How many of those have been shown to be really wrong not too long after they were put out there? That is a big list!
Setting that mess aside, is this not just a clever way of saying some people are too stupid to vote?
Often, votes are not about what to do. It would be most helpful if they were!
Instead, we most often vote on WHO decides what to do, not HOW or WHAT should be done.
People, even poorly informed ones, know what their experiences are, and the things to improve, priorities and all that come though just fine.
We really should be talking about how to get the people who decide what to do to be better informed about the people they are supposed to be making those decisions about.
Right now, both major parties in the US oppose other parties. It is hard to blame them, but this does leave us all with poor choices and leadership track records largely reflect that reality.
Not sure we can put these problems on the voters. Given better options, I am confident the people would vote them into power.
This sounds a lot like a republic. Which is what the US has now. The big problem is that democracy is hard.
What we need is a better way to elect our representatives. One problem is that there is no term limits on the representatives and many of them make a career out of it where it's more important to get elected than to look out for the country's well being. Giving representatives a limit on how many a person can be elected would change that.
What is the problem of elections being somewhat random? The important function of elections is, that you can get rid off a government. They are not in office for life and they have to convince enough people with their doing - maybe some people are not for them for the facts, but a solid base has to be.
This article assumes that there is a "right" or correct government. Political questions never have a right and a wrong answer. They have different answers. Some are better argued, founded in facts, others aren't. But you can always only try one solutions and never know how the other would have worked out.
>What if 80% of the public follows the political issues and is well informed? What if 40% have rational reasons to vote for the right-wing, and 40% have rational reasons to vote for the left-wing? Then it is the most ignorant, badly informed 20%, voting somewhat randomly, that will determine every election.
I feel like I see this sort of analysis a lot. You pick whatever set of voters you want to focus on, hold all other voters fixed, and declare your set as "deciding" the election. As if their votes count while others don't. By what possible metric does this supposed 20% "decide" the election, but any other 20% bloc does not?
"Best" informed seems to be a mess in the making.
Best at consuming Cable News productions?
Best at status quo narratives?
How many of those have been shown to be really wrong not too long after they were put out there? That is a big list!
Setting that mess aside, is this not just a clever way of saying some people are too stupid to vote?
Often, votes are not about what to do. It would be most helpful if they were!
Instead, we most often vote on WHO decides what to do, not HOW or WHAT should be done.
People, even poorly informed ones, know what their experiences are, and the things to improve, priorities and all that come though just fine.
We really should be talking about how to get the people who decide what to do to be better informed about the people they are supposed to be making those decisions about.
Right now, both major parties in the US oppose other parties. It is hard to blame them, but this does leave us all with poor choices and leadership track records largely reflect that reality.
Not sure we can put these problems on the voters. Given better options, I am confident the people would vote them into power.