More Proof that Many Voters are Dumb

Clarification to begin with: Dumb=ignorant, not mute. Carry on.

In 1883 in Allentown, New Jersey, a wooden Indian — the kind that was seen in front of cigar stores — was placed on the ballot for Justice of the Peace. The candidate was registered under the fictitious name of Abner Robbins. When the ballots were counted, Abner won over incumbent Sam Davis by 7 votes. A similar thing happened in 1938. The name Boston Curtis appeared on the ballot for Republican Committeeman from Wilton, Washington. Actually, Boston Curtis was a mule. The town’s mayor sponsored the animal to demonstrate that people know very little about the candidates. He proved his point. The mule won!

I would bring up the idea of a special test in order to vote [test over basic historical/law/political science questions] but I’ve already been yelled at about the whole “freedom of vote for everyone” issue.


3 Responses

  1. Oh I think many voters are listening and learning before election day. Who they are listening to and learning from is what ultimately shapes their decision. The keys to winning an election are;

    1. The best propaganda machine of the major parties.
    2. Who promises me the most?
    3. The media’s choice.
    4. Ignorant/lazy voters.
    5. Charisma of the candidate.

    There are a few more, but judge an election against those five and you’ll pick the winner about every time.

  2. i believe that, to be an intelligent voter, one must be “schooled” in, not only the voting process, but the importance of voting. unfortunately in this country, we have been schooled in “how to buy stuff” for more than the electorial process.

    voters do exactly what corporations want them to do, buy – buy – buy.

    in the 1950’s, the political system decided this country should be consumers. as consumers all we had to do was make enough money to buy stuff. that would keep the u.s. financially stable. we didn’t have to actually make anything that we could buy, including cars. we just had to buy.

    and now, we do what we’ve learned to do so well, buy things, mostly on credit, and elect all kinds of “asses” to public office, because who we elect is not as important as buying the stuff we want.

    at least, that’s the was some c.e.o.’s see it.

  3. The sound of a requirement to vote is appealing, but I think the founders were strongly against that notion. The problem is who gets to decide what the test is? We might come up with one everyone likes in the short term, but it’s a power certain to be abused in the future.

    Here’s a thought, however, what if citizens voted for a platform instead, and somehow in the ballot were required to connect the candidate, to where he or she stood on the issues?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: