An uninformed vote is better than not voting at all. “Uninformed” could mean a wide range of things. You can call a voter who votes based solely on party lines uninformed because he may know nothing about the candidate other than the candidate’s party. An uninformed voter could also be someone who just didn’t do enough homework on the candidates than the voter in the next booth. However, there is no fair way to label a voter as informed or uninformed. A person who watches all the debates, rallies, and speeches may be just as informed as a person who read about the candidate on Wikipedia. We can never know the true reason why a voter voted the way he did. Because we have no way of judging and knowing whether a vote was “uninformed” or not, we should take any vote as a positive.
Take for example the 2008 presidential election. To some voters, Obama’s skin color mattered in their decisions. Whether or not votes went for or against him because of it, I think a vast majority would agree that a person’s skin color is not a legitimate factor in deciding whether or not a candidate should be elected. But for these voters it did matter subconsciously or not, and in a true liberal state their vote has just as much legitimacy as voters who voted on a candidate’s policies.
While we can’t judge a vote to be higher or lower value based on the voter’s knowledge, “uninformed” votes still contribute towards a liberal society. Not voting contributes nothing. Just the fact that you bothered to show up at the polling station or sent in that absentee ballot shows that you care enough about the government. The reason the voter decided on his vote should not matter for a liberal state to truly function the way it was supposed to be. Voting uninformed is better than not voting because you contributed towards the overall opinion of the people-the basis of the liberal state.
You bring up the idea that voting uninformed is almost a triumph of the liberal system. "The reason the voter decided on his vote should not matter for a liberal state to truly function the way it was supposed to be." If liberalism is supposedly focused on individual reason and rationality, shouldn't so called "uninformed voting" have been null once a liberal state begins? Also, I don't feel that it was in the initial theory of liberalism among the original standard-bearers to include everyone in the process, or even anyone at all. Fiona certainly brought up the best point during the discussion Tuesday, that in a liberal state most everyone is able to vote, but with that come consequences, as all of the people face the same responsibility. A lot of voters aren't aware of some of the power they wield when going into the ballot box, and therefore it is certainly within the interests of some individuals and groups to discourage voting among uninformed members of the population.
ReplyDelete