35
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
35 points (100.0% liked)
AskBeehaw
2002 readers
30 users here now
An open-ended community for asking and answering various questions! Permissive of asks, AMAs, and OOTLs (out-of-the-loop) alike.
In the absence of flairs, questions requesting more thought-out answers can be marked by putting [SERIOUS] in the title.
Subcommunity of Chat
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
i find this a very unpersuasive argument in any context because—if you actually believe it—it's essentially an argument for bringing back literacy/intelligence testing in voting. and i'm sure i don't need to tell you about the long history of that being used to disenfranchise the "wrong" people for the crime of having a certain skintone or believing in equal rights for everyone; to say nothing of other ethical issues with the notion.
You're mixing two opposite issues there, the literacy tests you mention where in an effort to exclude people from voting.
In this this topic your asking if we should FORCE the uninformed and disinterested to vote.
These are anything but the same.
yes, which was justified with the notion of there supposedly being people who were "too uneducated" or "not-literate enough" to make decisions for themselves and therefore deserve an equal right to vote—which is the same underlying sentiment of "Do you really want to force cousin cleatus to be involved in the leadership decisions for the country?"
No, it's not. Forcing someone who is not knowledgeable or interested to vote is in no way the same as testing whether someone is educated to determine if they should be allowed to.
Cousin cleatus can show up and write fuck you on their ballot and put it in the box if they are not knowledgeable or interested in voting. Or they can vote for the things which matter to them, because they are a member of society and should not be deprived of their right to a voice in the government which rules them as well.
I'm going to try one more time here...
Nobody said 'deny' at any point in this exchange. The OP said mandatory/compulsory, aka force them to do so.
Deny and compel are NOT the same thing, they are in fact functionally the opposite each other.
What point is there to compel someone who self-selects as lacking in knowledge/interest in the process. You waste time and resources for the voter, the process administrators, enforcement personnel, everyone any anyone involved including the willing and eager participants by creating longer lines and a wasting their tax funds just to satisfy a mandate by having Cleatus write 'fuck you' on a ballot.
If that is too complicated to understand I can't help you.
This assumes the voting process will stay exactly the same as it is today
Of note - mandatory only means that it is legally required. It does not mean you have to force them to show up. It specifies nothing in terms of actual implementation, other than a law requiring a vote.