Perfectly timed to our discussion last week is the following article:A Reminder About Comments by Kate Phillips
We were discussing in class the idea of open elections with more relaxed security where voters can vote multiple times in some cases. The discussion touched on the prediction that the zealots and paid voters would cancel themselves out and that all in all the election would end up fair. Well, here you go. The New York Times had to send home a behavior report to the small percentage (hopefully) of the American public who can’t even handle the comments section of the Times.
It states, “Secondly, a few readers keep trying to post the same comments over and over, for weeks on end, on every item. They add nothing to the development of a conversation, and will not be published.” I think that this is a good point when taken in the context of elections, as well. What does an open election do for the discussion of our leadership? Does it not make even muddier the political waters? Does it not encourage even more the attempts at undermining the system? Would voters still feel as if they participated in a process if it is that unregulated? I understand the need for accessibility and the difficulties some have in acquiring government issued ID’s, but “solving” that problem by changing something else entirely seems rather backwards.
Also, pretty great that the Times actually had to ask for comment writers to end the name-calling. “None of you deserve to be called an idiot, a moron, a juvenile, racist or sexist.” … although I’d have to put money down that some of them really do.
so, you think Americans can handle open elections?
Filed under: Electioneering, Parsons MFADT'09, Spring 2008, Uncategorized | Tags: comments, Electioneering, elections, nytimes, voting
We were discussing in class the idea of open elections with more relaxed security where voters can vote multiple times in some cases. The discussion touched on the prediction that the zealots and paid voters would cancel themselves out and that all in all the election would end up fair. Well, here you go. The New York Times had to send home a behavior report to the small percentage (hopefully) of the American public who can’t even handle the comments section of the Times.
It states, “Secondly, a few readers keep trying to post the same comments over and over, for weeks on end, on every item. They add nothing to the development of a conversation, and will not be published.” I think that this is a good point when taken in the context of elections, as well. What does an open election do for the discussion of our leadership? Does it not make even muddier the political waters? Does it not encourage even more the attempts at undermining the system? Would voters still feel as if they participated in a process if it is that unregulated? I understand the need for accessibility and the difficulties some have in acquiring government issued ID’s, but “solving” that problem by changing something else entirely seems rather backwards.
Also, pretty great that the Times actually had to ask for comment writers to end the name-calling. “None of you deserve to be called an idiot, a moron, a juvenile, racist or sexist.” … although I’d have to put money down that some of them really do.