Joseph Farkas thinks that every vote cast
should equal every other vote. He feels that many people are voting without
knowing why they are voting for a certain person or why they aren't voting for
another. He says that a vote cast by a person with no or very little knowledge
in the election should not count as much as a vote cast by a person who knows
alot about the election. The people who care about who has an important role in
the government should have a bigger say in who is going to have that important
role. The votes cast by a person who doesn't really know why they are voting
for someone should not equal as much as an election educated person.
I do not think that this is a good idea at all.
It would not encourage people to learn more about the election but keep them
away from the voting area. It will probably make people not want to vote
because many of them would think that their vote will not mean as much to the
election. It would make the people who are familiar with the candidates want to
vote because they would have a bigger say in who gets elected. It would be very
hard to decide who know what about the running candidates and issues that are being addressed. They would
have to give some kind of multiple-choice question test that you had to fill
out while voting. It would take a long time for each person to vote and I think
that would make people less encouraged to come and vote. Since the only way to
link a vote with a test is to have them on the same paper the voters would have
to take a test every time they voted. Most people want to walk in, vote, and
walk out. They don't want to fill out a test asking them about what they know.
For the people who don't know alot about the election, they don't want to say
that when they vote. If the test was only optional it might work out a little
better. The test would be on the ballot and if you wanted to fill it out then
you could. If you didn't fill it out or failed it when you took it then your
vote would still equal one vote. The people who took the test and passed it
would get their vote counted as more than a normal vote. This would be better
because if someone just wanted to vote and leave they wouldn't have to take the
test. For those who wanted their vote to count more they could take the test. A
problem with this is that no one would know if they passed or failed the test.
The only large disadvantage would be how to score the tests. Each voting area
would have to have a computer that could score each test and then send all the
results through modem and phone lines to a large server that could keep track
of everything. This would be expensive. The problem with this is that anything
to do with computers, modems, and phone lines; hackers and phrackers can get
the data and alter it in any way they please. I'm sure the government could
make it hard for people to get access to the data but any experienced hacker
could get at it with a little work.
Having different people's votes equal different
amounts is not a good idea. It would only make more people not want to vote.
The only way it could work would be to make the test optional and have the
votes of those who don't take the test equal a normal vote. Even this would
make alot of people not want to go to the voting areas to vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment