Folks, I keep saying this and frankly this survey is better than I would think. Americans, as a whole, are ignorant. We need fewer voters, not more

Only 38 percent of Americans knew the Republican Party controls the U.S. House of Representatives, while 17 percent think Democrats are still in charge. The number of people who knew Republicans were in charge has dropped 17 percent since the last time Annenberg asked, back in 2011, right after Republicans reclaimed control.

An identical number, 38 percent, knows Democrats run the Senate, while 20 percent believe Republicans control the upper chamber. Only 27 percent knew it takes a two-thirds majority of the House and Senate to override a presidential veto.

Good night! There are at least 2 morons available to cancel an informed voter!

The alternative it to use this as part of an argument for better education, and a media that actually focuses on the facts rather than sensation and propaganda (and this applies to 'right wing', 'left wing' and non-partisan media sources).

Rather than 'fewer voters', surely you need 'more informed voters'? Disenfranchisement is unlikely to lead to a happy populace (especially if you exclude the majority, which might be the extrapolation of your post).

danivon wrote:The alternative it to use this as part of an argument for better education, and a media that actually focuses on the facts rather than sensation and propaganda (and this applies to 'right wing', 'left wing' and non-partisan media sources).

Rather than 'fewer voters', surely you need 'more informed voters'? Disenfranchisement is unlikely to lead to a happy populace (especially if you exclude the majority, which might be the extrapolation of your post).

I would agree, EXCEPT this is a problem with a scope beyond education. Much of our populace delight in being empty-headed. For evidence, I cite the rise of insipid reality shows.

But, if you want to look at our education system, it is more fixated on teaching politically-correct social positions than the nuts and bolts of how our government functions.

Of course, with voter turnout low, one would expect the actual voters to be more informed on average than the abstainers.

On your first point, that is what I meant by a more informative media. On your second, well, there should be a balance between how government works and what it has achieved.

danivon wrote:Of course, with voter turnout low, one would expect the actual voters to be more informed on average than the abstainers.

I think that is true.

What I would, of course, love is a poll that sat down with people after they voted and asked these kind of questions. I think it would be somewhat disheartening to anyone in favor of an informed electorate. In a divided country, a small number of ill-informed voters can make a large difference.

On your first point, that is what I meant by a more informative media.

If every program on every station save one taught civics, economics, history, etc., that one station would be the most popular--by far. There is a large swath of America that is proud of its ignorance. Oh, they wouldn't call it "ignorance," but it is.

On your second, well, there should be a balance between how government works and what it has achieved.

True, but without understanding the former, the latter is little more than mythology.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Of course, with voter turnout low, one would expect the actual voters to be more informed on average than the abstainers.

I think that is true.

What I would, of course, love is a poll that sat down with people after they voted and asked these kind of questions. I think it would be somewhat disheartening to anyone in favor of an informed electorate. In a divided country, a small number of ill-informed voters can make a large difference.

On your first point, that is what I meant by a more informative media.

If every program on every station save one taught civics, economics, history, etc., that one station would be the most popular--by far. There is a large swath of America that is proud of its ignorance. Oh, they wouldn't call it "ignorance," but it is.

well, there's something between dry programming and lowest-common-denominator...

The news programming would be a start though. Giving more 'news' and less 'opinion', and basing both on actual facts.

And I would say that the key is education - because without knowing that it is important, people are of course more likely to be distracted.

And there's nothing wrong with entertainment and fun, frivolity etc. Like all things, it's best in moderation (which includes civics etc).

On your second, well, there should be a balance between how government works and what it has achieved.

True, but without understanding the former, the latter is little more than mythology.

Well, a lot of what Americans believe about their country is mythology anyway.

danivon wrote:Well, a lot of what Americans believe about their country is mythology anyway.

Hey! Don't rain on my "George Washington Cherry Tree Plantation" business! I'm doing gangbusters. Tourists visit a replica of Mt Vernon's front porch ($20 admission/car); get to sit on the famous cherry tree stump for a photo ($20); try to throw a silver dollar across the Potomac River ($5); play "What's My Lie?" ($7.50) with a reenactor George Washington; and purchase a copy of Parson Weem's true and accurate biography of George Washington ($25).

Nobody wants the truth. If they did, we'd bring back public executions of politicians by guillotine.

This article seems relevant . http://www.yalelawjournal.org/feature/d ... electorate

fate

Folks, I keep saying this and frankly this survey is better than I would think. Americans, as a whole, are ignorant. We need fewer voters, not more

maybe you could start by having some kind of written test to qualify a congressman to sit on a comittee. Especially something like the Committee on Science and Technology.So even if idots are electing idots you don't give them extra power over an area they are unqualified to legislate upon...

from last nights daily show... http://thedailyshow.cc.com/

Last week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology interrogated Presidential Science Advisor John Holdren -- or, as Stewart called him, the hearing's Sisyphus "charged with the impossible task of pushing a million pounds of idiot up a mountain."
Holdren faced questions about "global wobbling," comments from a congressman who refuses to read scientific journals because he doesn't believe them, and gems like this one:
"I mean think about it, if your ice cube melts in your glass it doesn't overflow, it's displacement," Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) said. "This is the thing, some of the things they're talking about, mathematically and scientifically don't make sense."
That got Stewart burning.
"Are you @#$! kidding me? Are you @#$! kidding me? I don't even know what to do with that," Stewart said. "How far back to the elementary school core curriculum do we have to go to get someone on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology caught up?

"

rickyp wrote:fate

Folks, I keep saying this and frankly this survey is better than I would think. Americans, as a whole, are ignorant. We need fewer voters, not more

maybe you could start by having some kind of written test to qualify a congressman to sit on a comittee. Especially something like the Committee on Science and Technology.So even if idots are electing idots you don't give them extra power over an area they are unqualified to legislate upon...

from last nights daily show... http://thedailyshow.cc.com/

Last week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology interrogated Presidential Science Advisor John Holdren -- or, as Stewart called him, the hearing's Sisyphus "charged with the impossible task of pushing a million pounds of idiot up a mountain."
Holdren faced questions about "global wobbling," comments from a congressman who refuses to read scientific journals because he doesn't believe them, and gems like this one:
"I mean think about it, if your ice cube melts in your glass it doesn't overflow, it's displacement," Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) said. "This is the thing, some of the things they're talking about, mathematically and scientifically don't make sense."
That got Stewart burning.
"Are you @#$! kidding me? Are you @#$! kidding me? I don't even know what to do with that," Stewart said. "How far back to the elementary school core curriculum do we have to go to get someone on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology caught up?

"

I am ok with a test to hold office or vote. As long as the test is the same for both voting and political office that would be fine with me. Do you agree with that, RickyP; or do you only want it one way? (again)...

By the way, my favorite is Hank Johnson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs23CjIWMgA

bbauska wrote:By the way, my favorite is Hank Johnson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs23CjIWMgA

Amen.

Oh, and if rickyp really wants to get into a discussion about which Party has more idiots in office, I'd be happy to have that one. I will start with Joe Biden. By the time he gets done defending Biden's dumb statements, we'll all be dead.

But, the topic, if mr. p. will note, is the ignorance of the electorate. In fact, I would argue we are teetering on the kind of empty-headedness that would permit someone to defy the Constitution and establish a dictatorship.

bbauska

I am ok with a test to hold office or vote. As long as the test is the same for both voting and political office that would be fine with me. Do you agree with that, RickyP; or do you only want it one way? (again).

If the test curriculum were written by actual scholars and scientists etc. and wasn't a copy of the Texas high school curriculum or Liberty univesity I think you would weed out some idiots. Would that be an improvement on public discourse, debate and governance? Probably.

An uninformed electorate, that gets some of their information from ignorant politicians, does not contribute to the creation of an elite system. But in a system where so much is politicized (for example the curriculum and high school texts in the State of Texas) its what you have. Why some uniformed people even think that Obama is close to being a dictator. (Whilst at the same time caling him weak and ineffective.)
When you think that winning an election means you get to write your version of history, science, etc. facts become malleable and idiots can thrive.

I think that your real problem is that fundamentally there are people who think what they "beleive" is more important, then whats "factual". And that one's opinion must always be respected, even if its unsupported by evidence of any kind. (You see it even in the congressional hearing Stewart reported) When American society stops experiencing a clash between faith and science, then things will get better.

I'll bet Fates idea of a "litmus test" for being a qualified voter would be very different than that of, oh someone like Doris Kearns or john Holdren

rickyp wrote:I'll bet Fates idea of a "litmus test" for being a qualified voter would be very different than that of, oh someone like Doris Kearns or john Holdren

Than a plagiarist and a misanthrope? Maybe.

However, all I really ask is that people have a better than nebulous grasp on current events and how our system works.

rickyp wrote:from last nights daily show... http://thedailyshow.cc.com/

"I mean think about it, if your ice cube melts in your glass it doesn't overflow, it's displacement," Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) said. "This is the thing, some of the things they're talking about, mathematically and scientifically don't make sense."

That was great. Everyone should watch it if you have the time. Stewart is hilarious.

But why are we talking about what idiots the electorate are, when the people we elect are also no prize?

geojanes wrote:

rickyp wrote:But why are we talking about what idiots the electorate are, when the people we elect are also no prize?

Why do you suppose that is? Because the electorate votes for folks who are "no prize."