(November 7, 2023 at 9:24 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(November 7, 2023 at 8:10 pm)Ravenshire Wrote: What we need is not a further bar to voting, but a change in how we vote. Mandatory, ranked choice voting would be a far better system than the two-party, first past the goalpost, bullshit system we have now.

And for fuck's sake, eliminate (or side-step via the interstate compact) the electoral college.

One problem with ranked choice voting is that it takes too long to explain to voters when you're canvassing.  You don't have an extra 10 minutes every third voter.

Most of those same people don't understand how to vote now. 

Educating people in how ranked choice voting works isn't difficult. They would just need to get ahead of it by at least six months. Simple public service ads would handle most of it.

(November 8, 2023 at 8:03 pm)Ravenshire Wrote:

(November 7, 2023 at 9:24 pm)Angrboda Wrote: One problem with ranked choice voting is that it takes too long to explain to voters when you're canvassing.  You don't have an extra 10 minutes every third voter.

Most of those same people don't understand how to vote now. 

Educating people in how ranked choice voting works isn't difficult. They would just need to get ahead of it by at least six months. Simple public service ads would handle most of it.

And what PSAs wouldn’t cover, printed instructions on the ballot would.

Boru

(November 8, 2023 at 12:42 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(November 8, 2023 at 12:09 pm)FrustratedFool Wrote: Why don't you think there's a fair correlation between IQ and GI?

Agreed.  But I think both intelligence and education are required to make reaonably considered choices.  Hence why I included a criteria for both.  Do you not think education is a requirement for sensible voting?

OK.  But with conscription I allowed for objectors.  It is not uncommon for a state to require conscription under extreme circumstances.

So, in the UK that would be 18.  I agree there should be consistency, but I'd raise the driving and marrying age not lower the voting age.  18 is still very young to understand politics, let alone 16.  I'd consider raising it all to 21.

-Several reasons, including (but not limited to) the inherent cultural bias of IQ tests.

-No, I don’t think that. Many people leave school just as ignorant as they entered it. Suppose Joe, with little or no formal education, follows several news sources, makes it his business to learn as much as possible about the candidates and issues on the ballot, and weighs the pros and cons of his vote for each. Jim, on the other hand, graduated high school at the top of his class and holds two university degrees, but votes the straight Tory ticket because that’s what his father did. Who’s the better voter?

-Simply because conscription is common does mean it isn’t slavery (or at least indentured servitude). And there’s no evidence whatsoever that either military service or civilian volunteerism makes people more responsible voters.

-That’s only the case in half the UK - in Scotland and NI you can still get married at 16. And the voting age in Scotland is 16.

Boru

1) I'm not sure modern IQ tests have that flaw.  I think, though I may be wrong, they are the best measures we have of GI for any culture.  Is there a better one?

2) That seems to be a problem with the nature of the education, not the concept of education itself.  IT also seems you are comparing a more educated person with a less educated one.  The answer isn't to throw education in the bin as a relevant metric, it's to make the education in question better.

3) If you have the option to opt out as an objector it isn't slavery.  As for evidence, I wouldn't even know where to begin to measure a 'good voter'. 

4) The issue is to be consistent and to have a suitable age.  Why do we limit some things by age?  Because we recognise that development takes time.  Marriage and voting at 16, but not alcohol, porn, driving, horror films, opting out of maths education, a credit card, or tattoos.  Doesn't seem very consistent.  And just because I can do X doesn't mean I can do Y.  Voting seems, to me, to require a degree of maturity that isn't likely to be found in most 16 year olds.

(November 9, 2023 at 3:52 am)FrustratedFool Wrote:

(November 8, 2023 at 12:42 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: -Several reasons, including (but not limited to) the inherent cultural bias of IQ tests.

-No, I don’t think that. Many people leave school just as ignorant as they entered it. Suppose Joe, with little or no formal education, follows several news sources, makes it his business to learn as much as possible about the candidates and issues on the ballot, and weighs the pros and cons of his vote for each. Jim, on the other hand, graduated high school at the top of his class and holds two university degrees, but votes the straight Tory ticket because that’s what his father did. Who’s the better voter?

-Simply because conscription is common does mean it isn’t slavery (or at least indentured servitude). And there’s no evidence whatsoever that either military service or civilian volunteerism makes people more responsible voters.

-That’s only the case in half the UK - in Scotland and NI you can still get married at 16. And the voting age in Scotland is 16.

Boru

1) I'm not sure modern IQ tests have that flaw.  I think, though I may be wrong, they are the best measures we have of GI for any culture.  Is there a better one?

2) That seems to be a problem with the nature of the education, not the concept of education itself.  IT also seems you are comparing a more educated person with a less educated one.  The answer isn't to throw education in the bin as a relevant metric, it's to make the education in question better.

3) If you have the option to opt out as an objector it isn't slavery.  As for evidence, I wouldn't even know where to begin to measure a 'good voter'. 

4) The issue is to be consistent and to have a suitable age.  Why do we limit some things by age?  Because we recognise that development takes time.  Marriage and voting at 16, but not alcohol, porn, driving, horror films, opting out of maths education, a credit card, or tattoos.  Doesn't seem very consistent.  And just because I can do X doesn't mean I can do Y.  Voting seems, to me, to require a degree of maturity that isn't likely to be found in most 16 year olds.

-The cultural bias in the tests is real. But as I said, that's not the only issue with them.

-I'm not discounting the value of formal education, I just don't think it applies to voting as much as you seem to think it does. 

-And if your objection is denied (which happens a lot), you go to prison. So, you've simply swapped one type of slavery for another. I suppose that if you also have the option to run away from massa on de plantation, it's not slavery either.

-So, you're more concerned about a voter's maturity than their actual calendar age. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. But age is a lousy metric to determine someone's level of maturity. How do you determine whether a 35 year old is more mature than a 16 year old? Just as a person level of education isn't necessarily indicative of their intelligence, age isn't necessarily indicative of maturity.

Boru

(November 9, 2023 at 6:22 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(November 9, 2023 at 3:52 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: 1) I'm not sure modern IQ tests have that flaw.  I think, though I may be wrong, they are the best measures we have of GI for any culture.  Is there a better one?

2) That seems to be a problem with the nature of the education, not the concept of education itself.  IT also seems you are comparing a more educated person with a less educated one.  The answer isn't to throw education in the bin as a relevant metric, it's to make the education in question better.

3) If you have the option to opt out as an objector it isn't slavery.  As for evidence, I wouldn't even know where to begin to measure a 'good voter'. 

4) The issue is to be consistent and to have a suitable age.  Why do we limit some things by age?  Because we recognise that development takes time.  Marriage and voting at 16, but not alcohol, porn, driving, horror films, opting out of maths education, a credit card, or tattoos.  Doesn't seem very consistent.  And just because I can do X doesn't mean I can do Y.  Voting seems, to me, to require a degree of maturity that isn't likely to be found in most 16 year olds.

-The cultural bias in the tests is real. But as I said, that's not the only issue with them.

-I'm not discounting the value of formal education, I just don't think it applies to voting as much as you seem to think it does. 

-And if your objection is denied (which happens a lot), you go to prison. So, you've simply swapped one type of slavery for another. I suppose that if you also have the option to run away from massa on de plantation, it's not slavery either.

-So, you're more concerned about a voter's maturity than their actual calendar age. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. But age is a lousy metric to determine someone's level of maturity. How do you determine whether a 35 year old is more mature than a 16 year old? Just as a person level of education isn't necessarily indicative of their intelligence, age isn't necessarily indicative of maturity.

Boru

1)  Is there a better measure for GI?
2)  Surely that depends upon the content of the formal education?
3)  Prison for being an objector wasn't part of the statement. But I'm happy enough to remove this as a criteria for earning the vote if the other more important things can be agreed upon.
4)  Correct.  Which is not only why I prefer an older age (21 is far more likely to be mature than 16), but also why I have the combination of age + IQ + education + civic service + not in prison.  That seems a fair combination of wide factors that can increase the likelihood of someone being a mature, smart, educated, empathic person.  This is in contrast to removing all criteria and making the age as low as reasonably possible which seems to massively increase the likelihood of many voters being immature, uneducated, and easily manipulated.

(November 9, 2023 at 6:31 am)FrustratedFool Wrote:

(November 9, 2023 at 6:22 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: -The cultural bias in the tests is real. But as I said, that's not the only issue with them.

-I'm not discounting the value of formal education, I just don't think it applies to voting as much as you seem to think it does. 

-And if your objection is denied (which happens a lot), you go to prison. So, you've simply swapped one type of slavery for another. I suppose that if you also have the option to run away from massa on de plantation, it's not slavery either.

-So, you're more concerned about a voter's maturity than their actual calendar age. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. But age is a lousy metric to determine someone's level of maturity. How do you determine whether a 35 year old is more mature than a 16 year old? Just as a person level of education isn't necessarily indicative of their intelligence, age isn't necessarily indicative of maturity.

Boru

1)  Is there a better measure for GI?
2)  Surely that depends upon the content of the formal education?
3)  Prison for being an objector wasn't part of the statement.  But I'm happy enough to remove this as a criteria for earning the vote if the other more important things can be agreed upon.
4)  Correct.  Which is not only why I prefer an older age (21 is far more likely to be mature than 16), but also why I have the combination of age + IQ + education + civic service + not in prison.  That seems a fair combination of wide factors that can increase the likelihood of someone being a mature, smart, educated, empathic person.  This is in contrast to removing all criteria and making the age as low as reasonably possible which seems to massively increase the likelihood of many voters being immature, uneducated, and easily manipulated.

1) Cognition tests would be a valid option.

2) It doesn't seem to, as the electorate have repeatedly proven.

3) It doesn't really matter that it wasn't part of your statement - it's how conscientious objection operates in the real world.

4) And yet mature, smart, educated, empathic people seem to be no better at voting than their immature, stupid, ignorant, heartless fellows. Since this is demonstrably true, there's no point to your criteria.

Boru

1) What level would you set the bar at in terms of a cognition test for being able to vote?

2) I don't understand that point. We were just saying that the content of the education matters and that bad education is no use. Are you saying that no matter how good and relevant the content of a course (designed specifically to make good voters) it would be useless? If not, then do you think passing such a course would be a good criteria for the franchise?

3) OK. I'm happy to scrap that one of the list of criteria.

4) What do you mean by good at voting? How are you measuring that? And do you not think that if everyone was even more heartless, stupid, immature, and ignorant, then voting would be even worse?

(November 9, 2023 at 6:49 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: 1) What level would you set the bar at in terms of a cognition test for being able to vote?

2) I don't understand that point.  We were just saying that the content of the education matters and that bad education is no use.  Are you saying that no matter how good and relevant the content of a course (designed specifically to make good voters) it would be useless?  If not, then do you think passing such a course would be a good criteria for the franchise?

3) OK.  I'm happy to scrap that one of the list of criteria.

4) What do you mean by good at voting?  How are you measuring that?

1) I wouldn't.

2) Sounds like you're advocating for re-education camps.

3) It's a start.

4) I'm not measuring it, because I'm not sure it's quantifiable. But I think I've already answered what qualifies as 'good at voting' with my earlier Joe/Jim comparison.

Boru

1) Why? It seems that you don't think intelligence matters in terms of voting or protection from manipulation.

2) That's a weird take. I'm advocating for well constructed citizenship lessons in schools. How you read that as something as sinister sounding as a re-education camp is bizarre to me.

3) Lol.

4a) I don't follow your argument here.
4b) Do you not think that if everyone was even more heartless, stupid, immature, and ignorant, then voting would be even worse?

It seems to me that you think that maturity, intelligence, empathy, education, and maturity don't affect people's ability to make informed and sensible voting choices whatsoever, nor to protect themselves against manipulation. Is that your position?

People are fools, are you really surprised when they act accordingly?

You cannot educate the ignorant, look at the population of trumptardia, if you harbor any doubts.