The Instigator
Brieson
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SJM
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Do democratic governments work better if only "well-informed" citizens are allowed to vote?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
SJM
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/25/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 266 times Debate No: 93075
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Brieson

Pro

Increasingly more citizens with the right to vote in democratic governments are viewed as I'll informed. Such societies would not allow children or mentally disabled citizens the right to vote because of their capacity to be well-informed. When is it ok to deny citizens the right to vote based on how informed they are? Is it possible to control the public's vote by controlling their sources of information?
SJM

Con

I accept. I'm guessing round 1 was you providing background.
Debate Round No. 1
Brieson

Pro

Sorry, this is my first time on debate.org, I thought it was meant to be a discussion (I didn't know I was going into battle with someone lol). So I guess to spice things up Ill say "well informed" means able to score at the average or above on a test that grades competency of issues and/or candidates. If you score lower you cannot vote in the elections.

Some way to measure the competency of the voters would allow more reasoned opinions to influence the turn out, while keeping unreasonable opinions from influencing the vote.

This would also provoke more citizens to learn about policies and data from other points of view other than their own. Essentially citizens would be provided incentive to understand these things because their ability to vote is on the line.

This would also prevent half of the citizens from voting, but those who are not able to vote could be shown that they are not "up to par", or are informed less than the average citizen.
SJM

Con

The purpose of a democracy is for the voices to be heard from everyone and so that the government could be more representative of the people. It is not right to neglect the opinions of people just because they happen to score lower than the average person. "Dumb" people still have valid opinions that need the government needs to be concerned about. Now how does a democracy, which is trying to be representative of the people work better if the people are not being well represented.

Pro then says that we can pick out those whom are well informed with a test. The problem with this is that someone isn"t smart or dumb based on a test, because people experience different knowledge, therefore people know different stuff. But the test is only going to test for certain knowledge which is unfair. And my opponent may say next that the test will test for common knowledge, but how do you measure if something is common and someone isn"t smarter for knowing common knowledge compared to someone who knows knowledge that"s not common. My opponent assumes that people who are by an unfair test"s standard below average, have no reasonable knowledge. But if my opponent says that that doesn"t mean that, then how informed someone is wouldn"t be the right way to measure how good a democracy could.

Pro also says that this would be an incentive for people to gain more knowledge, but how does my opponent know that this will outweigh those who are well informed and because of the test don"t want to vote. There may be more lazy people than people trying to learn about politics or whatever this test is measuring knowledge by.

"Everybody is a Genius. But If You Judge a Fish by Its Ability to Climb a Tree, It Will Live Its Whole Life Believing that It is Stupid"
Debate Round No. 2
Brieson

Pro

Brieson forfeited this round.
SJM

Con

Forfeit. Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TechnologicalSingularity 8 months ago
TechnologicalSingularity
It's such a consolidating factor, I mean which institution will issue the "standardized test". Elections in America are already too controlled with voter apathy, closing down poll stations and provisional voter ballots. And we all know republicans win when voter turn out is low. There should be voter enfranchisement, even people with lower-competency have a idea of what angers them, they don't ruin the vote, people not voting does! I do believe in voter education and a media that effectively reviews policy substance, but a lot is already being done to voters with "intolerable" positions. The incentive would turn into discouragement, maybe hand out pamphlets for quotes on what the candidates said or something but don't restrict people from the ballot! As much as I love meritocracy, democracies do not fall to the ill informed, but the well informed who do nothing to inform, the well informed with know access to twist the game in their subjectivity. Getting rid of super delegates and the electoral college is a better position.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by theobjectiveobjective 7 months ago
theobjectiveobjective
BriesonSJMTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Limited arguments by Pro
Vote Placed by David_Debates 8 months ago
David_Debates
BriesonSJMTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: See for RFD: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YEvodVbv2JaP4Wv5-48F_5o_xvfxhdXOzIk_4P1NBFg/edit