I'm saying that there's not really a reason to believe (b) in this scenario. When it comes to something like voting, which is one of the only ways to express any political power in this country as a non elected or appointed official, I definitely lean to the side of "More people should have access", because it's incredibly dangerous if we start wading into what "informed" means. I could sit here and argue you with you that people who used drop-boxes in 2020 were more informed, because they were taking precautions in the pandemic. You could argue that they were less informed, because they were scared of something they shouldn't be scared of. We could go in circles all day with that. I think the ethical problem of trying to decide who is actually "informed" if we want to restrict voting is a bigger one than the idea of ill-informed people voting Unless you really truly showed me evidence that making it harder to vote means less ill-informed people will vote, I'm not changing position here, and I don't see how you do that because there's no universal answer for what makes someone "informed"
The argument that "Ill-informed voting is harmful" is not an argument to make it harder to vote in general for people who have less access to voting areas around election offices, unless you think those people should be discriminated against on the basis of being less likely to be well-informed. Is that your position?
I'm just offering up an explanation for the "alternative view" that I posted. Brennan's book is fascinating and very well written. I wish more people were familiar with it. I agree with you that all else being equal, more voting is better than less voting. But recent history in this country should demonstrate that an excess of ill-informed voting can have unpredictable and uncontrollable results. Brennan's arguments against too-easy voting deserve to be taken seriously.
The reason many are not isn't because they want people cheating or voting as someone they aren't, but for the reasons I said. If it's an issue you care about, offering the compromise I suggested (fixing the bureaucratic issues that prevent certain people from obtaining a valid voter ID) would likely get the laws passed in far more places.
we restrict the vote to citizens who are 18 years of age and older . . . in part because we have good reason to believe that the votes coming from younger people would be ill-informed. this is not a controversial issue.
If the argument is that people for whom it is more difficult to get to a voting area near an election office should be discriminated against because they are less likely to be well-informed, I think that would be pretty controversial. Should we restrict voting to college-educated adults, because they are more likely to be informed? Should we restrict it on the basis of one's occupation? Why not, by the logic you are presenting? It's one thing to argue that voters should pass some sort of test to assess how well informed they are to be retain the right to vote. That has its own problems, but fine one can debate that. But voting discrimination based on perceived likelihoods that someone may not be as well informed is a really bad idea. Children not being given the vote is a matter of practicality. An age cutoff has to be applied somewhere, and 18 is as good an age as any.
again, I was responding NARROWLY to the statement made by another poster: "it's a good thing if it is easy to vote." I offered up the possibility that one could plausibly disagree with that statement and for good reasons. I tried to explain briefly how such an argument might be presented. again, I think your statement here can be disputed. Brennan's book has a chapter on "wrongful voting," on the Princeton site you can read a precis or summary of the chapter: This chapter argues that citizens have to meet certain epistemic standards when they vote, or otherwise they ought to abstain. It describes two kinds of bad voting: unexcused harmful voting and fortuitous voting. Unexcused harmful voting occurs when a person votes, without epistemic justification, for harmful polices or for candidates likely to enact harmful policies. This kind of voting is collectively—not individually—harmful, because individual votes have insignificant expected utility or disutility. On the other hand, fortuitous voting occurs when citizens vote for what are in fact beneficial policies or candidates likely to enact beneficial policies, but they lack sufficient justification to believe that these policies or candidates are good. In other words, fortuitous voting occurs when a person makes the right choice for the wrong reasons or for no reason at all. Now, you are choosing to use the normatively-loaded term "discrimination." One could use the slightly less loaded word to express the same idea--that is, discouraging voting done for bad reasons or based upon bad or lacking information. Again, my interest in this conversation initially was simply to respond to the statement that was made: "it's a good thing if it is easy to vote." This seemed to me to be a blanket statement that is not if ever always true. In saying this I am in no way meaning to knock the person who made that statement. I just think the statement as a gross generalization is incorrect. saying this is a "practicality" begs the question. The reason we draw that line (the "age cutoff"), i.e., the WHY we have an age cutoff, is because younger voters lack the knowledge, maturity, and civic skills required for voting.
I'm well aware of this movement. In fact, why argue for stopping at 16? We could simply extend the franchise all the way back to birth, and allow parents to vote on behalf of their children until such time in the parents' opinion the child is old enough to cast the vote unassisted for him or herself.
I'd like us to have a national ID card that is issued to every person in the country for free. It could be an ID, carry info about licenses to drive, hunt, fish, carry a concealed handgun, work restrictions, voting registrations, social security info, etc. Maybe you can digitally append birth certificates, marriage certificates, and the like. One stop shop. If this was true, I wouldn't want to have elections at all. If we're going to do it, fully commit. I'm more inclined to have a law to require everyone to vote.
Brennan has the entry at SEP on the ethics and rationality of voting: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting/ it includes a section on compulsory voting: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting/#JustCompVoti
I agree that would be a pratical solution and I've never been against voter ID as long as it was easy to get an ID. Such a program though would be absolutely loathed by many, including those arguing for voter ID. A national ID would be seen as big government tracking people.
not if they planted it as a chip in your forearm. also you could tattoo the number there for when the scanners aren't working
I actually think bigtexxx once argued that he should have more votes than the custodial people at his office because he made more money. A test for voting sounds great except for...well every previous time we had that in this country. Especially now in this "post-truth" era. What would you even ask about? People can't agree on basic facts anymore, so any "correct" answer is going to be politicized. You could, in theory, make everyone take a citizenship test...but at that it becomes a 14th Amendment issue because youre denying the benefits of birthright citizenship. If you have the Feds offer it, whatever party isnt in charge will oppose the test on any question and challenge it. If you give it to states to adminster, were back at Jim Crow.
Long lines are back at US food banks as inflation hits high Long lines are back at outside food banks around the U.S. as working Americans overwhelmed by inflation increasingly seek handouts to feed their families Long lines are back at food banks around the U.S. as working Americans overwhelmed by inflation turn to handouts to help feed their families. With gas prices soaring along with grocery costs, many people are seeking charitable food for the first time, and more are arriving on foot. Inflation in the U.S. is at a 40-year high and gas prices have been surging since April 2020, with the average cost nationwide briefly hitting $5 a gallon in June. Rapidly rising rents and an end to federal COVID-19 relief have also taken a financial toll.The food banks, which had started to see some relief as people returned to work after pandemic shutdowns, are struggling to meet the latest need even as federal programs provide less food to distribute, grocery store donations wane and cash gifts don’t go nearly as far. Tomasina John was among hundreds of families lined up in several lanes of cars that went around the block one recent day outside St. Mary’s Food Bank in Phoenix. John said her family had never visited a food bank before because her husband had easily supported her and their four children with his construction work. “But it’s really impossible to get by now without some help,” said John, who traveled with a neighbor to share gas costs as they idled under a scorching desert sun. “The prices are way too high.” Jesus Pascual was also in the queue. “It’s a real struggle,” said Pascual, a janitor who estimated he spends several hundred dollars a month on groceries for him, his wife and their five children aged 11 to 19. The same scene is repeated across the nation, where food bank workers predict a rough summer keeping ahead of demand.
Sen. Cotton: Parents Have Not Forgotten What Democrats Have Done To Our Children For The Last Two Years Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) tells FOX News host Laura Ingraham that parents will reject Democrats in November because they haven't forgotten what they did to our kids over the last two years. "In the spring of 2020, we were saying we had to get our schools open again," Cotton said. "And that’s exactly what we did in states like Arkansas in the fall of 2020, we had kids in classes five days a week. A lot of other states did as well, but all of those Democratic-run states and school districts kept their schools closed, and you did a great job of cataloging all of the misery and pain that we have inflicted on our children. They've fallen behind academically, emotionally and socially many of them are stunted in their development. All that idle time has led to a surge in juvenile delinquency and crime, but what has the Biden administration done besides school closures?" "They've just doubled down on all these policies," the Senator said. "When parents — the one silver lining of these closures was [they] saw what their kids were being indoctrinated with and began to stand up at school boards, or run for school boards, Merrick Garland sic'ed the feds on them. Joe Biden is waging war on charter schools. They're using Title IX to try to ruin women's sports and force kids to learn more about what pronouns to use rather than how to get a subject and a verb to agree with each other. Parents are fed up with this across the country and parents are going to reject the Democrats this fall because they have not forgotten what these Democrats have done to our children for the last two years."
