CNN columnist L.Z. Granderson made the argument in a recent website post that it would be reasonable to deny the right to vote to ignorant Americans who cannot name the three branches of government and who have nary a clue about the issues facing the country .
Granderson could have saved some time by simply writing the undoubted truth that American policies, progress and choices of leaders and are greatly handicapped by the fact that lazy, uninformed, blissfully ignorant boobs warp our democratic process….and have almost from the beginning. But so what? What can be done about it? There is one thing for certain: taking away the right to vote based on someone’s subjective formula for measuring “ignorance” isn’t among the realistic—or ethical—solutions.
Granderson’s arguments are predictable, and any one of us could find the kinds of studies and examples he cites, but his arguments also rebut themselves, showing that more than ignorance makes an incompetent voter, and that ignorant voters can still make correct decisions, more correct, in some cases, than informed voters with other equally handicapping cognitive and character deficiencies…such as stupidity, laziness, bias, bigotry, warped values, selfishness, bad ethics and old-fashioned rotten judgement. For example, he writes,
“And what to make of the 20 percent of folks polled who believe public broadcasting represents 10 percent of the budget, when it’s more like a 10th of 1 percent?”
Well, here’s what I make of it: anyone who thinks that has trouble with percentages, but they may still make the right calculation regarding cutting funding for PBS and NPR, which is that when a country is broke, all the little luxuries and redundancies and things that are nice to do and have when it is flush have to go, whether they are 20% of the budget, a 10th of 1%, or a thousanth of 1%, because when you’ve cut ten 10ths ten times, you’ve cut 10%, and that’s worth doing. Meanwhile, the non-ignorant who use the correct percentages to make the intellectually dishonest argument (like all public broadcasting defenders) that a completely unessential program shouldn’t be cut because “it’s just a drop in the bucket” are being intentionally deceitful, and are dead wrong.
They make this argument and arguments like it to appeal to ignorant citizens as well as gullible ones, an overlapping population. The politicians and elected officials who intentionally set out to exploit ignorance, gullibility and stupidity, as well as bias and bigotry, greed, and the inability to understand the language and statistics, plus apathy about our history and culture, are just as damaging to the nation as the targets of their deception. More, in fact.
Some citizens, moreover, have good instincts and judgement that out-balance their ignorance on the issues. Studies show that human beings assess potential leaders’ trustworthiness based more on impressions than substance, and that those impressions can be mysteriously accurate. I know people who took one look at John Edwards without knowing a thing about him or the policies he advocated, and concluded that he was a tin-plate phony. That intuition was more valuable in the voting booth than all the collected knowledge of the millions of people who wanted to make Edwards president.
Certainly the position that it is better to have an informed electorate than an ignorant one is beyond debate, as is the fact that every citizen has an obligation to be as informed about the state of the nation, its governance and its history as possible. The routine “vote whether you have any basis for your opinions or not, because our percentage of eligible voters who go to the polls is lower than Iraq’s” public service announcements are foolish and irresponsible, and should be replaced by the opposite message, one that tells citizens that they owe it to the nation to stay home on election day if they are too apathetic to learn about the country, the candidates, and the issues.
That message, however, involves reminding citizens that rights need to be exercised responsibly: it is far removed from taking voting rights away. It is unethical, as well as un-American, to deny the right of self-government on the basis of personal inadequacies. Democracy means that everyone, including the dumb, ignorant, insane or foolish, has the right to participate in civic affairs and the governance of their community, state and nation. Yes, it is wrong to exercise this right irresponsibly and recklessly, but it is a essential human right, and nothing can justify removing the opportunity to govern oneself badly.
Ethics Alarms 
If we are going to limit the electorate to the intelligent, can we also hold the candidates to the same standard? I don’t remember the phrase in Latin, but “Who guards the guards?”
It’s all relative, but leadership ability and intelligence are not too closely linked. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Van Buren, Buchanan, Taft, Wilson, Hoover, Nixon, Carter, Clinton and Obama have IQ points to spare over Washington, Monroe, Jackson, Cleveland, FDR, Truman, Ike, and Reagan. For leadership ability, though, I’ll take the latter group; it’s no contest.
There was a time that our nation only allowed voting rights to those who owned land. This created an unfair climate in our history, but at the time they believed they were doing the right thing. They believed only those who owned land would be able to understand the problems facing the nation.
This is the same idea.
To suggest only the intelligent can understand is faulty at best. Intelligence comes in all forms and vices. Someone may be a genius in physics but be unable to understand what may be considered common sense to anyone else. What about those who are artistically inclined and can put their emotions and ideals into a work of art. That person may be unable to understand algebra.
How can we hold against people their intelligence levels when our school systems are failing? Much of the problems can be traced to children not being taught in schools. How are people to understand civics when it isn’t even being taught?
For this man to even suggest that the vote should only be allowed to those who he deems intelligent speaks volumes for his arrogance. It also should be a red alert for people to not listen to this man.
To be fair, the columnist was talking about ignorance, which is within every individual’s power to remedy, not intelligence, which is not,a nd which is a subjective standard at best. Making decisions about policy without understanding what the policy involves is per se irresponsible, but the only remedy is for people to get more responsible, and see why it benefits them and everyone else. That’s s tough argument to make, though, when Congress members shameless declare their enthusiastic support for giant bills they haven’t read…there is no more disgraceful example of ignorance applied to the democratic process.
I’m confused by your argument. Cutting the ignorant out is not unethical. Finding a way to cut the ignorant out that is not biased or biasable is nearly impossible. Result, we err on the side of more access to avoid unacceptable disenfranchisement.
While I agree that we the right to participate in our democracy. I believe we only maintain that right if we attempt to give a damn. I don’t see a right to recklessly vote, and I don’t see it as unethical to deny voting to those people who have ceded their informed status.
Your “evidence” for uninformed voters being better than informed ones in some circumstances is a combination of pop-psychology, wishful thinking, and confirmation bias. There is no evidence that uninformed people have more accurate judgments than informed people, and claiming such is flat out unethical. Personally, I’d vote for the untrustworthy person who has a plan rooted in reality over the trustworthy person who’s plan has known consequences of destroying our society. Anything else would be unethical.
Moreover, your discussion of NPR with respect to the uninformed shows some of the severe errors in your reasoning. Paraphrasing you: “Who cares if it’s 20% or .1%? It’s bad. And the populace realizes this.” Basically, you are arguing that ignorance of reality isn’t bad… so long as they agree with your general philosophies, and come to the same answer you do.
While you do talk about exploitation as a bad thing, your previous example, however you try to spin it, only works based upon exploitation.
I think you need to check your ethics alarm. It seems to be a bit on the fritz.
(Your strawmanning has also been strong lately. I don’t see anyone saying that since NPR and PBS are a small part of the budget, they are good. I have only seen arguments that they are a small part of the budget AND they are good.)
Finding a way to cut the ignorant out that is not biased or biasable is nearly impossible. Result, we err on the side of more access to avoid unacceptable disenfranchisement.
I like to think that we already have a process in place for doing just that. We cut out the voters who don’t register. If you can muster up that minimum level of knowledge that you have to register to vote, then you can vote. If you wait until election day, you’re screwed.
That’s right. The current process works reasonably well–I wished fewer people voted, but I’m certainly gald they all have the right. Choosing not to vote is exercising the right too.
You aren’t reading much, them. What they are arguing is that NPR and PBS aren’t worth cutting, and they don’t even make the case that they are “good”, in many cases.
Ignorant people can have good judgment; ignorant people can be unbiased; ignorant people can be wise. It’s not pop psychology: you’re just wrong. Juries are mostly chosen from ignorant people, and they don’t do a bad job at all. With knowledge comes bias and arrogance, hence “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”
Your NPR argument is intellectually dishonest. You don’t need to know much to understand that if you are broke, the “low hanging fruit” among your expenses has to go first; the non-essentials go before the essentials, and whether it is 2 cents or 2 million doesn’t matter. This isn’t my philosophy; it is ancient common sense….something ignorant people can also have in abundance.
Your rights argument is beneath contempt. You don’t lose your rights by not exercising them responsibly (within the laws)—you’re mixing up privileges and rights! Everyone has a right to self-government and a voice in their own fate—the stupid, the evil, the ignorant, the greedy, the dishonest. Ignorance is far from the worst quality of a voter; absolute partisans are worse than ignorant, because they don’t even evaluate and challenge the knowledge they have….if you’re going to vote for the Republican regardless of his ability, what he says and what his opposition is like, who cares if you’re not ignorant?
Sure–it’s impossible to take the vote away from the ignorant. Making them voiceless slaves of other people’s representatives, however, is unethical. I don’t think it’s a close call at all.
I have to wonder if you don’t take some of these positions just to be annoying. You know, among other things, that “ignorant” does even have a non-subjective definition.
You aren’t reading much, them. What they are arguing is that NPR and PBS aren’t worth cutting, and they don’t even make the case that they are “good”, in many cases.
Awesome, so you agree with me that you strawmanned their position. Thanks.
Ignorant people can have good judgment; ignorant people can be unbiased; ignorant people can be wise. It’s not pop psychology: you’re just wrong. Juries are mostly chosen from ignorant people, and they don’t do a bad job at all. With knowledge comes bias and arrogance, hence “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”</cite.
You're confusing ignorance with knowledge. Ignorant people who are then greatly informed do a pretty good job. Pretend most of your jury didn't attend the trial. Then you have a fair comparison.
Your NPR argument is intellectually dishonest. You don’t need to know much to understand that if you are broke, the “low hanging fruit” among your expenses has to go first; the non-essentials go before the essentials, and whether it is 2 cents or 2 million doesn’t matter. This isn’t my philosophy; it is ancient common sense….something ignorant people can also have in abundance.
Your philosophy is small government is good. Entertainingly, the nonessentials (like planned parenthood) can actually save money. The ignorant masses need to have this knowledge to be able to figure out which programs to cut. Oops. There goes your argument again.
Your rights argument is beneath contempt. You don’t lose your rights by not exercising them responsibly (within the laws)—you’re mixing up privileges and rights!
We have the right to informed participation. I don’t believe we have the right of any participation. Is that better?
Everyone has a right to self-government and a voice in their own fate—the stupid, the evil, the ignorant, the greedy, the dishonest.
Why?
Sure–it’s impossible to take the vote away from the ignorant. Making them voiceless slaves of other people’s representatives, however, is unethical. I don’t think it’s a close call at all.
Really, when they can become unignorant at any time? That’s on them, not on me.
I have to wonder if you don’t take some of these positions just to be annoying. You know, among other things, that “ignorant” does even have a non-subjective definition.
You’ve shown you’re extremely good at misusing ignorant, so I’m going to blame your ignorance of the original usage of ignorant for your poor arguments, and revoke your right to use that word. Funny thing… you can always figure out that “ignorant” was used to mean uninformed in relation to the specific topic, not uninformed in general. At which point, you will regain the right to use it.
Sorry for a missing closing angle bracket. Also, I came up with a better response for one of these:
Everyone has a right to self-government and a voice in their own fate—the stupid, the evil, the ignorant, the greedy, the dishonest.
the felons… Entertainingly, I strongly disagree with the wholesale disenfranchisement of felons.
To address just two point until I have some time…saying that non-essential programs have to be cut first when you are broke has zero, nada, zilch to do with being pro big or small government. I’m all for government programs that are run efficiently, do good things, don’t impinge on individual freedom excessively THAT WE CAN AFFORD. In a recent household budget crisis, I cut XM radio. I love XM radio, and it costs about 14 bucks a month. But it was an easy 14 bucks to save, and there were plenty of other cuts like it. I’m all in favor of “big household” if Mom and Dad can pay for it. And cutting a non-essential monthly charge does not require knowledge of how good the service or program is, just that it exists, and that it costs money you don’t have.
Juries use their experience and instincts regarding credibility to choose between two theories of a case, just as voters choose between two candidates, Jurors make the choices based on impressions and instincts as much as, and often more than, the evidence, which is complicated and confusing. It’s an excellent analogy. Critics always argue that we need “smarter” and more knowledgeable jurors, but there’s no evidence that they a better job.
I’ll grant you the first point, but that doesn’t change the need for knowledge to know what can be cut to actually save money. Cutting out your car may also save money initially, but lost money in taxi services.
As for your second point, you’re confusing ignorance in general with ignorance of the specifics again. Why even bother with a trial?