# Should we encourage those who have not informed themselves on the issues to vote? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 24, 2002, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-encourage-those-who-have-not-informed-themselves-on-the-issues-to-vote/133725 "2002-10-24T18:48:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-encourage-those-who-have-not-informed-themselves-on-the-issues-to-vote/133725/1 "2002-10-24T18:48:00Z")
This idea was a throwaway point within an [article by Thomas Sowell](http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell.html). It looked like a promising debate topic. Sowell says > [@](#): > > Far from urging everyone to vote, perhaps the media might better urge those who are going to vote to first make sure that they have heard both sides of the issues at stake, instead of just voting by habit, whim, or according to the image or rhetoric of the candidates. > > A case could be made that those who have not informed themselves on the issues have a patriotic duty to stay away from the polls on Election Day, rather than mess with something that is too important to be decided by ignorance or prejudice. > > Ideally, each citizen should both become informed about issues and candidates and go to the polls on Election Day. But the real question is what to do in a world that is seldom ideal. So, should we encourage the ignorant to vote? Or, should we encourage them to stay home? ---
**Author:** ![Tars\_Tarkas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tars\_Tarkas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tars_Tarkas)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-encourage-those-who-have-not-informed-themselves-on-the-issues-to-vote/133725/2 "2002-10-24T19:12:56Z")
Ignorant fools have just as much a right to vote as you or I do. Welcome to America!! ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-encourage-those-who-have-not-informed-themselves-on-the-issues-to-vote/133725/3 "2002-10-24T19:25:06Z")
LOVE the OP Title. Downright tasty. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-encourage-those-who-have-not-informed-themselves-on-the-issues-to-vote/133725/4 "2002-10-24T19:31:22Z")
I have an acquaintance who steadfastly refuses to vote. She just isn’t interested in the issues or the candidates (though she can sure as hell tell you when new Prada purses are hitting the market), she doesn’t care to stay informed, and thus she doesn’t feel she’s informed enough to make an intelligent vote. And she’s probably right. What I find odd is that people look at her like she’s committing some kind of civic sin by not voting. Given her predilections, isn’t it better for her _not_ to vote? ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-encourage-those-who-have-not-informed-themselves-on-the-issues-to-vote/133725/5 "2002-10-24T19:32:51Z")
Certainly I agree with Tars in that fools have the right to vote. However, I also think that when people vote out of ignorance, their collective voice is at best useless noise, and at worst a serious clouding of serious issues (say, for example, people vote based on who has the best hair - don’t laugh, it’s probably truer than you’d care to believe). I think, on the surface, encouraging the ignorant to not vote is a sound idea. However, I have doubts that it would work on a practical basis. For one thing, how many ignorant people actually believe they’re ignorant? I would guess the study that found competence levels of people inversely proportionate to their self-perceived competence level could apply to ignorance, as well. Secondly, if these people care so little for the voting process that they don’t bother to inform themselves, do you really think they’re going to not vote out of respect for the educated among us? Thirdly, I wonder what percentage of voters really are that ignorant. I would hazard a guess that those who are too lazy to inform themselves would be too lazy to go to the voting booth in the first place. I think one good way to discourage the intellectually lazy from voting would be to make it less, not more, convenient. Not to the point where it’s actually difficult for people, of course, but I think efforts to get people to vote at any cost may be misguided. Make it more difficult to obtain absentee ballots, for example - make the person provide a written explanation of why they can’t vote in person, at least, rather than just give an absentee ballot to anyone who asks. There’s been an idea floating around about allowing voting through the internet, or on TV. That would be horrible - do you really want someone voting absent-mindedly during a break in a rerun of _America’s Most Deadly Pit Bull Attacks_? Or as an afterthought following a good, rousing porn search? If you create some sort of inherent time commitment in the voting process, the lazy and uninformed are going to be less inclined to vote. Will that decrease voter turnout? Probably. But how much are we really going to miss the vote of someone who votes for Al Gore because he’s so dreamy? Jeff ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-encourage-those-who-have-not-informed-themselves-on-the-issues-to-vote/133725/6 "2002-10-24T20:02:27Z")
With every right comes responsibility. The right to vote entails the responsibility to be informed–this is one of the key premises of democracy. So yes, those who are ignorant of the issues should not vote. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-encourage-those-who-have-not-informed-themselves-on-the-issues-to-vote/133725/7 "2002-10-24T20:10:23Z")
Proposal: along with automated touch-screens, we deploy an application that asks the voter to answer three questions correctly. The questions are chosen randomly from among ten submitted by Party A and Party B, and are intended to be factual and objective, and relate directly to the issues each candidate is running on. A person unable to answer any question correctly is denied the opportunity to vote. Perhaps we could remove the age restrictions on voting as well under this system. Smart thirteen-year-olds could vote, while uninformed thirty-year-olds would be silenced. I’m not offering this as a serious proposal, but as the springboard for further discussion. Why - or why not - use such a system? - Rick ---
**Author:** ![everton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecb155/32.png) [@everton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/everton)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-encourage-those-who-have-not-informed-themselves-on-the-issues-to-vote/133725/8 "2002-10-24T21:11:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stoid \* > \*\*LOVE the OP Title. Downright tasty. \*\* But there’s a crucial word missing from it: **"Should we … those who have not informed themselves on the issues to vote?"** Is there a word that can replace the dots other a synonym for “allow”? Maybe “encourage” was intended? If the argument is that ignorant people should not be allowed to vote, then you’re going to have to devise a method of measuring the relevant ignorance. A written exam? An interview by an appointee of the State? Give a satisfactory answer to the government’s question and you can vote; otherwise go home and study until you know the answer. If the argument is whether to encourage people either to vote or to become conversant with relevant issues, I assumed that people were being encouraged to do both. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-encourage-those-who-have-not-informed-themselves-on-the-issues-to-vote/133725/9 "2002-10-24T21:27:53Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m not offering this as a serious proposal, but as the springboard for further discussion. Why - or why not - use such a system? I believe the historical example is Jim Crow. Besides, the problem of people who deserve the vote (whatever that means) being denied their rightful opportunity is a far greater and more common evil than morons wasting their votes through uninformed decisions. Besides which, who determines if my decision is uninformed? If I had to match wits with any Sunday morning pundit, I’d never be allowed to vote. But I could out-talk half of my friends and family when it came down to it. The truth is, no one is probably informed enough to vote. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-encourage-those-who-have-not-informed-themselves-on-the-issues-to-vote/133725/10 "2002-10-24T21:32:48Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally queried by **Bricker** :_ > > I’m not offering this as a serious proposal, but as the springboard for further discussion. Why - or why not - use such a system? I think one objection could be that, other than for referenda, voters _need not_ (hypothetically) understand the issues at all in our system of representative democracy; they choose “trusted” individuals to represent their interests in the various elected positions. (As an “issues” oriented voter, I strongly disagree with this approach, but I present it for the sake of argument.) Still, the minimum expectation for voter responsibility, even if one allows full faith in the representative, is some knowledge of the differences in qualification and ideology between the available candidates. -Perhaps questions regarding the candidates themselves? ---
**Author:** ![UrbanChic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/9dc877/32.png) [@UrbanChic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UrbanChic)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-encourage-those-who-have-not-informed-themselves-on-the-issues-to-vote/133725/11 "2002-10-24T21:35:09Z")
Well, toadspittle took almost all the words right out of my mouth! It _is_ sad when uninformed voters vote for a candidate simply because they’re a Democrat, for example. There’s no way, however, to fairly administer a voting litmus test. Nor should we, for that fact of the matter. ---
**Author:** ![Crusoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Crusoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crusoe)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-encourage-those-who-have-not-informed-themselves-on-the-issues-to-vote/133725/12 "2002-10-24T21:40:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\* > I think one objection could be that, other than for referenda, voters _need not_ (hypothetically) understand the issues at all in our system of representative democracy; they choose “trusted” individuals to represent their interests in the various elected positions. (As an “issues” oriented voter, I strongly disagree with this approach, but I present it for the sake of argument.) Still, the minimum expectation for voter responsibility, even if one allows full faith in the representative, is some knowledge of the differences in qualification and ideology between the available candidates. -Perhaps questions regarding the candidates themselves? \*\* Yes, the notion of Burkean representation: you’re voting for someone to represent you and make decisions on your behalf, with the interests of the country as a whole rather than narrow sections of the electorate in mind. The problem is how to ensure that the representatives don’t pander to ignorance to win votes, and, as you say, how to ensure that the voters can spot such acts. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-encourage-those-who-have-not-informed-themselves-on-the-issues-to-vote/133725/13 "2002-10-24T21:56:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by everton \* > \*\*Maybe “encourage” was intended? \*\* Yes, it was. If any mod sees this, and it’s not too much trouble, I’d appreciate your adding the word “encourage” to the thread title. Thanks. An argument I expected to see is that the act of voting makes a person feel more like a part of the country. It tends to breed good citizenship. ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-encourage-those-who-have-not-informed-themselves-on-the-issues-to-vote/133725/14 "2002-10-24T22:01:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\*Proposal: along with automated touch-screens, we deploy an application that asks the voter to answer three questions correctly. The questions are chosen randomly from among ten submitted by Party A and Party B, and are intended to be factual and objective, and relate directly to the issues each candidate is running on. A person unable to answer any question correctly is denied the opportunity to vote. > > Perhaps we could remove the age restrictions on voting as well under this system. Smart thirteen-year-olds could vote, while uninformed thirty-year-olds would be silenced. > > I’m not offering this as a serious proposal, but as the springboard for further discussion. Why - or why not - use such a system?\*\* Hypothetical voter A cares very little about the races in his electoral district. As far as he can tell, it will make little difference which of the idiots running ends up as his congressman, senator, and mayor. He is not interested in a state constitutional change, nor as a renter, does he think he cares about a property tax increase. However, he deeply cares about an initiative to fund a sports stadium by raising sales taxes. He’s done the reading, he knows the rhetoric on both sides as to what effect it will have on him, on commerce in the area, on the community at large. He wants to cast his ballot on this issue, and that issue alone. Are you saying that he should be denied the right to do that because he fails to answer three questions correctly on ballot issues that he doesn’t care about nor will vote on? Or are you asking Hypothetical Voter B, the well-informed perfect voter we all wish everyone was, to answer three questions about all 20-something issues on his ballot? Not to mention the points brought up by others, earlier in the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-encourage-those-who-have-not-informed-themselves-on-the-issues-to-vote/133725/15 "2002-10-24T22:07:28Z")
This is an issue that always comes to mind whenever I see celebs or whoever encouraging people to go out and vote. They should encourage people to be _get informed_ and then vote. ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-encourage-those-who-have-not-informed-themselves-on-the-issues-to-vote/133725/16 "2002-10-24T22:09:33Z")
> [@](#): > > I think one objection could be that, other than for referenda, voters need not (hypothetically) understand the issues at all in our system of representative democracy; they choose “trusted” individuals to represent their interests in the various elected positions. But one needs to understand the issues to make an informed choice on who to support, because you’re (theoretically) voting on someone who has the same opinion on the issues as you do (I assume that’s what you mean by “trusted individuals”). If you don’t vote for people based on issues, what’s left? Good sense of humor? Intelligence? Looks good in a suit? You could blindly vote along party lines, but this is based on the false premise that the worst possible person that is in your party is still better than the best possible person in any of the opposition parties. Basically, if your vote isn’t tied in some way to the issues, then your vote is uninformed, and essentially white noise. Jeff ---
**Author:** ![everton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecb155/32.png) [@everton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/everton)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-encourage-those-who-have-not-informed-themselves-on-the-issues-to-vote/133725/17 "2002-10-24T22:23:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*An argument I expected to see is that the act of voting makes a person feel more like a part of the country. It tends to breed good citizenship. \*\* Yes, I’d like to believe (in fact I do believe) that to be the case. I’m certain that the opposite version is correct - that if you deny people the vote they will not behave like a good citizen. Why should they? Except in so far as revolution is an act of citizenship in itself. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-encourage-those-who-have-not-informed-themselves-on-the-issues-to-vote/133725/18 "2002-10-24T22:30:20Z")
I believe the phrase you’re looking for would be “literacy test”. [http://jodyb.net/school/literacy.html](http://jodyb.net/school/literacy.html) > [@](#): > > The following test was given to prospective Black voters (prior to the 1965 Voting Rights Act) in Alabama. The test was administered at the discretion of the registrar, who also determined what questions to ask, what constituted a passing score, and so on - the idea being that no Black would ever pass. See how well you do. > > 1. A United States senator elected in November takes office the following year on what date? > 2. The Constitution limits the size of the District of Columbia to what? > 3. The electoral vote for president is counted in the presence of what two bodies? > 4. Of the 13 original states, the one with the most representation in Congress was which? > 5. If the election of the president becomes the duty of the House, and it fails to act, who becomes president, and when? > 6. If a state is a party to a case, the Constitution provides that original jurisdiction shall be in what court? > 7. If an effort to impeach the president of the United States is made, who presides at the trial? > 8. When the Constitution was approved by the original colonies, how many states had to ratify it in order for it to be in effect? > 9. Persons opposed to swearing an oath may say instead, “I solemnly \_\_\_\_?” > 10. If it were proposed to join Alabama and Mississippi to form one state, what groups would have to vote approval for this to be done? And then there’s the Voting Rights Act of 1965. [http://www.votescount.com/votrights.htm](http://www.votescount.com/votrights.htm) > [@](#): > > …Historically, many state and local governments have allowed unnecessary laws, tests, and even intimidation to prevent certain citizens from voting. Many southern states used such measures as poll taxes, literacy tests, constitutional interpretation tests, and citizenship knowledge tests to ensure that its African American citizens would have a difficult time exercising their right to vote. These tests pretended to be designed to determine which persons were qualified to vote, but in reality were used to effectively and repeatedly deny the rights of certain citizens to vote. Because of such subtle efforts, it was necessary to pass laws to protect and enforce the constitutional right to vote. > > \< snip \> > > The Voting Rights Act was crafted with two main areas of coverage. The first area governed special remedies for specific areas of the country where statistics showed large differences between the number of eligible voters and the number of persons actually registered to vote. These special provisions authorized the United States Attorney General to provide for examiners and observers to register voters and monitor elections, banned the use of tests, and also required these certain areas to submit any changes in their voting laws to the federal government for approval (this preapproval provision was called Apreclearance@). > > The second aspect of the Act generally prohibited discriminatory voting practices throughout the entire nation. So, the reason why we can’t have something like this– > [@](#): > > \*an application that asks the voter to answer three questions correctly. The questions are chosen randomly from among ten submitted by Party A and Party B, and are intended to be factual and objective, and relate directly to the issues each candidate is running on. A person unable to answer any question correctly is denied the opportunity to vote. \* –is because the Voting Rights Act of 1965 specifically prohibits it. And this– > [@](#): > > \*Make it more difficult to obtain absentee ballots, for example - make the person provide a written explanation of why they can’t vote in person, at least, rather than just give an absentee ballot to anyone who asks. \* –is also contrary to the spirit of the Voting Rights Act, whose purpose was to make it _easier_ to vote, not more difficult. Requiring applicants for absentee ballots to write a letter, rather than simply fill out an application, would be a kind of literacy test. And anyway, getting hold of an absentee ballot isn’t that easy. They may “just give them out to anyone who asks”, but first you have to ask, which process requires a certain level of “smarts”. [http://www.absenteeballot.net/Illinois.htm](http://www.absenteeballot.net/Illinois.htm) > [@](#): > > Contact your county to obtain a application for an absentee ballot. > By Mail - Not more than 40 days nor less than 5 days prior to the election. > In Person - Not more than 40 days nor less than 1 day prior to the election. > > The Illinois Election Code requires absentee applications to be made on a form printed by the election authority. Therefore, there is no one form to be used in each jurisdiction. Then you have to fill the dang thing out. Granted, it’s not a “letter”, but it does require a certain level of language competence. [http://www.voterinfonet.com/images/ABSappE.pdf](http://www.voterinfonet.com/images/ABSappE.pdf) And, er, am I correct in assuming that everybody in this thread would be opposed to the practices of earlier, less politically correct eras? 😃 [http://dig.lib.niu.edu/message/ps-1840.html](http://dig.lib.niu.edu/message/ps-1840.html) > [@](#): > > The Whig triumph and the mobilization of 900,000 new voters are usually attributed to the nature of the campaign Whigs ran against Martin Van Buren, the incumbent Democratic president. In December 1839 Whigs nominated a ticket of William Henry Harrison, an old Indian fighter from Ohio, and John Tyler of Virginia. This produced the famous alliterative campaign slogan, “Tippecanoe and Tyler, too.” > > But because Democrats mocked Harrison as a superannuated has-been who would be content to retire to a log cabin with a barrel of hard cider, Whigs also made log cabins and hard cider the central emblems of their campaign to portray Harrison as a man of the people while they pilloried Van Buren as a pampered dandy who lolled in luxury in the White House. > > Lubricating voters with free whiskey and hard cider, scourging Van Buren in songs and slogans like “Van, Van, Van-Van’s a Used Up Man,” and brilliantly imitating Jacksonian hurrah campaign techniques like parades, mass rallies, and log-cabin raisings, Whigs supposedly avoided concrete issues and out-demagogued the Democrats, thereby bringing massive numbers of new voters to the polls and driving Van Buren from the White House. So this time it was the _Democrats_ who were the poor picked-on victims of the evil ad campaign… 😃 ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-encourage-those-who-have-not-informed-themselves-on-the-issues-to-vote/133725/19 "2002-10-24T22:50:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > Yes, it was. If any mod sees this, and it’s not too much trouble, I’d appreciate your adding the word “encourage” to the thread title. Thanks. Well, OK. But you have to vote for who I tell you to in the next election. ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-encourage-those-who-have-not-informed-themselves-on-the-issues-to-vote/133725/20 "2002-10-24T23:19:38Z")
> [@](#): > > And anyway, getting hold of an absentee ballot isn’t that easy. They may “just give them out to anyone who asks”, but first you have to ask, which process requires a certain level of “smarts”. Not in California. You get your sample ballot in the mail, and on the back is a little thing that says, “If you want an absentee ballot, send this in”. It already has your name and address on it, you just need to sign it and stick a stamp on it. Generally speaking, DDG, I agree with your sentiments, and perhaps you’re correct on tha absentee ballot issue, but I still maintain making the voting process ever-easier is not always wise. The easier it is, the more of the lowest-common denominator you attract (by which I mean, uneducated voters), and I don’t think that’s a good thing. If more voters is necessarily better, regardless of whether or not the voters know what they’re doing, than we may as well let our pets and children vote, too. There’s a minimum voting age for a reason, after all. Jeff [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-encourage-those-who-have-not-informed-themselves-on-the-issues-to-vote/133725.md?page=2)