Happy Constitution Day! Annenberg Annual Civics Survey

[Belsnickel]

(09-24-2018, 01:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: The other problem with this is if the powers that be know they have an unlimited, forced army they are more likely to send them to fight.

While our culture is different, this isn't necessarily true. How long has it been since Switzerland was at war? Service is mandatory in their country.

[GMDino]

(09-24-2018, 02:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: While our culture is different, this isn't necessarily true. How long has it been since Switzerland was at war? Service is mandatory in their country.

Culture makes all the difference.

I'll add the caveat that *IF* people elected to office had to serve then eventually we could create a culture of people who understand war before declaring it and having OTHER people fight in it.

[*bfine32*]

Back to the subject of the OP. perhaps we could develop some sort of test a voter must pass before they can vote. I'm sure the "more informed" voter crowd could get behind this.

As to National Service. I'm sure we could work it out.

[Belsnickel]

(09-24-2018, 02:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Back to the subject of the OP. perhaps we could develop some sort of test a voter must pass before they can vote. I'm sure the "more informed" voter crowd could get behind this.

Nope. No tests for voting. Even though I am very realistic about the benefits of more democracy and understand that there is a point of diminishing returns, I still favor more democracy over less. Whether a voter is uninformed or not, they should still have a voice. The best we can do is try to provide the information to them.

[GMDino]

(09-24-2018, 02:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Back to the subject of the OP. perhaps we could develop some sort of test a voter must pass before they can vote. I'm sure the "more informed" voter crowd could get behind this.

As to National Service. I'm sure we could work it out.

Believe it or not I do wish we had some kind of requirement about being to able to read and write...but I realize even that is a step too far when it comes to having people vote.  Lack of formal education doesn't make one uninformed necessarily.  

[Dill]

(09-24-2018, 01:39 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't think they'd all serve at once   Do it like they used to.  6 months active, and 1.5 years reserve.  

Still--how many tens of millions in uniform at any one time, fed and clothed by taxpayers?

[Dill]

(09-24-2018, 02:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: Believe it or not I do wish we had some kind of requirement about being to able to read and write...but I realize even that is a step too far when it comes to having people vote.  Lack of formal education doesn't make one uninformed necessarily.  

Certainly decreases the probability one is informed.

That is why Western liberal democracies introduced mandatory public education.

The more complex modern societies become, the more important that education.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-24-2018, 02:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Nope. No tests for voting. Even though I am very realistic about the benefits of more democracy and understand that there is a point of diminishing returns, I still favor more democracy over less. Whether a voter is uninformed or not, they should still have a voice. The best we can do is try to provide the information to them.

A bit unrelatd but a question I thought of when reading your post: are voters more informed nowadays than compared to decades ago when the main form of information was through newspapers, radio and/or TV news prgorams? We know the potential is there to be well informed (via the internet and 24 hour news cycle), but considering things like "fake news" (not the Trump kind) and bullshit stories spread on social media and the internet in general, are we really more informed nowadays, generally speaking?

[GMDino]

(09-24-2018, 04:01 PM)Dill Wrote: Certainly decreases the probability one is informed.

That is why Western liberal democracies introduced mandatory public education.

The more complex modern societies become, the more important that education.

I don't disagree with that.  

[Dill]

(09-24-2018, 04:12 PM)PhilHos Wrote: A bit unrelatd but a question I thought of when reading your post: are voters more informed nowadays than compared to decades ago when the main form of information was through newspapers, radio and/or TV news prgorams? We know the potential is there to be well informed (via the internet and 24 hour news cycle), but considering things like "fake news" (not the Trump kind) and bullshit stories spread on social media and the internet in general, are we really more informed nowadays, generally speaking?

Elbowing my way past Bels to answer this--you pose a good question, but there is a complicating factor. 

The world was not as complicated for voters in previous ages as it is now. The techniques for swaying voters were less sophisticated, and the amount of  relevant information was also much smaller.

What changed that was 1) our move away from isolationism; in 1885 or 1932, American presidents were not making decisions about whether to intervene in Korea, Iran, and Pakistan (which didn't exist yet), or continue aid to Egypt, Turkey, Japan and South Africa, or to keep bases in Germany and Somalia, or to confront China and Russia in areas of strategic interest.  2) the fragmentation of information and decentering of authority which has followed from electronic communication.  Journalistic standards were lower throughout the 19th century than they are now, yet standards hardly matter if Alex Jones and any-poster-on-Youtube can compete with the NYT for the credibility of millions. And 3) the arrival of new voters with power over policy deliberations; so much simpler when it was just white men.

So no, I don't think we are necessarily more informed than the populace of 1790 or 1848 or 1929.  Considering what we NEED to know, I am sure we are not. Got prettier pictures on my I phone, though.

[Dill]

(09-24-2018, 02:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Back to the subject of the OP. perhaps we could develop some sort of test a voter must pass before they can vote. I'm sure the "more informed" voter crowd could get behind this.

As to National Service. I'm sure we could work it out.

I too would like to see some form of national service. Universal military service would be impractical though. A waste of resources and time.

[Dill]

(09-24-2018, 01:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: The other problem with this is if the powers that be know they have an unlimited, forced army they are more likely to send them to fight.

Not sure about that. Conscript armies are hard to deploy. Their families vote.

That's why so many in power prefer the current volunteer force. Much less political resistance to deploying volunteers, though there is still some, as Trump discovered after the Yemen fiasco.

The final step could be to mercenaries. No one would expect a president to meet with their families if they are killed on the job.

[Belsnickel]

(09-24-2018, 04:12 PM)PhilHos Wrote: A bit unrelatd but a question I thought of when reading your post: are voters more informed nowadays than compared to decades ago when the main form of information was through newspapers, radio and/or TV news prgorams? We know the potential is there to be well informed (via the internet and 24 hour news cycle), but considering things like "fake news" (not the Trump kind) and bullshit stories spread on social media and the internet in general, are we really more informed nowadays, generally speaking?

Dill covered this pretty well and, for the most part, I agree. What I can really add to that, though, is what I see through my experiences at the university. What I have seen is that there is a ton of information out there, a ton of good information, but the information literacy is low and the motivation to get that information is also low.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-21-2018, 06:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I wonder how many people answered these questions "yes" or "no"?

Most likely the millions of illegals that can't speak English.

[ballsofsteel]

(09-24-2018, 07:13 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Most likely the millions of illegals that can't speak English.

Alot of Trump's base can't speak English. Didn't you ever see the movie Deliverance?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-24-2018, 09:16 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Alot of Trump's base can't speak English. Didn't you ever see the movie Deliverance?

[*Nately120*]

(09-24-2018, 04:12 PM)PhilHos Wrote: A bit unrelatd but a question I thought of when reading your post: are voters more informed nowadays than compared to decades ago when the main form of information was through newspapers, radio and/or TV news prgorams? We know the potential is there to be well informed (via the internet and 24 hour news cycle), but considering things like "fake news" (not the Trump kind) and bullshit stories spread on social media and the internet in general, are we really more informed nowadays, generally speaking?

We don't want to be informed. We desire self-serving bs to avoid challenging our views and hurting our fragile egos, so in this sense, I fully believe we have elected a president who represents the people.  In all fairness, bs news and misinformation was spread back in the good ol' days, too.  I recall reading an article that pointed out a number of old fake news stories from way back when, including one from 1928 where a Catholic was running for president and it was widely assured that he would ban the Bible, and that the recently build Holland Tunnel in NY was actually the beginnings of a tunnel that would be built all the way to the Vatican so that the Pope could...um, drive to the USA and assume office?

Yes, this bs was distributed through good ol' fashioned newspapers written by real writers and read by real people who were smart enough to read.

Also, before Facebook even existed we managed to turn John McCain's adopted daughter from Bangladesh into his illegitimate colored child.  Score one for Bush, there.


EDIT:  Just for kicks, here is the test we give immigrants who want to go the legal route.  http://uscitizenshipsupport.com/

Perhaps we should give this test to every US citizen and anyone who falls below the median score those dumb immigrants gets should be deported for the good of the country.  

[Dill]

(09-25-2018, 11:05 AM)Nately120 Wrote: We don't want to be informed. We desire self-serving bs to avoid challenging our views and hurting our fragile egos, so in this sense, I fully believe we have elected a president who represents the people.  In all fairness, bs news and misinformation was spread back in the good ol' days, too.  I recall reading an article that pointed out a number of old fake news stories from way back when, including one from 1928 where a Catholic was running for president and it was widely assured that he would ban the Bible, and that the recently build Holland Tunnel in NY was actually the beginnings of a tunnel that would be built all the way to the Vatican so that the Pope could...um, drive to the USA and assume office?

Yes, this bs was distributed through good ol' fashioned newspapers written by real writers and read by real people who were smart enough to read.

Also, before Facebook even existed we managed to turn John McCain's adopted daughter from Bangladesh into his illegitimate colored child.  Score one for Bush, there.

Yes, "fake news" has been around for a long time.  Newspapers printed outright lies about Jefferson and Madison.  There were no journalism schools preaching "objectivity."   YELLOW JOURNALISM was the bread and butter of Pulitzer and Hearst in the late 19th century, when Fox style commentary was presented as news in the great New York papers.

Still, a bit of historical contextualization is in order.  People still revered certain standards and authorities to a greater degree than they do now. The rate of literacy was lower, but the level was higher. (I am still amazed sometimes to think the Federalist Papers were newspaper articles.)

It was the reaction to yellow/tabloid journalism that drove standards into the then newly created journalism departments of universities, and onto newspaper editorial boards.

In my youth, there were conspiracy theories spread by pamphlets and books--Commies put flouride in our water; the FCC was going to ban religious broadcasting, etc.--but these were FRINGE. They had no voice in the "liberal" media: the three networks and the major newspapers, and magazines like Post, Life, Time, and Newsweek. So if people were not good at sorting out fact from fiction, they could at least rely on the professionals to do it for them. 73% of Democrats did not think Eisenhower was a Communist.

The greatly disturbing characteristic of the present, is that with the takedown of the "liberal" media, and the rise of Fox and the internet, the FRINGE has moved to center stage. So 73% of Republicans believe or suspect the FBI  plotted to take down a sitting president in 2016, and the Russia investigation is a continuation of that. Doesn't matter if the FBI director destroyed Hillary. And 3-5 million voted illegally for Hillary, whose personal assistant belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood and helped her sell 20% of US uranium to Russia; and how did she get away with the murder of Vince Foster? Different standards for the Clintons.

Doesn't matter if the "evidence" is always tabloid style.  The FRINGE now has the authority of Walter Cronkite.