Once again, you're focusing on what is. You still haven't given a good reason why the system can't change, and for the better.

You keep hammering this special snowflake thing. I'm not special. Neither is anyone else who votes. Under a new system that would be the same. It isn't a matter of being special and getting privileges. It's a matter of putting forth effort. A bit like how those who don't put forth the effort to vote at all don't get a say in the election. Should we just fill their vote in at random? We don't. If we're giving privilege to those who do vote, why can't we give privilege to those who make an informed vote?

Yep that's what I mean. I'm all for more people voting, as long as they have some idea of what they're voting on. That way, voters are less easily manipulated by sensationalist media and a pretty face, but will vote on the ideals and policies they'd wish to see implemented. I really can't see what's so horrible about that.

I don't really care about the Declaration of Independence, or living in a democratic republic. I'm very happy living in a constitutional monarchy.

The downside would be anybody abusing the system by providing answers. Better off giving out gold stars.

The problem with your system is a purely implementational one: How do you actually do it in a way that works? It'd be too easy to cheat, too easy to study for the test rather than actually studying the issues (a common problem in certifications of things like CV radio operator and many other things), and could easily lead to corruption. There's also the issue where some issues are seen as nonimportant to some people so they don't vote on those specific issues, yet they could then be penalized in your system on their general voting because of that choice. That's my issue with your idea anyway

It's a simple enough matter to crack down on voter bullying. It's a problem that needs resolved anyway.

One could say the same about the whole educational system. Sure, you don't have to pay attention in class if you can cram for the test or cheat off a friend. Oftentimes that takes more effort than actually learning, though. There are bound to be cheaters. What matters is if the number of informed voters the system creates outnumber the cheaters. And if someone's willing to cheat, they still care more about the election than those who push random buttons.

It's easy enough to cheat the system already. That's hardly a reason to toss a new one out the window.

I like the way you put that, agreed.

You can't decide on what test determines who is actually intelligent enough to make a logical decision. Its an election, everyone voting thinks they are making a logical decision.

Read my posts. Once again (I swear this is the last time I'll say it!) this is not a matter of intelligence or logic. It's a matter of being informed. Of actually paying attention to the candidates and what they stand for. No one's going to ask you why you're voting for a certain candidate to make sure you're being logical. They're just going to make sure you're not voting for the sake of voting, or doing so for reasons completely unrelated to what matters.

Having taken the CV Operator certification test, I can tell you it most certainly doesn't involve more effort than actually learning The corruption card is the one I have most trouble with, though. It provides a legal way of ballot stuffing to a degree and various political organizations would train people to pass the test so they can double their votes (BTW: training to pass the test rather than learning the material is exactly what happens in CV Operator certification classes if you ever get a chance to take one).

Faking being informed is incredibly easy, especially on a multiple-choice test (which is the only way such a voter informed status could be administered).

I didn't say absolutely nothing. And it doesn't mean nothing because I don't vote; it means nothing because of the way the system is set up.

I'll accede that there's some local benefit to voting, but beyond that? Nope. You're not going to turn the country around because you voted for party/candidate X.

Keeping personal politics out: It's kind of true that your votes don't count when it comes to the president. Even if the majority votes one way, doesn't mean that's what their representative will vote. They're SUPPOSE to, but they don't HAVE to. However, that's no excuse to just not vote and then complain for the next 4 years about how screwed we are. Secondly, so long as there is a party system, there will never be true democracy. People fail to inform themselves because they're lazy and just go to the polls to vote a party, not a person. (Not everyone, of course, but a grand majority.) Without the sticker of "Rep" or "Dem" or "Ind" - people would have to inform themselves about the person and then would be able to pick the one they believe will do the most good... at least in theory. As we have it now though, it comes down to the lesser of TWO evils, and again, that's just not true democracy.


Edit: And yes, I voted. I got in and out in 10 mins... pretty awesome! I'm grateful most people do early voting. lol

Even those who get trained are likely to be more informed about the issues at hand.

The quiz was just an example of a simple system, anyway. What really matters is the core of my argument: informed voters should have more sway than uninformed voters. If you have proposals for a system that would work better than a quiz, feel free to give them.

Guys, a politically based topic, which shouldn't have been allowed, starting to argue and niggle at each other which is one of the reasons this type of thread is disallowed, don't push it!

I guess it's bigger here than other places since we have voter-submitted propositions and whatnot where we vote on literal law.


I can all but guarantee you it doesn't, unfortunately... Certification tests are almost always a joke. Sad, but true.

I'd make the argument that informed voters already have more sway, because informed voters are more likely to influence others.

As what has been said already, its not hard just look up their political views and study them for a few hours before you go. And people that do that will already know who they are voting for, their just reading it to pass a little quiz, they don't actually care. It isn't going to change much of anything, it will probably make people vote less. And the people that still vote will only study the information so they can vote, not because they care or want to be informed.

I'll leave it there, don't want to get a warning. Hope no one is actually mad at each other. I'll just pretend this thread didn't happen

Yep, that's exactly what I said. Except not. If I valued my voice that highly, I'd be out there voting today, but I know that a vote for a candidate I agree with would go to waste. Only votes for the two mainstream radicals truly count because they are the only ones with a chance to win in our political system.

Voting is a right, not an obligation. Choosing to exercise it without any knowledge of what you're doing is rather irresponsible. Choosing to exercise it when know it won't count is a waste of time.

So it's vote for the President or vote for nothing. It's called local elections. Stuff that actually affects your day to day life. Stuff that's decided by popular vote.

But hey, just listen to what the internet tells you. You'll get far in life.

Really? The internet is a mess of misinformation and propaganda. Have you read comments on political articles? Or worse, YouTube? You don't have to be informed to influence others. You just have to be loud.

Sure, people will still vote for the candidate they like most. But those who are undecided (and this is really what the system should target) will be able to convince themselves through facts and information, and then they'll be able to take their newly informed decision to the polls for extra credit. Being informed might even swing some decided voters over to the other side, once they get past their party's propaganda and learn about the real policies behind their candidate.

There will always be uninformed voters. I said that too. The point is to increase the number of informed voters and informed votes.

Stop making assumptions about me. Where did I imply anywhere that I just "listen to what the internet tells" me? Although the fact that you've been reduced to the point of just throwing out insults by a little opposition doesn't reflect well on your original "everyone should vote no matter what" mentality. I'm kind of getting some superiority vibes. I thought everyone was equal?

Exactly. Just studying a politcal party's views for a few hours is already way more than what many people do, and will help them make a more informed decision. That's all I ask. The exact reason why they study the information doesn't really matter in that regard.

I'll tell you who I didn't vote for: The Illusive Man.

I'm making my voice heard by voting. You're not. That makes me superior in this respect.

Not voting is a statement on our political system. Look at that, we're equal again.

Edit: you can have the last word if you want, I'm done arguing.

Not voting is seriously wrong IMO, and only serve to give delusional extremists a larger % of the votes. If you don't like the poltical system, just vote blank, at least you then voted.

I'm not a delusional extremist. I'm a pessimistic realist.

Once again, I get the feeling that you're railing against the Presidential election.

By not voting locally, how in the hell is that a statement of anything other than your inability to take some initiative to change that which you don't like?