[ako]

I think you can argue that that assumption is wrong, and that that is also the biggest problem with democracy and voting. You are asking people to vote on a topic they are often not well informed on, or are unwilling/unable to spend time to educate themselves thoroughly. Also anybody of a certain age is allowed to vote, regardless their level of education, and their ability to make sound decisions.

If you want to drive a car, you have to proof you are able to do so. Why not demand the same if you want to vote?

[galangalalgol]

In the US you vote on people, not policy. Most people can't understand all the ramifications of a policy, but a lot of people can spot a crooked liar if the know them a little, we do it every day. That is why I like the older idea of picking state legislators and letting them pick the president and maybe the senators. And up the number of people in the house. The idea is that you should know or know a lot of people who know the person you are voting for. Media won't come into it, civics education won't come into it. It will be like picking a plumber in your neighborhood.

[cicero]

If both of the candidates are crooked liars, how do you choose? I picked the party that I think is closer to being right.

[mlang23]

Again, this is patronising. Apparently, you believe your opinion is more worthy then the opinion of others because you assume you are more intelligent and more informed then they are. So in essence you are saying you are the better human. This is a very slippery slope. In fact, I would consider this borderline fascism. But hey, if a lefty utters ssuch nonsense, nobody seems to notice.

[ako]

Another wrong assumption. On many occasions i haven't voted because i felt i didn't know enough of the topic to make the right vote.

[adamsea]

Good question and the answer is no one knows how to create rules about who is or isn’t fit to vote (beyond the most basic things like age, and even with that there’s an interesting history) without also giving so much power to whomever is able to set those rules that the result isn’t a democracy at all.

[mlang23]

Exactly my point, and the same applies to corporate censorship. Since we have allowed corporations to perform censorship completely independent and on their own, free speech is a thing of the past.

Another way to see this is that those with less education or influence are basically the new women. The argument against giving women the right to vote was basically based on the same viewpoint. They dont know about the world, so all they can do is harm if allowed to vote.

[adamsea]

I think I'm confused, then.

> If you want to drive a car, you have to proof you are able to do so. Why not demand the same if you want to vote?

Not sure if you meant this as a rhetorical question, an ironic one, or a real suggestion about creating restrictions around who can vote.

Either way, "free speech is a thing of the past" is a bit all-or-nothing. It's always been a battle, never as good as we thought it was (such as the argument Noam Chomsky makes in 'Manufacturing Consent'), and always been tricky to figure out what to do when, and where.

But it's not a thing of the past.

[mlang23]

Indeed, you must be confused, since I never wrote anything about cars.

[bloodorange]

Driving on public roads is a privilege. Voting is a right.

[KittenInABox]

Consider an opposite suggestion- if we need an educated voting group for educated decisions, we should move to educate the entire voting bloc.

[ako]

Agreed, and that's one thing i do vote for: free/cheap education for everyone. I benefit from other people getting educated, so it's a no brainer that government should invest in this.