Current Events > Should there be consequences to ignorantly voting?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Like the people who voted for Hillary just because she's a woman or for those who voted for Trump just because he was anti-pc. Or even those who vote for open borders without any care about who's actually being let in.

If the registered voters felt like they would face consequences if their vote backfired, would more people think about the actual impact of their vote? Would more people who aren't that educated on the topic they're voting for hesitate to vote?

Hmmmm
---

Thought crimes.
---

No. You should be allowed to vote for anyone qualified for any reason. You should be allowed to vote for Trump because he was funny in Reality TV if you want.
---

I didn't know much about either candidate besides the media hating Trump. Since my family were Democrats, I voted for Hillary even though I didn't care who won. I did enjoy the memes however, like Hillary's hit-list, ObamaxPutin, and Covfefe. I'm starting to like Trump now, but not for the right reasons. I might vote for him this time if he ran during the 2020 election.
---

Because that means consequences for pretty much every voter, they'd all just cancel each other out.
---

A better way is make candidates anonymous with a rsum being what voters see.
---

Then practically nobody would be qualified to vote.
---

Trump's presidency is the consequence
---

Absolutely not.
---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Trump's presidency is the consequence

---

Yes, the consequence is we're stuck with Trump
---

This is genuinely the dumbest idea I've heard on here, also I have TC tagged as "defends white nationalism" so I'm not really surprised he's incredibly anti-democratic.
---

Who determines what constitutes an ignorant vote?
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

This is genuinely the dumbest idea I've heard on here, also I have TC tagged as "defends white nationalism" so I'm not really surprised he's incredibly anti-democratic.

Says the "eugenicist."
---

No thats Fuck ing dumb
---

There are
---

Candidates should be held to their promises.
---

Webmaster4531 posted...

A better way is make candidates anonymous with a rsum being what voters see.

Now this is actually a good idea.
---

If the registered voters felt like they would face consequences if their vote backfired, would more people think about the actual impact of their vote?

they already felt and face the consequences. Thats what you get for too much democracy and too much ignorance.

see Brexit for brilliant example

Antifar posted...

Who determines what constitutes an ignorant vote?

Good question. This was something my coworker brought up today and i wanted to share it here.

Hmmmm so in what ways can we actually make people think about the end result of their vote instead of again, voting just because even if the candidates are awful?
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

No. You should be allowed to vote for anyone qualified for any reason. You should be allowed to vote for Trump because he was funny in Reality TV if you want.

This

Fuck thought crime laws
---

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

Antifar posted...

Who determines what constitutes an ignorant vote?

Good question. This was something my coworker brought up today and i wanted to share it here.

Hmmmm so in what ways can we actually make people think about the end result of their vote instead of again, voting "just because", even if the candidates are awful?

Yes, how?
What is awful?
How do you know if someone is casting their vote for the right reasons?
What are the right reasons?
---

DuranOfForcena posted...

you know, Plato absolutely hated Athenian democracy. he likened it to people voting for who should captain a boat. you wouldn't want just any and every random nobody who has no idea what it takes to captain a boat to vote for who should captain the boat. he said it should be the same with the "Ship of State". one solution he proposed was to have people mandatorily take a competency test before being allowed to vote. the idea isn't necessarily to restrict who can vote, but to have people who want to vote be able to first demonstrate that they are informed and intelligent enough to cast a well thought out vote based on logic and reason.

Dude we've done the whole literacy test bullshit before
---

Antifar posted...

DuranOfForcena posted...

you know, Plato absolutely hated Athenian democracy. he likened it to people voting for who should captain a boat. you wouldn't want just any and every random nobody who has no idea what it takes to captain a boat to vote for who should captain the boat. he said it should be the same with the "Ship of State". one solution he proposed was to have people mandatorily take a competency test before being allowed to vote. the idea isn't necessarily to restrict who can vote, but to have people who want to vote be able to first demonstrate that they are informed and intelligent enough to cast a well thought out vote based on logic and reason.

Dude we've done the whole literacy test bullshit before

Have we? Because it sounds like Plato was on to something good.
---

Does it actually matter if you can give good reasons for voting your candidate if they aren't actually your reasons though?
---

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

Antifar posted...

DuranOfForcena posted...

you know, Plato absolutely hated Athenian democracy. he likened it to people voting for who should captain a boat. you wouldn't want just any and every random nobody who has no idea what it takes to captain a boat to vote for who should captain the boat. he said it should be the same with the "Ship of State". one solution he proposed was to have people mandatorily take a competency test before being allowed to vote. the idea isn't necessarily to restrict who can vote, but to have people who want to vote be able to first demonstrate that they are informed and intelligent enough to cast a well thought out vote based on logic and reason.

Dude we've done the whole literacy test bullshit before

Have we? Because it sounds like Plato was on to something good.

Athenian democracy voters were limited to an elite upper class men (not women) and only Athens natives. Yeah it was an "everyone votes" system in the sense that only a small handful of people were considered people in the first place.

It was closer to our voting criteria in 1780s than it is to today.
---

There are consequences to ignorant voting. We're living them
---

DuranOfForcena posted...

Antifar posted...

DuranOfForcena posted...

you know, Plato absolutely hated Athenian democracy. he likened it to people voting for who should captain a boat. you wouldn't want just any and every random nobody who has no idea what it takes to captain a boat to vote for who should captain the boat. he said it should be the same with the "Ship of State". one solution he proposed was to have people mandatorily take a competency test before being allowed to vote. the idea isn't necessarily to restrict who can vote, but to have people who want to vote be able to first demonstrate that they are informed and intelligent enough to cast a well thought out vote based on logic and reason.

Dude we've done the whole literacy test bullshit before

we did, and it was a sham and its sole intention was to disenfranchise minority voters. that's not at all what i am or Plato was talking about.

That is what you're talking about though. The inevitable consequence of any sort of competence test for voting is that the people administering it will use it to conveniently exclude those they don't want having a say.
---

So you'd have to explain why you voted? And wouldn't "I voted that way because that's what my party wants" qualify as ignorantly voting?
---

hollow_shrine posted...

There are consequences to ignorant voting. We're living them

Are there any bad things that we're living right now?
---

DuranOfForcena posted...

i don't believe that outcome is necessarily inevitable

You're right, it's only inevitable if there exist people anywhere in society who are willing to suppress the rights of others because they think it's for the best

So in other words, anyone who wants it to happen is by necessity proving why that outcome is inevitable
---

hollow_shrine posted...

There are consequences to ignorant voting. We're living them

Those consequences tend to be shared between "ignorant" voters and "educated" voters though.

I think TC means punishments for the people who ignorantly vote.
---

Good thing there are no consequences for ignorantly posting a topic on GameFAQs though, m i rite?
---

Thats impossible to enforce. Youd be looking at so many lawsuits so fucking fast.
---

DuranOfForcena posted...

this is true, but his theories can still be applied to modern democracy

Plato's concerns I feel are better addressed by making it more likely that the random person knows how to captain a ship instead of making people prove they know how to captain a ship before voting on a captain.
---

If anyone even knows you've frivolously voted, something has gone catastrophically wrong already.

How does one qualify "ignorantly voting"?
---

Smashingpmkns posted...

How does one qualify "ignorantly voting"?

Not thinking like I do.
---

DuranOfForcena posted...

Panthera posted...

DuranOfForcena posted...

i don't believe that outcome is necessarily inevitable

You're right, it's only inevitable if there exist people anywhere in society who are willing to suppress the rights of others because they think it's for the best

So in other words, anyone who wants it to happen is by necessity proving why that outcome is inevitable

"it's inevitable because it's inevitable"

yeah no, i still disagree

What sort of questions would be on the test?
It seems as though, if you're going to pose any political questions or situations in the test, it would be impossible to make in unbiased.
---

We need voters ids tho
---

DuranOfForcena posted...

the two would go hand in hand in my opinion. partially taken from Plato's core argument, and partially built upon for my own purposes of fiction world building, i believe the best way to do it would be to make voter competency a required subject in secondary education curricula, and the exam for it could be administered alongside other high school exit exams. and of course, there could be standalone classes and exams made available for retakes as well as for adults, somewhat akin to driver's ed classes. maybe even require renewal and retesting after a certain period of time.

So you know how black people are less likely to actually finish high school in American compared to white people?

Congrats, you've literally already started the basis of building a system to disenfranchise minorities exactly the way you said you wouldn't
---

DuranOfForcena posted...

LordRazziel posted...

What sort of questions would be on the test?
It seems as though, if you're going to pose any political questions or situations in the test, it would be impossible to make in unbiased.

i'm not going to pretend i have what the test should be comprised of all figured out, but at the very minimum it should make sure there is an understanding of the political process and structure, and also it should test the person's cognitive abilities in determining things like how to spot an argument from/appeal to emotion.

Should emotion not play a role in law and policy?
---