I keep hearing how important it is for everyone to vote.
Let me be politically incorrect and say that maybe some people shouldn't vote.
I know I'm swimming against the tide. Get-out the-vote groups now register young people at rock concerts. HeadCount (www.headcount.org) cofounder Andy Bernstein told me: "We registered over a 100,000 people. It is so imperative that this generation's voice is heard."
But wait. Is that really a good idea? Many kids don't know much. At a HeadCount concert, "20/20" (http://tinyurl.com/47qe8q) asked some future voters, "How many senators are there?" One said 12, another 16, and another 64. One girl guessed, "50 per state."
Most kids didn't know what Roe v. Wade was about. "Roe vs. Wayne?" asked one. "Segregation, maybe?" "Where we declared bankruptcy?"
Headcount's Marc Brownstein concedes, "there's a lot of uninformed voters out there." But he argued:
"Democracy is not about taking the most educated portion of the society and having them decide who's going to run the entire society. Democracy is about every individual having a voice."
I suggested that when people don't know anything, maybe it's their civic duty not to vote.
"It's an argument that really, really smacks against everything we hold dear as Americans," Bernstein replied.
Maybe it was unfair to pick on kids at a rock concert. I went to Washington, D.C., and showed people pictures of prominent Americans. I'm happy to say that everyone recognized Barack Obama and John McCain.
But only about half recognized Sarah Palin, and most didn't know Joe Biden. Few people recognized Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but everyone quickly identified TV's Judge Judy.
Economist Bryan Caplan, author of "The Myth of the Rational Voter" (http://tinyurl.com/6fgke6), points out, "the public's knowledge of politics is shockingly low."
He scoffs at the idea that "it's everyone's civic duty to vote."
"This is very much like saying, it's our civic duty to give surgery advice," Caplan said.
"We like to think that political issues are much less complicated than brain surgery, but many of them are pretty hard. If someone doesn't know what he's talking about, it really is better if they say, look, I'm going to leave this in wiser hands."
Isn't it elitist to say only some people should vote?
"Is it elitist to say only some people should do brain surgery? If you don't know what you're doing, you are not doing the country a favor by voting."
My ABC "20/20" segment about this enraged some viewers.
"That was a shameful piece you put together about youth voting. ... I wonder if the quality of the information in our society has anything to do with hackery like yours infesting the airwaves and drowning out reasonable discussion."
Another wrote: "You are a decrepit journalist and a poor excuse of a patriot."
And still another: "Democracy is defined by citizen participation. So you are undermining democracy. Thanks."
Someone even made a video parody mocking my story (http://tinyurl.com/4gtzbn).
Clearly, not everyone understood what I was saying.
"You sit there on television and ignorantly say that all youth should not vote . . . wow."
That's not what I said. I hope that informed young people do vote.
I just don't think it's so wonderful when famous people drag uninformed and uninterested people to the polls.
One viewer raised a fair point: "You simply cannot create a litmus test for voters. At what point does a voter become satisfactorily 'informed'? Do they have to know the name of the president, vice president, both their senators? This is the problem with your argument; you don't state how informed a voter should be, just that they should be. This is a very slippery slope."
But I'm not saying that the government should impose a litmus test. God forbid. I just want clueless people to find something else to do on Nov. 4.
Voting is serious business. It works best when people educate themselves.
If uninformed people stay home on Election Day, good.
That doesn't include you.
John Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News' "20/20" and the author of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
|
 |
Comments
|
16 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
As usual, Mr. Stossel raises some pertinent points. Democracy may indeed by about "every individual having a voice," but America's founders never intended this country to be a pure democracy, which they equated with mob rule. That's why the Constitution established intermediate levels of representation between the people and their lawmakers. As for creating a "litmus test" to ensure that voters are sufficiently educated, I have a simple solution: Just require, as a condition of registering to vote, that everyone pass the same test immigrants have to take before they can become citizens. Isn't it only fair to make sure native-born voters are at least as knowledgeable about American politics, history and civics as our foreign-born voters are?
Comment: #1
Posted by: Scot Penslar
Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:06 AM
|
|
|
|
I agree. Not everyone should have the right to vote or run for office, only those who have worn the uniform of our Nation's Armed Forces should be allowed those privileges.
Comment: #2
Posted by: USMC Vet
Wed Oct 29, 2008 9:40 AM
|
|
|
|
Democracy can only succeed with an informed electorate--that certainly is true. However, Mr. Stossel disingenuously conflates youth with cluelessness. One of the most politically astute people I've ever met was 14 years old, and USMC Vet appears dangerously clueless about our nation's democratic institutions. Stossel seems to believe that Obama's support must be springing from youthful ignorance. I submit it springs from youthful belief in America.
Comment: #3
Posted by: David in AK
Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:06 PM
|
|
|
|
People know their own lives better than anyone else and they can vote based on what they DO know. It may not be how I'd vote, but they have a right and a duty to do so.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Tom G
Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:08 PM
|
|
|
|
they should throw a test in when you register to vote to make sure you actually know/care about the politics. they can write it into the same amendment that takes away women's right to vote.
Comment: #5
Posted by: votershatefreedom
Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:43 PM
|
|
|
|
As much as I agree with the notion that being informed and educated are worthy traits for a voter, I find this argument to be wildly hypocritical, coming from a party that has told us that those very same traits make one "out of touch" and "elitist", and that the qualifications we should look at in a leader of the most powerful nation in the world should be that they are "Joe Six-Pack" and "a guy you'd like to have a beer with".
Comment: #6
Posted by: Chris Murphy
Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:45 PM
|
|
|
|
Mr. Stoessel, you are right as usual. The voter's test recommended by Scott Penslar sounds good, but I am afraid that 70% of the native-born voters would fail it. The reason why we have so many uninformed voters is that our elementary and secondary school system has failed us, the entire nation has been dumbed down, and our sense of values has practically disappeared. Those who run for office, regardless of party affiliation, take advantage of this and manipulate the unwitting with varying degrees of success depending on the oratory skills of the candidates and the cleverness of their campaign managers. Facts, character, morality, service to your country, and past accomplishments of the candidates become secondary at best. There is really no solution to this problem and thus those who make informed decisions will always be in the minority.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Edward Rybak
Sat Nov 1, 2008 9:49 AM
|
|
|
|
Maybe we should raise the bar for candidates as well. Say, only people who have extensive education in Constitutional Law should be able to hold federal offices. We should not be subjected to following people who think that Africa is a country and humans and dinosaurs coexisted on Earth at the same time. I suppose Mr. Stossel never thought of the fact that the current president is so oblivious to policy issues and the world in general that he was not allowed near a real reporter during his eight years as president and that Palin's views on science could very well be considered idiotic by practically anybody with a decent education. And Stossell's crowd is the one that tries to brand others "elitists"?
Comment: #8
Posted by: Sam4
Sun Nov 2, 2008 1:14 AM
|
|
|
|
Ahh Mr. Stossel,
Some thoughts: The problem with your story is that it is far too limited and slanted. Good for an advocate, less obviously good for a journalist. Further, your own conclusion would cut against your stated objective, because a less participatory culture would be a less informed one. (Note: I was the blonde Stossel on the YouTube video.)
1) Your story did not encourage civic education in schools. You did not encourage community efforts to increase voter information. You didn't ask parents or friends to share facts or wisdom with others. You did essentially nothing to encourage more information sharing. You merely suggested that underinformed people not vote. You didn't say "come learn"; you said "go away." The story was unduly imbalanced.
Also, The Jay Leno game is an easy one to play. Lots of people get stumped on trivia when stopped on the street -- even people who are qualified to make a vote for president or city council. I played your Jay Leno quiz game, and it didn't take much time or many edits to make sensible people look dumb. The "street quizzes" are entertaining ways to make a pre-determined point, but at no point did I fool myself into thinking that I was engaged in journalism or investigation.
2) A more participatory environment is a more informed one. A person becomes more informed after they get registered to vote, more informed after they develop voting habits, because they start to recognize the names, the parties, and the issues. Moreover, knowledge travels from person to person. Not only does discouraging one voter keep that voter from moving up the "voter-information-learning-curve," but it also eliminates one more node of chatterers and casual peer teachers.
The same cultural signals that get people interested in voting are those that get people interested in the issues surrounding those votes. If you are/were successful in your efforts to reduce voter participation, over time we would have a much LESS informed electorate. Fewer people would discuss issues, fewer people would pay attention to stories such as yours, and our public conversation would be generally more vapid. Your story's conclusion -- fewer people participating -- cuts against your stated objective -- a more informed populace and electorate.
It was a story you should consider retracting or significantly changing. You might have an unstated objective -- i.e., that certain of your political desires would be better acheived if fewer people voted. -- but that motive should be shared if present. You have a big microphone; I hope you will it to the public betterment, or at least to some more balanced journalistic purpose.
Forgive the length of this post, but I wanted to offer a bit more thought in addition to the silliness we put on YouTube.
--JS
Comment: #9
Posted by: Jefferson Smith
Mon Nov 3, 2008 4:08 PM
|
|
|
|
Forgive that enormous paragraph -- it didn't carry forward my <return> strikes.
Comment: #10
Posted by: Jefferson Smith
Mon Nov 3, 2008 4:11 PM
|
|
|
|
Ahh Mr. Stossel, Some thoughts:
The problem with your story is that it is far too limited and slanted. Good for an advocate, less obviously good for a journalist. Further, your own conclusion would cut against your stated objective, because a less participatory culture would be a less informed one. (Note: I was the blonde Stossel on the YouTube video.)
Comment: #11
Posted by: Jefferson Smith
Mon Nov 3, 2008 9:01 PM
|
|
|
|
1) Your story did not encourage civic education in schools. You did not encourage community efforts to increase voter information. You didn't ask parents or friends to share facts or wisdom with others. You did essentially nothing to encourage more information sharing. You merely suggested that underinformed people not vote. You didn't say "come learn"; you said "go away." The story was unduly imbalanced. Also, The Jay Leno game is an easy one to play. Lots of people get stumped on trivia when stopped on the street -- even people who are qualified to make a vote for president or city council. I played your Jay Leno quiz game, and it didn't take much time or many edits to make sensible people look dumb. The "street quizzes" are entertaining ways to make a pre-determined point, but at no point did I fool myself into thinking that I was engaged in journalism or investigation.
Comment: #12
Posted by: Jefferson Smith
Mon Nov 3, 2008 9:02 PM
|
|
|
|
2) A more participatory environment is a more informed one. A person becomes more informed after they get registered to vote, more informed after they develop voting habits, because they start to recognize the names, the parties, and the issues. Moreover, knowledge travels from person to person. Not only does discouraging one voter keep that voter from moving up the "voter-information-learning-curve," but it also eliminates one more node of chatterers and casual peer teachers. The same cultural signals that get people interested in voting are those that get people interested in the issues surrounding those votes. If you are/were successful in your efforts to reduce voter participation, over time we would have a much LESS informed electorate. Fewer people would discuss issues, fewer people would pay attention to stories such as yours, and our public conversation would be generally more vapid. Your story's conclusion -- fewer people participating -- cuts against your stated objective -- a more informed populace and electorate. It was a story you should consider retracting or significantly changing. You might have an unstated objective -- i.e., that certain of your political desires would be better acheived if fewer people voted. -- but that motive should be shared if present. You have a big microphone; I hope you will it to the public betterment, or at least to some more balanced journalistic purpose. Forgive the length of this post, but I wanted to offer a bit more thought in addition to the silliness we put on YouTube. --JS
Comment: #13
Posted by: Jefferson Smith
Mon Nov 3, 2008 9:03 PM
|
|
|
|
2) A more participatory environment is a more informed one. A person becomes more informed after they get registered to vote, more informed after they develop voting habits, because they start to recognize the names, the parties, and the issues. Moreover, knowledge travels from person to person. Not only does discouraging one voter keep that voter from moving up the "voter-information-learning-curve," but it also eliminates one more node of chatterers and casual peer teachers. The same cultural signals that get people interested in voting are those that get people interested in the issues surrounding those votes. If you are/were successful in your efforts to reduce voter participation, over time we would have a much LESS informed electorate. Fewer people would discuss issues, fewer people would pay attention to stories such as yours, and our public conversation would be generally more vapid. Your story's conclusion -- fewer people participating -- cuts against your stated objective -- a more informed populace and electorate. It was a story you should consider retracting or significantly changing. You might have an unstated objective -- i.e., that certain of your political desires would be better acheived if fewer people voted. -- but that motive should be shared if present. You have a big microphone; I hope you will it to the public betterment, or at least to some more balanced journalistic purpose. Forgive the length of this post, but I wanted to offer a bit more thought in addition to the silliness we put on YouTube. --JS
Comment: #14
Posted by: Jefferson Smith
Mon Nov 3, 2008 9:03 PM
|
|
|
|
This is how I see it: it is perfectly legitimate to stress the need for citizens to inform themselves and exercise their right to vote while acknowledging that it is a valid option not to vote if one doesn't feel comfortable with the amount of knowledge one has. There is no contradiction here: if one has a right to vote, one has a right not to vote, and has to answer to his or her own conscience in making that decision. I don't agree with Stossel's wording ("a duty not to vote"), but I think he's been intentionally incendiary in order to make his point. How often do you see public servcie do-gooders who exhort people to vote also exhort them to educate themselves in first? It is irresponsible, even devious, to do this, for we all know what that old MTV "Rock the Vote" slogan really meant in effect: "Vote Democrat."
Comment: #15
Posted by: Andrew MacEwen
Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:01 AM
|
|
|
|
"It is so imperative that this generation's voice is heard." Why, one must ask, does BERNSTEIN find it so imperative? Because he knows that the more votes that are cast by young people, the more votes that are cast for Democrats. What a weasel. He should at least be honest about his motivation.
Comment: #16
Posted by: Andrew MacEwen
Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:34 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
