A modest proposal

[natedogg]

Every time a misinformed lazy idiot fails to make it to the polls everybody wins including the idiot himself.

The only ones who suffer in this instance are the candidates.

Of course, we cannot enforce this non-participation nor should we. It is every american's right to vote, and that is a good thing.

However, there's no reason to ENCOURAGE these people to come out and vote. Why do we want imbeciles deciding elections? If anything, we should be supporting and facilitating their natural tendency to be uninformed and apathetic. It's better for them and it's better for us.

The fact that elections are basically decided by the empty sloganeering and casuistry of 15 second television spots is devastating our nation.

That is why I propose we ban political advertisments from television and radio.

A similar ban has been imposed on cigarrette companies under a similar rationale, namely that fools and idiots will be convinced by fatuous ads to do something stupid and harmful: start smoking.

In the case of political ads, the stakes are even higher because these ads convince fools and idiots to do something that not only hurts themselves but harms the rest of the country too. When a fool takes up smoking because of a catchy jingle, it's a shame but is really no detriment to me or mine. When the entire USA is taken down a dangerous path by legions of easily-swayed fools who have no critical thinking ability whatsoever, it's a worldwide catastrophe.

The propoganda and emotionalism of tv and radio political ads only serves to fire up the ignorant. Elections have become nothing more than a contest to see which party can organize a more effective "Get out the vote" drive. Whichever campaign rounds up more lazy imbeciles and prods them to vote gets the win.

It's more like a cattle round up than democracy.

By removing these inflammatory, uninformative, and downright harmful political ads from television and radio, we can do a lot to improve our democracy. Apathetic idiots will be less likely to be inspired to get out and vote, whereas those who DO vote will by necessity have to get their information from more in-depth sources.

As I said, each of us benefits every time a misinformed lazy idiot fails to get to the polls on election day. And if the percentage of voters who are informed and intelligent goes up (by reducing the numbers of voters who aren't from the overall voter participation pool), things are bound to improve.

The problem with our current system is that you could be the most intelligent informed voter in the district and your decision is swamped by millions of lazy uninformed morons who decide to vote for Bush because they saw a 20 second commercial with unflattering pictures of John Kerry windsurfing around. Lest you mistake my intentions as trying to gain an advantage for Kerry and the Democrats, let me assure you this proposal will effectively kill the Democratic party until they redefine themselves from what they currently are. Look at their support base!

These vapid political ads should not determine the present and future of our great nation. If we remove them from tv and radio, then what I call the "moron vote" will be significantly reduced, and that is a good thing for all of us, except the candidates.

Thank you.

natedogg

[andyfox]

Well, if we want to eliminate the "idiots" from voting, let's just have an IQ test. And to eliminate the misinformed, a political knowledge test. That way we'll insure that only the informed and the intelligent vote. While we're at it, let's perform the same tests on those who are running as well. And maybe have a poll tax too; after all, the people who can afford to pay it would probably have the most at stake.

Democracy is imperfect and messy.

[tolbiny]

ahhhh, but what natedogg was suggesting wouldn't prevent someone from voting as your (sarcastic) suggestions would. They are designed only to prevent people from being swayed by mass exposure to one side. slightly different that what you suggested.

[andyfox]

I read his point as being that commercials encourage the lazy and ignorant to vote. He thinks they shouldn't vote. My suggestions would do the job better.

[tolbiny]

I don't know why i suddenly decided to be an ass about semantics with you Andy, i generally enjoy your posts.
I think its just the "slippery slope" arguments irrate me, and i've been drinking (mostly the latter, i would venture to guess).
However, natedoggs ideas would not remove rights from any individual voter, as your (assumed sarcastic) suggestions would. I don't know that you can assume the path from his suggestion to yours.

[Bob Moss]

I bet it's exhausting to be so smart all the time.

[andyfox]

You'd lose the bet.

[nothumb]

Hi nate,

I thought your post was very funny and illustrative of how our system is currently broken. As Mr. Fox said, sure, it does slide a bit down the slope towards wildly undemocratic thought and fascism, but that's somewhat trendy these days anyway. You might make a good poststructuralist theorist.

In all seriousness, I place a lot of my belief in the importance of people acting and being responsible for themselves (such as, I dunno, participating in a democracy) but it does get awful hard to remain idealistic about that sometimes.

NT

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi natedoog:

As I understand it, you're making a similar argument to the one Alexander Hamilton made way back in the beginning. He was in favor of democracy, or at least a whole lot more than ever before, but he didn't want too much power to go to the uneducated masses.

Thus the compromise was an electoral college (which in the beginning really did elect our presidents) and appointed senators.

Best wishes,
Mason

[andyfox]

Yes, many of the founders, who are sometimes lumped together as the "Hamiltonians" (as opposed to the "Jeffersonians") feared the mobocracy. Actually, the framers didn't give a whole lot of thought to the electoral college because they didn't foresee the executive being as important as the branch ended up in actuality. In fact, they messed up the electoral college, resulting in a tie between Thomas Jefferson and his supposed running mate Aaron Burr in 1800. The situation was rectified by the 12th amendment.

And in perhaps the greatest irony, Jefferson's great political opponent Hamilton was responsible for Jefferson bcoming president, preferring his erstwhile political opponent to the rascal Burr. Burr, as is well known, got him back for it.