 45 percent said they were ready to vote against Kerry. Factoring in the 2 percent margin of error, the two candidates are essentially deadlocked in the race to determine which candidate America doesn't support.
posted
It's all moot, we already have people voting on personality, height, smile, looks. While it would be preferable to be informed when voting, I think Penn was criticizing some tone that he got from the P&S comment, that basically tells people that if they haven't researched the choices by now, they should abdicate their voting right; worded better (and probably a belief held by P&S), they should have mentioned that if you are ignorant of the choices, then you ought to make an attempt to be informed, and then decide who you will vote for (or decide that you want none-of-the-above).
I also disagree on the assumption by Speed that ignorant voters tend to be Democrat, due to some ephemereal Hollywood subliminal campaign. I think, assuming that the curve of intellegence of citizens is fairly consistent no matter where you are, ignorant people will tend to vote out of local cultural inertia. Red state citizens will vote red, blue state citizens blue.
posted
Being informed does not mean you are an expert or that you know all the answers. It is unrealistic to think the informed voter would not recieve biased information, or that the informed voter would not be tricked by candidates, or that the informed voter would not recieve incomplete facts.
The truth is that it takes extensive studies in economics to truly understand the complexities of economic policy. It takes extensive studies in foreign affairs to do the same with international policy. It takes extensive studies in law, medicine, and business to understand the subtleties of our social policies. Being informed is NOT about having undertaken all of that education. If it were, very very few of Americans could vote, and we would cease being a democracy at all - we'd just be a tyranny of the experts.
Informed, as far as voting goes, only means being capable of forming an educated guess about who is the best candidate. It means you know the basics of where candidates stand on the issues you deem most critical, and you have some grasp of the reasoning behind those issues. That's all. It's a very low standard, but it MUST be a very low standard in order for this to be a democratic system. To make "informed" a high standard is to place the right to vote out of reach of many people - people without the access or time to become an expert on all subjects. And that's anti-democratic. It's aristocratic. If we want to become an aristocracy, that is fine - but so far we have collectively deemed that the wrong course.
Since we are a democratic nation that believes in universal suffrage, we must set the bar of informed at a level anyone who chooses to reach can reach. That's what it means to let everyone vote. It means we think everyone can become as informed as they need to be to make the system work well.
Thus, it is everyone's choice to become informed. Again, ignorance only lasts as long as one chooses not to become informed. People can go to candidate websites, or voting websites, or news websites. They can watch political news on television or read about it in the paper. They could just watch one presidential debate, and they'd be pretty informed about the basics of the candidates convictions. That's becoming informed and that's an option open to everyone.
If they continue to choose to not become informed about their choice, they won't be able to make a productive vote. But this does NOT mean that it is acceptable for them not to vote. It simply means that it was unacceptable for them to continue being uninformed.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
I live in, according to this, the reddest state in the country. Yet it's still considered very hip to be anti-Bush. With our mass communication technology, cultural inertia is relying less and less on local influence.
posted
I dunno. I watch all the family sitcoms, and see the same bumbling father figures and severe mother figures as I did 20 years ago. Yeah, the language is coarser, but I just must not watch the same stuff you are (like any of the news stations for anything but the most basic news).
I don't see being a Hollywood groupie and voting like they do any different than being a televangelist devotee and doing likewise; both types of public figures can have quite large followings.
Speed, your comment seems contradictory... If you are in a very red state, it seems like the Bush-bashing you hear/read is due to some localized condition; otherwise, I would guess that the state wouldn't be so red. For instance, when I worked for IBM in NY, (a very blue state), I live and worked among generally very conservative folks (one of the most conservative areas of NY state, I found out). How does that work?
I don't think anyone's saying that we should stop people from voting. I also don't think we're arguing that it's okay to be ignorant. It's also not okay to break a window and steal a car stereo, but it happens. But the fact is that the people who are unlikely to vote are the ones least interested in the process, and thus also unlikely to educate themselves. So the question for me is this: on the morning of an election, if someone wakes up with no idea what candidates stand for and no intention of finding out, would you tell that person that they need to vote anyway, or that it's okay for them to sit this one out?
As for me personally, I consider myself fairly interested in the process and educated on the issues. But even so, I haven't been able to keep track of every last local official running for every office on the ballot. When the name for some judge or city council member comes up, if I don't know who they are, I'm going to leave it blank and give a more powerful voice to the people better informed on those issues. I wouldn't want to coerce anyone else into doing otherwise.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: When the name for some judge or city council member comes up, if I don't know who they are, I'm going to leave it blank and give a more powerful voice to the people better informed on those issues. I wouldn't want to coerce anyone else into doing otherwise.
That's a good idea. I was thinking I should just vote down party lines or something--which I really didn't want to do. I attempted yesterday to become more informed about local issues--I'll have to try again. My search turned up a lot of campaign sites with little information and much opponent bashing.
I live in Georgia and Zell Miller is retiring. (something I just found out..)
I'm not saying that everyone is going to vote for Kerry. I'm saying that the people who want to vote for Bush generally have well thought out and personally valid reasons for doing so. Many Kerry supporters around here do to. But when I talk to people who clearly haven't taken the time to form a solid opinion (19 year old party majors and the like), they almost always say that Bush is "dumb" or "greedy for oil" or, in some cases, "racist". They can't back these statements up, but it's what they see on TV, so they assume that it's true.
I'm not saying that all Kerry supporters are like this. There are informed people in both camps. But in my experience, when people (especially young people) aren't informed, they tend to parrot back what they've heard at concerts or in entertainment magazines.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speed, I think you're drawing assumptions about the levels of thoughtfulness among voters, mostly due to your local sample, but I wouldn't be surprised (since I'm sure it happens to me too), that you talk to a person who holds a similar opinion, and you don't ever really get in-depth into how they got to that opinion... Very few people argue with people who agree with them
posted
Granted, it is a very small and local sample. I don't have anything more scientific than an assumption that it applies elsewhere. But I do spend a lot of time talking about politics, and I question even people who agree with me because I'm interested in how they came up with their opinions. For example, my wife used to agree with me on political issues just to be conciliatory. I probed her beliefs until I realized that she actually disagreed with me on many issues, and we both learned a lot from each other.
By the way, as I have said many times on this forum, I'm not a Bush supporter and I have no intention of voting for him in this election. So an assertion that I only notice how uninformed Kerry supporters are because I let Bush supporters slide is based upon false primary assumptions.
quote: Does anyone think Parker and Stone are out of line. Do we honestly believe that people who don't know anything about the issues should be coerced into picking a candidate at random or based upon incomplete information, just for the sake of voting? What's wrong with leaving the election to the people with educated opinions and an interest in the process?
People who vote are going to vote on issues that are important to them. In order to vote, you still have to jump through a few hoops. People aren't going to waste their time just cuz. I don't agree that people will vote just to vote.
quote: We know what Sean Penn's problem with it is. If people don't have any other criteria for voting, they're more likely to just follow the path that Hollywood and pop culture have laid out for them.
I disagree with this. If someone is uninformed, this means that they don't watch the news, don't read magazines or newspapers, don't watch debates, and don't expose themselves to any media whatsoever. Basically, they don't give a rat's ass, since the only way to be uninformed is to willfully make yourself uninformed. In this day and age, information is free and permeates almost everything we do. I think there are very, very few people who are voting not because of the issues, but because Penn is telling them to do so.
You believe that Hollywood and pop culture are liberal, but they are not liberal so much as apolitical and aimed at fantasy fulfillment. I can think of very, very few shows in entertainment that tout a prototypical liberal line as far as, say, gun control or welfare or war being bad, etc, and can think of quite a few shows that are extremely favorable in how they show the state in the form of police and the use of force by the state to achieve its ends. That is, cop shows and military shows and state intelligence shows always show the people in those organizations in a favorable light. In any case, most TV these days is extremely apolitical that takes as few sides as possible. Most shows on these days are reality shows and sitcoms.
Hollywood and pop culture are, in the normal scheme of things, far removed from a person's life. They are much weaker influences than family, friends, and any groups that a person swears their allegiance to.
Almost everyone votes their biases. Very few people listen to what the 'other side' says, weigh the facts, and then vote accordingly.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you also have to make a distinction between national and local elections. For national or state elections it's almost impossible not to be informed, all you have to do is be watching your favorite show and you'll see commercials, or pick up a newspaper and scan the headlines as you search for the sports section.
For local elections it's much much harder. You can read the local paper, but politicians are rarely mentioned in it unless they do something wrong. You can search high and low for pamphlets that describe each side's stances; but generally those are so unspecific that both the opponent's pamphlets are almost exactly alike. Or you can find out where canidates are speaking by making a close examination of the newspaper for the 3 line ad in the middle of the classifields, hope you don't have anything else going on that night, and make your way to whereever the event is, where you can then listen for an hour while the canidate talks about things that are only issues within the political culture of the city and that you couldn't care less about.
I just voted and I didn't vote if I didn't know who either of the canidates were, which means I didn't vote for school board, which is really important to me. However, I'm voting absentee, so I had no way of getting informed about the canidates, and I have strong enough opinions on the subject that I didn't want to vote for someone I'd never heard of.
There was also a public question on the ballot that asked if the state constitution should be revised to abolish property tax on a homeowner's place of primary residence. I didn't know it was going to be there until I saw it on the ballot and I had no idea what kind of ramifications it would have. So I didn't vote. Last night I spent half an hour or so searching the state website for any mention of it and I couldn't find anything. Can I really be blamed for not being informed on that?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:People who vote are going to vote on issues that are important to them. In order to vote, you still have to jump through a few hoops. People aren't going to waste their time just cuz. I don't agree that people will vote just to vote.
I disagree. The attitude I relate to the Parker and Stone comments is best expressed here.
quote:Michael Moore...illegally offered underwear, noodles and snacks to college students in exchange for their promise to vote.
quote: During each program, habitual nonvoters are invited on stage to pledge to vote for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. First-time student voters are offered gag prizes such as clean underwear.
The GOP said Moore also offered students a clean dorm room, a year's supply of Tostitos and a package of Ramen noodles.
This is obviously an example of *uniformed* students voting because they are following a celebrity and not an issue. If your vote can be bought for a gag-prize, then not voting does not seem to be a slap in the face of the democratic process.
I applaud the Stone's comments. I think it is funny that Penn got so riled up. I hope there is a round two. Free entertainment! Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree about the only reason for being uniformed is because you aren't trying. Yeah, we've got access to an amazing amount of information. The problem is that only a very small percentage of it is actually reliable. The stuff that isn't deliberately intended to deceive is still often plauged by things like the author having no idea what they are talking about or being much more concerned about making money than about getting the facts right.
It's like saying (from my own field) that because there are tons of books in the psychology section of a bookstore, the only reason why people don't know the first thing about real psychology is that they aren't trying. For every book that can actually be taken seriously, there are maybe 25 that are complete garbage. And, the complete garbage ones are the ones that people buy. The reputable books generally challenge people's existing worldviews, making them unpleasant and scary, whereas the pop-crap are soothing and comforting. Even when someone is going specifically looking for reputable books, they can often can find these books as they are lost in the deluge of heavily marketed crap. In this case, it's the thing you are touting - the huge amount of "information" - that makes the truth so difficult to find.
I think the same situation exists in relation to politcal information. Yeah, there's a lot of people and sources talking about it, but very, very few of the sources can actually be trusted and almost none of these reputable sources are anywhere near the mainstream.
---
Dag, I mostly agree with the test thing being impossible. I wouldn't support a test in any case, because even if it started out relatively good, it would soon be corrupted to suit people's political ends. However, I think that the concept of needing to pass a standard should be a completely uniforced part of the social values of any serious democratic group. People shouldn't be kept from voting if they can't meet some standard (which I would leave undefined), but it should be regarded as shameful.
This is a problem we have with most of our negative rights. Americans are very attached (with good reason) to the rights that prevent other people from controlling them or that let them have a say about things. But we as a culture do very poorly in using these rights responsibly, by utilizing the freedoms they allow to achieve good ends. Freedom of speech is essentially useless if most people are all saying the same thing and that people who aren't are more or less spewing out angry, innaccurate rants.
Maybe it's just my orientation. I don't believe in rights as the end goal. I think the goal is the better world that having these rights provide. You can't trust the government to aim towards this better world and to be good stewards of the public good without the public having these rights, but, at the same time, when people don't live up to the responsibilities implicit in these rights, society isn't really any better off whther they have them or not.
---
I also take exception to the characterization of the people who don't vote as being the people least interested in the political process. That's an unfair generalization. It's certainly true in many cases, but there are plenty of other cases where it most definitely isn't.
There's a class of people who are agressively apathetic about politics. At any sign of political talk or action, they'll quite angrily tell you that "I don't care!" That's wrong. They actually do care, often a great deal. The thing is, it's their very care that makes thems so almsot militantly apathetic. They are protecting themselves from the psychic hurt of the constant betrayal of contemporary American politics. They have withdrawn from the political sphere, not because they don't care, but because they care enough that it really hurts them to even hope that things might get better.
There are people I know who refused to watch the debates because "It's just going to be a bunch of lies and trivialities anyway." Can any of us really argue that these characterization is inaccurate?
Many people's relationship with politics isn't like that of the girl you never noticed in high school. It's like the girl you dated, fell depply in love with, and then she cheated on you with your best friend, your history teacher, the entire chess team, and your dad. Yeah, you don't want anything to do with her again, but not because you don't care.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I think it is funny that Penn got so riled up."
Well, if you read their interview in Salon, it's rather easy to see why. They do call him an arrogant, self-important a**hole. It's not like they were just poking fun at the guy to make a larger point; they were specifically insulting him. And when you consider that the two reasons they give for insulting him are as follows:
1) We don't want the American people rushing out to vote, because the American people are mostly stupid. Stupid people should stay home, and people who try to get stupid people to vote are stupid, too.
2) Who is Sean Penn to think we care what he thinks? He's an entertainer, so no one cares about his opinions. Hollywood should just shut up about politics, because all of Hollywood's a bunch of blowhard know-nothings. Which is why we've made a movie addressing politics and are giving you our opinions right now.
quote:2) Who is Sean Penn to think we care what he thinks? He's an entertainer, so no one cares about his opinions. Hollywood should just shut up about politics, because all of Hollywood's a bunch of blowhard know-nothings. Which is why we've made a movie addressing politics and are giving you our opinions right now.
But, see, I find this part to be extremely true. Stone and Parker have always served as the anti-media in the media: they're always making fun of the trumped up, self-righteous entertainment industry, and I've always found their comedic voice to be particularly alluring. And I do think Sean Penn is a blowhard. This is a man who has graduated from punching out camera men to making arrogant and childish political statements. I feel glad that someone called him on it. If he got angry, good for them. The truth hurts.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, um, just to clarify: Stone and Parker do not make arrogant and childish political statements? Or are they merely immune to criticism because, quite disarmingly, they admit to being arrogant and childish before they even open their mouths?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The latter, I think. I don't think they're saying they're immune to criticism, but it just seems typical of Sean Penn to overreact entirely, so it's funny.
[ October 14, 2004, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's entirely possible for people to know nothing about politics even in light of the constant bombardment of information. I'm in a similar state of ignorance about sports. Information about sports is perhaps more ubiquitous than information about politics. I don't even know what time of year people play basketball, baseball or football. I can't watch any of them because I don't know the rules. I know the names of about 10 professional athletes, but I don't know anything about their careers. I do know that most people in Salt Lake like to watch the Jazz. The only thing I know about the team is that there are people on there named Stockton and Malone, but I would not recognize them if I saw them. A few months ago the coach of the Jazz came to my pharmacy. I waited on him, but I didn't know who he was until someone else told me. I went to Houston last year and when I was at a movie I sat behind a prominent member of whichever basketball team plays in Houston, but I didn't know who he was until my brother told me. I was told that he was the "center", but I don't know what that means.
If I can be that ignorant about sports, people can be that ignorant about politics. People often tell me that I have to support my local team, and I tell them that I don't have to do anything I don't want to. I know for a fact that there are people who feel about politics like I do about sports. Telling someone that they have to be interested in politics is a complete waste of time and disrespectful of their rights. If you have the right to root for the Jazz, I have the right to root for no one, and anyone who doesn't want to support a candidate has that right as well.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, if you read their interview in Salon, it's rather easy to see why. They do call him an arrogant, self-important a**hole. It's not like they were just poking fun at the guy to make a larger point; they were specifically insulting him
I see your point; unfortunately, Sean Penn doesn't: Speed's Link
quote: "I never mind being of service, in satire and silliness," Penn is quoted as saying in the letter. (He's reportedly mocked in the movie.) "I do mind when anybody who doesn't have a child, doesn't have a child at war, or isn't or won't be in harm's way themselves, is encouraging that there's Ôno shame in not voting if you don't know what you're talking about.' "
Continues Penn, "It's all well to joke about me or whomever you choose. Not so well to encourage irresponsibility that will ultimately lead to the disembowelment, mutilation, exploitation, and death of innocent people throughout the world. The vote matters to them. No one's ignorance, including a couple of hip cross-dressers', is an excuse."
Seems to me he is more angry about Stone encouraging uninformed people, who have no desire to understnad politics, not to vote. I like Stone's comments. I don't think anyone should be stopped from voting, but pointing out to people, who are just playing-fun with the political process, that there is no shame in not voting sounds A-OK to me.
posted
Yeah but Speed, I think there's a few differences between involement in professional sports and politics. People who actually believe that professional sports are important are pathetic. People who believe that politics (well, not the surface stuff, but the deeper things) are important are right and they have a responsibility to try to affect it. You're equating not participating in what can only be justified as a hobby with being indifferent to the path your country takes. I don't think that this is a valid comparison.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure that Vote or Die is aimed at the college crowd. As a 20 year old attending college, let me say this:
You do not want us voting.
Seriously. We're idiots. We make coffee tables out of beer bottle caps. Our primary source of news (and here I am being totally, utterly, deathly serious) is the Daily Show. If John Stewart doesn't say it, it's not true.
My personal opinions on voting? There are two types of people in the voting world.
1. People who already have a horse in the race, and only watch the debates so that they can learn the reasons to root for them, and
2. People whose national attention only extends as far as Late Night Talk Show monologues.
Yeah, I know. It's ignorant, and I wish it was different. But it's the truth.
DISCLAIMER: Of course, the above is simply generalizations aimed at a generalization of college students. I'm sure that plenty of kids on this forum are, like me (I think, though a few of you will probably dispute it), fairly informed people. Of course, this is a forum about intelligent science fiction novels, many of which have a geopolitical bent to them, so maybe we're a little biased here.
[ October 14, 2004, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm not talking about what is morally justifiable. I'm talking about what is possible. There's a lot of talk on this thread about the idea that no one is really uninformed, they all have well-reasoned opinions because of media saturation and are just waiting for people like Sean Penn and Michael Moore to make them act on their secret convictions. That's rubbish. It's entirely possible to live in America today and have no substantive idea what's going on in politics. It happens all the time. What we want to do about that is up for debate, but the fact that it happens is common sense.
quote:As a 20 year old attending college, let me say this:
You do not want us voting.
Truthfully, I think college students are the most likely to base their voting decision on well-though-out conclusions on what is best for the country. I think older voters are much more likely to (1)vote out of self-interest, (2)vote out of predetermined bias, and (3)vote out of fear. College students are taught to think for themselves and are not yet bound down as much by the responsibilities that create selfish voting and the biases that accumulate over time.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But we don't, though. I don't consider myself especially conservative, so don't take this as a bias, but 7/10 of the kids I meet are going to vote for Kerry because Saturday Night Live has told them George Bush is an idiot, and they believe it. Not just being a jerk here.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that's accurate. I doubt if you polled college students, that even 2 out of 10 would say they are basing their view on Saturday Night Live. And I'm sure there would be similar (if not greater) numbers among older groups, in regards to stereotypes promoted by shows related to those age groups.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very few people will admit they got their political opinions from SNL, but that doesn't exactly mean they don't; it just means they aren't aware of it. There's a huge difference.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's a class of people who are agressively apathetic about politics...They actually do care, often a great deal...They are protecting themselves from the psychic hurt of the constant betrayal of contemporary American politics. They have withdrawn from the political sphere, not because they don't care, but because they care enough that it really hurts them to even hope that things might get better.
I think you have a very good point there, Mr. Squicky. It's probably a reasonable explanation for why I don't want to vote for Bush or Kerry. How do you suppose we could get the apathetic people to engage again? Would it take a major overhaul of the political system, or just a good experience with a responsive, thoughtful local government?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want me to engage, give me a good reason to.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats offer a compelling reason to walk the two blocks to my voting place. The smaller candidates are prevented from getting exposure by the two big ones. The system offers no reason to vote, although stores offering 20% off to voters do.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well yes, but it is five dollars I can spend on drugs or books. Before the cash incentive, I was just going to get high and flip a coin, so it is not as though I would be betraying my chosen candidate or anything.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I recently got my absentee ballot and there are two school baord races and a community improvement district race. I know nothing about any of the canidates except that one up for school board shares the same last name as another school board member. None of these people have websites and since they are non-partisan I don't even have a party to go on. I generally consider myself to be an informed voter although only yesterday I found out something about the US Senate canidate I'm supporting that I don't like. Still why should I do anything but leave those races blank. The only thing I accomplish is devalueing the vote of those that are informed.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Still why should I do anything but leave those races blank. The only thing I accomplish is devalueing the vote of those that are informed.
