this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2023
589 points (99.8% liked)

196

16488 readers
1541 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Happy Sunday, or Monday, depending where in the world you are!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That's kind of impossible unfortunately. It would be nice if only people who weren't misinformed made decisions, but there's no good way to measure how informed someone is. Any method for deciding what counts as "informed" could be used by the state to suppress the interests of certain people. It's kind of like saying we should put someone who's always correct in charge. There's no good way of deciding what is correct.

I'm a proponent of having as few limits as possible on who can vote. We should make it easier for people to predict how different candidates will actually govern, but the person who can best advocate for someone's interests is themselves. People are often convinced into voting against their self interest, but their interests would not be better represented by letting someone else decide for them. It's not a perfect solution, but it's the best one.

[โ€“] spauldo@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating tests or anything for voting. We've seen what that leads to.

I'm thinking more along the lines of self-determination. If someone has no interest or knowledge of politics, they should refrain from voting.