Studies Show that the U.S. is a Nation of Fools in terms of Political Comprehension

[AuH20]

Clueless and proud of it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/11/03/what-no-one-talks-about-during-election-season-voter-ignorance/




On Tuesday, we will have an important election that determines which party controls the House and Senate. Yet most Americans have very little understanding of the issues they will soon decide at the polls. A recent Annenberg Public Policy Center poll finds that only 38% of Americans know that the Republican Party currently controls the House of Representatives, and a similar number know that the Democrats control the Senate.

Despite years of public controversy over the budget, surveys consistently show that most of the public have very little understanding of how the federal government spends its money. They greatly underestimate the percentage of federal funds allocated to massive entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security—which are among the largest federal expenditures—and vastly overestimate the proportion that goes to foreign aid (only about 1 percent of the total). Voters are also often ignorant about the basic structure of government. The Annenberg survey found that only 36% of Americans can name the three branches of the federal government: the executive, legislative and judicial.

Political ignorance is not caused by lack of information. Thanks to the internet, information is easier to find than ever. Yet studies show that today’s voters are about as ignorant as those of the pre-internet era. Most of such ignorance is actually rational. When your only incentive to acquire political knowledge is to make better voting decisions, remaining ignorant makes good sense. No matter how well-informed you are, the probability that your vote will change the outcome of an election is tiny—only one in 60 million in a presidential election, for example. Though few know the exact odds, people have an intuitive sense that there is little payoff to studying political issues, and act accordingly.

If you can't name the 3 branches of government, you shouldn't be able to vote. Letting such an uninformed idiot vote would be akin to hiring a mechanic who can't pop the hood of a car.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Subversion... Not overnight 'Cloak -n- Dagger' but generational, gradual subversion.

Former Bombay KGB station chief, Yuri Bezmenov aka Tomas D. Schuman, "The Socialists are the useful idiots of the Marxists"

[Spikender]

I don't need a study to know that.

Though it always helps to have the numbers to back up what one already knows...

[AuH20]

I don't need a study to know that.

Though it always helps to have the numbers to back up what one already knows...

It's actually worse than we thought. I thought the numbers would be actually higher. I'm embarrassed to be human.

[Spikender]

It's actually worse than we thought. I thought the numbers would be actually higher. I'm embarrassed to be human.

"We".

I'm usually optimistic about most things but I have talked to so many people about politics and heard so many downright stupid things said that it doesn't surprise me one bit. Though I will admit... somewhere in my heart I hoped that I was the one being stupid and that there were more people who were at least slightly politically aware.

That's not the case though. I don't even count myself among the most informed people, there's still so much I don't know about politics or incidents that I'm unaware of, yet I can school your average person on politics. That should not be.

[Pawn3d]

Politics and it's importance has been almost but obliterated from the Common Core curriculum, which is why it's so important to act now before they take over the internet too.

[AuH20]

Subversion... Not overnight 'Cloak -n- Dagger' but generational, gradual subversion.

Former Bombay KGB station chief, Yuri Bezmenov aka Tomas D. Schuman, "The Socialists are the useful idiots of the Marxists"

The children of this country have been trained to emotionally process problems instead of logically. Just examine the angle of many of these so-called political ads. They are all emotionally geared without any real substantive thought behind them. If you're a thinking man these days, you're simply out of your depth with the current voting populace, unless of course you can gin up a highly moving emotional subject to run upon. Just examine the democrats' obsession with the war on women & other such nonsense. They have extracted an incredible amount of political mileage from this contrived circus.

[Ronin Truth]

And the votes of the fools all count just the same. (Is this a great system or what?)


The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter.

[Brian4Liberty]

This would be appropriate here too:


People are good at voting. They can choose between two options with absolutely no knowledge whatsoever.

Seriously, the most impact an individual voter has is in local elections, but people have no clue as to who to vote for, and they are more than happy to make a choice!

Do you vote for School Board members? Do you know which candidates support or oppose Common Core? Do you know if any of them even care?

Do you vote for Judges? Do you know their records? Do you know if there are any controversies surrounding them?

Is there an important issue in your city? Do you know where City Council candidates stand on those issues?

The Voting Guide is usually no help. It is nothing more than a list of names and candidate statements which often avoid issues.

But voters are more than willing to check the boxes...

[green73]

And the votes of the fools all count just the same. (Is this a great system or what?)


The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter.

Mencken-esque!

[HOLLYWOOD]

The children of this country have been trained to emotionally process problems instead of logically. Just examine the angle of many of these so-called political ads. They are all emotionally geared without any real substantive thought behind them. If you're a thinking man these days, you're simply out of your depth with the current voting populace, unless of course you can gin up a highly moving emotional subject to run upon. Just examine the democrats' obsession with the war on women & other such nonsense. They have extracted an incredible amount of political mileage from this contrived circus.Fur Shore... One can go on any social media venue and counter some progressive failure and you get battered with emotion and the left-right false dichotomy substance.

[r3volution 3.0]

The people don't have the slightest clue about what the government is doing. This has always been the case and always will be the case.

If the people do not know what the government is doing, then obviously they are not controlling what the government is doing.

One cannot operate a machine which one does not know how to operate.

But someone's controlling the government, someone is directing the machine, and democracy is truly the rule of those individuals, not the voters.

Who are they?

At the first step, they are the politicians. They, not the voters who elect them, determine government policy.

The voters determine which politicians take power, but they do not choose between politicians on the basis of policy.

Voters choose between politicians on the basis of rhetoric.

Thus, in a democracy, the policies which are actually implemented are those of the most skilled demagogues, not those desired by voters.

(N.B. It's not that the policies implemented are contrary to those desired by voters, it's that the voters do not have any preference, because they don't know what's actually happening or what the actual alternatives are).

But the deviousness of the brain of the politician is not the only factor determining his success as a demagogue.

Successful demagoguery, especially in a larger society, requires substantial material resources: to physically communicate the rhetoric.

Moreover, since the audience of this rhetoric is ignorant and intellectually unsophisticated, the quality of the rhetoric need not be very high.

There's no need for a Cicero (who would I suspect lose his primary if he ran today), all we need is a George W. Bush.

The content and style of the rhetoric can be mechanically put together by the science of public relations (reminiscent of Orwell's novel writing machines); there is no need for a rare oratorical genius.

The effectiveness of the rhetoric is determined by money: whoever has the money to hire the best public relations men and purchase the most advertizing.

Thus, the politicians are more dispensable than their donors. For every Sheldon Adelson there are a thousand Newt Gingriches.

consequently, the donors not only have a role in determining policy, they have the dominant role. Politicians are in essence their employees.

So then, democracy is neither rule of the people, nor rule of the demagogues, it is plutocracy.

Stranegly enough, this is almost universally recognized. People know that money controls politics. Yet they don't understand the argument I just laid out, and they don't realize that this is an inherent feature of democracy, rather than an aberration. They mistakenly think the problem can be solved through some clever new campaign finance reform.

P.S. In the popular mind, plutocracy = capitalism. Surely the rich want free markets and low taxes? But of course that's false. Humanitarians, who care about society as a whole, and who understand economics, want capitalism. Rich people, if they are purely self-interested, as are most people in general, the rich being no exception - do not. They want protectionism, subsidies, favorable regulations, legal monopolies, etc. As for taxes, they certainly want low taxes for themselves, but they need high taxes in general to finance all the self-aggrandizing government policies they favor.

P.P.S. Don't misunderstand me, this is not a lament about the futility of political action. To the contrary, understanding how the system actually works is a prerequisite for successful political action. The lesson is this. Education can only go so far; there's a large segment of the population who cannot be reached at the rational level. The purpose of education is to produce a cadre of true believers, who can lead the movement. The path to success for the movement is to play the demagoguery game (as Rand is playing). We will never have the money of our opponents, so we have to spend our resources more wisely. It's an uphill battle but it's far from hopeless.

[2young2vote]

I don't think the people who are that ignorant are a majority of the voting population.

[acptulsa]

What we need is another Will Rogers...


"Come on now, Henry. You know that nobody with any sense ever took any of my gags seriously."--Will Rogers

"They are taken seriously by nobody except half-wits; in other words, by approximately 85 percent of the voting population."--H.L. Mencken

...quick before they start censoring the internet.

[heavenlyboy34]

And the votes of the fools all count just the same. (Is this a great system or what?)


The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter.

+rep. I doubt I'd ever get my way, but if I had my 'druthers, getting a voter ID would require an exam covering at least the basics of civics, US history, and econ.

[heavenlyboy34]

What we need is another Will Rogers...



...quick before they start censoring the internet.

How popular was Mr Will Rogers during his lifetime? He's well before my time. I think his wit and wisdom would be lost on most people toady, especially those ~40 and younger.

[Anti Federalist]

Oh c'mon, this is no big deal, you just need to vote harder.

Seriously, this is no surprise, it's amazing how many people are really just high functioning idiots.

[Anti Federalist]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/11/05/1415148574573_wps_4_image001_png.jpg

[AuH20]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/11/05/1415148574573_wps_4_image001_png.jpg

I know a family of Armenians who hate that woman.

[Anti Federalist]

I know a family of Armenians who hate that woman.

Is that what those ding dongs are, Armenians?

[Occam's Banana]

Political ignorance is not caused by lack of information. Thanks to the internet, information is easier to find than ever. Yet studies show that today’s voters are about as ignorant as those of the pre-internet era. Most of such ignorance is actually rational. When your only incentive to acquire political knowledge is to make better voting decisions, remaining ignorant makes good sense. No matter how well-informed you are, the probability that your vote will change the outcome of an election is tiny—only one in 60 million in a presidential election, for example. Though few know the exact odds, people have an intuitive sense that there is little payoff to studying political issues, and act accordingly.

Did anyone else read the above?

People are less apt to pay attention to the details of things they can't effectively do anything about.

I have no doubt that some political ignorance is due to stupidity - but I suspect that even more of it is due to good old-fashioned horse sense ...


If you can't name the 3 branches of government, you shouldn't be able to vote.

Why should we expect things to be one damn bit different even if every single voter could name the three branches of government? :confused:

I can name the three branches - and I am willing to bet that I am a good deal more "knowlegeable" than 95% of the electorate about similar "civics class" matters. (But then, I seem to have a knack for cluttering my brain with such useless bits of trivia ...)

However, I fail to understand how that is supposed to qualify me to make better choices when it comes to deciding things like whether the Red Parasite or the Blue Parasite should get to join the ranks of the elite parasites ...

In fact, one might make a strong case that allowing people to vote only if they can do things like name the three branches of government would actually make matters even worse - since the kind of people most motivated to use the government as a truncheon to bash over the heads of their fellow citizens would also be among those most motivated to learn and know how the system works (and conversely, the kind of people least motivated to use the government as a truncheon would also be among those least likely to give a shit about things like how many members there are in the US House of Representatives).

In any case, I see no reason to think that "Informed" correlates significantly with "good" or "wise" or "liberty-friendly."

IOW: "Ignorant" voters vs. "informed" voters is NOT the problem ...

[Philhelm]

Is that what those ding dongs are, Armenians?

If so, then the Turks sadly missed a family years ago...

[acptulsa]

How popular was Mr Will Rogers during his lifetime? He's well before my time. I think his wit and wisdom would be lost on most people toady, especially those ~40 and younger.

What? You're not over ninety? Whipper snapper.

I've made people from about every demographic down to eight or nine years of age laugh by quoting Will Rogers.

If you won't take Henry Mencken's word for how popular he was, why would you take mine? Would it help you to learn that in the year of his death he was Hollywood's number one box office draw? Should I quote you how many thousands of newspapers carried his column? Did you sleep through all of those clips of him speaking at the 1932 Democratic Presidential Convention?

Seriously. If you won't believe H.L. Mencken when he said Will Rogers was '...the most dangerous man alive'--and I quoted part of that conversation in the very post you quoted--then why the hell should I waste my breath trying to explain it to you?

[Ronin Truth]

+rep. I doubt I'd ever get my way, but if I had my 'druthers, getting a voter ID would require an exam covering at least the basics of civics, US history, and econ. Hate to tell you, but PC would label that racist and "schoolist" (prejudiced against the reading challenged). :p

[Ronin Truth]

[QUOTE=heavenlyboy34;5691529]How popular was Mr Will Rogers during his lifetime? He's well before my time. I think his wit and wisdom would be lost on most people toady, especially those ~40 and younger.


https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Will+Rogers

[ifthenwouldi]

Did anyone else read the above?

People are less apt to pay attention to the details of things they can't effectively do anything about.

I have no doubt that some political ignorance is due to stupidity - but I suspect that even more of it is due to good old-fashioned horse sense ...

Thank you. Discussions seem to veer off course so easily on this site.

I particularly appreciated this section:


If we decentralize power from the federal government to states and localities, or to the private sector, more issues can be decided by foot voting instead of ballot box voting, and more of our decisions will be well-informed.

The "problem" is that a republic was never designed to work with a population even the size of my own state, North Carolina, much less the 300+ million in the US.

[Occam's Banana]

I particularly appreciated this section:


If we decentralize power from the federal government to states and localities, or to the private sector, more issues can be decided by foot voting instead of ballot box voting, and more of our decisions will be well-informed.

The "problem" is that a republic was never designed to work with a population even the size of my own state, North Carolina, much less the 300+ million in the US.

Precisely so!

[acptulsa]

Thank you. Discussions seem to veer off course so easily on this site.

I particularly appreciated this section:



The "problem" is that a republic was never designed to work with a population even the size of my own state, North Carolina, much less the 300+ million in the US.

This is the heart of the matter to me as well.

If only we could get this one point across, we would become saviors to the nation. If your local fire department is run out of Washington, and it's underperforming, then you have to convince twenty million people that your fire department is more important than abortion, gay marriage and their own fire departments combined. So then what are the odds your fire department can be improved?

And since the Department of Homeland Security was created, Washington has been gaining more control over your local fire department every day.

[ChristianAnarchist]

'MERICA !!!

[HOLLYWOOD]

+rep. I doubt I'd ever get my way, but if I had my 'druthers, getting a voter ID would require an exam covering at least the basics of civics, US history, and econ.lol... How about all voters just take an 8th grade exam, since almost every US citizen has PASSED through the government's K-12 "Schooling System" today.

1912 Eighth Grade Exam: Could you make it to high school in 1912? (http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Family/2013/0812/1912-eighth-grade-exam-Could-you-make-it-to-high-school-in-1912/Arithmetic)

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2013/0812-1912eighthgradeexam/16598859-1-eng-US/0812-1912eighthgradeexam_standard_300x200.jpg

[timosman]

This is the heart of the matter to me as well.

If only we could get this one point across, we would become saviors to the nation. If your local fire department is run out of Washington, and it's underperforming, then you have to convince twenty million people that your fire department is more important than abortion, gay marriage and their own fire departments combined. So then what are the odds your fire department can be improved?

And since the Department of Homeland Security was created, Washington has been gaining more control over your local fire department every day.

And what about NWO ? Could we get rid of that too ? :)

[wizardwatson]

But Rand Paul will get through.

He will win.

He will broadcast a pirate signal from his curly head and hack the voting machines.

[Ronin Truth]

Fools AKA Sheeple.

[enhanced_deficit]

Chanting freedom slogans while finacing open-ended oppression of Palestinians for over 4 decades...then they hate us cuz we have freedom.. yea it fits in terms of political comprehesion of things.

[Anti Federalist]

What's the problem 'scro?

I know plenty of tards that live great lives.

[AuH20]

A perfect example..............

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/18/the-media-doesnt-want-americans-to-know-anything-about-king-v-burwell/


According to a new poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 7 in 10 Americans have heard little or nothing about King v. Burwell, the U.S. Supreme Court case that will, any day now, decide the fate of Obamacare’s health insurance subsidies for millions of Americans. Yet 63 percent of those surveyed also say that if the court rules against the government, Congress should act to keep those subsidies in place.

Got that? The vast majority of Americans know almost nothing about this case, but 63 percent have an opinion about what Congress should do in response to a ruling that carries certain policy implications. How can this be?

I think I have the answer.....................

http://tyrrellmarketing.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Mason-and-jason-the-inseparable-sheep.jpg

A sheep isn't expected to think. His job is to chew on grass all day and be dragged in for an occasional shear. He has no time to think about corporate cronyism, individual rights or unsustainable budgets.


For example, an estimated 15 million Americans are paying more for coverage on the individual market under Obamacare and not getting subsidies. That’s far more than the 6.4 million now receiving taxpayer help on the federal exchanges. Insurance regulations imposed by the healthcare law—age-rating rules, actuarial-value restrictions, and benefit mandates—have made insurance more expensive, and repealing them would dramatically lower the cost of coverage for everyone, subsidized and unsubsidized alike. Likely, millions of Americans now getting subsidized coverage could afford it on their own if these regulations were repealed.

But the media isn’t really interested in informing the debate with such pernicious facts. That’s why coverage of Burwell has focused almost exclusively on those who might lose subsidies and what congressional Republicans will do about it. The law’s defenders in the media and academia don’t want that to happen, so the polls they concoct assume the Burwell challengers are trying to undermine the law and Congress must do something to restore those subsidies.

[Ronin Truth]

Yep, you can just about always count on good old dumbing down government schooling to NOT convey the info. :p :mad:

[Dianne]

No chit. I saw recently that over 60% of Americans didn't know who Joe Biden was.

[Dianne]

What's the problem 'scro?

I know plenty of tards that live great lives.

I wish I was a tard. I would be so happy as one. Not a care in the world.

[rg17]

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Health/images-2/fat-woman-eating.jpg

Fat Sheeple

[otherone]

Seriously, this is no surprise, it's amazing how many people are really just high functioning idiots.

https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/q.wf.RjT_EGkoF8lZZyp7A--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9Mzk4O3E9OTU7dz01MDA-/http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-X61yu6YkoB4/Uj8tDYjUFfI/AAAAAAAA29M/OxXCUpDSEmE/s1600/George+Carlin+stupid+people.jpg

[Occam's Banana]

https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/q.wf.RjT_EGkoF8lZZyp7A--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9Mzk4O3E9OTU7dz01MDA-/http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-X61yu6YkoB4/Uj8tDYjUFfI/AAAAAAAA29M/OxXCUpDSEmE/s1600/George+Carlin+stupid+people.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/JpMcXzE.jpg

That's not what "average" means. That's what "median" means.

[Anti Federalist]

http://i.imgur.com/JpMcXzE.jpg

That's not what "average" means. That's what "median" means.

Go away!

'Batin!

[timosman]

http://i.imgur.com/JpMcXzE.jpg

That's not what "average" means. That's what "median" means.

Does not matter in this case as they are very close since the spectrum of possible values follows the Gaussian distribution.

[heavenlyboy34]

Clueless and proud of it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/11/03/what-no-one-talks-about-during-election-season-voter-ignorance/




If you can't name the 3 branches of government, you shouldn't be able to vote. Letting such an uninformed idiot vote would be akin to hiring a mechanic who can't pop the hood of a car.

The last time I proposed this on RPFs I was excoriated. Hopefully you are more persuasive than I was. ~hugs~

[Occam's Banana]

Go away!

'Batin!

:D:D:D

[r3volution 3.0]

So, who's going to tell me that democracy is still the best form of government, because, like, people are totally gunna change n stuff...

[timosman]

The last time I proposed this on RPFs I was excoriated. Hopefully you are more persuasive than I was. ~hugs~

This is not a good proposal. You will end up with idiots who memorized the names of the 3 branches of the government without even understanding what they do. This happens all the time in corporations. You introduce a simple metric to measure some complex issue and then everybody starts gaming the metric.

[Occam's Banana]

Does not matter in this case as they are very close since the spectrum of possible values follows the Gaussian distribution.

Does not matter in this case as "average" in this context simply does not mean the midpoint of a frequency distribution (Gaussian or otherwise).

[timosman]

Does not matter in this case as "average" in this context simply does not mean the midpoint of a frequency distribution (Gaussian or otherwise).

FFS, go away ;-)

[Occam's Banana]

FFS, go away ;-)

No. :p