Get out the vote

I've always been a little ambivalent about the push to convince Americans to vote in every election.  In principle, I agree that having more people vote is good; on the other hand, it seems kind of overbearing, in the way that the anti-smoking campaign seemed well-intentioned but became overbearing.  I will not wear the "I voted" stickers, for instance, because it seems infantile.  Then again, maybe it's just because I'm so contrary.

In either case, I thought it would be a good idea to consider the other side of getting more people to vote.  Thinking of it in economic terms, we can consider the marginal voters -- the ones who don't vote now but will be the next ones to be convinced to do so.  It seems logical that people who are motivated to vote are also the ones who are motivated to research the issues, and that people who haven't thought much about the issues will be the ones who care the least and are least likely to vote.  Therefore, by convincing more people to vote, we are dumbing down the electorate.

Now, that doesn't mean that people shouldn't vote.  Actually, by taking the trouble to vote, new voters will also likely become more concerned to know the issues.  Encouraging more people to vote could therefore result in a more informed populace, even as it results in an electorate that is less informed on average.

My point is not that voting should or should not be encouraged, but rather that voting itself is not the most important thing.  What we really want is not more voters per se, but more voters who are informed about the issues.  Not only that, but we can expect that people who do become informed will also become more interested in the outcome and therefore more likely to vote.  So I propose that, instead of telling everyone to go vote, we should tell everyone to become informed about the issues, and let voting follow naturally.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Science and Philosophy, Part I: Hume and Popper

I've been listening to a lecture series on philosophy recently, and, even though I haven't gotten past the Greeks yet, it has reminded me of a number of issues that trouble me about science. I want to take the opportunity to express my concerns here. Along the way, I will probably oversimplify philosophy a great deal -- not on purpose, but rather because I have only a simplistic understanding of it. I welcome responses to clear up my misconceptions. One of my issues with science is the famous idea of Karl Popper that it can never establish positive claims, only falsify wrong ones. The history of this goes back to David Hume, the 18th century Scottish sceptic. He shook up the philosophical world by claiming that science could never prove anything through induction -- that is, drawing conclusions about physical laws based on observations. The classic illustration is the sun's rising. Even though the sun has risen every day for our whole lives, and for countless human l
Read more

Country Music

I noticed a long time ago that there isn't much difference between the sound of country music and rock music nowadays. If I'm surfing my radio and I come to a station playing jazz, classical, or rap, I recognize it right away; but if I come to a country or rock station, I often can't tell which it is until the song is half over. Country songs often have screaming guitars that would fit equally well in a hard rock song, and only a minority have a recognizably country instrument such as a fiddle or a banjo. All the same, no one could listen to a country music station for more than a few minutes without realizing that it is definitely not a rock station. What are the differences? There are some stylistic differences. Country songs are more likely to have a boogey beat or certain western-sounding bass lines. They also tend to be more formulaic: if you can't predict how a country song ends, you probably don't listen to much country music. But those things aren'
Read more

What Are Pronouns For?

 Here's what I don't get about people defining their own pronouns (and I use "their" advisedly):  If I am talking to you, your pronoun is "you."  No one disputes that.  If I am talking about you to another person, the pronoun I use to reference you is none of your business.  I am in a conversation with someone else; you are not a party to it, and you are not entitled to impose rules on it.  Ideally, you will never know what we say -- but if you do find out, it doesn't matter because the pronouns I used were for my convenience, not for your feelings.  Heck, I may not even have met you, may not have any idea what you identify as or even what sex you really are (as sometimes happens when people have names like "Leslie" or "Ashley" that get used for both sexes, or foreign names that I am unfamiliar with).  So mind your business and there will be nothing to get offended about.
Read more