Modern Civics

I guess I could track down the names of the people on the ballot, try and find their phone numbers (assuming they're not unlisted) or their e-mail address. Contact them and try and get them to answer my questions, again, assuming they're not in the middle of something when I call, or that they even bother to reply to my e-mail.But at the very least, offering their answers to a mandatory questionaire at the voting place would be much easier, and affect more people than just me and the few people I tell about my conversations with the candidates.

The cost/benefit analysis that Jos does is pretty clear:Benefit: The city saves money by building the dump in his backyard rather than further out into the countryside where the trucks would have to drive further, the drivers spend more time driving them, and perhaps even the roads revamped to handle the increased heavy traffic.Cost: His children get cancer.Really, when you're dealing with something like this, there is absolutely no research or investigation required by someone like Jos, since the obvious choice to make is to vote to have the dump set up somewhere other than his backyard.Jon

What this really comes down to is the simple fact that there is no such thing as a 'perfectly informed' individual. And there is no legitimate reason for setting up any arbitrary standard of informed-ness other than to prevent people from voting who might vote in a way that displeases you.Really, if the people collectively want the most dumbass politicians and laws any group of human beings could ever come up with, then that's exactly what a free democracy should give them.Jon

But a republic is much better than a "free democracy".

You are willing to rely on some of the issues to be vetted in the media, but not all. When would this quiz, that is a pre-requisite to even getting on the ballot, be generated? Wouldn't the incumbent have the most info to put on the quiz if it was necessary to make the quiz before getting on the ballot?In my opinion, the information about what your governor was going to do was out there in plenty of time for the electorate to find out about it, and for the opposition to rake the governor over the coals about it. Your objection seems to be that you wanted another chance to make sure people had watched TV.I don't want, what in my view would be campaign literature, shoved in my face before I get to vote. When people hand me "sample ballots" to look at before I get into the polling place, I throw them straight into the trash, preferably while in view of the distributor.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

More business can operate in the city providing places for his children to work so that they can afford health care, food, shelter etc.

My point is that none of that is going to change the mind of an actual voter. The only thing on Jos's mind as he walks into that booth is the garbage dump behind his house and not some future employment opportunities for his (cancer-ridden) children.And, of course, he has every right to make that a top priority and to not care about anything else.

What you say seems intuitively correct, but we've seen similar arguments being made to justify limiting the reach of the EPA. Apparently some people believe that dumping air and water pollution into their own cornflakes can be justified if it creates jobs or generates cheap energy.

This is simply because people don't understand what the EPA really does.Not, of course, that they are at all liable to know what it does; it is their right as voting citizens to vote however they want and with as little information (or as much misinformation) as they desire.Jon

You could set the standard at "not totally uninformed" to make sure that people understand what they're actually voting for.

But in a free democracy, people have the right to vote for things they don't understand; even to cast random blind-chance votes in a language they cannot read or perhaps even speak.Jon

Well in your democracy people that dont understand shit get elected, well so do in ours. U had bush we had Pahor, but pahor at least acted normal.

If the media did their job, I'd be willing to let them handle all of the issues. The fact is, the media doesn't do its job, so something else has to take its place when something as important as the running of our country/state/city are concerned. I would say, after whatever current deadline exists for receiving enough signatures, to ensure that the people are actually going to be on the ballot. Not necessarily. I would assume the candidates would have a well-thought out plan for the major issues facing the country.It could be as simple as "What is your plan for taxes?" The incumbent could say, "I intend to reduce taxes on anyone making less than $200,000 / year and raise it by 3% for those making more." BUt some of the most important stuff he said at campaign rallies was not, or barely reported on the TV. And that's my issue. He mentioned in one rally that he would try to remove collective bargaining, but it wasn't reported. Almost no one I know even knew he had said it. Then they voted for him, and were shocked when he went ahead and removed collective bargaining.Now, it's entirely possible, he would not have mentioned removing collective bargaining as a way to reduce the deficit (which was definitely one of the major issues ion the campaign) and the results would have been the same, but then we could call bullshit on his ads claiming that he only did what he said he was going to do. If he had intended for people to know his plan, he would have put it on the questionaire. So you prefer to go in with less information than you could have to vote? Sample ballots would be useful, at least I would see if there were any tricky worded questions or people I had no knowledge of.But if you absolutely don't want to learn anything more just before voting, then all you'd need to do is copy the answers and go about your way.

That's the way it currently is. Do you honestly think this is the best way to run things?I don't. I'm not entirely sure my idea is the best way to address this, and it may even be a terrible idea, but I'm just floating an idea I've been contemplating for a while now to see if we can make this country's government better. It's quite obvious the government is broken, and in a "free democracy" we can only blame ourselves. So that implies we need to fix ourselves before we can fix the government.

I and others have been saying this for a while now.