E.G.

Those of you who’ve noticed my rambling comments at Left2Right or Majikthise probably expected a post on this topic would appear here eventually.  There’s very little new here, so I’ll put most of this post below the fold.  Click on if you dare… 

Another quotation from the Mencken book I got for Christmas:

"…the essential objection to feudalism (the perfect antithesis to democracy) was that it imposed degrading acts and attitudes upon the vassal; the essential objection to democracy is that, with few exceptions, it imposes degrading acts and attitudes upon the men responsible for the welfare and dignity of the state.  The former was compelled to do homage to his suzerain, who was very apt to be a brute and an ignoramous.  The latter are compelled to do homage to their constituents, who in overwhelming majority are certain to be both" (p165-7).

I think this is at least as true today as it was in Mencken’s day.  As Don Herzog explains in this post, a good chunk of the voting public is "clueless about basic political facts."  Such widespread ignorance and unconcern among voters produces suboptimal leaders and suboptimal policies.  And, as I argued in the comments to Herzog’s post, there is reason to think the widespread ignorance of the majority is here for the long-term.  We cannot, and should not, force people to know more or think harder about politics, and they’ve given us no reason to expect them to do so of their own accord.  Ralph Nader’s idea of getting people to think about politics as interestedly as they presently do about sports is, I think, pure fantasy.   

If we can’t make the average voter better informed, what can we do to solve the problem of voter ignorance?  I like the idea of a "voter test" — a test potential voters must take, and pass, before being allowed into the voting booth.  I’ll make only two very minor points about voter tests here, and leave a fuller discussion for another time.

1. An objection against voter tests: There is a notion that "everyone has a right to vote," and voter tests would seem to violate that right.  My response: First of all, it is simply untrue to say that everyone has a right to vote; apparently 12-year-olds, for instance, don’t have that right.  More importantly, unlike a law against underage voting, voter tests would not actually prevent anyone from voting; they would only prevent people from voting in ignorance of basic political facts.  Given voter tests, everyone presently allowed to vote would still be allowed to do so, if only they are willing to familiarize themselves with the politicians and policies they’re voting on.  This requirement seems eminently reasonable to me; I think most of us would agree that some degree of political awareness is the responsibility of every voter.  Which brings me to the next point:

2. An advantage of voter tests: Like littering, ill-informed voting harms everyone when it becomes widespread.  As a consequence, each voter has a civic duty — a duty to her fellow citizens — to make an informed, reasoned decision before stepping into the voting booth.  During campaign seasons, the media (who are usually busy encouraging people to "rock the vote") usually do not emphasize this obligation.  Nevertheless, I think we all quite clearly do have this obligation.  Voter tests, therefore, have the advantage of directly requiring people to fulfill an obligation they are presently left free to ignore.