Are voters dumb or well informed?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
If my guy wins they are well informed; if not they are stupid. :wink:
 
I think that on the most part, they're neither. It is easy to say that most voters aren't well-informed, but I do think there's a bit of truth in that assessment. I'd argue that most people have not gone onto the candidates' websites and read their plans at length. And while many people may pay attention to the more hardcore political pundit shows on tv, many more people probably get their national political news from the short soundbites on their local news.

So, I don't think that it's necessarily that people are dumb, but instead that they take the buzzwords and buzznotions that they know and run with them.
 
I agree with Utoo in that most voters are not well-informed tho they would likely consider themselves well informed. Those who are directly affected by the issues (those who have actually pised away savings, 401k money, lost their homes, lost their jobs, are without healthcare, have had abortions, fight to put food on their tables, who can't afford child care or college educations for their children, etc) are the ones who I believe are most well informed since they are more vested in what's at stake. Sure, the economy being in a shithole affects everyone and too many people have lost investment money in the waning stockmarket, but I think most "average Joe" people don't spend enough time really getting into the Pros and Cons of how each vote on each decision or candidate could directly affect them or our contry and its future.

Is it just me or does it feel like this Presidential race has been going on for YEARS? I am ready for it to be over so whoever wins the race can clean house and get us all back on track again.
 
The answer is dumb, but the non-voting public is probably dumber, albeit with a bimodal distribution between the ignorantly apathetic and those that suffer the pangs of being aware.
 
I think it is a bit of both. Where do we get our info? With the exception of Fox News, most or media leans to the left. From the more moderate left side of CNN to way left tingly legged Chris Matthews and MSNBC, there is some degree of liberal bias. If you get your "facts" from them and believe it, then you are an informed yet mindless sheep of a voter. Same can be said of those on the right who only get their info from Rush or Hannity. Being on TV or the radio does not ensure honesty. There is bias everywhere. Then again, if your personal beliefs align with Rush or Al Franken, I can see why one would buy in without seeking out more info.

The other big source is from the candidates themselves in debates and clips of their stump speech. I'm not sure how many voters are seeking out sites like Fact Check to get the truth. For example, Obama's 95% tax cuts and the McCain accusation of Obama voting to tax people making $42,500, Fact Check said is actually 81% who get a tax break and that he DID in fact vote for taxing individuals making $42,000 per year.
 
If they were informed we wouldn't need talking heads. We wouldn't have ridiculous labels being thrown around like: nazi, socialist, terrorist, Muslim, liberal media etc... If voters were informed we wouldn't have Britney/ Paris commercials, or Rush commercials.

For the most part... voters may not be dumb, but they are incredibly uninformed.
 
TheEdge U2JT said:
I'm not sure how many voters are seeking out sites like Fact Check to get the truth. For example, Obama's 95% tax cuts and the McCain accusation of Obama voting to tax people making $42,500, Fact Check said is actually 81% who get a tax break and that he DID in fact vote for taxing individuals making $42,000 per year.
Click to expand...



Interesting that you've apparently overlooked FactCheck.org's long list of McCain's mistruths and falsehoods.
 
For people to see what's missing from TV media or radio they should look to books and actually follow what politicians and economists are looking at and do a comparison. I did that and read lots about Marx, Keynes, and Hayek and you get a good picture. It's also good to go to a general political science book that tries to flesh out opinions on as many social causes as possible. When you do this you get to see the political rainbow and it's easier to pick a side you feel more agreement towards.

When you watch news later you can see what is left out and you won't get swayed too easily based on just soundbites. You can even see in a lot of reports where interviews are edited to change context. While you are reading a book it is a less emotional medium, therefore harder to fool people. You can see bias more easily in a book than news and it's less convincing because the emotion is reduced. Reading is not as passive an exercise as watching FoxNews or CNN. Those are emotional mediums.

For example: If a protestor throws a rock at a cop and that cop retaliates with blows how would it look if the editor eliminated the protestor throwing a rock first? It creates an emotional charge that causes you to feel sympathy to the protestor yet an unedited video would do otherwise.

By reading books of different points of view it gets you to look at the problems humanity has faced and sees the different angles and results of those choices to try and solve the problems. These solutions usually leave other questions unanswered so the reader can get a sense of what we still don't know and what has been tried and failed.

I recommend staying away from a lot of the new books that go out of date quickly and are based on pundits. This includes some conservative books. (O'Reilly is a horrible writer). Al Franken what a waste of time!

Intro political science book. Anyone going to university and has an option to take an intro course it wouldn't hurt.

Amazon.com: Political Science: An Introduction: Michael G. Roskin, Robert L. Cord, James A. Medeiros, Walter S. Jones: Books

This is not a bad place to start, in order to get informed on economics. Look at the bibliography of written works to get more detail:

Adam Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Karl Marx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Frédéric Bastiat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

David Ricardo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carl Menger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Maynard Keynes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Kenneth Galbraith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Friedrich Hayek - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Milton Friedman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arthur Laffer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That covers a lot of the major economists. Henry Hazlitt is an updated version of Bastiat that wrote some clear written books the average person can understand. When you learn more you can watch TV media and it really looks like it misses a lot.

I still want to read more on Montesquieu and his ideas of cyclical rise and fall of civilizations:

The Spirit of the Laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Persian Letters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This would be interesting as well:

Edmund Burke

Reflections on the Revolution in France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does anybody else have books they think would help people to get informed on politics and economics?
 
purpleoscar said:
While you are reading a book it is a less emotional medium, therefore harder to fool people. You can see bias more easily in a book than news and it's less convincing because the emotion is reduced. Reading is not as passive an exercise as watching FoxNews or CNN. Those are emotional mediums.

For example: If a protestor throws a rock at a cop and that cop retaliates with blows how would it look if the editor eliminated the protestor throwing a rock first? It creates an emotional charge that causes you to feel sympathy to the protestor yet an unedited video would do otherwise.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this premise. Books can be just as emotional, edited, biased, etc as video.

I agree you have to look at all sides of the story, and you have to realize there's always more than just two sides of the story as well. Once you allow yourself to look at as many sides as possible, bias and agenda are real easy to spot in video, book, newspaper, etc...
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I don't agree with this premise. Books can be just as emotional, edited, biased, etc as video.

I agree you have to look at all sides of the story, and you have to realize there's always more than just two sides of the story as well. Once you allow yourself to look at as many sides as possible, bias and agenda are real easy to spot in video, book, newspaper, etc...
Click to expand...

Hey! We actually agree on something! :wave: Whoo whooo!:up:
 
I think part of the problem is that it takes a great deal of effort to truly become informed, to sort through the vast amount of information that's out there, and to decided for one's self what is fact and what is fiction. There have been times in my life when I've just been way too busy with life to be truly politically engaged. In situations like that, I think many people rely on the status quo - they tend to vote in a partisan way, according to how they or their families have always voted, or the information they do gather is in the form of sound bytes from pundits, the evening news, or a quick scan of newspaper headlines. Of course, there are many others who are just plain not that interested, and while they could make an effort to inform themselves, they don't.
 
TheEdge U2JT said:
Sure, but I also made the point about people who get their info from Rush or Hannity. I think I was being fair.

However, somehow I am not surprised by your response. Miss the point and nit pick an example. Well done!
Click to expand...


No, I got the point. And I did indeed note that you mentioned Matthews/MSNBC vs. Rush/Hannity. Just as you're not suprised by my response, I can't say I'm surprised by what you wrote. If you really wanted to be "fair and balanced," you would've said that FactCheck is a great source in that it shows that Obama was wrong on this, McCain was wrong on this...etc. What I found interesting was that you instead presented FactCheck as if it were a solution to being uninformed, and then as evidence showed that they prove that Obama has been wrong. In a sense, it's like you were saying that FactCheck is a great source for real information because if you read it, you'll see that Obama is wrong. :shrug:

Yes, it is indeed a small thing. But the innuendo is there.
 
VintagePunk said:
I think part of the problem is that it takes a great deal of effort to truly become informed, to sort through the vast amount of information that's out there, and to decided for one's self what is fact and what is fiction. There have been times in my life when I've just been way too busy with life to be truly politically engaged. In situations like that, I think many people rely on the status quo - they tend to vote in a partisan way, according to how they or their families have always voted, or the information they do gather is in the form of sound bytes from pundits, the evening news, or a quick scan of newspaper headlines. Of course, there are many others who are just plain not that interested, and while they could make an effort to inform themselves, they don't.
Click to expand...

This is true but if the majority decide to keep up that helps. It will be hard for people who have little education and abilities to read to keep up but if people try the info is out there. It's important though that people look at classic books and general textbooks to get the variety of opinions because if you want to believe in XYZ conspiracy there are reams of info on the internet alone that you could wade in and never have time to read anything else. I would say 95% of the bookstore is full of books that won't have relevance beyond 1 year from now.

People would have to change their lifestyles drastically just to become a regular reader.

Maybe we should start a Free your mind bookclub?
 
purpleoscar said:
This is true but if the majority decide to keep up that helps. It will be hard for people who have little education and abilities to read to keep up but if people try the info is out there. It's important though that people look at classic books and general textbooks to get the variety of opinions because if you want to believe in XYZ conspiracy there are reams of info on the internet alone that you could wade in and never have time to read anything else. I would say 95% of the bookstore is full of books that won't have relevance beyond 1 year from now.

People would have to change their lifestyles drastically just to become a regular reader.

Maybe we should start a Free your mind bookclub?
Click to expand...

I understand, and I essentially agree, but what I was getting more at was the sheer time factor. In my case, for several years, I was a single parent, a full time university student commuting 2 1/2 hours most days, as well as helping to care for my own parent who was going through some health issues. I was lucky if, at the end of the day, I could remember my own name, nevermind engage in politics.

With people working, sometimes multiple jobs, raising children, and juggling the myriad things that people must juggle in this day and age, for some, time spent on other things is a luxury. If they choose not to spend it on politics, who can blame them?
 
VintagePunk said:
I understand, and I essentially agree, but what I was getting more at was the sheer time factor. In my case, for several years, I was a single parent, a full time university student commuting 2 1/2 hours most days, as well as helping to care for my own parent who was going through some health issues. I was lucky if, at the end of the day, I could remember my own name, nevermind engage in politics.

With people working, sometimes multiple jobs, raising children, and juggling the myriad things that people must juggle in this day and age, for some, time spent on other things is a luxury. If they choose not to spend it on politics, who can blame them?
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree. Lots of people also don't vote because of a lack of time. That's why education when you are still in high school is the time people have, but most people (including me) didn't use it for knowledge but spending time with friends and learning what instructors wanted us to learn.

For those people who have little time I think reading newspapers from different points of view (easier thanks to the internet) is the only way. Comparing left and right wing filters is better than nothing. If there's no time for even that then waiting until there is a period in your life you can is the only option.

Lots of retirees like to take courses because they FINALLY have the time to do so.
 
Utoo said:
No, I got the point. And I did indeed note that you mentioned Matthews/MSNBC vs. Rush/Hannity. Just as you're not suprised by my response, I can't say I'm surprised by what you wrote. If you really wanted to be "fair and balanced," you would've said that FactCheck is a great source in that it shows that Obama was wrong on this, McCain was wrong on this...etc. What I found interesting was that you instead presented FactCheck as if it were a solution to being uninformed, and then as evidence showed that they prove that Obama has been wrong. In a sense, it's like you were saying that FactCheck is a great source for real information because if you read it, you'll see that Obama is wrong. :shrug:

Yes, it is indeed a small thing. But the innuendo is there.
Click to expand...


Correct me if I am wrong but the question asked on this thread is about voters being dumb or or well informed. It is not an analysis of Obama and McCain and what Fact Check says about both of them. That is for the dumb or well informed votes to look up. I used examples that I had looked up. Two items that we have heard mentioned several times over the 3 debates. I choose examples that matter to me. The Fact is...an unbiased source is out there to look this stuff up if people want the real story.
 
TheEdge U2JT said:
Correct me if I am wrong but the question asked on this thread is about voters being dumb or or well informed. It is not an analysis of Obama and McCain and what Fact Check says about both of them. That is for the dumb or well informed votes to look up. I used examples that I had looked up. Two items that we have heard mentioned several times over the 3 debates. I choose examples that matter to me. The Fact is...an unbiased source is out there to look this stuff up if people want the real story.
Click to expand...

Just looking at the site now..... Yeah it seems pretty good though some of the examples like Obama not being the most liberal senator all the time but 10th or 16th is not really helping him much.

This is a good site for those with little time on their hands to get informed. This site plus the party sites with platform information is a quick way to decide which side you want to be on, and to parse through the TV ads bombarding the airwaves.

It's the mean season.:angry:
 
I think the World War Two generation is the last well informed group.
Their world view, through their life experiences, gave them an acute awareness the political world and the consequences of not paying attention.
They are quickly passing away.

The generations that have followed and our awareness of what is really going on in the world has been best explained by the 1985 book by Neil Postman
Amusing Ourselves to Death:public Discourse in the Age of Show Buisness.
 
TheEdge U2JT said:
Correct me if I am wrong but the question asked on this thread is about voters being dumb or or well informed. It is not an analysis of Obama and McCain and what Fact Check says about both of them. That is for the dumb or well informed votes to look up. I used examples that I had looked up. Two items that we have heard mentioned several times over the 3 debates. I choose examples that matter to me. The Fact is...an unbiased source is out there to look this stuff up if people want the real story.
Click to expand...


Much better post. :applaud:


As an aside, I'd comment that it seems less like you looked at examples that matter to you, and more like you looked at examples that support your underlying argument. Perhaps the best approach for us all to become more well-informed is to instead research those things that challenge our own natural arguments. But we all do fall victim to tendencies to look up and report on facts that we like to see, so it's entirely understandable.


Aaaaanyway.... Indeed, factcheck.org is a great site to get an snapshot of how much of what the candidates say is completey true. :up:
 
purpleoscar said:
Just looking at the site now..... Yeah it seems pretty good though some of the examples like Obama not being the most liberal senator all the time but 10th or 16th is not really helping him much.
Click to expand...

I don't think his campaign was built upon this notion, hence I don't see how it hurts him. Given the general political climate of the US I guess that is rather helping.
 
Utoo said:
Much better post. :applaud:


As an aside, I'd comment that it seems less like you looked at examples that matter to you, and more like you looked at examples that support your underlying argument. Perhaps the best approach for us all to become more well-informed is to instead research those things that challenge our own natural arguments. But we all do fall victim to tendencies to look up and report on facts that we like to see, so it's entirely understandable.


Aaaaanyway.... Indeed, factcheck.org is a great site to get an snapshot of how much of what the candidates say is completey true. :up:
Click to expand...

Thanks. Here's how it went. The 95% thing was because I had a hard time believing that only 5% of the population make over 250K. I had posted that in someones blog on here a few weeks ago. I looked at the taxing $42,000 because I was skeptical as to the truth of this.

As for reporting on facts we like to see, I agree though I think it might also be because these are the things that stick in our minds. I guess they are related.

Either way, this is an easy way to sort through the talking points and weed out some of the BS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Headache in a Suitcase
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Reminder - Forum Downtime for Software Update Begins January 23, 2024.
Replies
0
Views
271
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
dan_smee
I listened to No Line on the Horizon right through tonight for the first time in about 10 years…
2 3
Replies
83
Views
2K
lazarus
lazarus
Janet H
  • Sticky
Forum Update - We're back! Ask your questions here.
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Popmartijn
Popmartijn
K
U2 Show Logistics Question/Theories
Replies
7
Views
734
lazarus
lazarus
kenny_a
Original vintage fly sunglasses
Replies
1
Views
631
kenny_a
kenny_a

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom