“Well to begin with I don’t think a person needs to know even close to that amount of information to be justified in their vote and, moreover, a person can know all of that information and still vote for stupid reasons.”
So which is it?
“Given this justification for my vote why should my vote be reduced to almost nothing because I don’t know anything else about the candidates, economics, political science etc.?”
Uh… both. That is my point. Your voting conditions are neither necessary nor sufficient.
Because the civil rights guy has pardoned a convicted slave trader who contributed to his gubernatorial campaign, and the “racist” is the victim of a smear campaign. Because the civil rights guy doesn’t grok supply and demand. Because the racist supports giving veterans a pension as soon as they return, and the poor black guy is a decorated war hero.
Well the hypothetical was set in segregation era South, but maybe this wasn’t obvious, but I was talking about someone running on a platform of Jim Crow (and there were a ton of southern politicians that did this). It seems highly plausible that segregationism is a deal-breaker for some voters and even if this is their only reason for voting they are justified in their vote. It doesn’t seem the least bit implausible that this would trump knowledge of economics, veterans pensions or even the other candidate being racist (but not running on a racist platform). But my point is just that it is highly plausible a voter could be justified in their vote while not having anything approaching the kind of knowledge on that exam.
There are lots of singles issue voters- why for example should someone whose only issue is abortion have to know the candidates other positions AND economics AND history AND political science etc.???
Edit: And of course your test is going to especially difficult for certain sets of voters. You’re hardly the first person to think of doing this. There used to be a literacy test for voting… surprise it was just a way of keeping black people out of the polls.
“Your voting conditions are neither necessary nor sufficient.”
That’s not my goal. I merely want to have an electorate that doesn’t elect young-earthers to congress.
“Well the hypothetical was set in segregation era South, but maybe this wasn’t obvious, but I was talking about someone running on a platform of Jim Crow (and there were a ton of southern politicians that did this). It seems highly plausible that segregationism is a deal-breaker for some voters and even if this is their only reason for voting they are justified in their vote.”
I’m not sure why the examples I gave elicited this response. I gave reasons why even a single-issue voter would be well-advised to know whom ve’s voting for. And besides, if an opinion is held only by people who don’t understand history, that’s a bad sign.
“Edit: And of course your test is going to especially difficult for certain sets of voters.”
That’s why I made the second modifier. And there could be things other than wealth factored in, if you like—race, sex, reading-related disabilities, being a naturalized citizen...
What your system actually does is make it less likely that unorganized people with fringe ideas will vote. If there’s an organization promoting a fringe idea, it will offer election test coaching to sympathizers.
On second thought, I didn’t say what I meant. What I meant was that your approach will fail to discourage organized people with fringe ideas. They’ll form training systems to beat your tests.
Unorganized people with fringe ideas will probably be less able to vote under your system.
“Well to begin with I don’t think a person needs to know even close to that amount of information to be justified in their vote and, moreover, a person can know all of that information and still vote for stupid reasons.”
So which is it?
“Given this justification for my vote why should my vote be reduced to almost nothing because I don’t know anything else about the candidates, economics, political science etc.?”
Because the civil rights guy has pardoned a convicted slave trader who contributed to his gubernatorial campaign, and the “racist” is the victim of a smear campaign. Because the civil rights guy doesn’t grok supply and demand. Because the racist supports giving veterans a pension as soon as they return, and the poor black guy is a decorated war hero.
Uh… both. That is my point. Your voting conditions are neither necessary nor sufficient.
Well the hypothetical was set in segregation era South, but maybe this wasn’t obvious, but I was talking about someone running on a platform of Jim Crow (and there were a ton of southern politicians that did this). It seems highly plausible that segregationism is a deal-breaker for some voters and even if this is their only reason for voting they are justified in their vote. It doesn’t seem the least bit implausible that this would trump knowledge of economics, veterans pensions or even the other candidate being racist (but not running on a racist platform). But my point is just that it is highly plausible a voter could be justified in their vote while not having anything approaching the kind of knowledge on that exam.
There are lots of singles issue voters- why for example should someone whose only issue is abortion have to know the candidates other positions AND economics AND history AND political science etc.???
Edit: And of course your test is going to especially difficult for certain sets of voters. You’re hardly the first person to think of doing this. There used to be a literacy test for voting… surprise it was just a way of keeping black people out of the polls.
Also, the curriculum I gave is the least important part of my idea. I threw in whatever seemed like it would matter for the largest number of issues.
“Your voting conditions are neither necessary nor sufficient.”
That’s not my goal. I merely want to have an electorate that doesn’t elect young-earthers to congress.
“Well the hypothetical was set in segregation era South, but maybe this wasn’t obvious, but I was talking about someone running on a platform of Jim Crow (and there were a ton of southern politicians that did this). It seems highly plausible that segregationism is a deal-breaker for some voters and even if this is their only reason for voting they are justified in their vote.”
I’m not sure why the examples I gave elicited this response. I gave reasons why even a single-issue voter would be well-advised to know whom ve’s voting for. And besides, if an opinion is held only by people who don’t understand history, that’s a bad sign.
“Edit: And of course your test is going to especially difficult for certain sets of voters.”
That’s why I made the second modifier. And there could be things other than wealth factored in, if you like—race, sex, reading-related disabilities, being a naturalized citizen...
What your system actually does is make it less likely that unorganized people with fringe ideas will vote. If there’s an organization promoting a fringe idea, it will offer election test coaching to sympathizers.
“What your system actually does is make it less likely that unorganized people with fringe ideas will vote.”
Why’s that?
On second thought, I didn’t say what I meant. What I meant was that your approach will fail to discourage organized people with fringe ideas. They’ll form training systems to beat your tests.
Unorganized people with fringe ideas will probably be less able to vote under your system.
It seems you edited your comment after I responded, which indeed makes it look like a non-sequitur.
I posted it incomplete by mistake.