[Rian]

I’m not defending the country. I don’t even consider myself particularly patriotic. I’m defending the people who are doing their best to make it better, whose efforts you malign when you say that all Americans are apathetic.

Indeed, I do recognize that things have been going badly wrong. But I prefer celebrating those who are trying to fix it over commiserating with people who think it’s hopeless.

[MR_T3D]

This brings me to one of the greatest questions i have: Is democracy as we see it wortwhile?
Is it right that my well informed descision that candidate 'A' will not send my country of a cliff equal to a foolish 40-year-old mother of 5 who believes that since candidate 'B' outright lied about and said 'A' will eliminate child benifites in an ad on her soap opera, and that is her sloe factor in voting?
But to propse that all people whom want to vote MUST complete a civics course when they are 18, and act retroactivity so that all voters must complete it will likely be out-voted by 'B' and 'B''s millions of asine moron supporters.
hmmm...

[General Battuta]

 

Everyone is all upset about Republicans cheating but no one is talking about how the democrats had dead people vote for them in the last two elections.

Cause they lost. Had they won this argument would have been the other way around.

But that’s a separate issue entirely from claiming that the public doesn’t care – an attitude that I’m beginning to think has more to do with feeling superior to the stupid Americans than actual concern for the issues.

Ah, so now we're going to the Anti-Americanism defence. I did wonder when that one would pop up. Have I not already said that I wish the people in the UK cared more already?


Try making a comment about this sort of thing about British politics and see what happens. Everyone agrees with you. That's why we don't have debates like this about British politics. It's not that no one starts topics bashing the British political system or our stupid, short-sighted, greedy politicians or the idiots who vote them into power. It's just that only when dealing with America do you get people so desperate to defend their country that they'll argue the point  rather than simply agreeing.

Kara, aren't you being a little selective in your arguments? You only responded to a fraction of Rian's post.

I know her pretty well and I can tell you she's the last person who's 'desperate to defend her country'. Most of America does agree with you, Kara. And from reading the news over here I can tell you that there are plenty of people out there doing things about these problems, and lots being accomplished.

It's frustrating when people don't recognize that change is incremental and difficult.

[Nuclear1]

Everyone is all upset about Republicans cheating but no one is talking about how the democrats had dead people vote for them in the last two elections.

Cause they lost. Had they won this argument would have been the other way around.

Whether they won or lost, they should be held as accountable as the Republicans.  They still cheated.

Ah, so now we're going to the Anti-Americanism defence. I did wonder when that one would pop up.

That's not what this is about.  I'm deeply sorry we're not able to bring change to an extremely heterogeneous country of 300+ million as quickly as Europe did, but its a slightly different situation over here.

It's funny, the United States is probably the one country that would benefit the most from a multi-party, coalition-style government and yet is one of the few Western countries which doesn't use it.

[karajorma]

I’m not defending the country. I don’t even consider myself particularly patriotic. I’m defending the people who are doing their best to make it better, whose efforts you malign when you say that all Americans are apathetic.

If you read my arguments I've actually been very careful to avoid using the word all and have always prefaced my comments with most or in general.

So yes, most Americans are apathetic about this stuff. And yes there are some who aren't, but there are nowhere near enough of them.

But to propse that all people whom want to vote MUST complete a civics course when they are 18, and act retroactivity so that all voters must complete it will likely be out-voted by 'B' and 'B''s millions of asine moron supporters.

To be honest I wouldn't disagree with you about the idea. The problem is that in practice both A and B are going to spend the entire time complaining about bias in the civics course whenever they don't win. Because an educated electorate is the biggest danger almost every politician could face.

Whether they won or lost, they should be held as accountable as the Republicans.  They still cheated.

Absolutely. But the question was why no one is talking about it. And it's for the same reason no one cares much if someone who came fourth in an Olympic event tests positive for drugs. In the end it changes nothing. Now when someone who won something tests positive, then you have a story.

[MR_T3D]

well, that civic's course is a smite better than an IQ test where people who score low enough simply do not vote, like convicts (most convicts ARE pretty stupid...right?)

[Mongoose]

But to propse that all people whom want to vote MUST complete a civics course when they are 18, and act retroactivity so that all voters must complete it will likely be out-voted by 'B' and 'B''s millions of asine moron supporters.

To be honest I wouldn't disagree with you about the idea.

And I would view it as the biggest affront to rights ever perpetuated on a populace that considers themselves "free."  What is simultaneously the greatest blessing and greatest curse of any democratic system is that everyone's vote has equal weight, whether they be the chair of a university's political science department or a welfare mom who decries "rich old white men."  Apathetic or not, informed or not, we're all one and the same once we set foot inside that voting booth.  Take that away, and the whole idea of voting as a citizen's right becomes utterly moot.

[Rian]

Moreover, qualifying tests have a nasty history. Literacy tests were used to disenfranchise black voters after the passage of the fifteenth amendment, and a civics test today would disproportionately deter economically disadvantaged citizens.

Educated or not, everyone should have the opportunity to vote on the matters relevant to their lives. It’s in their own interest to educate themselves about the issues and candidates on the ballot, because they will have to live with the results. No further qualification should be necessary.

[Nuclear1]

Whoa whoa, I'm going to have to disagree with you two.  I don't find it unamerican in the least to have civic education be a requirement for voting--if you look back far enough you'll see the people who wrote the Constitution and shaped our country did nothing but stress the importance of an educated populace being essential to the life of a democracy. Greek democracy and Roman republicanism (well, the early part at least) succeeded because their people were educated enough to make informed decisions.

If you want to talk about disenfranchisement, how many well-educated and informed voters are screwed because they are so outnumbered in their own state by the folks who vote "how daddy voted" or base their entire political decisions off of a smear ad?  What's worse, our country's electoral process favors that exact situation, and that's how politicians are elected.

Civics education should be mandatory at the high school level here.  I know that before I took my civics class, I simply would've voted how my parents voted, and I'm certain that's the case with at least 50% of the people I took the class with. 

I do want a free America, where everyone should be allowed to vote, but electing the future leaders of the free world, the third most populous nation on Earth, and one of the most influential countries is too delicate and important a process to be left to people who don't even know which Amendment gave them their right to vote.

[Topgun]

Whoa whoa, I'm going to have to disagree with you two.  I don't find it unamerican in the least to have civic education be a requirement for voting--if you look back far enough you'll see the people who wrote the Constitution and shaped our country did nothing but stress the importance of an educated populace being essential to the life of a democracy. Greek democracy and Roman republicanism (well, the early part at least) succeeded because their people were educated enough to make informed decisions.

yeah, but who decides who is educated enough to vote? if you do that then someone will, without a doubt, use that to gain control, or at least, keep control. next thing you know you have a dictatorship where the only people allowed to vote are the so-called "educated" ones that have the same extremest views or are being paid off by those in power. basically what the constitution was meant to protect us against.

that or schools become "re-education centers". all other schools that have different views will be classified as "not good enough to give you the right to vote".

[Nuclear1]

That's why civic education is run by an independent, nonpartisan organization which sets the standards, not federal or state education departments.

[Mongoose]

In an ideal world, perhaps that works.  In this world, not a chance.  I'd much rather err on the side of not-screwing-people-over.

(Also, interestingly enough, even before I took a government class [which was optional, sadly] in high school, my political views were largely opposite that of my parents'. )

[Rian]

There’s a difference between making civics a mandatory class in school and requiring a test before voting. I’m all in favor of the former, but still have to oppose the latter.

[karajorma]

That's the basic problem with it. If you make the classes mandatory but lack a test many people will ignore, skip or just piss about in them. But if you include a test you risk disenfranchising the poor.