Tell them you're going to have their messages scanned on behalf of the government and nobody wants it. Tell them you're going to introduce measures for online safety and to crack down on child abuse, and everybody wants it.
Unless you're pre-informed on the issues, whoever presents it to you can just pick the side that gets you to the answer they want.
This summarizes a good 75% of modern political discourse.
Otherwise, you'll have lemmings. Where people with a bit of propaganda will drive everyone else off the cliff.
You'll get people with a lot of time on their hands for sure, that's about the only thing one can say with certainty.
There's a reason this quote gets echoed so frequently. Picking special electors to drive the government in a more informed manner is a dangerous path which includes a lot of danger around how to pick those electors.
It might be nice if there was a way to fairly filter out the politically illiterate but then again even the best system is likely just going to result in systemic discrimination against the disenfranchised class... and I think it's pretty damn likely that the filter would be quickly manipulated to shape the voting block in some partisan direction beyond just political literacy.
You can combine it with ID checks and/or proof of residency.
All of which are minor, but easily doable and universally accessible. You don't need a test, just a little bit of effort to remember to bring your wallet and travel 10-30 minutes.
Somewhat - these things take money. State IDs aren't free and neither are proofs of residency. ID laws are discriminatory against the poor which is likely somewhat aligned with political illiteracy but through a correlation in our current system.
A national voting day coupled with advanced voting would probably help our vote equality quite a bit and having the actual voting day be a holiday would likely discourage folks who'd rather spend a day at the beach.
To get public services in the U.S. you need to have an ID, i.e. food stamps. It's a talking point that is not a real problem. Identifiers of who you are, are a requirement for free and fair elections. Otherwise, everyone just cheats and there is no democracy.
Further, everyone can get an ID, it costs $5-$10 in most states and most states will waive fees if you cannot afford it. Finally, if people can't get to a voting booth during a pre-designated, national holiday, then they don't care enough to vote. Even the homeless could make it happen, if they wanted to.
> A national voting day coupled with advanced voting would probably help our vote equality quite a bit and having the actual voting day be a holiday would likely discourage folks who'd rather spend a day at the beach.
The whole point of my statement was to present the argument (without judgement), the goal is to create a less equal and more discouraged voting system, bias towards those who actually care / follow politics. We want to limit it to the politically literate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=GRocvuyAMeI
If you're a Yes Minister fan, it's a must see IMO.
You don't need to be "pre-informed".
You just need to be skeptical. Some knowledge of history is a good start.
- put forward sound arguments why a specific viewpoint or presented fact could be wrong
- reserve judgement altogether
Expressing a contrary opinion is not in the skeptic's playbook, because it would be self-defeating: they would be making the same categorical error as they're arguing against.
Actually today you don't use cracking down on child abuse as a reason, you use the danger of the far-right. All the leading left-wing publications, New York Times, The Guardian, Washington Post, CNN, Vox have been running articles about how dangerous encrypted chat apps are:
> Why right-wing extremists’ favorite new platform is so dangerous. Telegram’s lax content moderation and encrypted chats make it a convenient tool for extremists.
https://www.vox.com/recode/22238755/telegram-messaging-socia...
> In collaboration with anti-fascist research group the White Rose Society, the Guardian has tracked McLean’s activity through the rabbit warren of largely unregulated Telegram groups and found that he describes a vastly different version of his intentions.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/26/where...
> Far-right groups move online conversations from social media to chat apps — and out of view of law enforcement
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/14/telegram-war...
> White supremacists openly organize racist violence on Telegram, report finds
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/26/tech/white-supremacists-t...
> Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot? Telegram and Signal, the encrypted services that keep conversations confidential, are increasingly popular. Our tech columnists discuss whether this could get ugly.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/technology/personaltech/t...
> A report this week found that the messaging app had emerged as a central hub for several conspiracy movements espousing antisemitic tropes and memes, including QAnon, as well as others on the extreme right promoting violence.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/15/parler-...