The Ignorant Shouldnt Vote

[LogikAndReazon]

A classic argument for why democracies need widespread public education is that education makes people better voters,” Mankiw writes. “If this is true, then the less educated should show up at the polls less often. They are rationally delegating the decision to their better educated neighbors.”

Encouraging more ignorant people to vote is not just pointless, argues Jason Brennan; it’s morally wrong. There is no duty to vote, but many people may have a duty not to vote. Boosting turnout among citizens who are young, uneducated, or otherwise less likely to be engaged—the primary targets of get-out-the-vote campaigns—is likely to have the unintended consequence of encouraging people to fail in that duty.

To explain why we might worry about casting an uninformed vote even when no particular vote is likely to be decisive, Brennan conjures this terrifying thought experiment: Imagine you come across a firing squad about to kill an innocent child. Assume all the bullets will strike at the same time and that there’s nothing you can do to stop them. You are invited to be the 101st member of the squad. What do you say? Brennan posits a framework to deal with this kind of hypothetical, the “clean hands principle,” which states that “one should not participate in collectively harmful activities when the cost of refraining from such activities is low.”

None of this is to suggest that the government should test voters or use some other legal means to limit voting. Instead, this is a private moral concern for each voter. If you believe your vote is likely to be ill-informed or that a particular race is likely to yield an unfair, unjust, or otherwise bad outcome, you should refrain from participating in a collectively harmful activity, thus keeping your hands clean. Get-out-the-vote campaigns promote precisely the kind of morally condemnable ignorant voting we should be discouraging....

Your Vote Doesn't Count - Reason.com

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Obama has a lock on the "Knucklehead Vote"
One of the reasons the Housing and Mortgage Loan Crisis was so severe, was the banks massive lending to borrowers who had "No skin in the game" The results were predictably catastrophic. This election is going to have a lot of people with "No skin in the game" participating as well, their rallying cry "Where's my free stuff"
The results will be equally catastrophic.

 

[hazlnut]

That eliminates most of the teabrain racists.

 

[Leweman]

You're saying geniuses like this shouldn't be allowed to vote?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio]Original Obamaphone Lady: Obama Voter Says Vote for Obama because he gives a free Phone - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Inthemiddle]

The right to vote belongs to all law abiding citizens. Nothing should ever be done to impede or discourage its free exercise, period.

 

[Old Rocks]

A classic argument for why democracies need widespread public education is that education makes people better voters,” Mankiw writes. “If this is true, then the less educated should show up at the polls less often. They are rationally delegating the decision to their better educated neighbors.”

Encouraging more ignorant people to vote is not just pointless, argues Jason Brennan; it’s morally wrong. There is no duty to vote, but many people may have a duty not to vote. Boosting turnout among citizens who are young, uneducated, or otherwise less likely to be engaged—the primary targets of get-out-the-vote campaigns—is likely to have the unintended consequence of encouraging people to fail in that duty.

To explain why we might worry about casting an uninformed vote even when no particular vote is likely to be decisive, Brennan conjures this terrifying thought experiment: Imagine you come across a firing squad about to kill an innocent child. Assume all the bullets will strike at the same time and that there’s nothing you can do to stop them. You are invited to be the 101st member of the squad. What do you say? Brennan posits a framework to deal with this kind of hypothetical, the “clean hands principle,” which states that “one should not participate in collectively harmful activities when the cost of refraining from such activities is low.”

None of this is to suggest that the government should test voters or use some other legal means to limit voting. Instead, this is a private moral concern for each voter. If you believe your vote is likely to be ill-informed or that a particular race is likely to yield an unfair, unjust, or otherwise bad outcome, you should refrain from participating in a collectively harmful activity, thus keeping your hands clean. Get-out-the-vote campaigns promote precisely the kind of morally condemnable ignorant voting we should be discouraging....

Your Vote Doesn't Count - Reason.com

Well no, no way am I going to stand in the way of 'Conservatives' voting. Just repeadedly try to get through their wall of willfull ignorance. Pretty hopeless task, but one has to try

 

[LogikAndReazon]

You should vote for whoever your local community organization tells you to vote for, and the one that offers the most govt welfare....................

Rock the Vote !!! Lol

 

[Mac1958]

.

Improve the culture and you'll have more educated voters.

.

 

[Seawytch]

If you believe your message is the right one, you should be encouraging, not discouraging voting. Obviously, conservatives don't think their message resonates.

 

[Cammmpbell]

A classic argument for why democracies need widespread public education is that education makes people better voters,” Mankiw writes. “If this is true, then the less educated should show up at the polls less often. They are rationally delegating the decision to their better educated neighbors.”

Encouraging more ignorant people to vote is not just pointless, argues Jason Brennan; it’s morally wrong. There is no duty to vote, but many people may have a duty not to vote. Boosting turnout among citizens who are young, uneducated, or otherwise less likely to be engaged—the primary targets of get-out-the-vote campaigns—is likely to have the unintended consequence of encouraging people to fail in that duty.

To explain why we might worry about casting an uninformed vote even when no particular vote is likely to be decisive, Brennan conjures this terrifying thought experiment: Imagine you come across a firing squad about to kill an innocent child. Assume all the bullets will strike at the same time and that there’s nothing you can do to stop them. You are invited to be the 101st member of the squad. What do you say? Brennan posits a framework to deal with this kind of hypothetical, the “clean hands principle,” which states that “one should not participate in collectively harmful activities when the cost of refraining from such activities is low.”

None of this is to suggest that the government should test voters or use some other legal means to limit voting. Instead, this is a private moral concern for each voter. If you believe your vote is likely to be ill-informed or that a particular race is likely to yield an unfair, unjust, or otherwise bad outcome, you should refrain from participating in a collectively harmful activity, thus keeping your hands clean. Get-out-the-vote campaigns promote precisely the kind of morally condemnable ignorant voting we should be discouraging....

Your Vote Doesn't Count - Reason.com

Not to worry. The racist state governments, in many of the states require a photo ID in order to cast a ballot. Tennessee has solved the problem....one's carry permit has a photo ID and since all the rednecks go armed it's a no brainer. Since we know what the intelligence level of a redneck is both problems are resolved.

"Thump Them Bibles And Shoot Any Atheist Who Refuses To Thump One"

 

[martybegan]

If you believe your message is the right one, you should be encouraging, not discouraging voting. Obviously, conservatives don't think their message resonates.

Its because the truth hurts, as opposed to the current Democratic method of governance, which is promise the moon, tax "other people" to pay for it, and hope you are retired somewhere else or dead when the bills come in.

 

[Cammmpbell]

If you believe your message is the right one, you should be encouraging, not discouraging voting. Obviously, conservatives don't think their message resonates.

Its because the truth hurts, as opposed to the current Democratic method of governance, which is promise the moon, tax "other people" to pay for it, and hope you are retired somewhere else or dead when the bills come in.

You greedy bastards make my rectum crave lime juice. Everybody used to be patriotic and share in the nation's financial problems. Now the richest among us who wouldn't know one end of a rifle from another don't even consider helping in the wars they declare or the cost of them either. Tax rates are as low as they've been in decades and all you can hear from the right is "we need more tax cuts"

 

[Ravi]

A classic argument for why democracies need widespread public education is that education makes people better voters,” Mankiw writes. “If this is true, then the less educated should show up at the polls less often. They are rationally delegating the decision to their better educated neighbors.”

Encouraging more ignorant people to vote is not just pointless, argues Jason Brennan; it’s morally wrong. There is no duty to vote, but many people may have a duty not to vote. Boosting turnout among citizens who are young, uneducated, or otherwise less likely to be engaged—the primary targets of get-out-the-vote campaigns—is likely to have the unintended consequence of encouraging people to fail in that duty.

To explain why we might worry about casting an uninformed vote even when no particular vote is likely to be decisive, Brennan conjures this terrifying thought experiment: Imagine you come across a firing squad about to kill an innocent child. Assume all the bullets will strike at the same time and that there’s nothing you can do to stop them. You are invited to be the 101st member of the squad. What do you say? Brennan posits a framework to deal with this kind of hypothetical, the “clean hands principle,” which states that “one should not participate in collectively harmful activities when the cost of refraining from such activities is low.”

None of this is to suggest that the government should test voters or use some other legal means to limit voting. Instead, this is a private moral concern for each voter. If you believe your vote is likely to be ill-informed or that a particular race is likely to yield an unfair, unjust, or otherwise bad outcome, you should refrain from participating in a collectively harmful activity, thus keeping your hands clean. Get-out-the-vote campaigns promote precisely the kind of morally condemnable ignorant voting we should be discouraging....

Your Vote Doesn't Count - Reason.com

You should follow your own advice.

 

[JWBooth]

True, but then who would that leave to support Obama and Romney?

 

[martybegan]

If you believe your message is the right one, you should be encouraging, not discouraging voting. Obviously, conservatives don't think their message resonates.

Its because the truth hurts, as opposed to the current Democratic method of governance, which is promise the moon, tax "other people" to pay for it, and hope you are retired somewhere else or dead when the bills come in.

You greedy bastards make my rectum crave lime juice. Tax rates are as low as they've been in decades and all you can hear from the right is "we need more tax cuts"

And how many people are in the top bracket at any given time? You guys keep leaving that information out....

and considering your usual posting, some lime juice in your rectum might improve your intellect.

 

[Seawytch]

If you believe your message is the right one, you should be encouraging, not discouraging voting. Obviously, conservatives don't think their message resonates.

Its because the truth hurts, as opposed to the current Democratic method of governance, which is promise the moon, tax "other people" to pay for it, and hope you are retired somewhere else or dead when the bills come in.

So because you believe your own lies, voters should be disenfranchised as a result?

 

[martybegan]

If you believe your message is the right one, you should be encouraging, not discouraging voting. Obviously, conservatives don't think their message resonates.

Its because the truth hurts, as opposed to the current Democratic method of governance, which is promise the moon, tax "other people" to pay for it, and hope you are retired somewhere else or dead when the bills come in.

So because you believe your own lies, voters should be disenfranchised as a result?

No, I answered the question of why I dont think the conservative message resonates, not about voting rights. I am currently fine with the current qualifications for voting.

What I meant is that fiscal conservatives are the "adults" of the conversation, telling people that the current state of "half keysian" spending cannot be sustained.

Democrats on the other hand basically just want to keep spending, and hope it all works out in the end. Currently ingorance is more palatable than asking the hard questions, and thus the fiscal conservative message does not resonate, because most people tend to ignore unpleseant realities.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Its because the truth hurts, as opposed to the current Democratic method of governance, which is promise the moon, tax "other people" to pay for it, and hope you are retired somewhere else or dead when the bills come in.

You greedy bastards make my rectum crave lime juice. Tax rates are as low as they've been in decades and all you can hear from the right is "we need more tax cuts"

And how many people are in the top bracket at any given time? You guys keep leaving that information out....

and considering your usual posting, some lime juice in your rectum might improve your intellect.

Bullshit and horse kock!! There was enough to pay for the wars.

Bush cut taxes twice, started two wars, began to borrow from Chinese banks for the first time in our history and doubled the national debt. What a bunch of naive losers.

Thump them bibles and starve the poor.

 

[martybegan]

You greedy bastards make my rectum crave lime juice. Tax rates are as low as they've been in decades and all you can hear from the right is "we need more tax cuts"

And how many people are in the top bracket at any given time? You guys keep leaving that information out....

and considering your usual posting, some lime juice in your rectum might improve your intellect.

Bullshit and horse kock!! There was enough to pay for the wars.

Bush cut taxes twice, started two wars, began to borrow from Chinese banks for the first time in our history and doubled the national debt. What a bunch of naive losers.

Thump them bibles and starve the poor.

and Obama promised to fix all this, in addition to healing the planet and lowering the waters. Didnt happen.

Still havent answered my question regarding how many people were in those top brackets. Nut up or shut up you worthless partisan hack.

So how did the lime juice in the rectum thing go? A bit of puckering?

 

[LogikAndReazon]

If someone votes based upon race, personality, looks, style, likeability, single issue concerns, or the expectation that some mindless bureaucrat is going to improve their life they shouldnt be voting........

The clueless vote does not benefit the nation as a whole and is indeed immoral.....

Not to mention adolescently stupid slogans like "Hope & Change" and "Yes We Can!" Imbeciles