As hopefully everyone knows the next presidential election is fast approaching. This means the next round of political campaigns and advertisement is being shown to us, the voters. A friend showed me this article, and it was very intriguing. Everyone should take a couple of minutes to skim over it, because it makes a clear and persuasive argument about the knowledge of voters and their influence on elections. (Article)
The article title reads “People Aren’t Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientist Say.” The article is based off of research done at Cornell University, and it talks about how those of lower intelligence are unable to identify the best candidate for an election. It argues that people are only able to judge the ability of others up to their own ability, and it brings up the fact that people generally believe they are better at something than they really are. The reasoning for this is that some people are too ignorant to know their incompetence. There is another article that agrees with the research done, and it is interesting and humorous. (Article)
So my questions to 1106 are, what do you think about these results? Do you find this to be generally true in your own experiences? Also, do you think this could play a factor in the 2012 presidential election? Did this play a role in any past presidential elections?
Our society has some serious issues to be looked at when it comes to our democracy. We usually end up limiting voters to three people. There is the candidate that is backed by the Democratic Party and the candidate backed by the Republican Party. Then usually there is one popular independent candidate. Unfortunately, the candidates that we limit ourselves too are usually not the best choices. They are only the people that became popular enough to be voted for by each party. Most people don’t realize the incompetence of some of the candidates we limit ourselves to voting for. So in other words we force ourselves to choose the popular candidate and not the best candidate from each party. Unfortunately since this is how the system is currently working we end up choosing a candidate that shares some of our interests, but not all. When George Washington was elected practically the only person who didn’t want him to be president was himself. Nowadays candidates will do anything to be elected. The country needs to choose the right man for the job, not the man that will sell his ideals to become elected, but the man that will let this country grow in the best way possible.
ReplyDeleteThe results are not shocking that many people are incompetent. The problem is with how schools are run and higher education is so expensive many people have to settle for mindless jobs, which then turn their brains to mush. It does not affect the presidential election, because I think both candidates are equally suited to run the country it is just their way of going about doing that that differs. Both candidates are put through a rigorous process just to be able to run for president, so I do not think any of them are under qualified. I mean if Palin ran for president she would be a bad choice, because she has proven her lack of knowledge on politics. But I do not mind Palin as a person, just as a president she is lacking. In reference to the question if past presidential elections have been affected I believe that even if McCain was elected instead of Obama we would be in the same state as we are now.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't a shock that the American public is pretty dumb when it comes to politics and news. So it shouldn't be a shock that voters are the same way. I think that Presidential elections in America are generally a popularity contest. Whoever has the most money for their campaign or the best public speaking usually has a better chance of winning. In the 2008 election, Obama had the most money and the best advertising campaign over the other candidates. I'm not targeting Obama's campaign, but EVERY campaign does this. It is crucial to come up with the best slogan and advertisement. Voters are definitely persuaded more by those factors then the actual politics of the candidate. The incompetence of voters plays a role in every election and will play a role forever.
ReplyDeleteI too, agree that it isn’t a shock that voters are incompetent. In high school both President Obama and Sarah Palin held rallies in my county. All of my classmates instantly became the biggest supporters of either side. Very few actually attended the rallies, and even fewer actually knew anything about the candidates and the platforms. Nonetheless, my classmates sported pins and “I love Palin” and “Change” shirts. What I found was the most uninformed students, were the “biggest” supporters. They were what I would call obnoxiously opinionated. They simply boasted for their candidate however if you asked them anything about their candidate, they couldn’t tell you anything about them or their platform. I found this extremely frustrated because I knew who I supported and I had particular reasons why. That’s not to say people can’t support someone else, I just expect them to be able to support why. These students who had no knowledge about their candidate also refused to hear the opposing side, they could not have a productive conversation or even debate about the issues because they didn’t know any. Therefore, it does not come as a shock that voters are being dubbed incompetent. This is happening because of time. Time is an opportunity cost. The more time people spend learning about a candidate or their position the less time they have to spend working or to spend in leisure time. This problem of time undermines the entire political systems we have set up. We as individuals in society do not vote on every policy or law because we don’t have the time or resources to invest in becoming an expert on every topic. Therefore we elect officials and representatives to be experts for us. However if society is to incompetent and lazy to look up these elected officials then how can we possibly expect to the outcome we want. See how this is flawed?
DeleteLillian also makes a good point. For individuals who do try to stay informed by watching the news or reading articles, it is difficult to filter the crap from legitimate information. In addition, many sources are biased. Different networks tend to have a more liberal or conservative slant. Therefore one way to try to get the best information is to watch both networks and pull out the similarities. I would guess that most people don’t take the time to do this or they don’t realize what they are watching is biased. So, now the problem becomes not lack of information but rather misinformation.
Will also makes an interesting point about our candidate selection. Why limit ourselves to one candidate from each party? Towards the final stages of elections, politicians try to be more moderate so that they don’t scare a way potential voters. If we had more candidates from the same party we could eliminate this problem. Candidates would have to take a firmer stance on particular problems in order to distinguish themselves from their competitors. While they would ostracize themselves from some voters they would also gain support from more extreme groups.
It is a pretty big shock to find out that this study shows that people are too ignorant to know their incompetence. However, I not surprised by the fact that people are only able to judge the ability of others up to their own ability. In fact, that is how most people judge others, by comparing them to themselves. With regards to whether these factors will play a role in this presidential election, assuming that the study is accurate, I don't see why it wouldn't. Since the study says the most people are too ignorant, something I don't agree with, than it would effect far more than just who they vote for.
ReplyDeleteI am not surprised at all about people being too incompetent to have an educated vote. First off, everything we hear in the news crap, nothing we are told is true it is all filtered for the public eye. Most people only watch the news or read the newspaper to get educated on politics when in fact that is probably one of the most one-sided ideals published out there. Those people are probably more educated than most of the United States population. The average person doesn't even do that, most people choose their political party with the influence of their parents without even knowing the current issues at hand. Most people also just choose the president off their political party without knowing what that president even stands for. The article you posted is on to something, I do not think that people who are incompetent or un educated about the political system should be allowed to vote. I personally do not keep up with politics, even though I should, so unless I start reading up on who the candidates are and what they are trying to achieve I probably won’t vote. It’s not fair to make a blind guess when it comes to such an important aspect of our country.
ReplyDeleteThis raises a very important question, should everyone be allowed to vote? The Greeks and the Romans flourished as societies in which only the nobility was permitted to vote. Eventually in Rome the Republic turned into a dictatorship under Caesar and finally into an empire under his legal son Emperor Augustus. My point is that the system worked for a while and then it didn't because the interests of the people weren't being met. So yes it is a fact that there are people out there, the great majority to be honest, that are intellectually based at the lowest common denominator. These people certainly shift the balance of the election in one direction or the other, which means that the presidential election is not based of the reasoning of learned men and women but of the assumptions of many uneducated folks. Nevertheless, if we took the voting rights away from this percentage of the population, how would their interests be reached? It's a complicated question and it has no definitive answer, that is why no political system is flawless.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I've never been huge in politics. I, once upon a time was that kid who just chose who her parents wanted to elect. I would talk so highly about the candidate yet know nothing. In high school I kind of stayed out of the politics scene until senior year. We were given an election project where we had to choose a candidate and find their platform and basically who they were. It was very informative and I learned not to just listen to what I hear, but also do some research of my own to make my own opinion. I do get frustrated today when people are so close-minded and won't hear another side. I guess I can only get so mad when I did that just 5 years ago. I do think that there are a lot of people who only vote for a candidate without even knowing what He/She fully stands for. The media does a good job distorting every story especially campaigns. Therefore, I know that there are people who fall victim to the media, but then there are some who know what they are talking about. I would hope that this article isn't fully true and that some part of this world knows who they are voting for to run the country.
ReplyDeleteI don't have much faith in the results of the "research" conducted by Dunning due to the fact very little is mentioned about his experimental settings.For instance they never mention how large their sample size which is pretty disconcerting. The second article doesn't do a vastly superiour job in supporting their claim of the increasing incompetence of Americans. The one chart the second article has is hard to understand and very little of the experimental result numbers are reported much like the first article. When it comes to my own experiences, I don't really have the ability to judge others on their political choices because I don't vote myself so me critiquing another for their "uneducated" choices would just be the pot calling the kettle black.
ReplyDeleteI think non-political factors will play a factor in our 2012 presidential election just like they have factored into all of our previous elections. So the article's argument that people are picking imcompentent leaders due to their lack of information will probably be supported by the results of the upcoming election because human bias based of non-political factors is a reoccuring theme. In most recent elections their have been smear campains which aim to discredit other political candidates due to differing political beliefs or differing non-political beliefs.
I think that because not everyone is fully educated on the topic of politics, it will play a role in elections. Some people only vote for what party they are apart of. Even if there is a poor candidate for their party, people will still vote for them. I think many voters do not do any research. This causes people to make uneducated votes for whatever candidate they like best.
ReplyDeleteNo one wants to admit that they are incompetent since it is human nature to mask and hide personal flaws. People who are insecure about their incompetency approach the upcoming election with preconceived notions about each candidate and close their minds to change of opinion due to fear of being incorrect in their assumptions. Therefore, most incompetent people are less reluctant to research about the candidates for an upcoming election and choose to stick with their own personal beliefs.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was a kid, I tend to pride myself on being intelligent for my age since that was my only leverage to become respected amongst other kids. However, as I grew up I realized that I tend to shoot down ideas that came from other kids that I thought were incompetent. Therefore, due to my own ego I was becoming incompetent. My belief that incompetency is the outright refusal to learn and become educated was developed from my epiphany as a kid.
America is filled with delusional, incompetent, and hardheaded people so incompetency plays a big role in every election.
The general public has little to no direct influence on the outcome of the presidential elections, so I don't think we have to worry about those. What uninformed voters do have an effect on, though, is the election of state and local officials. These officials, in turn, are who determine the outcome of presidential elections. The average "incompetent person" isn't typically interested in state and local elections, however.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is a bit blunt to say that the incompetent in this country have no place in the electoral process. I absolutely do not agree with a Roman system where only the elite are presented with the opportunity to vote. If we are to remain a state with some sense of a democratic nature then we must accept the opinion of the mass regardless of their cognitive capabilities. It is true that we measure a candidates ability to govern the country based on our perception of what exactly the duty is. It has and will continue to be a factor, but a section of the nation's incompetence is not a dead end. There is a co-relation between competence and political awareness. The goal would be to make our country , fully politically aware.
ReplyDeleteI think it’s a little crazy to say everyone is too incompetent to vote. Our nation is brought up on the idea that everyone votes for our leader. I think people are more knowledgeable about certain things and less at other things. Who are we to judge someone’s intelligence? Just because someone didn’t go to college doesn’t make me smarter than them because I have a year of college education.
ReplyDeleteIts true that many are too incompetent to vote. May people judge based on news reports and how the candidates are portrayed on television. Very few people can separate the fallacies from the facts as most news stations are biased one way or another. Even though voter intelligence plays a role, I think that it is the candidates fault that it is hard to determine who to vote for. Candidates idealize themselves and promise things that they will likely never fulfill, and it is very difficult for even an intelligent person to determine whether they will actually come through with their promises.
ReplyDelete