Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

If you want to argue the point, I'd suggest you talk to Rosen, not me.

But my take is that yes, it's still clear cut. Becoming informed doesn't happen in a vacuum. I wasn't particularly informed when I started voting at 18. But being a regular voter and wanting to do it well has forced a lot of my activity around getting and staying informed.

Democracies are dynamic processes. We're always absorbing new, underinformed voters and turning them into better ones. If some potential voters are underinformed, the solution isn't to discourage them from voting; it's to educate them. And journalists are in the business of informing, so I think Rosen reasonably leaves out here that journalists are already openly in favor of informing voters.




You're putting the cart before the horse. First get informed, give your ideas a trial run if possible, then vote.

For instance, you can mock vote, and then see whether that politician lives up to your expectations over some period of time.


I see. Could you tell me how many election cycles you did that before you decided you were qualified to vote?


Because, not to put too fine a point on it, but I suspect you are suggesting this standard not for people from your background, but for "those people". And America has a long, ugly history of applying voter qualification standards unequally.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: