To summarize: I am too ignorant to write an informed diary on Kos, therefore am too ignorant to vote responsibly.
And I'm afraid I'm in the majority.
Every time I think about the concept of me voting I think through issues and often hit dead ends. The dead end is where ignorance or fear grips me. Either way, I need to do some research. Do you know how many issues there are? Lots. I don't have time for all that research.
And I often have opinions I'd like to write about here on Kos. I'll write a whole diary, read it and delete it without publishing. I do this because it dawns on me that just one expert on the topic could probably rip me to shreds. How dare I have an opinion on most everything. I do have 2 areas of expertise, but they don't come up much on Kos. That leaves about 9 billion areas of which I'm not competent to form an opinion.
Read on to read my chilling conclusion.
Mr. Tom Tancredo recently said some controversial and racist remarks. Actually, as a Canadian, I didn't know they were racist because I don't know American history overly well. I guess he suggested that people should be required to write a test before voting. This is a topic that has occasionally come up in Canada and is always rejected as well. While I support the idea of a test, I would reject it in practice since it would be impossible to write fair questions. Basically, it isn't practical.
But if perfectly fair questions could be asked, shouldn't they be? Should someone who believes the patently false be allowed to vote on that issue? Of course not. The irony here is that the Republican base would not be allowed to vote if such tests were implemented.
But what about the other 75% of voters? Does the average person really know enough to vote wisely? And what are they voting for? Are they voting for self-interest or for the nation's interest? (they often conflict)
If this diary is too long, it won't be read, so I'm gonna cut out a bunch of negative opinions on your average voter (of which I am one of course).
Conservatives came to power in Canada because Canadians were pissed at the Liberal government over a funding scandal. Americans are said to now be voting against parties, not for parties. In fact, when things are going well, voter turnout tends to be low. When things are going bad, or there is a singular event (scandal), voter turn out is high.
My conclusion: People are too ignorant to vote (I count myself amongst them). People are inclined to vote against things, not for things.
Clearing up the ignorance issue would probably solve the second problem. Good luck with that.
Proposal: Meritocracy with "delections" to throw out those poorly selected. In Canada, judges are appointed after spending years being groomed by our justice system. Once appointed they remain basically nameless to the average Canadian until they do something stupid (like claiming that women can be worse than Nazis - for which he was forced to resign). Then the media kicks in and pressure for change is applied. In my proposal, if 51% of people signal for a change, the change can occur (and with modern technology, this can be done at any time).
Wouldn't it be nice if:
- minister of education was chosen by teachers
- minister for health and wellness chosen by medical organizations
- minister of fisheries chosen by fishermen
- minister of minerals chosen by miners
- etc etc
And the day someone permits an open pit mine on top Mount Rushmore, 51% of the people can text "no way", and that minister is dropped and a new one needs to be selected.
But again, what do I know about politics and the issues? I'm just a programmer with spare time. I'm not qualified to have these ideas.