Wednesday, September 15, 2010

This sort of question make me think J.S. Mill was rite about edukated voting

Is an uninformed vote better than no vote?

There is absolutely no purpose in voting if you really have no clue about the issues surrounding the vote. Anyone who randomly fills out a ballot or fills one out based on a triviality (I just love his name!!!) distorts the electoral process. These people should stay home. However, if you extends the term “uninformed” to include those people that know very little about the election than you begin to get into some tricky territory.

In an ideal world we would all have the time and motivation to vigorously research every issue and every candidate so that we could make our own rational choices. The truth, however, is that for the majority of things a person votes on they are relying on another’s opinion. When I voted for Betty T. Yee for Board of Equalization I knew very little about her positions or even what she would do if elected. However, I did know that my beloved representative Mike Thompson supported her and that if he said she would be good, she would probably be good. I see very little wrong with this guidance by endorsement when the election is small positions like First District Representative on the Board of Equalization. I don’t understand what people on this board do and to make an informed vote would take hours of time. I would much prefer to let the trusted expert make that judgment for me. We rely on experts to guide us for so much else that not allowing them to influence us in such situations seems ridiculous.

However, I do believe that a person needs to take a lot of time when figuring out who they can trust. I do not trust his endorsement because of his looks and a few tag lines. I base my trust in Rep. Thompson on a close examination of his views, his character, and from his actions as a congressperson. A democracy is reliant upon this sort of educated vote.

That brings us to the issue of education. The philosophers who’s ideas the US founded itself upon did not stress the need for state run education because they believed that only the landowners should be given the right to vote and landowners could be trusted to educate their children. However, now that suffrage has been extended to all citizens and parents no longer have the ability to educate their children due to the modern work schedule the government has been given this responsibility. The problem now is that the US is failing in that responsibility. And while going to college is not necessary for an education it certainly helps. My opinion is that until we dramatically reform the educational system to enable those with even the lowest of incomes to receive quality schooling and a college degree our democracy will suffer. There will always be ignorant people that will vote in ridiculous ways, they will have to be tolerated for the sake of equality. But the least we can do is make sure that anyone who is able to form rational opinions is given the opportunity to refine them.

1 comment:

  1. I agree, the answer to this question really depends on the definition of uninformed. I think that if someone really has no idea who the candidates are, then they should not vote, but if "uninformed" includes people who only know the basics - like what party the candidate is - then I think it's better to have their vote then to not. I don't agree that people need to take a lot of time to figure out who they can trust - the way I see it, all politicians are somewhat corrupt. Most are not completely trustworthy, so I don't think that it's always worth the effort to spend the time figuring out who to trust.

    ReplyDelete