

The Right Answer by Isaac Asimov (1996) - shubhamjain
http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2011-05-the-right-answer-by-isaac-asimov

======
digitalengineer
Isaac Asimov: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there
has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread
winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false
notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your
knowledge"

~~~
javajosh
We do not test voters for critical thinking skills before they cast a vote,
nor on their knowledge of the facts surrounding the issues they will vote on.
Further, there have been many "get out the vote" campaigns but no (to my
knowledge) "learn how to vote wisely" campaigns. Note that I would define
"voting wisely" as "voting in accordance with my own views, the facts as I
accept them, and the choices I've been given", as held by the voter.

Anti-intellectualism isn't a thread winding it's way through our democracy,
that it's a cornerstone of our democracy.

~~~
pdonis
_> We do not test voters for critical thinking skills before they cast a vote,
nor on their knowledge of the facts surrounding the issues they will vote on._

As much as I would love to see these things done, there is no way to do them
in a democracy, because how would you determine the content of the tests? In a
democracy, you would have to vote on them, which just brings you back to the
same problem.

~~~
gtf21
I'm pretty sure tests like these were used to exclude black voters in the US
for a long time. I seem to remember them being literacy tests.

There's a good reason we should not have tests. A democratic system as we now
understand it broadly means that every citizen is enfranchised. As soon as you
start implementing tests, you being to interfere with the right of an
individual to vote on arbitrary grounds.

While you could try to use this argument to argue for children's suffrage, I'm
not sure it holds. Tests like the above have no cutoff, they can apply to
someone their entire life. There are many things we don't allow children to
do, but once they come of age they are (largely) free to do so. I don't know
why I'm arguing against an argument I just came up with that might,
hypothetically, be used as a counterargument to my original argument, but
that's the internet for you.

~~~
pdonis
_> A democratic system as we now understand it broadly means that every
citizen is enfranchised. As soon as you start implementing tests, you being to
interfere with the right of an individual to vote on arbitrary grounds._

Yes, that was my point: any kind of test of this nature is incompatible with
democracy as we now understand it. But that also means that democracy as we
now understand it has a serious flaw: people can vote regardless of how well
informed they are or how good their judgment is. That fact, combined with the
fact that one person's individual vote only has a very small impact, means
that it is rational for voters not to bother being informed, but to vote on
very superficial factors. As a result, in the US, we have a Congress with
approval ratings in the single digits but reelection rates for incumbents in
the high 90s.

~~~
gtf21
I suppose it depends on what the purpose of democracy is. Is it better create
legislation, in which case it is a flawed system and should probably be
changed, or is it, which is much more likely IMO, to allow citizens to have
agency in their lives by allowing them to have a hand in who legislates, in
which case there is no alternative.

I'm normally the first person to say that we should stop all the ill-informed
people voting (which tends to mean excluding the majority of the right-wing),
but this is so subjective that I don't even know if it's a real dilemma.

Ultimately any compromise will frustrate people, it's where we draw the line
that counts.

Apropos of the system in the US, I think your politicians are far more
partisan than those in Europe, although we have our own fair share of stupid
policies based on popularism and ill-thought-through ideology.

~~~
pdonis
_> to allow citizens to have agency in their lives by allowing them to have a
hand in who legislates_

But that kind of agency is very, very weak; my vote has only a miniscule
impact on who legislates. I personally would be quite willing to trade that
tiny bit of agency for the government's agreement to not mess with so many
things.

 _> Apropos of the system in the US, I think your politicians are far more
partisan than those in Europe_

I think this is true, and there are two reasons for it that I can see, one
good and one bad.

The good reason is that there is more diversity of thought in the US in
general, and that gets reflected in a wider range of political viewpoints.
Some partisanship is based on honest differences of opinion in areas where
nobody really knows the right answer; in such cases, it's better to have
multiple viewpoints represented and give each of them a chance to try things
out.

The bad reason is that more Americans have crazy beliefs, so that we have
people in, say, the US Congress with widely different beliefs even about
matters of simple fact like how old the Earth is. Of course that's going to
make it harder to govern and increase the likelihood of highly polarized
debates with no resolution.

------
habitue
It's unfortunate that we're still having the same arguments decades later.

------
setitimer
A stopped clock is right twice a day.

~~~
madengr
Meh, that's why I have a 24 hour watch.

