I know that a lot of people find it bothersome that a vast quantity of American citizens do not vote. It bothers others that a vast quantity of Americans vote but don't know the policies or policy makers for which they have voted.

So my question: which is the greater detriment to the democratic process? The knowledgable citizen who refuses to take part? or the uninformed citizen who casts votes based on a desire to take part?

Are the two equally detrimental? Or are we comparing apples and oranges here?

9/8/2006 11:22:29 AM

uninformed

9/8/2006 11:28:57 AM

seriously though i would say the uninformed citizen who casts votes based on desire to take part...i dont think the informed who doesnt vote hurts much because thats me and Bush still owns you!

9/8/2006 11:32:48 AM

how do you know that the knowledgable are the ones not voting?

9/8/2006 11:40:24 AM

not to mention, at least if ppl vote they have no one to blame but themselves.

9/8/2006 11:41:55 AM

^^no, he is saying that there are knowledgeable people voting and not voting...and uninformed people voting and not voting

he's asking which one is a bigger detriment to society

^thats why since i didnt vote, i dont complain about who's in power...also george bush and john kerry fathered you long ago in a masonic baptism pool

9/8/2006 11:42:26 AM

Rudeboy, it's conjecture. If you want to add a third variable, go for it.

9/8/2006 11:45:14 AM

Unknowledgeable nonvoters would most likely be seen as more detrimental than knowledgeable nonvoters. So I figured it was a neglectable category.

[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 12:19 PM. Reason : Sorry for the double.]

9/8/2006 12:19:20 PM

I forgot where I read it, I think it was in the book Wisdom of Crowds, but cannot be certain. The result of a study found that even after extensive research into the candidates there was a remarkably high tendency for people to vote the same way they did before doing any research.

So, accepting this study to be true, to answer the conundrum posited by this thread I must say neither instance does any real harm. Education of the uneducated that did vote does not change the results, so harm is no logical. Meanwhile, the educated that did not vote are equal in stature to the uneducated that did not vote, so their harm on the system is unlikely, too.

That said, I think it is silly to postulate causing harm upon the process. If I vote or don't vote no one has been harmed, all that matters is the result. If a bad president is elected it is not likely because some people didn't vote, odds are had they voted they too would have voted for the bad president.

As such, there are no good or bad voters, just good or bad outcomes in which every voter and non-voter must accept equal blame.

9/8/2006 12:21:10 PM

Why would someone that took the time to be knowledgeable about each candidate's platform not vote?

9/8/2006 12:43:11 PM

^ Because they think both major tickets are fucked, and the others won't matter? Also because the oft repeated "don't vote, don't bitch" argument is about as shallow as a kiddie pool.

^^ Hahaha...they had to do a study to confirm the halo effect.

WOW. You can get a grant for anything I guess...

9/8/2006 5:26:58 PM