Hacker News Reader

Comment by CWuestefeld | Hacker News Reader

Please, do vote if you understand the issues, and where the candidates stand.

But otherwise, please DO NOT VOTE. Just because an idea makes you feel warm and fuzzy doesn't make it right. There are plenty of things in this world that are counter-intuitive, and if you're relying only on your beliefs, there's a good chance you'll get it wrong.

If you've never taken a class or read a book on economics, please don't vote. (I recommend Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlett [1])

If you've never taken a class or read a book on political philosophy, please don't vote. If you don't know the difference between natural law and utilitarianism, please don't vote. (I recommend reading J S Mill [2], or Locke [3], or Mises [4], or Hayek [5])

And if you don't believe me, then you should also read The Myth of the Rational Voter, by Bryan Caplan [6]. He discusses not only why voters do vote irrationally, but also why it's rational for them to do so.

[1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Economics_in_...

[2] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_Stuart_M...

[3] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_locke

[4] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mi...

[5] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Friedrich_Hay...

[6] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Myth_of_t...

View on HN

I understand that your comments are partly in jest (I hope!), but still the basic idea expressed in them is very misguided, dangerous and wrong: Misguided, because one can argue that everyone acts according to their beliefs, even an economics professor. You cannot talk about a clear dichotomy between those who vote on their belief and those who vote on "rational principles".

It's wrong because voting is an inherent citizenship right; it cannot be made contiguous on intellectual (or any other, e.g. socio-economic class) aspects, e.g. knowledge of economics, full understanding of the issues etc. of a voter. If you open the door to voter discrimination by declaring some votes less equal than others, who knows what other ideologies may walk through it.

It is also dangerous because it creates a sense of "right". The one thing that always amazed me in my discussions with liberals in the US is that they argue that their position is, how to put it, "inherently right", i.e. that they are the informed ones, whereas the "others" are the hoi polloi, the uneducated, stupid masses. Years earlier, in the race between Kerry and Bush, when I pointed to these people that Kerry came across as unlovable and stiff, I was met with disbelief: It was Kerry's "right" to be elected because he was "right". The danger of this view, of course, is that it often leads to defeat. In any confrontation, knowing the enemy's full power is crucial and belittling them will not make you win the war.

I understand that your comments are partly in jest

Nope, 100% serious.

It's wrong because voting is an inherent citizenship right; it cannot be made...

I agree completely. In no way do I advocate any sort of qualification. That's a slippery slope the first step of which is incredibly steep.

What I'm advocating is that people self-select. I wish we could each reflect personally, and try to determine whether we really have the knowledge and understanding that's necessary to judge; and then honestly decide whether that the conclusion allows us to impose our thoughts on others.

The government enforces its policies, ultimately, by force and violence. If you're going to threaten someone (by way of the government) with force, you'd better be damned confident that there's a good reason to do so.

Perhaps in an ideal world some people should self-select out of voting; I haven't thought enough about that ideal world to say. But HN in general, and this page in particular, is the wrong forum to push for such self-selection. I would be willing to bet that the average HN reader is better informed, and better qualified to understand that information, than the general population.

HN readers, please vote today.

You have some nerve. You really do. Has it occurred to you that the mere act of participation in and exercising your right to vote is an act of "...knowledge and understanding..." in it's own right?

I find the totality of your comments in this thread incredibly offensive. To suggest that citizens abdicate their right to vote is incredulous. I am of the opinion that every citizen should be encouraged to vote by any and all legal means. If for no other reason then to educate people as to the mechanics of democracy let alone exercise a right that generations of people have died to ensure.

I'm sorry that you're offended. However, stating that you are offended, and then re-asserting your belief in voting really doesn't do anything to show my where the error is in my argument.

I'd have an easier time understanding where I've gone astray if you could address my two questions:

1. Is it immoral to vote by dice?

2. In what ways does an ignorant voter, reacting emotionally to propaganda, differ from voting by dice?

1. No, it is not immoral to vote by dice.

2. Imho, the act of voting in and of itself encompass a conscious decision to act. To act requires thought. Who are we to judge the beliefs or thought process that leads a citizen to vote?

Even if the voter was "reacting emotionally to propaganda", so what? I find it interesting that you use three very loaded words within a span of four.

Reacting. You paint this voter as reptilian. Incapable of thought and merely reacting to various primal instincts.

Emotionally. You impugn this voters ability to remain uncompromised and imply a certain level of deficit.

Propaganda. You concern yourself with the message the citizen receives and pass judgment as to whether or not it meets your standards of information.

[edit] Allow me to elaborate on your first question. You either have the right to vote or you do not. If I chose to vote based on which side of the bed I woke up on then so be it. To say otherwise is to assert your opinion over my right.

You, Sir, are emotionally compromised on this issue.

Seriously, I thought you were being tongue in cheek in your comments. If you're serious, then your idea of rating people according to some measure (you advocate some hazy notion of informedness, but it's not important what it is) and denying people who score low is outrageous. In fact, in principle, this is no different than saying blacks, or women, or gays, etc. should not vote!

Let me state it simply: Voting is a right given to a citizen who meets certain definitions (i.e. inmates cannot vote). It's not up to you, or me, or the government to dictate or judge what they will do with their vote. They can roll a dice, use Tarot cards, be influenced by O'Reilly, whatever. It's their right to use however they see fit.

Ideas like yours do great damage because they provide fuel to idiotic movements like the Tea Party.

  > Voting is a right given to a citizen who meets
  > certain definitions (i.e. inmates cannot vote).

The European Union has declared that preventing inmates from voting is an infringment of their human rights.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11671164

This is an interesting link, thanks. Although I think the ruling was a against a "blanket ban" on inmate voting and doesn't say that all inmates can vote. Need to have a better look, though.

I got curious, so rather than going lunch, did some Wikipedia reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_Sta.... Turns out the right to vote cannot be denied based on :

* Religion (in Constitution is found in Article VI, section 3. * "Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (15th Amendment, 1870) * "On account of sex" (19th Amendment, 1920) * "By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" (24th Amendment, 1964)

Conversely, this means that the right can be denied based on other factors, just not one of the above.

It also says: "As of July 2007, fourteen states, eleven of them in the South, ban anyone with a felony conviction from voting for life." This is outrageous, and should be considered a cruel and unusual punishment! When someone servers their term, they should be given their citizenship rights back.

fourteen states, eleven of them in the South, ban anyone with a felony conviction from voting for life

I agree that this is heinous. Through this means, the political process can hijack the judicial system to eliminate dissent. This means, for example that anyone who had been convicted of sodomy (back when that was still a crime, and if it had been a felony) would be barred from participating in the democratic process, e.g., for pursuing gay marriage.

When someone servers their term, they should be given their citizenship rights back.

But: are you willing to also return to them their 2nd Amendment right to keep & bear arms? (for the record, I am)

Considering both the disenfranchisement and disarmament of felons (as well as forced prisoner labor sold off to various business interests) were part of Jim Crow, I am.

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with limiting voting by knowledge or intelligence, I do think people are too quick to shun it without thought. If it's so wrong, explain why, rationally, not with an appeal to morality. Otherwise it reeks of 'What you can't say' [1].

Would you want an uninformed, unintelligent leader? If not, would you want uninformed, unintelligent people to choose a leader?

Of course, I do agree that there are issues with the proposal - self-selection would be a bad choice thanks to Dunning-Kruger [2] - and I do agree that any kind of 'you must have an IQ this high to vote' would be a bad idea, due to those entrenched in power setting the requirements.

Personally, I would prefer a solution based on better political and economic education, but that's such a difficult problem.

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

I totally agree with you, nothing should be removed off the table without a rational discussion about possible merits. My philosophy is: everything should be discussed, nothing should be off-limits due to PC, or hurting a group's sensibilities. In this regard, controversial subjects such as gay marriage rights, right of Islam women to cover their heads in Europe (not much of an issue in the US), the injustice of affirmative action should be throughly discussed with a cool head. And likewise for eugenics, the mathematical ability difference between men and women, etc.

Problem is, rarely I find myself in a setting where these interesting topics can be discussed in a rational setting. But that's the subject of another post.

My rational argument against CWuestefeld's suggestions is simple (based on entropy minimization): Do not make any complex issue even more complicated by your actions.

Let me explain: In its essence CWuestefeld suggestion rests on the notion that some voters' votes are off less value. If we accept this, then the question becomes, how do we determine the value: who should be allowed to vote. He says that it should be contingent on "knowledge of economics, full understanding of the issues etc.". I might counter with a different definition, e.g. "Most politics is dominated by men, so men should know better" or the somewhat better "without knowing the reality of a factory worker, how can you vote on issues that affect us". This leads to murky, philosophical debate that makes the issue even more complex and intractable than the one it's trying to solve.

Thanks for the measured response.

how do we determine the value: who should be allowed to vote

To be clear, I believe that everyone should be allowed to vote. I'd go so far as to say that even felons should be allowed to, for fear that the legal system could otherwise be used as a tool to stifle electoral dissent.

My suggestion that some people not cast a vote is intended to be entirely personal, as a matter of conscience and reflection. If anyone honestly believes that his ideas are the product of rational thought applied to an understanding of the situation, then by all means, cast that vote.

I don't think that your murky water criticism can apply, because I'm not asking -- nor trusting -- anyone else to judge. I'm asking for a person's own, honest, self-evaluation. No one else need know if you exercised this option or not, and it's none of their business.

Moreover, this doesn't relate to a single person monolithically. A person might have very well informed ideas about one topic, yet be ignorant about another. The decision ought to be made on a vote-by-vote basis. For example, this morning I did not cast a vote for County Freeholder. Although I know who the incumbent is, and don't have anything in particular against him, I don't know enough about county-level politics, nor the candidates, to make an informed decision, so I abstained. Yet I did cast a vote for US Representative, County Sheriff, etc.

I'm also sympathetic to the criticism that Dunning-Kruger might make this backfire.

A voluntary system would not be viable precisely because of your caveat. It would likely not prevent any truly poorly informed from voting: at worst, some moderately-to-highly informed folks would make the wrong decision and abstain instead, further skewing representation.

If you're serious, then your idea of rating people according to some measure and denying people who score low is outrageous.

Why would you so blatantly misrepresent what someone said? All CWuestefeld said is that if you don't know that much about politics, don't vote. Or does that somehow equate to denying someone the right to vote in your mind?

A large number of voters voting by dice would have no effect on elections in which a plurality is required to win...

The problem with uninformed voters self-selecting to not vote is that the people who decide not to vote because they are not sufficiently informed tend to be in the middle range of informedness. There are many more people who are even less well-informed and have put less thought into their voting decisions who will vote.

Seth Godin disagrees with you: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/11/voting-misun...

Additionally, "if you understand the issues" is a vague, relative parameter. I know in the state of wisconsin I don't know 100% of the issues (and probably not even 50%, sadly. Been a busy year), but I know enough of what I like and dislike about the Governor and Senate battles to vote with confidence.

I think your argument is a mute point. It's either damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Well, hopefully you're voting for Feingold. That guy's been one of the best senators of the last 20 years, honest, doesn't take any lobbyist money and a fiscal conservative, too, but he's in danger of losing to a guy who's entire platform is "I'm not a socialist" (Feingold isn't either).

Unfortunately Nate Silver puts Feingold at a 3% chance of winning. [1]

That means his only chance of victory is a high turnout...so I hope that parent (kgosser) can take some time to vote today. Feingold is truly one of the most important Senators of the last few decades.

[1] http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/senate/wisconsin

High turnout will ensure his defeat. He's not listening to the Wisconsin electorate and they noticed.

I live in a different state, but I wouldn't be caught dead voting for Feingold. I know none of your local issues, but I know that he's co-author of the McCain-Feingold Incumbency Protection Act, which gags those interested in the issues from educating the rest of the electorate. Apparently Sen. Feingold believes that it's better to have an ill-informed electorate, and that we shouldn't be able to use our 1st Amendment rights to put a voice to our ideas, if it has anything to do with politics.

IMHO, this is precisely what the 1st Amendment was designed to give us, and Feingold's disavowal of it overrides virtually anything else he may or may not have done.

Sorry that you've been brainwashhed.

"Apparently Sen. Feingold believes that it's better to have an ill-informed electorate, and that we shouldn't be able to use our 1st Amendment rights to put a voice to our ideas, "

Let me get you on the record here -- you actually think the various "Americans for American Americans" groups are contributing to the debate? You think these groups deserve a voice? Let me re-enact a little play for you in 3 lines:

Lobbyist: I've got 5 million to spend, Senator. I can spend it with you or against you. We need our subsidies.

Senator: I'm going to do the right thing, not the corrupt thing.

Americans for American Americans: "Senator X supports wasteful government spending and death panels"

(Note that the lobbyist who was asking for money is now running ads accusing the senator of spending too much. That's ok, because it works.)

That's both a red herring and a straw man.

It's a straw man because not only does McCain-Feingold forbid behavior like you illustrate, but also perfectly reasonable advocacy. So the NRA can't say "don't vote for Mr. X because he's against the 2nd Amendment". Pro-choice people can't say "don't vote for Mr. Z because he's voted for blah blah". These are precisely the types of speech that the 1st Amendment was intended (in part) to protect, and McCain-Feingold eviscerates it.

It's a red herring, because it's attacking something that's not wrong anyway (and fails to attack what I believe you thing is wrong).

It fails to address the implied corruption, bribery, and lobbying. McCain-Feingold has nothing to do with that stuff, yet it's the central evil in your little play.

And the last line of your play: Americans for American Americans: "Senator X supports wasteful government spending and death panels" is not wrong. Every person has the right to put up a sign on his front door, or put up a web site, describing his own political views, and advocating for or against specific candidates. Every one of us also has the right to associate with who we wish, and in so doing, pool our funds to make that web site even spiffier, or buy a TV ad. I believe that your objection to this is completely content-based: you dislike the kinds of messages that are being commnunicated; you think they're dangerous, and want to stop them.

But even if I'm wrong, your argument otherwise serves to bolster my original point ("don't vote unless you know the issues"). We all have the responsibility to understand what's going on. We're supposed to be adults with a conscience and the ability to weigh and judge the merits. If you don't do so, you've got no business voting.

My objection is not content-based, the content is irrelevant, as long as it has some grainy black and white footage and zero regard for the truth.

As a volunteer in a grass roots campaign in the 2007 primaries, Mr. Feingold's unAmerican anti-free speech law was a major pain in our asses as we tried to fight the more established political interests. I am so happy to see that man go. He should retire or get an honest job.

Campaign finance laws make it so that candidates supported by passionate minorities cannot be heard. If you are not 1) personally rich or 2) a mainstream candidate in a mainstream party you have no opportunity to speak. This is ironic considering such laws are usually passed as a way to fight "entrenched interests", but they do exactly the opposite.

>"Sorry that you've been brainwashhed."

That tone is a little overboard for this website community.

I would love to hear how McCain-Feingold hurt you when it came to "fighting more established political interests".

The inability to throw millions of soft money into the race made it harder to fight the established political interest? Or made it harder to harness established lobbyist interest?

Under McCain-Feingold, candidates can self-fund for any amount, and donations are limited to $2300/head, that's $4600 for married couples. If you can't find 1000 people to support you, you shouldn't be in politics. If you can't find 1000 people to support you but have one guy cutting 10 million dollar checks, you DEFINITELY shouldn't be in politics.

You should read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty". It makes all my arguments for free political speech for me and in a much more elegant manner.

It is self-evident that if you limit the amount of money that people can spend on advertising their political views that niche candidates and less popular ideas will be hurt the most. Unions can compel donations from their millions of members, your Clintons, Obamas, and McCains of the world get the full support and advertising of the major parties. But offbeat candidates will have their speech capped by McCain-Feingold, unless they are personally rich (Ross Perot).

We had many outside projects (independent advertisements and the like) that couldn't get cash because so many of us had donated our max amount to the campaign (even though few of us were personally rich). There's something weird about being an American and not being allowed to support a candidate because it is against the law. I would much rather have a rough and tumble, wide-open contest in the finest democratic tradition than Democrats and Republicans writing laws about who is allowed to speak.

You seem to want to outlaw outside advertisements because they don't meet your standards for quality. Cool man, cool. I just want you to consider how that position fits within the American liberal tradition.

>" If you can't find 1000 people to support you, you shouldn't be in politics. "

That sounds like an incumbent protection act to me.

We had a few hundred thousand supporters, ended up getting a few million votes! Even found a loophole in McCain-Feingold and set up one venture as a for-profit enterprise (you ever see the "Hillary 2008" t-shirts at airports? Same loophole).

We did okay, considering. But man, I just want my freedom back.

I'm about done here but can you really not see any potential conflicts of interest when you allow those who have the most money to flood the zone with hundred-million dollar ad buys? That doesn't offend any small-d democratic principles that you hold?

I want to re-regulate outside advertisements because they are almost always the product of shady dealings. Citizens United happened this year and we're setting records for the amount of money spent, during a frickin midterm. And guys like you complain about corruption in DC. No sense of irony?

As much as I would like to eliminate the biggest political spenders from the public discourse - the public sector unions who spend hundreds of millions of dollars to elect their own bosses - I believe even they deserve the right to speak.

No one has brought up socialism in this campaign at all. Ron Johnson has run a specific, issue oriented campaign. His major focus is stopping the run away spending of the Obama agenda. He entered the race when Obamacare passed, because he felt that was the last straw.

Feingold on the other hand is standing by his vote for Obamacare. I haven't forgotten the disdainful smirk on his face when he addressed his enraged constituents at last years' health care town hall meetings, and I don't think my fellow Wisconsinites have either.

This election is all about consequences for those who ignored the will of the people, and Russ Feingold is chief among them.

Where were you guys when Medicare Part D passed?

It's way worse for the deficit, and was a way bigger spending bill.

Oh, wait, that was a Republican.. I get it..

This is how Rome fell - if beating your domestic enemies is more important to you than improving the country, you are hurting the country.

Where were you guys when Medicare Part D passed?

Libertarians were loudly protesting. To no effect of course, because Republicans were behind their guy and Democrats were primarily complaining that it wasn't expensive enough.

if beating your domestic enemies is more important to you than improving the country, you are hurting the country.

I agree completely. Please mention that to the President if you run into him: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69929420101101

No, democrats were primarily complaining that it was outrageously expensive, budget busting, and didn't even do any good because all of the money went straight to the drug companies (see my above comments on lobbyists).

RE: Obama, you must be kidding. The man is a born compromiser, the problem is that Republicans haven't been willing to compromise on anything. They voted against their own deficit commission, for crying out loud, after Obama decided to support it.

Blaming the Republicans doesn't make any sense. Democrats have the votes to do whatever they want to do, which is why it's so easy this year to hold incumbents accountable.

No, they don't? The Republicans have used filibuster as a threat at an unprecedented level. The Senate has only nominally been in the Democrats' control.

EDIT: Punctuation

i've never felt politicians were particularly courageous if they were afraid of the possibility that someone might talk for awhile. if something is so important, at least give it a shot. worst case you have to listen to somebody read his grocery list to you. (and he ends up looking like an idiot on national tv. the news will ensure that.)

This isn't the issue in a filibuster; the cowardice is on the part of the senator who refuses to give up the floor. The whole point is that you talk until the bill expires, and so cannot be voted on.

Filibustering senators are declaring that they are unwilling to allow the issue to be voted on, not that they think their voice hasn't been heard enough.

uh, yeah, i know what a filibuster is. try reading again in light of that fact.

Until Scott Brown's election last year, the Democrats could have ended any filibuster attempt immediately. Democrats had a free run for a year. For the a year and a half now, the public has been screaming for them to stop. Brown's election was the first shot across the bow, but the Democrats paid no heed.

It's been a traditional courtsey in the Senate for the party in power not to shove through votes often, in respect that in the future they would eventually be the minority party, and occasionally need to filibuster as well. The possibility of removing the ability to filibuster has been discussed, but not undertaken for this reason.

By filibustering so often, the Republicans are showing that this is no longer the custom. Which is fine; I think it's a silly custom, and we'd benefit as a nation if blocking legislation like that were impossible. But it is absolutely a break from common procedure.

I think your memory is fuzzy. For example, under GWB, the Democrat's use of the filibuster was also frequent and controversial. There were judicial appointments that went unfilled for years because the Dem's refused to discuss them.

(as much as it pains me to defend the GOP)

He didn't ignore my will, and I'm a people and a fellow Wisconsinite. Please don't act like you speak for me, or any more than 50±10% of the Wisconsin public.

In fact, in CA not understanding a proposition is grounds for voting "No", because a No vote keeps the status quo. If the people framing the debate haven't done a good enough job, then they deserve the No vote.

>If you've never taken a class or read a book on economics, please don't vote. ... If you've never taken a class or read a book on political philosophy, please don't vote.

If you're an elitist academic that thinks knowledge about how the world works can only be garnered via institutionalized knowledge, please don't vote.

If you're willing to recommend that lower classes, made up predominantly of marginalized races, opt out of a say in their future, please don't vote.

Yeah, reading books is terribly elitist.

That's not what was stated. Suggesting one is ignorant of how politics works, and shouldn't vote, unless one has read a book on political philosophy is, absolutely, elitist.

Suppose that I go into the voting booth with a pair of dice, and use them to decide who to vote for. Am I morally correct in this approach?

If a voter is reacting emotionally to propaganda, without taking the time to understand the real story, is this much different from rolling dice?

>If a voter is reacting emotionally to propaganda, without taking the time to understand the real story, is this much different from rolling dice?

To understand the "real story", I'd trust someone who had paid attention to what the parties have done over decades, reading news and analysis, over someone who merely read a book on political philosophy at some point.

My list wasn't meant to be exhaustive. Of course you're right, that an understanding of history and who the actors are is important as well.

However, to prefer that point of view is to exclude other possibilities outside of the status quo.

For example, the Republicans were pretty new back in the mid-1800's, with Abraham Lincoln being the first Republican elected president. If my vote were based on past performance of the parties, I'd only have considered Democrats and Whigs.

And if you're following along, you'll notice that the President credited with freeing the slaves was a Republican. How did that happen? Over time, the positions of the American parties have changed quite drastically. In the early 1900s, it was the Democrats who were backing big business. but the civil rights movement shuffled things significantly. Similarly, the (American) definition of "liberal" has changed significantly since the late 1800s. Back then, a liberal's ideas would correspond more closely to today's Libertarians or perhaps a small-government Republican.

My point here is that history can only have limited utility. First, by definition, it excludes new ideas. Second, the parts of the players shift so that long-term comparisons become problematic.

A person reacting to emotional propaganda is much worse then someone voting by dice.

A large group of people voting by dice do not effect the out of the election. A group of people reacting to emotional propaganda may very well vote all the same way and effect the election for irrational reasons.

The group of people who decide to self select themselves out of the voting process by ignorance are allowing the group swayed by propaganda to have a larger control of the vote.

Therefore do to the above mentioned effect and the Dunning-Kruger effect it is only rational not to vote if have evidence that your vote will do more damage then a random vote.

By virtue of suggesting the very specific texts that you have suggested you have in essence suggested voting for a candidate of a specific set of characteristics. I could very well in turn suggest another list of texts, to reach a differing conclusion.

Seems much like a Catch-22 game.

Therefore, please just vote. From your life experiences, what you believe in, what sounds good to you, or by whatever text is of your liking.

They were suggestions only. Feel free to suggest your own. I tried to pick a varied set (Mill, Locke, and Mises should each give you a somewhat different philosophy of government).

I'm not saying that you've got to have the same values as me. I'm saying that whatever your values are, you should (a) be able to support an argument about them; and (b) you should understand how the candidates relate to those issues.

I'm not saying whether Hayek or Keynes is right about the economy. I'm saying that if you don't know the difference between the two, you've got no business voting an opinion about how the economy should be handled.

By your own logic, your post is flawed. Those who are more likely to heed it (i.e. those who know what they don't know) are presumably more well-versed on the issues than those who will not heed your advice (i.e. those who don't know what they don't know). Your post will do more harm than good by increasing the relative number of willfully ignorant voters, and by your own logic you should delete it.

P.S. The fact that it is reaching the limited audience of HN only strengthens my case, since HN readership tends to be more informed.

P.P.S. You also missed the possibility that elite voters have a different set of priorities than uninformed voters and would therefore misrepresent the majority of the populace.

Why that specific set of economists? Wouldn’t a Econ 101 handbook suffice? Anyone can go further if they wish to do that, it’s of no use plunging them in the middle of views which are at least sometimes controversial.

Do people who have taken political philosophy 101 vote significantly differently than the rest of the population? I highly doubt it.

That's either a very encouraging statement about the population at large, or a seriously scary statement about how much useful stuff people actually learn from political philosophy 101.

Do you know that in NYC (at least) you are not required to show your ID when voting? Due principally to undue burden on the voter, as I understand. And here you are suggesting that if you do not have a particular level of knowledge on certain subjects then you should not vote.

"...if you're relying only on your beliefs..."

Of course, I would argue the exact opposite. Between any number of subjective opinions, is it not ones beliefs that enable you to make a decision?

"If you've never taken a class or read a book on economics, please don't vote."

Perhaps you should not vote because i believe that you, Sir, are out of your mind.

While I support the idea of people educating themselves (and I would also recommend the reading list you provided), who can guarantee 100% that they are free from propaganda or brainwashing? Especially given the vast amount of information everyone is confronted with every day. We are emotional creatures, each susceptible to misdirection by those who intended it (or perhaps even worse, by those we trust who don't intend it).

Advocating that people take themselves out of the pool because they may not understand the entire situation would eliminate every possible voter.

Advocating that people take themselves out of the pool because they may not understand the entire situation would eliminate every possible voter.

It'd eliminate all of the candidates, too...

Feature, not bug.

I'm surprised this opinion has so much uptake. Ideally, we would all be highly informed. The reality however is that most of the voting public will not be, and your informed vote has no more weight than an uninformed one.

I don't like voting based on party, and I think the two-party system we have is inadequate, but the parties are there for a reason. I know that I'm voting for a platform if I vote for a Democrat or Republican or Libertarian, and that the candidate is going to represent that platform at least to some extent. In most cases, candidates' platforms are drawn directly from the party platforms, and you're not likely to find out much more about them until they've been in office for a while. Even then, what is knowable about a candidate is mostly in aggregate.

As to actual issues, these can be much less straightforward, but often it comes down to something as simple as, "do I want gambling at the mall?" (a current issue in my district). There are a lot of implications behind this - money coming in from out of state to protect other gambling interests, developers who want to build, etc. - but I still think it's valid for someone to vote for or against it for their own personal reasons. It is an expression of culture not just reason.

I'm voting for a platform if I vote for a Democrat or Republican or Libertarian

That's true to a certain extent. But it's only one side of the equation. Even if you can take party as a proxy for the candidate, it tells you nothing about the issues.

So, let's say that your biggest concern at the moment is the economy. Without knowing something about economics, how do you decide which party to support? If you can't tell the difference between Keynes and Hayek, everything else is just demagoguery. You're just judging the propaganda.

What if you're concern is healthcare? I know plenty of people who say "vote out the damn Democrats, and put in somebody who's smart enough to enact tort reform to fix the problem". These ill-informed views might make them feel superior, but giving people power to create policy based on them isn't going to help anything.

I think you should vote, even if you don't seem to understand what representation[1] means. You also seem to only refer to liberals, but at the same time you say people shouldn't vote? I thought individual freedom and equal rights was a core principle in liberalism, but I guess you are only counting positive freedom.

If you really believe that people shouldn't have a say in elections based on your criteria, you should at least ask them to actively do so by casting a blank vote. Otherwise your motives might be misinterpreted as trying to demoralize people who don't share your views from voting.

And as someone once said: "It ain’t so much the things we don’t know that get us into trouble. It’s the things we know that just ain’t so"

Not necessarily true just because someone said so, but I do agree with the point being made.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_(politics)

You also seem to only refer to liberals,... I thought individual freedom and equal rights was a core principle in liberalism, but I guess you are only counting positive freedom.

Huh? I mentioned JS Mill and Locke, Mises and Hayek. The first two were classical liberals. That's a very different thing than what we label "Liberal" (with a capital "L") today. You'll find individual freedom at the core of their work (e.g., Mill's advocacy for women's suffrage).

Mises and Hayek would, I imagine, also consider themselves as classical liberals, but by their time the definition (in America) of "liberal" was changing (which is why I drew the capital-L distinction above). Both of them wrote extensively about the primacy of the individual.

You reference positive freedom, but the idea itself wasn't coined until the mid-1900s, long after Mill and Locke were dead, and with much of Hayek's career behind him. But I feel safe in saying that none of them would find much of value in the concept of positive freedom.

But my advocacy that you understand something is not the same thing as saying that you must agree with something. Indeed, in order to disagree with an idea, you must first understand what that idea is -- know your enemy, right?

As I've said elsewhere in this thread, the government backs up its policies with force and violence, ultimately. Thus, advocating a policy is, in the end, a threat of violence against those who disagree. If you're going to do that, you better be damned sure that your ideas are correct.

You must understand that other people don't necessarily share your idea of what's important. To me it seems you are saying that people shouldn't vote unless they know these subjects from this particular viewpoint and in extension therefor also share your view of what's important.

If you made the argument that no one should vote because no one can fully understand all different viewpoints and you yourself won't be voting, then I would at least understand the argument. But I don't think that is what you are saying.

Having people disenfranchise themselves based on whether or not they feel they have an adequate grasp on the real issues would not end as you'd hope. Are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect? If people took your advice to heart, the likely result would actually be a less-informed electorate: the only people who would actually disqualify themselves would be the only ones thoughtful and self-critical enough to countenance the possibility that they weren't qualified.

There is no principled way to distinguish between a vote based on propaganda from a vote based on knowledge that doesn't actively disenfranchise voters. So why even try? Just vote your say, and rather than expending your energy trying to keep people out of the ballot box, expend it on educating them.

As others have mentioned, there is an epistemological issue with your point. You should not be so confident in your ability to judge whether others are making decisions based on their "beliefs" or informed rationality, nor in your own ability to choose rationally.

I guess not many people get to vote, using this system...

Or read Marx.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com