I don’t get it either. I always try to read up on things. Sometimes there’s not enough info on candidates in a local race for me to know who to vote for and so I abstain. Other than that, I always vote for the candidate I think is going to do the least harm. They didn’t do their due diligence to even figure that out.
I remember in 2004, as a kid, my mother (very conservative at the time) teaching me to go through OnTheIssues with the presidential race coming up and examining the policies of each candidate, and to consider whether I agreed with each individual stance in making an overall opinion, not just to presume which one was good and bad by political allegiance.
She taught me good citizenship. Many people aren’t so lucky - or didn’t take the lessons to heart.
The average adult American has the reading comprehension level of a 5th grader.
Less than 10% (possibly less than 5%) of adult Americans are capable of objectively reading multiple stories about the same topic in different newspapers and being able to figure out which bits of info are objective, which parts are editorialized, what information is left out… and why different sources include or disclude those elements.
Turns out if you destroy public education, you get idiots, and idiots are very easy to mislead, responding almost entirely to pathos, misjudge ethos, and actually become angry when presented with logos.
We are a largely, functionally illiterate society.
Ah you young whippersnapper! When I turned 18 in 1995, the best way to find out about local candidates was a pamphlet you could get at the library for free (and probably elsewhere too) put out by the League of Women Voters. Sadly, there were always lots of pamphlets not taken.
It’s the social media algorithms, man. Folks think that what they’re being fed is reality, so they never double check the information being given to them.
Full disclosure, I’m just as guilty. For months I had built up this whole narrative about private equity buying up all the houses and causing the current housing crisis. Apparently, private equity only accounts for like 10% of home ownership, and the reality is that we just don’t build enough housing. The issue is the same (and honestly I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that private equity is still at the heart of it somehow), but I allowed the algorithm to show me inaccurate info, and I bought it—hook, line, and sinker.
But when it comes to candidates, there are multiple neutral websites that will just give you their stated platform (if they have one) up and down the ballot.
You’re not wrong, but I’m saying it’s an additional step for folks to take. And why would they when everything they’re seeing is confirming their beliefs?
I don’t get it either. I always try to read up on things. Sometimes there’s not enough info on candidates in a local race for me to know who to vote for and so I abstain. Other than that, I always vote for the candidate I think is going to do the least harm. They didn’t do their due diligence to even figure that out.
I remember in 2004, as a kid, my mother (very conservative at the time) teaching me to go through OnTheIssues with the presidential race coming up and examining the policies of each candidate, and to consider whether I agreed with each individual stance in making an overall opinion, not just to presume which one was good and bad by political allegiance.
She taught me good citizenship. Many people aren’t so lucky - or didn’t take the lessons to heart.
People like us are the abysmally small minority.
The average adult American has the reading comprehension level of a 5th grader.
Less than 10% (possibly less than 5%) of adult Americans are capable of objectively reading multiple stories about the same topic in different newspapers and being able to figure out which bits of info are objective, which parts are editorialized, what information is left out… and why different sources include or disclude those elements.
Turns out if you destroy public education, you get idiots, and idiots are very easy to mislead, responding almost entirely to pathos, misjudge ethos, and actually become angry when presented with logos.
We are a largely, functionally illiterate society.
Ah you young whippersnapper! When I turned 18 in 1995, the best way to find out about local candidates was a pamphlet you could get at the library for free (and probably elsewhere too) put out by the League of Women Voters. Sadly, there were always lots of pamphlets not taken.
It’s the social media algorithms, man. Folks think that what they’re being fed is reality, so they never double check the information being given to them.
Full disclosure, I’m just as guilty. For months I had built up this whole narrative about private equity buying up all the houses and causing the current housing crisis. Apparently, private equity only accounts for like 10% of home ownership, and the reality is that we just don’t build enough housing. The issue is the same (and honestly I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that private equity is still at the heart of it somehow), but I allowed the algorithm to show me inaccurate info, and I bought it—hook, line, and sinker.
But when it comes to candidates, there are multiple neutral websites that will just give you their stated platform (if they have one) up and down the ballot.
You’re not wrong, but I’m saying it’s an additional step for folks to take. And why would they when everything they’re seeing is confirming their beliefs?
It’s definitely a problem of media illiteracy.