The Right Answer by Isaac Asimov (1996)(americanhumanist.org)
americanhumanist.org
The Right Answer by Isaac Asimov (1996)
http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2011-05-the-right-answer-by-isaac-asimov
3 comments
Isaac Asimov: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge"
We do not test voters for critical thinking skills before they cast a vote, nor on their knowledge of the facts surrounding the issues they will vote on. Further, there have been many "get out the vote" campaigns but no (to my knowledge) "learn how to vote wisely" campaigns. Note that I would define "voting wisely" as "voting in accordance with my own views, the facts as I accept them, and the choices I've been given", as held by the voter.
Anti-intellectualism isn't a thread winding it's way through our democracy, that it's a cornerstone of our democracy.
Anti-intellectualism isn't a thread winding it's way through our democracy, that it's a cornerstone of our democracy.
> We do not test voters for critical thinking skills before they cast a vote, nor on their knowledge of the facts surrounding the issues they will vote on.
As much as I would love to see these things done, there is no way to do them in a democracy, because how would you determine the content of the tests? In a democracy, you would have to vote on them, which just brings you back to the same problem.
As much as I would love to see these things done, there is no way to do them in a democracy, because how would you determine the content of the tests? In a democracy, you would have to vote on them, which just brings you back to the same problem.
I'm pretty sure tests like these were used to exclude black voters in the US for a long time. I seem to remember them being literacy tests.
There's a good reason we should not have tests. A democratic system as we now understand it broadly means that every citizen is enfranchised. As soon as you start implementing tests, you being to interfere with the right of an individual to vote on arbitrary grounds.
While you could try to use this argument to argue for children's suffrage, I'm not sure it holds. Tests like the above have no cutoff, they can apply to someone their entire life. There are many things we don't allow children to do, but once they come of age they are (largely) free to do so. I don't know why I'm arguing against an argument I just came up with that might, hypothetically, be used as a counterargument to my original argument, but that's the internet for you.
There's a good reason we should not have tests. A democratic system as we now understand it broadly means that every citizen is enfranchised. As soon as you start implementing tests, you being to interfere with the right of an individual to vote on arbitrary grounds.
While you could try to use this argument to argue for children's suffrage, I'm not sure it holds. Tests like the above have no cutoff, they can apply to someone their entire life. There are many things we don't allow children to do, but once they come of age they are (largely) free to do so. I don't know why I'm arguing against an argument I just came up with that might, hypothetically, be used as a counterargument to my original argument, but that's the internet for you.
> A democratic system as we now understand it broadly means that every citizen is enfranchised. As soon as you start implementing tests, you being to interfere with the right of an individual to vote on arbitrary grounds.
Yes, that was my point: any kind of test of this nature is incompatible with democracy as we now understand it. But that also means that democracy as we now understand it has a serious flaw: people can vote regardless of how well informed they are or how good their judgment is. That fact, combined with the fact that one person's individual vote only has a very small impact, means that it is rational for voters not to bother being informed, but to vote on very superficial factors. As a result, in the US, we have a Congress with approval ratings in the single digits but reelection rates for incumbents in the high 90s.
Yes, that was my point: any kind of test of this nature is incompatible with democracy as we now understand it. But that also means that democracy as we now understand it has a serious flaw: people can vote regardless of how well informed they are or how good their judgment is. That fact, combined with the fact that one person's individual vote only has a very small impact, means that it is rational for voters not to bother being informed, but to vote on very superficial factors. As a result, in the US, we have a Congress with approval ratings in the single digits but reelection rates for incumbents in the high 90s.
I suppose it depends on what the purpose of democracy is. Is it better create legislation, in which case it is a flawed system and should probably be changed, or is it, which is much more likely IMO, to allow citizens to have agency in their lives by allowing them to have a hand in who legislates, in which case there is no alternative.
I'm normally the first person to say that we should stop all the ill-informed people voting (which tends to mean excluding the majority of the right-wing), but this is so subjective that I don't even know if it's a real dilemma.
Ultimately any compromise will frustrate people, it's where we draw the line that counts.
Apropos of the system in the US, I think your politicians are far more partisan than those in Europe, although we have our own fair share of stupid policies based on popularism and ill-thought-through ideology.
I'm normally the first person to say that we should stop all the ill-informed people voting (which tends to mean excluding the majority of the right-wing), but this is so subjective that I don't even know if it's a real dilemma.
Ultimately any compromise will frustrate people, it's where we draw the line that counts.
Apropos of the system in the US, I think your politicians are far more partisan than those in Europe, although we have our own fair share of stupid policies based on popularism and ill-thought-through ideology.
> to allow citizens to have agency in their lives by allowing them to have a hand in who legislates
But that kind of agency is very, very weak; my vote has only a miniscule impact on who legislates. I personally would be quite willing to trade that tiny bit of agency for the government's agreement to not mess with so many things.
> Apropos of the system in the US, I think your politicians are far more partisan than those in Europe
I think this is true, and there are two reasons for it that I can see, one good and one bad.
The good reason is that there is more diversity of thought in the US in general, and that gets reflected in a wider range of political viewpoints. Some partisanship is based on honest differences of opinion in areas where nobody really knows the right answer; in such cases, it's better to have multiple viewpoints represented and give each of them a chance to try things out.
The bad reason is that more Americans have crazy beliefs, so that we have people in, say, the US Congress with widely different beliefs even about matters of simple fact like how old the Earth is. Of course that's going to make it harder to govern and increase the likelihood of highly polarized debates with no resolution.
But that kind of agency is very, very weak; my vote has only a miniscule impact on who legislates. I personally would be quite willing to trade that tiny bit of agency for the government's agreement to not mess with so many things.
> Apropos of the system in the US, I think your politicians are far more partisan than those in Europe
I think this is true, and there are two reasons for it that I can see, one good and one bad.
The good reason is that there is more diversity of thought in the US in general, and that gets reflected in a wider range of political viewpoints. Some partisanship is based on honest differences of opinion in areas where nobody really knows the right answer; in such cases, it's better to have multiple viewpoints represented and give each of them a chance to try things out.
The bad reason is that more Americans have crazy beliefs, so that we have people in, say, the US Congress with widely different beliefs even about matters of simple fact like how old the Earth is. Of course that's going to make it harder to govern and increase the likelihood of highly polarized debates with no resolution.
Its a dilemma to be sure. But remember, the ancient Greeks (who invented it) only allowed landed men to vote. So there's a long tradition of cherry-picking voters.
I have been accused of irrational thought by humanists, by voting for Ron Paul, and other libertarian types, despite my atheism.
I'm pretty sure that voting in national elections at all is inherently irrational.
The odds that your vote will swing the election are unbelievably remote. Votes matter in aggregate, but matter almost not at all individually.
The rational course of action is to take the time and effort you'd put into voting and instead use it to try to convince irrational people to vote for the candidate you want to win. That must have more bang for your buck than voting yourself.
Even if you ignore all that, then what exactly counts as voting in accordance with your own views, the facts, and the choices given? Does that mean that you vote for a third-party candidate who closely matches your views but has no chance to win. Does that mean that you vote for the major party candidate who's closer to your views than the other one, even though both are distant?
And then there's the problem that limits on who is allowed to vote have historically always been about oppressing people. For example, it used to be common to forbid illiterate people from voting. Sounds totally fine in the abstract, right? If you can't even read, how can you vote intelligently? Except that in practice it ended up being, you're the right sort of person (i.e. white) so we'll just do this test as a brief formality before you can go vote; you, on the other hand, are the wrong sort of person (i.e. black) so you have to name every single county judge in the state to prove you know what you're doing.
If anyone thinks we should be testing voters, please outline what kind of testing regime you'd use to screen out people who believe that, say, the Earth is 6,000 years old, but couldn't possibly be used to screen out people who believe that every citizen should be given $10,000/year basic income with no strings attached.
The odds that your vote will swing the election are unbelievably remote. Votes matter in aggregate, but matter almost not at all individually.
The rational course of action is to take the time and effort you'd put into voting and instead use it to try to convince irrational people to vote for the candidate you want to win. That must have more bang for your buck than voting yourself.
Even if you ignore all that, then what exactly counts as voting in accordance with your own views, the facts, and the choices given? Does that mean that you vote for a third-party candidate who closely matches your views but has no chance to win. Does that mean that you vote for the major party candidate who's closer to your views than the other one, even though both are distant?
And then there's the problem that limits on who is allowed to vote have historically always been about oppressing people. For example, it used to be common to forbid illiterate people from voting. Sounds totally fine in the abstract, right? If you can't even read, how can you vote intelligently? Except that in practice it ended up being, you're the right sort of person (i.e. white) so we'll just do this test as a brief formality before you can go vote; you, on the other hand, are the wrong sort of person (i.e. black) so you have to name every single county judge in the state to prove you know what you're doing.
If anyone thinks we should be testing voters, please outline what kind of testing regime you'd use to screen out people who believe that, say, the Earth is 6,000 years old, but couldn't possibly be used to screen out people who believe that every citizen should be given $10,000/year basic income with no strings attached.
It's unfortunate that we're still having the same arguments decades later.