Sorry if this is the wrong place for this, It seemed pretty specific but I also understand if this is more a news sub.

Now for the topic at hand, I’m personally not a fan. I think it’s a sticking plaster over the top of some significant shortcomings in education and disenfranchisement that fails to get people engaged in politics in a meaningful way.

The end game shouldn’t be getting a load of ignorant voters to ignorantly cast a vote; it should be to have an informed, educated and interested electorate going out to perform their civic duty in a way that brings everyone into the process, old, young, rich and poor.

I’d much rather see a focus on teaching our young people how our system works, why it’s important and how and why we have a duty as individuals to turn up to vote, hold our elected officials accountable and become a part of the democratic process.

What about you?

  • Lemming421@lemmy.worldEnglish
    7·
    9 months ago

    However, I don’t think it’s right to force people to have an opinion about something, of which they know nothing about.

    Which is why referendums are not great.

    Although politicians make laws on things about which they know nothing, so there’s that…

    • Zozano
      2·
      9 months ago

      Although politicians make laws on things about which they know nothing, so there’s that…

      I really wish there was a better way. I’ve thought about the idea of discarding representatives entirely.

      Imagine if people didn’t need to vote for people who were going to make choices for us, and we got to choose the outcomes of each point of tension.

      Example: if 60% of the population voted to end solitary confinement, then it gets passed immediately.

      This wouldn’t need to be done at a particular time either - we could submit our opinions via a government website, and update them at our convenience.

      Of course people will say that voting via internet isn’t secure, and it could be hacked, but I think utilising a block chain might actually prove useful for the first time ever.

      I’m sure there are flaws with this idea, but there are flaws with the way things are now.

      • Lemming421@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        9 months ago

        Ok, internet voting is not secure, so let’s ignore that part for now. (There’s an XKCD that deals with it flippantly and a Tom Scott video that goes into a bit more detail, but with things as they are, electronic voting simply cannot be trusted)

        That being said. The simplistic reduction to the general idea is that people are too dumb to know what they’re voting for, but, as with reality, it’s a little bit more complicated than that.

        There are far too many issues for people to be able to make informed decisions about everything. That’s one of the reasons we have elected officials in the first place.

        Let’s take your example - should we end solitary confinement?

        Personally, I don’t know what you have to do to end up in there. Do you shank a guy in the shower? Mouth off at a guard? Don’t know.

        Then there’s the efficacy of it. Does it increase the chances that the person put there will get rehabilitated? Dos it increase the chances for everyone else in the prison while that person is not around? Don’t know that either.

        Is it ethical? Surprise, I’m not even sure about that.

        So should we end it? I’ve no idea.

        And that’s something reasonably simple. What about the tricky questions, like the death penalty (I’m against that) or euthanasia (for, but not just in a “let’s off granny before the care home eats all our inheritance” way…)?

        No, I like your thinking, but I don’t trust the general population (including myself in that, I have no illusions I’m smarter or more ethical than the average bear) enough for it. Knee-jerk policies after high profile events would lead to bad outcomes, I think.

        • Zozano
          1·
          9 months ago

          There are a lot of issues which people know nothing about, sure, but it would be nice to let people ignore issues they aren’t familiar enough.

          Though, if you were to present the question, it would be pertinent to let both sides weigh in. It would be good if people were presented both sides of the argument before voting on an issue and required a basic test to confirm they understand each sides point.

          Though my example for solitary confinement would be maybe too broad, perhaps there are possibilities for voting with gradations? Similar to how we can vote for someone who is somewhere in the middle of an issue.

          I’m an advocate for ending solitary confinement - completely, for any crime. The statistics show that it doesn’t deter violence, and breaks minds in a way where recovery is impossible for some.