Draft

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Helm

No. Lacking that 'world perspective' is what is wrong, under what Davin says. That's his whole argument. Voting for Bush is not inherently wrong. People vote for Kerry while lacking the 'world perspective' as well.

That's not what he said right before you. :/

The Bush implication is reaching, and to push it derails this argument. Which is that regardless of what people go on to vote later, at least they would be making an educated choice. The focus is on awareness and knowledge as the foundation of a solid democratic system, not them gradually making one a democrat (or republican).

No, talking about some ambiguous concept such as "world perspective" is what derails the argument. What are we talking about specifically? I think the implication is that smarter people making smarter choices would vote for a third party, or someonething along those lines.

I however think (and I'm certainly not being original here, since there is a political science school of thought here) you can argue that voters make very rational decisions, in their turnout, in who they vote for, etc.

People often vote for the guy they find least offensive, mainly because they have no time for government. Some might argue that that's perfectly rational, too.

Originally Posted by davin

And yes, if you want to make a specific example of that, you could use George W. Bush. You got me, Kevin, I don't think Americans made the right choice, nor did they make it for the right reasons. Imagine that. My point was more that if people really knew what was going on in the country and the world, both Kerry and Bush would have been laughed off the fucking ballots.

And were they "armed with real information," what would've happened? Whom might they have chosen?

I don't care if you dislike Bush, Davin. I didn't vote for the man either. I just think that what you perceive to be a more "wordly perspective" is actually just a lot of your own subjective opinion.