Ambrosia Software Web Board: Election day - Ambrosia Software Web Board

Htjyang: I certainly hope you aren't implying that all lower-classed people are ignorant. I live in one of the poorest sections of the country, and almost everyone I run into knows something of the political world (enough to vote anyway). They've just been led to believe, like so many other people, that they don't matter.

And many ignorant people do vote. The majority of voters are white middle to upper class, who are by and large stereotype consumers; they believe everything their TV (actually, it's more like the droning undercurrent of society) tells them. They know little of poverty, racism, or classism, as just about any ism dosen't matter to them. Their privalage has settled them into a well educated (in the American sense) rut, but they are usually blind to close-to-home problems; by choice or by situation, they are ignorant. Oh sure, some of them might strap themselves onto fasionable issues like the environment, or tax reform, of abortion (another issue they know little about- they might as well flip a coin to get their opinion), and thus you get the blurry division between laeft and right, but this difference is neglegable, otherwise campaigning would be much easier (they would be easier to persuade had they known something about these issues and been more opinionated about them).

So you are wrong about the masses being stupid (in most respects): they are simply ignorant.

Damn. I lost my train of thought. But I think I made mypoint.

------------------
Throughout their history these "unenlightened" beings have continually opposed and fought abuses of power wrought by their own bretheren. We, as the prophets would do well to learn from these Humans.
-Final statement of the Salrilian reformist Sirthis shortly before his execution.

thats probably true but its not something the genral public wants to hear....

------------------

Quote

Tbis reminds me of a joke about the election I made up. What do x^2-2x+1=0 and the 2 front runners have in common?

Speaking of ageism, I'm in favor of lowering the voting age to at least 16. No taxation without representation! Also, people under 16 can be tried as adults, drive (which carries more immediate responsibility for the lives of others), and executed.

------------------
*Error: target is violating the laws of physics*
*Error: target is locally exceeding c*
*Error: target is clasical scale yet Hiesenburg uncertain*

I'm kinda late but im going for Gore, becuase Nadar isnt going to win, and i dont want saturday school(thats what bush is doing if he gets elected). Oh and im totally for pro-choice. and i dont like rednecks. and hes too old, and hes a rebublican, and im a democrat, and i wish i could spell.

------------------
*insert famous line from either StarWars, Myth 2, Marathon Trilogy, Ares, StarCraft, Ultima Online, or from Ender's Quartet here*

Well, apart from htjyang's slightly stereotypical comment on the lower classes, I agree wholeheartedly with him. But what I said wasn't about seniors' wealth, but that it's a good thing that they are pretty much the voting majority.

------------------
Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines.
-Alduran Outlaw Rick Blazer
StarLance

Quote

No, of course not. There are always exceptions.

Quote

The question becomes: What do you call people who can be so easily misled as to abandon one of the fundamental rights of citizenship?

Quote

Unfortunately, I must concur.

Quote

Another possibility is that the problems you mentioned may not be as serious as you think. Considering that you yourself said that you "live in one of the poorest sections of the country," I can understand why it may be difficult for you to view the whole picture objectively.

Quote

I agree with the second part, but not the first. You have not provided any evidence for your first assertion.

I can assure you, I don't live in a gated community either. Then again, I wouldn't call my neighborhood crime-ridden and poor. Perhaps this fact gives me the liberty to be objective.

------------------
"Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

[quote]Originally posted by Fleet Admiral Darkk:
Speaking of ageism, I'm in favor of lowering the voting age to at least 16. No taxation without representation!  

Again, I'm not practicing "ageism" here. I'm simply offering an objective point of view. No doubt there are many exceptions to my perception of 18 year olds. But that is exactly the problem. They're "exceptions," rather than the rule.

------------------
"Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

Quote

There's a difference between stereotype and fact. Generalized statements usually contain an implicit acknowledgement of exceptions. The remarks I made about poorer people (To Slug: Why did you use the word "lower?" What are you implying? ) is a generalized fact. It acknowledges the existence of exceptions. But generally speaking, it is accurate.

------------------
"Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

Quote

Well, in that case, I think I'd suggest no taxation below voting age. To the second part, I think there are quite a few 16 year olds that act like 5 year olds. American public high school could well be the scariest (or most annoying) experience of my life.

------------------
*Error: target is violating the laws of physics*
*Error: target is locally exceeding c*
*Error: unable to determine if target exists or not*
*Error: target cannot be hit*

Wow. Quite a bit of stereotyping, here.

Let me put my two cents in:

Those who vote do so for their reasons. Those who do not either cannot or will not. The reasoning for those who vote or do not vote deliberately is different from person to person, and so a generaliziation (read: stereotype) is ineffective in this case. Sound so simple it's stupid? Well, that's because it is that simple...and what does that say about the posts that were previously made in this string?

In an attempt to keep this post from becoming a time-consuming tirade on a multitude of subjects, I'm going to stop here. Those of you with enough education, cognative ability, and/or time will be able to (correctly) figure out where I would go in such a rant, anyway.

Good Day,

IB

------------------
(Insert Signature Here)

Quote

No, just generalizations.

Quote

I don't doubt that people don't vote for many reasons. There can be no question that those who don't vote do not base their decision on their belief that they're ignorant or stupid.

However, they usually base their decision on absurd excuses that don't hold water when confronted with reason. Some people believe their votes don't count. Some people believe it is more important to go visit their grandmother. Some people believe...

I've asked people who don't vote and they come up with very lame excuses. That forces me to conclude that those who don't vote are usually so stupid and ignorant that their opinion should not be registered.

Since many people seem interested in challenging my claims, perhaps you can all think about the following numbers:

8 yrs or less 1-3 yrs (high school) 4 yrs (high school) 1-3 yrs (college) 4 or more yrs (college)
1976 44.1% 47.2% 59.4% 68.1% 79.8%
1980 42.6% 45.6% 58.9% 67.2% 79.9%
1984 42.9% 44.4% 58.7% 67.5% 79.1%
1988 36.7% 41.3% 54.7% 64.5% 77.6%
1992 35.1% 41.2% 57.5% 68.7% 81.0%

Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Statistical Abstract of the United States" (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1995) p. 289

As everyone can see, the numbers speak for themselves. High school graduates or higher education tend to have a relatively high and stable voting percentage. Only those who attended college have voting rates higher than the national average. On the other hand, high school drop-outs or those without high school education have much lower rates of voting and is suffering from serious decline.

And people wonder why poor people aren't being represented. Their don't exercise their fundamental citizenship right.

------------------
"Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

Quote

Nor have you provided any for yours. I suppose the difference between ignorant and stupid may be subjective to their utterers, but we both know the difference and I assume see them the same way. And there isn't any way I'm going to convince you of my perspective. Pity.

Quote

That makes two of us: Many of my relatives are living the oblivious suburban dream- one reason I don't go to many family gatherings anymore, and they fit the stereotype quite well; they wouldn't know political/social facts if they plowed their SUVs into one. I also happen to be a house manager at the Guthrie Theater, where many of Minnesota's richest congregate. I get to listen to their coversations as well as their complaints, and again my perspective holds.

I interact with the extremes of the wealth spectrum everyday. If that dosen't give me the liberty to be objective, I don't know what does. So don't discount my opinions just yet.

------------------
Throughout their history these "unenlightened" beings have continually opposed and fought abuses of power wrought by their own bretheren. We, as the prophets would do well to learn from these Humans.
-Final statement of the Salrilian reformist Sirthis shortly before his execution.

Quote

The correct answer is "2 identical real zeros." Math and politics in one joke. I'm surprised I haven't created a black hole nearby or something, it broke so many universal laws .

Oh, and I think that Bush will screw over public education, what provides half the equality in this country (ok, so they're not that equal, but privatization would be less equal). I also don't like the idea of a STUPID president. I'd take a boring or sleazy hick (guess who) one over one whose abilities I doubted. I think there should be an amendmant that says in presidential elections, states with votes within 1% (or something like that) should automatically split their electoral votes between the tied candidates. A situation of a similar nature resulted in seperate ballots for president and vice-president.

------------------
*Error: target is violating the laws of physics*
*Error: target is locally exceeding c*
*Error: unable to determine if target exists or not*
*Error: target cannot be hit*

I say they just dump the electoral college. The whole idea is stupid, made by a bunch of losers 200 years ago, when the closest thing to democracy was having a cool king.

------------------
"You can get much further with kind words and a loaded gun than you can with kind words alone."
- Al Capone

Again, I'm surprised. This time, though, it's at a combination of the lack of education, actual thought, and the perversivly large amount of ignorance (as in the third definition given by the American Heritage Dictionary).

A previous post has postulated that the Electoral College is an antiquated system that was created by, "a bunch of losers 200 years ago, when the closest thing to democracy was having a cool king." I dispute this entirely. The founders of the sovereign state of the United States of America were most definately not losers, nor did they have a nebulous idea of what democracy was and is. The men who created the nation did so, not with wreckless abandon, but with intensive, deliberate thought on each and every minescule detail (possibly with the exception to the paragraph allowing anyone to have their civil law suit heard by a jury if the damages are over twenty dollars). As an intelligent poster from Slate.com's "Fray" section described the Electoral College:

"Our electoral system is cumbersome, complex (not one comment revealed that they understand it), expensive and it has given us what none of {non-Americans} can boast of (as they conveniently forget their own wretched histories): near absolute political stability. That stability is largely owing to the Electoral College system (more than even many Americans realize), which very effectively makes a tyranny of the majority nearly impossible here. The statistical anomaly that is this year's election tests it to the extreme, but, contrary to the twits in the media, especially those panders at CNN, I see nobody taking up arms or rioting in the streets or fomenting blood revenge. And let us hope that this lesson is not lost on those fuzzy-minded populists who want to fix something that ain't broke."

Although I do not agree with some of the opinions stated here (like the histories of non-American nations being wretched), I do agree with this poster's main point (full comment can be found at [url="http://"http://slate.msn.com/code/thefray/theFray.asp?m=238871"]http://slate.msn.com...ay.asp?m=238871[/url] ). If it were not for the balance of the Electoral College, Americans would have no one to blame but each other when their candidate lost. Such division would, especially in a case like the one America is now experiencing, inevitably cause civil war. I would also like to point out that the "Founding Fathers" of America wrote the constitution in such a way as to make sure the minority was not left out, and did so for very good reasons.

First, if the minority is left out, that minority will, inevitably, rebel. A good look at the history of any nation will reveal this. Second, minorities are often very important part of society. In the past they have done such things as funded governments (the Jews in medieval England, and turned the tide of war. Third, the minority inside one nation is oft the majority inside another, and as such, wars may be started by ignoring that minority. Please note that these are not the only reasons, but that I choose to continue with my tirade, temporarily, at this point.

The statistics of the voting population, divided by education level, taken by the Census Bureau, were better than the horrendously ignorant statement I have just objected to, but not by much. The statistics failed to show two critical points: that the voting trends for those who are educated at certain levels are universal, and that they have always been this way. In other words, that every country has voter turnout statistics like those given and that the voting statistics have been like that whenever there has been a vote within a population with such statistical fields available. Thus, all the statistics did were to attempt to confuse the reader into believing that an uneducated man or woman will not vote, while a highly educated man or woman will.

Finally, I have a qualm with the majority of this string as a whole. Over and over again, the opinions posted here have been those of persons believing their opinions that a smart majority should lead America. Again, a good look at this history of almost any nation will prove this wrong. Take Feudal or Manorial England, for instance. The more educated ruled the masses of peasants, but did so in their own interest. The result was, overall, a cultural and technological stagnation that lasted until around the time the Tudors came into power. Proof of this statement can be found in The Making of England, seventh edition, by C. Warren Hollister and This realm of England, also seventh edition, by Lacey Baldwin Smith.

Once again, I'm going to stop myself short on my rant, this time because I simply do not wish to continue.

Sincerely,

IB

Note: In my haste, I submitted this post before I had edited it for spelling, grammar, and cut-and-paste errors. I have since done so, and that is why the "edited by" appears at the bottom.
------------------
(Insert Signature Here)

[This message has been edited by Idiot_box (edited 11-11-2000).]

Quote

That was more than 200 years ago. Back then, 20 dollars was a hefty chunk of money. You can't fault the Founders for not anticipating inflation, devaluation,...etc.

Quote

But is what you're asking for truly relevant? We're talking about the US here. I don't believe we're talking about voting patterns around the world or even voting patterns in Burundi. We're talking about the US here. In this limited scope of discussion, the statistics cited become very much relevant.

Quote

Interesting, I also once read a book by the same Hollister, it was one on medieval Europe.

That aside, I would first like to inform you that I never thought it possible to have a "smart majority." If your baseline standard is the population of the country as a whole, then one can confidently conclude that with the possible exceptions of Washington and Monroe, no president has ever been elected with the support of the majority of this country's population.

With that said, a country ruled by the ignorant masses is nothing to look forward to, either. Athens was ruled by a democracy and look how well that democracy served the city. The masses removed Pericles from his post at a crucial point during the Peloponnesian War. They foolishly removed Alcibiades from his post during another crucial point during the war. Finally, they foolishly executed the generals responsible for a victory, sealing the fate of Athens. There is a reason why Plato called democracy "mob rule" and believed it to be only slightly better than anarchy. One can't expect the masses to be intelligent.

------------------
"Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

Quote

First of all, the percentage you cited ("half") is questionable at best. Pardon me for asking, but using what standards did you arrive at this figure?

Second of all, I would like to point out that you obviously value mass mediocrity over improved education for a greater proportion of people.

Quote

This is a common misperception mostly due to the character assassination ads from the Gore campaign. I regret to see that you are part of the masses in this case in believing such nonsense. Records clearly indicate that Bush performed in college better than Gore did.

Quote

Interesting reform idea. But why just states with votes within 1%? Isn't this discrimination against all the other states? Why not have the electors vote according to the way their district went instead of the current "winner takes all" system? It is my understanding that Maine and Nebraska have these systems. Just something for you to consider.

------------------
"Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

I'd have to give you the election idea, it is better than mine.

And I have no data on Bush/Gore relative college scores. I do recall he was pretty fuzzy in the debates. But my memory is more fuzzy.

"Second of all, I would like to point out that you obviously value mass mediocrity over improved education for a greater proportion of people."

I suppose paying almost enough money (but not quite) to send people to private schools is your idea of improved education for a greater proportion of people.

Furthermore I'd like to know why you think Bush would do such a better job.

------------------
*Error: target is violating the laws of physics*
*Error: target is locally exceeding c*
*Error: unable to determine if target exists or not*
*Error: target cannot be hit*