Mandatory Election Class?

[jackfaire]

Over the years since people have left High School and News stopped being a thing certain political groups, terms and definitions have come into being that fly under the radar of their political base by not being known by them.

Today while discussing the upcoming election with my stepdad he asked me the question "Wait what are SuperPACs"

This is a man who in theory hates Political Favors but whom has repeatedly voted for more politicians taking money from SuperPACS, ones specifically known for hitting up said politican for favors after elections, than for politicians reported as sticking to donations made by independent citizens.

Apparently all of these years when the "News" has said "And the X Candidate has refused SuperPAC money and will only accept from Private donors" the "News" channel that he watches heavily implied that Private Donors meant "Rich Assholes with Money" when in most of those cases it meant people like him who can only donate $5 and thus not being beholden to any company when my city wants to drill for the clean water instead of building a more expensive and environmentally unfriendly water treatment plant.

So he only votes for the people that the "News" reports as not taking money from Private Donors. The channel has turned Private Donors into a curse word. Meanwhile not even saying the word SuperPAC apparently since he's never heard it. In this way they have skewed his vote towards the ones making a buttload of money off of his ignorance.

This leads me to wonder? Should we allow people to vote without education? It used to be our News Networks would say "here are the facts these are the things neither side can dispute because hey facts." and then do roundtable discussions about each sides interpretation of the facts."

"Sure this process is cheaper and has less impact this way but other way creates jobs" That would be fine let people decide what they care about but instead it's become "this is the POV we want you to have" Voter Fraud is not the biggest threat facing this country rather it's voter miseducation.

I have multiple times had to go over ballots with my folks to explain what exactly a measure does because the language is written in such a way that they think a yes vote means lowering their property taxes where it really means raise them.

I am not talking about a class that says "Vote this way or that"

I am saying a class or hell at least someone at the polls going "Here is what this is" with full monitoring to ensure it remains impartial while ensuring our older voters don't suddenly wonder "Hey why did they cut off my social security check" "Oh because that measure passed dropping it to 11 instead of 12 months of the year you get money" "I thought that was supposed to increase my funds"

I know realistically it's our responsiblity to make sure we are informed but too many people grew up in a time when the News cared about being honest and informative rather than "how many people can we get to watch" and so they still trust networks that get better ratings talking about Brangelina breaking up than discussing what's on the ballot. Seriously it's been years since any of my local news stations have actually covered a measure if it wasn't a controversial issue.

[HYHYBT]

We already have enough people trying to interfere in the education system to teach their personal views or those which will get them elected/donations. Pass such a requirement and that would multiply. Defining where "unbiased" lies is tricky, and those most motivated to be making that decision would be those who'd benefit from skewing it.

[jackfaire]

Defining where "unbiased" lies is tricky, and those most motivated to be making that decision would be those who'd benefit from skewing it.

Unbiased = Teaching someone what a SuperPAC means,


There are words that pop up in elections that are inherently non-partisan but that people often don't know the meaning of and so they ignore them or vote around them.

When the voter pamphlet in my state is sent out each Ballot measure has three parts a full description of what it actually is and will do. For example a ballot measure at it appears on the ballot can be worded in a confusing way to make you think a yes vote is a no vote but in the Voter's Pamphlet a long form description has to be included that fully details what exactly the measure will do not what it's believed the effects of enacting it will do but what it's doing.

So if you want to add a tax that description can't be "this tax will allow...."


It has be "This is a tax on your gas at the fuel pump it is a 2% tax that means you would pay 2% more at the fuel pump the money earned would be earmarked for bio-fuel research"

Then there are two more sections the first is an argument for the measure and the second is an argument against the measure.

What I am saying is that rather than just the voter pamphlet we have actual classes where the first section is taught to people.

Both sides have already agreed the description given is non-biased and non-partisan. So have a class where people are able to ask questions for parts of the description that they do not understand.


I am suggesting teach people what the Measure does and then they can make an informed decision. Teach them what political words mean and leave it up to them which are good things and which are bad things.

We teach this stuff in high schools all over the country I am just saying continued education to keep voters informed and up to date can't possibly be a bad thing especially when the News Media has decided information is no longer their job.

[s_stabeler]

I don't disagree with you that teaching people how to cut through political bullshit would be a good thing. The problem is, it would be far too easy for politicians to manipulate what is considered unbiased.

[jackfaire]

I don't disagree with you that teaching people how to cut through political bullshit would be a good thing. The problem is, it would be far too easy for politicians to manipulate what is considered unbiased.

Right but the voter's manual I get from my State Government does that every election. It's just there's no one to ask questions of and while I don't think I am a genius I do know there are people who can't as easily understand the ballot breakdowns. I am mostly arguing we just expand on the already unbiased model.

[HYHYBT]

Unbiased = Teaching someone what a SuperPAC means

It's not that simple. Teaching only a bare definition would be useless to most people, but teaching more than that leaves the door wide open (perhaps only a little open at the beginning, but it would widen quickly) because the significance of them ranges from "epitome of free speech" to "devil incarnate" depending on who you ask. And that's just a single term you've specified would be taught; what things are taught, as well as what's taught about them, would come into play.

Yes, you can get phrasing that both sides will tolerate for ballot purposes. But that's not good enough, for it then needs to be explained to people, and how you do that can put a thumb on either side of the balance.

I'm all for voter education; I just don't believe it should be mandatory, beyond the basics that are (or, at least, were when I was in school) covered already in social studies/history/government classes. I do, though, think the notion that everybody ought to vote no matter what, "if you don't vote, you can't complain," that sort of thing, should go away. If you don't want to vote, stay home. If you believe you don't know enough to make a good judgment... well, you probably know more than half the people who WILL be voting, so you might as well be among them.

But especially (and I don't intend this to cause a digression) if you believe Donald Trump's most presidential feature is his temperament, stay home

[jackfaire]

But especially (and I don't intend this to cause a digression) if you believe Donald Trump's most presidential feature is his temperament, stay home

I always point out to people that the only person whose talked me out of voting for Donald Trump is Donald Trump as it's his words I listened to when deciding if I was going to vote for him or not.

But yeah no I could accept it being not mandatory but making it voluntary and making sure people know it exists too would be a good thing.