Ok, new plan.
- Thread starter Paragon Fury
- Start date
Recommended Videos
the idea of taking a test to vote dates back to the Jim Crow laws of the reconstruction era south. I'd have to turn it down just because of the massive potential for abuse.
Cerrax said:
Okay. I'll fail on typos and slight grammatical errors - you get fail on reading comprehension though.
First, this isn't "discrimination". This making you earn the right to vote. No one can vote until they pass. And its completely in your control - no one is suddenly excluded from earning the ability to vote (except for those we already deny it to for one reason or another) because of something they can't control. Here is the line - if you want to vote, step over it. If you don't, don't whine about being unable to vote - everyone had the same chance. Ignorance is a choice, not a given.
Second, don't get all happy for passing this part alone. The real test would be 150 - 200 questions long, and go into a lot more detail. No questions are optional. While designing each year's test could be a challenge, I suppose it could be done by a small committee, or several universities. Things like:
-What is the difference between Medicaid and Medicare? (Medicaid is the state-level system, Medicare is the federal version)
-What Amendment is generally referred to as "State's Rights"? (The 10th)
-Name 3 Republican Presidents before President George H.W. Bush.
-Name 3 Democratic Presidents before President William Clinton.
-The United States is a ? (Circle One)
Democracy or Republic (Republic)
-Name the 4 branches of the US Military and the former branch that is now part of the Department of Transportation. (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard)
-Who is the Speaker of the House? (Nancy Pellousi)
-Which President is most responsible for the Interstate Highway system? (President Eisenhower)
Math and logic ones are a little harder to come up with, so I let those be right now.
Further, this is just common sense. You wouldn't let these people work on your car - why would you let them pick your leadership? And this kind of knowledge and ability is essential to being a responsible citizen. To not have knowledge of your country, its past, and the general ideas of the canidates, officials and leaders is a recipe for disaster.
Starship Troopers, which has already been mentioned here several times, had it right. When everyone has the right to vote, it'll work for a while, but you'll eventually wind up with chaos.
If America's recent past is any indication, we're staring over the edge as we speak.
Second, don't get all happy for passing this part alone. The real test would be 150 - 200 questions long, and go into a lot more detail. No questions are optional. While designing each year's test could be a challenge, I suppose it could be done by a small committee, or several universities. Things like:
-What is the difference between Medicaid and Medicare? (Medicaid is the state-level system, Medicare is the federal version)
-What Amendment is generally referred to as "State's Rights"? (The 10th)
-Name 3 Republican Presidents before President George H.W. Bush.
-Name 3 Democratic Presidents before President William Clinton.
-The United States is a ? (Circle One)
Democracy or Republic (Republic)
-Name the 4 branches of the US Military and the former branch that is now part of the Department of Transportation. (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard)
-Who is the Speaker of the House? (Nancy Pellousi)
-Which President is most responsible for the Interstate Highway system? (President Eisenhower)
Math and logic ones are a little harder to come up with, so I let those be right now.
Further, this is just common sense. You wouldn't let these people work on your car - why would you let them pick your leadership? And this kind of knowledge and ability is essential to being a responsible citizen. To not have knowledge of your country, its past, and the general ideas of the canidates, officials and leaders is a recipe for disaster.
Starship Troopers, which has already been mentioned here several times, had it right. When everyone has the right to vote, it'll work for a while, but you'll eventually wind up with chaos.
If America's recent past is any indication, we're staring over the edge as we speak.
Your theory needs work, but its a good start.
However it will never happen because all america cares about is making retard ronald feel happy and making his millionare parents more money.
However it will never happen because all america cares about is making retard ronald feel happy and making his millionare parents more money.
So... You want an actual democracy?
Keep in mind no modern country is democratic by it's original definition.
Democracy = Rule by the wise.
Current systems = Rule by the popular.
So, the problem is we let any old idiot run a country, more so than that we let anyone vote.
Keep in mind no modern country is democratic by it's original definition.
Democracy = Rule by the wise.
Current systems = Rule by the popular.
So, the problem is we let any old idiot run a country, more so than that we let anyone vote.
NO.
Just no.
While I understand your reasons (considering just under half of the country was stupid enough to allow Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency).
What happens to the poor who can't get an education? Where does it stop?
Jim Crow was wrong, and IMO this is wrong too.
Just no.
While I understand your reasons (considering just under half of the country was stupid enough to allow Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency).
What happens to the poor who can't get an education? Where does it stop?
Jim Crow was wrong, and IMO this is wrong too.
One problem: All the smart people know that both politics and history are worth next to nothing, and doing math? What? How does math relate at all to voting? You're not calculating it yourself!
Your test is full of things that nobody cares about. History? No. Politics? No. Geography? Actually, that part is fine.
If you're going to restrict people from voting, you should only doing to the very stupidest, the most worthless. And then I'll advocate execution, because you humans have too much of an ego.
ALSO NO! The U.S. is a democracy. Don't be a silly goose.
Your test is full of things that nobody cares about. History? No. Politics? No. Geography? Actually, that part is fine.
If you're going to restrict people from voting, you should only doing to the very stupidest, the most worthless. And then I'll advocate execution, because you humans have too much of an ego.
ALSO NO! The U.S. is a democracy. Don't be a silly goose.
I agree that a large number of Americans are lacking the intelligence necessary to vote, but this is an absolutely terrible idea.
When did knowing historical trivia become a basis for intelligence? Knowing which number president Abraham Lincoln was
or even the name and party of the current Speaker of the House is really not all that terribly important.
The kind of things on an IQ test (logic, problem solving, etc.) and a basic understanding of the functions of our government
and the ideologies it runs on are much more important. Someone who knows what they're general rights are, and using logic
can deduce how they should be applied is much more fit to vote than someone who can merely spout off what the 23rd amendment
is.
But, regardless of the form of the test, it would not work. To make it work, the creators would need to be purely objective, which is
not possible for humans. A test of this nature would open up too many opportunities for corruption and abuses. So, despite the fact
that, in theory, it's not a bad idea, it could never be applied in a proper and fair way to give everyone an equal chance at success.
And part of the American political culture is that everyone should have an equal opportunity to succeed.
When did knowing historical trivia become a basis for intelligence? Knowing which number president Abraham Lincoln was
or even the name and party of the current Speaker of the House is really not all that terribly important.
The kind of things on an IQ test (logic, problem solving, etc.) and a basic understanding of the functions of our government
and the ideologies it runs on are much more important. Someone who knows what they're general rights are, and using logic
can deduce how they should be applied is much more fit to vote than someone who can merely spout off what the 23rd amendment
is.
But, regardless of the form of the test, it would not work. To make it work, the creators would need to be purely objective, which is
not possible for humans. A test of this nature would open up too many opportunities for corruption and abuses. So, despite the fact
that, in theory, it's not a bad idea, it could never be applied in a proper and fair way to give everyone an equal chance at success.
And part of the American political culture is that everyone should have an equal opportunity to succeed.
Funny you should say that, considering that "slippery slope" is the name of a type of logical fallacy. Maybe you should look into that.axia777 said:
You act as if freedom is perfectly preserved in all it's forms today, and that if it was even mildly infringed, it would instantly (or at least soon after) lead to total oppression. Let me give you an example. Freedom of speech is not absolute. It is illegal to call out "fire" in a movie theater when there is no fire, because it can cause a panic during which it is not just possible, but in fact likely that many people will become hurt. This law was passed several decades ago, yet, somehow, censorship has not become rampant in all our newspapers and books etc. Strange don't you think?
With that said, I ultimately disagree with the opening post. This proposal overlooks the fact that the voting percentages are not very high. <link http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html>Here is a table detailing voter turnout in national elections from 1960 to current day. As you can see, turnout last year was at just 56%, and on years without a presidential election it hovers at around 37%. There is no mystery about this. It is because most of the grossly unintelligent and uninformed don't care enough to vote. That is not to say that no unintelligent people vote, as I'm sure some do. But that's just it, only some unintelligent people vote, whereas pretty much all intelligent and/or informed people feel compelled to vote.
So in a way there is already a barrier to unintelligent voters, it just happens to be self-imposed. As for the idea of a test itself, it will only compound the issue of low voter turnout, as there are plenty of people who would be capable of passing the test, but wouldn't want to devote an hour or two to it. Furthermore, the test is a bit extreme, edging on trivia. It is possible for an intelligent person to make a rational informed decision without knowing what number president Ford was. A markedly shorter test focused on current events and logical ability would be both less damaging to the system, and more relevant to voting, but I still don't think it would be necessary and would not personally support even that suggestion.
In a free society, voting is a right and not a privilege. Putting a test into the whole process will do nothing but annoy all voters, regardless of "intellect".
Umm...trick question it is both. The Entente aka Triple Entente was known as the Allies and then you had the Central Powers, United States being on the former. So did you just invalidate yourself from voting? You could call the Central Powers the Triple Alliance but that was Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy prior to World War One.Paragon Fury said:
OK, OK. If you want to be technical, yes, you probably over-ruled me there.Kwil said:
(not that dealing with old languages is an exact science.)
But, since my source is Indiana Jones... -shrug-
someone must have gotten that concept from somewhere, but obviously, it's not demonstrable that it would be a reliable source.