<p>
[quote]
The nature of Academia inherently attracts liberals. For the most part, it is a system supported by the government, so they obviously favor more government intervention in society as liberals tend to do. However, a lot of Republicans go into the private sector because the Republican platform is based on free enterprise (not just business but everyday life). So to say that liberals somehow make a better choice because they are "smarter" is very ignorant. What is the golden standard that we are comparing two canidates to? What makes one canidate more "right" than the other? Our voting system is set-up the way it is because it takes into the account the opinions of the voters regardless of whether they are "smart" or not (you DON'T have to have a good education to be an educated voter).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, the Republican platform is no longer largely based on free enterprise. The only party left that concerns itself with that is the Libertarian party. Free enterprise? Then why did the Republicans dole out corporate welfare like mad in the early 2000s?</p>
<p>It sucks being for the free market and for a free society. You can't vote for either party, and the Libertarians are insane.</p>
<p>well....if you don't know what 2+2 is...i highly doubt you know what a candidate is talking about when he shoots out figures for healthcare costs :)...furthermore...individuals with a higher level of education are more likely to vote/be informed as to how politics works, and what important aspects of a candidate are. Uneducated individuals in the U.S. really don't care what goes on in gov't....they feel it's more "them" vs. "us." Chances are...you'll learn about government/politics during your latter years of highschool/early college, so, the educated voter is about 100 times more likely to be an educated individual rather than a highschool/college dropout.</p>
<p>UCLA, capitalism and free enterprise are basically the same thing. Free enterprise implies that business are assumed to operate on their own with MINIMAL government regulation. A free enterprise relies on market conditions to determine supply and demand, which is exactly how the United States operates. This is one of the pillars of the Republican platform, so to say that they no longer operate on that premise is false. They have to give out some money to keep the enterprise in tact, or else it will turn into a monopolized world. You don't want that do you?</p>
<p>
[quote]
individuals with a higher level of education are more likely to vote/be informed as to how politics works, and what important aspects of a candidate are
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Something that may be important to someone may not be important to someone else. It all depends on the person.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Uneducated individuals in the U.S. really don't care what goes on in gov't
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They most likely depend on the government more than any other class of people in the country. And they don't care about it?</p>
<p>
[quote]
so, the educated voter is about 100 times more likely to be an educated individual rather than a highschool/college dropout.
<p>And...college students tend to be liberal...once they get out of college and in to their careers, they start to move towards individual interests...professionals and top officials in businesses tend to become more conservative, and those in service/managerial positions tend to become more liberal. Sex also plays a major role...women tend to be more liberal than men....sexual orientation..homosexuals tend to vote Democrat...minorities tend to be more liberal....it's all a matter of interests...religious Protestants tend to be conservative, because they emphasize individualism, etc. It's all set in your priorities....also....as we get older, we tend to become more conservative (also cited from Patterson).</p>
<p>The number was just a random exageration...but it is a fact that level of education determines how one votes...those in the top sector of the economic ladder are 50% more likely to vote than those in the lower sector...this is from Patterson as well.</p>
<p>Let's take healthcare for example: someone who works for a company that carries a good healthcare is not going to vote on a canidate based on their healthcare policies whereas a single mother with no coverage may. </p>
<p>Or taxes: a person who makes $100k+ a year is not going to care as much about taxes as someone who only makes $20k a year.</p>
<p>education also plays an important role over these issues. Just look at bush's tax policy and Kerry's tax policy. Without good education, voters may be unaware of the long term effects of these policies. Their lack of education may only keep their attention span on issues that ca have short-term effects.</p>
<p>See, that's your opinion. What makes Kerry's tax plan right and Bush's tax plan wrong? There is no set standard of which to compare party platforms and judge whether they are right or wrong. Voters will always select canidates based on which issues are important to them individually.</p>
<p>actually it's not....uneducated individuals will likely NOT see long term effects of policy, because they have little or no idea as to how the government/national economy works....unless there's something seriously off the wall...like...spending 20,000,000,000 dollars on a supply of trees to make the country look nicer....you know...something any idiot could see as absurd.</p>
<p>Edit: Many uneducated individuals will not even know what an individual candidate stands for on certain issues...they will have no idea what major policy is going through Congress...they're usually more interested in trying to support themselves and work long hours, so they have little time to pay attention to government.</p>
<p>Lots of educated individuals have no idea what legislation is passing through Congress right now, and many educated individuals work long hours in demanding jobs. </p>
<p>It's the burden of each individual to research the candidates and vote according to his or her preference; having an education or lack thereof should not restrict potential voting rights in any way. Society's intellectual elite voting for society's political elite was Jefferson's antiquated and idealized idea of an election, and this idea is incompatible with our modern popular democracy. </p>
<p>As per the subject of Democrats and Republicans, I've always been under the impression that wealthier individuals generally preferred Republicans and poorer/middle-class individuals generally preferred Democrats because of their fundamental economic (and, to a certain point, social) policies.</p>
<p>Yeah, I was just making a general statement...obviously it doesn't apply to everyone, but if you analyze the voting demographics, I think it's decently accurate.</p>
<p>Then again Heinz (you're referring to Mrs. Heinz-Kerry, right) might be Democratic because her husband was the Democratic presidential nominee last year. =P</p>
<p>yeah..."old money" tends to be liberal, because they regularly give to charity, and they're so well off individually and corporately that they don't worry about saving on a couple of taxes/business incentive. Also....Jews tend to be liberal, but they also tend to be within the upper reins of the economic hiearchy...but their culture heavily advocates giving back to the community...economic and moral values weigh in heavily with partisan affiliation.</p>