Hacker News Reader

Comment by CWuestefeld | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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...

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com