Posted on 08/01/2007 2:13:58 PM PDT by GATOR NAVY
Can you name all three branches of government? Can you name even one? Do you know who your congressman is? Your senators? Do you even know how many senators each state gets? If you know the answers to these questions (and you probably do because you’re an NRO reader), you’re in the minority.
A very high percentage of the U.S. electorate isn’t very well qualified to vote, if by “qualified” you mean having a basic understanding of our government, its functions and its challenges. Almost half of the American public doesn’t know that each state gets two senators. More than two thirds can’t explain the gist of what the Food and Drug Administration does.
Now, the point isn’t to say that the American people are stupid, which is the typical knee-jerk reaction of self-absorbed political junkies. Rather, it’s that millions of Americans just don’t care about politics, much the same way that I don’t care about cricket: They think it’s boring. Ask me how cricket works and I’m likely to respond with the same blank, uncomprehending stare my old basset hound used to give me when I asked him to chase a Frisbee. Ask the typical American to explain, say, what a cloture vote is, and you’ll get the same.
And yet, to suggest that maybe some people just shouldn’t vote is considered the height of un-Americanism. As economist Bryan Caplan notes in his bracing new book, The Myth of the Rational Voter, there are few subjects on which Americans are more dogmatic and ideological.
Consider the hoary cliche attributed to Democratic New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928: “All the ills of democracy can be cured by more democracy.” As Caplan notes, this means that no evidence of any nature can ever, under any circumstances, be held against democracy: “A person who said, ‘All the ills of the markets can be cured by more markets’ would be lampooned as the worst sort of market fundamentalist. Why the double standard?”
One response is that democracy is at the core of our secular faith. But surely even democracy voluptuaries can appreciate that faith-based ideologies can be taken too far. We do not let children vote, yet no serious person would argue that our democratic values are significantly undermined because we bar ten-year-olds from the voting booth.
Voter-turnout fanatics concerned with more than mere aggrandizement for the Democratic party argue that voting is a sign of civic health. But doesn’t it matter why you vote?
Last summer, an Arizona activist went so far as to propose that every voter be enrolled in a state lottery, on the assumption that what our political system really lacks is more voters who need to be bribed with lottery tickets.
Some more serious people suggest that voting should be mandatory, believing that if the “disenfranchised” — often code for dream Democratic voters — cast ballots, the country would move profoundly to the left. John Kenneth Galbraith proclaimed in 1986: “If everybody in this country voted, the Democrats would be in for the next 100 years.”
This last bit is almost certainly false. The evidence is that if every eligible voter voted, national elections would probably remain unchanged. “Simply put,” political scientists Benjamin Highton and Raymond Wolfinger wrote in a 2001 article, “The Political Implications of Higher Turnout,” U.S. “voters’ preferences differ minimally from those of all citizens; outcomes would not change if everyone voted.”
So, maybe, just maybe, we have our priorities wrong. Perhaps cheapening the vote by requiring little more than an active pulse (Chicago famously waives this rule) has turned it into something many people don’t value. Maybe the emphasis on getting more people to vote has dumbed down our democracy by pushing participation onto people uninterested in such things. Maybe our society would be healthier if politicians aimed higher than the lowest common denominator. Maybe the people who don’t know the first thing about how our system works aren’t the folks who should be driving our politics, just as people who don’t know how to drive shouldn’t have a driver’s license.
Instead of making it easier to vote, maybe we should be making it harder. Why not test people on the basic functions of government? Immigrants have to pass a test to vote; why not all citizens?
A voting test would point the arrow of civic engagement up instead of down, sending the signal that becoming an informed citizen is a valued accomplishment. And if that’s not a good enough reason, maybe this is: If you threaten to take the vote away from the certifiably uninformed, voter turnout will almost certainly get a boost.
© 2007 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
Here is a ridiculous opinion column on they same subject.
An alternate way to reach the voters
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
By MARIA ELENA SALINAS
The July 23 YouTube/CNN debate among Democratic presidential contenders was an innovative alternative. Having actual voters asking very direct questions on video, via the Internet, instead of polished journalists asking well-thought-out, methodical questions gave the debate a sense of freshness. It’s the 21st century, and — let’s face it — technologically speaking, that’s the way to go. You have to reach voters through the Internet, on their cell phones or even on their iPods. But wait — don’t throw out the moderator just yet.
Anderson Cooper did a great job with his straightforward follow-up questions, keeping the candidates on track.
Geez! they=the!
I think the courts hold that any test of civic knowledge amounts to a "poll tax" and therefore it won't happen until the courts get a dictionary.
The Executive (the White House), The Legislative (the Senate and Congress), and the Judicial (the Supreme court).
"Do you know who your congressman is?"
Steve Israel.
"Your senators?"
Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer (hanging my head in shame)
"Do you even know how many senators each state gets?"
Two.
that’s great except the fact that you live in california! :)
Blame for these amazing levels of ignorance needs to be placed squarely on our public schools. Eighth grade students ought to be able to answer those questions in order to enter high school.
I don't know why it even exists
Only according to this map...
And yet, to suggest that maybe some people just shouldn’t vote is considered the height of un-Americanism.
How about illegal aliens? Shouldl they vote?
How about the dead? Should they vote?
How about mush-brained teens who can't think for themselves? Should they vote?
And then, soldiers deployed overseas SHOULD be allowed to vote - but that doesn't always happen (Florida 2000)...
I got 350 points.
As did I; I would be very surprised if anyone from FReeperland got less than 300.
My mother is from Great Yarmouth. That’s why I knew the answers and also why I have very good table manners.
I asked his old basset hound how Cricket worked, and got quite a comprehensive, lucid answer. He's a basset; they don't do 'Frisbee', for Pete's sake.
On a more serious note- I'm reminded of Hannity's Man-in-the-Street interviews. None of the respondents know fecal matter from shoe polish, but they all know that they're going to pull the lever for whoever the Dem candidate is.
When asked- they have no clue why.
Those on the dole, in public housing should not be voting. Many of our country's woes stem from the effects of non-producers voting to relieve the producers of their hard earned income. In fact, there could be no Democrat party without such parasites.
You scored 349 out of 350 possible points, or 99.71%
I didn’t know that was maddonna
But in any case, I see no reason to push those without interest to vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.