CDZ Is Debate Essential to Democracy?

[Picaro]

I do not think a debate is appropriate at a social gathering, but sometimes I obliquely touch on a political subject just to test a person's character and intelligence.

True, but in some cases that's why people like Dershowitz get invited to dinners, because everybody there will be political junkies of one stripe or another, and it's expected there will be fights.

That used to be true in liberal circles 50 years ago, but today's "progressives" are only interested in associating with others who parrot the party line.

Progressives aren't the only people who give parties aimed at political discussions or other themes. I agree a party organized by a Party apparatchik would more boring than a Karl Marx lecture at a Harvard wine tasting, though, just a room full of mentally ill sexual deviants and ass kissing morons.

 

[Asclepias]

Alan Dershowitz complained bitterly in The Hill that his erstwhile friends on Martha's Vineyard have "shunned" him and refuse to invite him to their parties and dinners. This has hit the news cycle and a lot of op-eds have been written about it, most about how uncivil leftists now are. Dershowitz claims to be a major progressive, though I'd say that's in doubt: he's issue-centric. I remember when he was a great torture fan during the Bush Administration. Now he's written a couple of sort-of pro-Trump books, though really they are about the legal issues around impeachment and criminalizing political activity, fair enough. I mean to read both.

The problem is that Dershowitz asserts that open debate is central to democracy: essential to democracy. So my guess is that a lot of his "shunning" is because he's a REALLY bad dinner guest. Age 79, so he's got senior status and doesn't care what he says; and the best trial lawyer in the nation, I bet this guy never loses an argument, and that's seriously annoying. So when he comes to their parties, he argues all night about politics and wins ---- yeah, I'd stop inviting him, too. He's a pain.

But dozens of talkers have been writing op-eds and books all over claiming the same: that we HAVE to debate, have to talk (or yell) it all out, that this is essential to democracy. I don't agree --- I always thought it was the Secret Ballot that was central to democracy, and that's the exact opposite from quarreling it out. The secret ballot means you watch the news, you see what's going on, you vote and no one knows who you voted for unless you tell them, and that's how Trump won: we didn't tell.

Here we volunteer for debate. I have limits on it: I put the one-line obscene insult posters on ignore directly, and a lot of the others who are longer but just as nasty. Nevertheless, I'm here by choice when I am. But that family reunion in Boston this summer? Not really a choice, and I expect they will try to eat me up. I'm reading a lot of personal boundaries books so I can avoid being a victim, and I'll leave if people are rude. I won't talk politics no matter what! I'm announcing the old etiquette rule: in general company, never talk about politics, religion, or money.

What do you all think about the determination of many to argue politics in-person at social meetings?

The only way debate is not essential is if you live on a deserted island. Debate forces you to support your argument. In doing so you are educated in other things you may not have considered in forming your opinion.

 

[Kosh]

Alan Dershowitz complained bitterly in The Hill that his erstwhile friends on Martha's Vineyard have "shunned" him and refuse to invite him to their parties and dinners. This has hit the news cycle and a lot of op-eds have been written about it, most about how uncivil leftists now are. Dershowitz claims to be a major progressive, though I'd say that's in doubt: he's issue-centric. I remember when he was a great torture fan during the Bush Administration. Now he's written a couple of sort-of pro-Trump books, though really they are about the legal issues around impeachment and criminalizing political activity, fair enough. I mean to read both.

The problem is that Dershowitz asserts that open debate is central to democracy: essential to democracy. So my guess is that a lot of his "shunning" is because he's a REALLY bad dinner guest. Age 79, so he's got senior status and doesn't care what he says; and the best trial lawyer in the nation, I bet this guy never loses an argument, and that's seriously annoying. So when he comes to their parties, he argues all night about politics and wins ---- yeah, I'd stop inviting him, too. He's a pain.

But dozens of talkers have been writing op-eds and books all over claiming the same: that we HAVE to debate, have to talk (or yell) it all out, that this is essential to democracy. I don't agree --- I always thought it was the Secret Ballot that was central to democracy, and that's the exact opposite from quarreling it out. The secret ballot means you watch the news, you see what's going on, you vote and no one knows who you voted for unless you tell them, and that's how Trump won: we didn't tell.

Here we volunteer for debate. I have limits on it: I put the one-line obscene insult posters on ignore directly, and a lot of the others who are longer but just as nasty. Nevertheless, I'm here by choice when I am. But that family reunion in Boston this summer? Not really a choice, and I expect they will try to eat me up. I'm reading a lot of personal boundaries books so I can avoid being a victim, and I'll leave if people are rude. I won't talk politics no matter what! I'm announcing the old etiquette rule: in general company, never talk about politics, religion, or money.

What do you all think about the determination of many to argue politics in-person at social meetings?

Of course debate is essential.

However the far left do not debate, they just run debunked narratives endlessly, year after year.

They are incapable of having a debate, because they do not know any facts or the true history of anything!

 

[Foxfyre]

Alan Dershowitz complained bitterly in The Hill that his erstwhile friends on Martha's Vineyard have "shunned" him and refuse to invite him to their parties and dinners. This has hit the news cycle and a lot of op-eds have been written about it, most about how uncivil leftists now are. Dershowitz claims to be a major progressive, though I'd say that's in doubt: he's issue-centric. I remember when he was a great torture fan during the Bush Administration. Now he's written a couple of sort-of pro-Trump books, though really they are about the legal issues around impeachment and criminalizing political activity, fair enough. I mean to read both.

The problem is that Dershowitz asserts that open debate is central to democracy: essential to democracy. So my guess is that a lot of his "shunning" is because he's a REALLY bad dinner guest. Age 79, so he's got senior status and doesn't care what he says; and the best trial lawyer in the nation, I bet this guy never loses an argument, and that's seriously annoying. So when he comes to their parties, he argues all night about politics and wins ---- yeah, I'd stop inviting him, too. He's a pain.

But dozens of talkers have been writing op-eds and books all over claiming the same: that we HAVE to debate, have to talk (or yell) it all out, that this is essential to democracy. I don't agree --- I always thought it was the Secret Ballot that was central to democracy, and that's the exact opposite from quarreling it out. The secret ballot means you watch the news, you see what's going on, you vote and no one knows who you voted for unless you tell them, and that's how Trump won: we didn't tell.

Here we volunteer for debate. I have limits on it: I put the one-line obscene insult posters on ignore directly, and a lot of the others who are longer but just as nasty. Nevertheless, I'm here by choice when I am. But that family reunion in Boston this summer? Not really a choice, and I expect they will try to eat me up. I'm reading a lot of personal boundaries books so I can avoid being a victim, and I'll leave if people are rude. I won't talk politics no matter what! I'm announcing the old etiquette rule: in general company, never talk about politics, religion, or money.

What do you all think about the determination of many to argue politics in-person at social meetings?

Of course debate is essential.

However the far left do not debate, they just run debunked narratives endlessly, year after year.

They are incapable of having a debate, because they do not know any facts or the true history of anything!

In the Alinsky model that has coached most of the left, the game plan is clear, i.e. forbid, prohibit, shame, shout down, drown out, terrorize, bully, embarrass or otherwise make impossible any point of view that doesn't fit the doctrine being preached. And if that isn't possible then you organize to attack the other point of view using argumentum absurdum or non sequitur to interrupt any legitimate argument or promotion. And they usually show up in numbers at town halls, rallies, on social media, on message boards etc. to make sure no legitimate argument or promotion happens.

Examples: If anybody argues on the basis of constitutional orginalism, they will interrupt the rationale to insist the Founders were greedy land owners, racists, and slave owners and therefore not credible. If anybody argues that something the President said or did produced good results, they show up in numbers to change the subject to some quip he said at a campaign rally or focus on his businesses that failed or Russia or Stormy Daniels etc. And they don't much care how much they exaggerate or are dishonest when they do it. They often use the same technique, even the same arguments to divert the discussion from bad behavior from those on their side.

You rarely, if ever, hear a coherent argument from the left that specifically argues another point of view. Most could not make such an argument if their lives depended on it. They are so trained to insult and disparage the messenger and/or the personality, and to ignore the consequences of what they do, they long ago lost any semblance of objectivity. And once they gain all the power, then we no longer have America as we have known it. We have Russia. We have China. We have North Korea. We have Cuba.

So yes, democracy is dependent on free and open exchange and expression of ideas, beliefs, concepts, values more than any other factor. There is no such thing as an informed vote without allowing a national debate on whatever issues are being voted on. People who vote on personalities rather than substance, manufactured demons instead of reality, and who do not hear or participate in that free and open exchange of points of view, are the most uninformed voters of all. And can be manipulated any way necessary to destroy democracy and establish totalitarian government.

 

[Circe]

IMHO what has to stop is the intimidation from the ANTIFAs and others, mostly from the Left. If you attend a Repub event, from a town hall meeting to a debate to whatever else, you are risking being attacked. Especially in a swing state or district where the seat is up for grabs, these days protests and counter protests are becoming more prevalent with the possibility of turning violent. Who wants to get involved with anything like that?

Then there's the intimidation to our elected reps and gov't officials, harassment is over the top and I think going to get worse. Geez, a person ought to be allowed to think and support whatever policies and party they want without being abused for it. I wonder how many smart and talented people are avoiding public service for fear for their families.

Yes, all this is what I am worried about. Nobody on either side where I live put out any yard signs during elections and no bumper stickers AT ALL --- I've never seen this in my life, anywhere. But people are afraid of the hostility and violence, mostly from the Left.

 

[Circe]

Of course debate is essential.

However the far left do not debate, they just run debunked narratives endlessly, year after year.

They are incapable of having a debate, because they do not know any facts or the true history of anything!

I don't agree that debate per se is essential, if "debate" is a word meaning quarrel, shout, accuse, curse, be violent to the Left. And it does, and I'm not going to do that.

I think there are alternatives. Books are one: I read them like candy corn, and Dershowitz himself has two out on the recent situation. Maybe he should have rested on his laurels instead of being an obnoxious guest who WILL talk politics to the exclusion of more peaceable topics. We don't have to debate him: we can read his books and think about it all. Reading news used to be an alternative, but journalism has collapsed into leftwing screaming fits, open obscenity cursing right in the headlines, so I've had to give much of that up, except for selected periodicals that aren't as bad. Forums are a good alternative: we can see other peoples' ideas and put all the screamers on ignore. My ignore list is very long, because a lot of people just come here to screech and howl incoherently, but those who are left often have interesting perspectives.

But debate people in person I won't do. The casualty rate in relationships is way too high, and I hate the fury and hatred.

 

[RandomPoster]

Most people don't know what 'debate' is, so it's a moot issue.

Restrict voting to literate people who can pass basic civics tests on their, local, state, and Federal govts., and you have eliminated a large chunk of the Village Idiot Vote right off the bat, and THEN hold 'debates' for those demographics that have the best chance of knowing what is being 'debated'; it's not a magic bullet, but it's basic common sense for a start. All 'debates' should be aired on our public airwaves, commercial free, and also made available in writing, and elections should be publicly funded, not by piles of PAC bribes and laundered foreign money, etc.

If you can't be bothered to learn basic civics, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote, period. We have school house all over the place where classes can be held for those not up to speed, so no excuses for not knowing the whats and hows of your govts.

If you were going to implement testing and different demographics passed them at different rates, you could be accused of discrimination. In fact, it has been done. Tests were devised in the 1800s knowing that black Americans, because of a comparative lack of educational opportunities at the time, would fail them at a higher rate and be ineligible to vote.

Deciding which of your fellow law abiding citizens are and are not eligible to vote is a pretty dangerous road to go down. Want to stop poor working class people from voting in large numbers, simply devise the test so that most people who never went to college would fail it. Heck, fill it with postmodern socio-political BS and most conservatives would fail it and the leftists could take over.

 

[Picaro]

Most people don't know what 'debate' is, so it's a moot issue.

Restrict voting to literate people who can pass basic civics tests on their, local, state, and Federal govts., and you have eliminated a large chunk of the Village Idiot Vote right off the bat, and THEN hold 'debates' for those demographics that have the best chance of knowing what is being 'debated'; it's not a magic bullet, but it's basic common sense for a start. All 'debates' should be aired on our public airwaves, commercial free, and also made available in writing, and elections should be publicly funded, not by piles of PAC bribes and laundered foreign money, etc.

If you can't be bothered to learn basic civics, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote, period. We have school house all over the place where classes can be held for those not up to speed, so no excuses for not knowing the whats and hows of your govts.

If you were going to implement testing and different demographics passed them at different rates, you could be accused of discrimination. In fact, it has been done. Tests were devised in the 1800s knowing that black Americans, because of a comparative lack of educational opportunities at the time, would fail them at a higher rate and be ineligible to vote.

Deciding which of your fellow law abiding citizens are and are not eligible to vote is a pretty dangerous road to go down. Want to stop poor working class people from voting in large numbers, simply devise the test so that most people who never went to college would fail it. Heck, fill it with postmodern socio-political BS and most conservatives would fail it and the leftists could take over.

It's not '1800' any more, school attendance is nearly universal and if some demographics are still 'having issues' they are entirely self-inflicted ones caused by minority politicians getting Affirmative Action replaced by quota systems that kept their own people from educational improvements.

'Discriminating' against ignorant illiterate people is a good thing, and as my post states there are easily available means to get those who want to learn up to speed if they want to vote, no problem. If you want to build ridiculous strawmen to knock down that's fine, I'm not interested in playing that game here in the CDZ; my post is pretty straightforward, and not at all 'dangerous'.

 

[there4eyeM]

As has been pointed out, "debate" is essential, but only possible between informed, patient participants. What has passed on television as 'debate' between candidates has been, at most, response to questions from journalists. That is an interview, not a debate.
On these threads, debate is extremely rare. Most times, interchange is an excuse to trot out clichés and favorite phrases from favored personalities. Original thinking and quality idea exchange is 'infrequent', to be gentle about it.
America's cultural shunning of intellectual pursuits, philosophy and anything resembling penetrating thought handicaps quality interlocution.

 

[Picaro]

As has been pointed out, "debate" is essential, but only possible between informed, patient participants. What has passed on television as 'debate' between candidates has been, at most, response to questions from journalists. That is an interview, not a debate.
On these threads, debate is extremely rare. Most times, interchange is an excuse to trot out clichés and favorite phrases from favored personalities. Original thinking and quality idea exchange is 'infrequent', to be gentle about it.
America's cultural shunning of intellectual pursuits, philosophy and anything resembling penetrating thought handicaps quality interlocution.

Well, far too many confuse critical thinking with 'NAMBLA Logic':

"NAMBLA" logic - an extreme absolutist position which demands that for logical consistencies sake that certain gross crimes be allowed, in order that no one might feel restrained."

Stirling S. Newberry

They take formal 'logic' and turn it into ridiculous exercises in circular reasoning that run into theaters of the absurd.

 

[Foxfyre]

As has been pointed out, "debate" is essential, but only possible between informed, patient participants. What has passed on television as 'debate' between candidates has been, at most, response to questions from journalists. That is an interview, not a debate.
On these threads, debate is extremely rare. Most times, interchange is an excuse to trot out clichés and favorite phrases from favored personalities. Original thinking and quality idea exchange is 'infrequent', to be gentle about it.
America's cultural shunning of intellectual pursuits, philosophy and anything resembling penetrating thought handicaps quality interlocution.

I would not even require that participants be 'informed', but rather only that intellectual honesty is a serious component of the process. But thank you for your well reasoned and civilly expressed point of view. I believe we are of mostly a kindred spirit on this.

You are right that most interaction on message boards such as this, if there is any disagreement, quickly disintegrates into behavior so childish it would it would be off putting to most grade schoolers. Ditto for such 'debates' orchestrated on national TV that never seriously explore any issue but consists of who can be the rudest and loudest in shouting down the other.

I have resorted to recording news programs I want to watch so I can fast forward through the shouting matches and inane political spin. What intelligent person from either side of the aisle could find anything informative or edifying in that?

Debate, useful discussion, persuasive conversation is the process of exploring ALL options and possible solutions to those issues that matter. Whenever the M.O. is to discredit/shame/embarrass/ridicule/hate the messenger and/or disallow any point of view other than the one declared orthodox and worthy, we no longer have debate. Or democracy. Or a representative democratic republic.

 

[Foxfyre]

Most people don't know what 'debate' is, so it's a moot issue.

Restrict voting to literate people who can pass basic civics tests on their, local, state, and Federal govts., and you have eliminated a large chunk of the Village Idiot Vote right off the bat, and THEN hold 'debates' for those demographics that have the best chance of knowing what is being 'debated'; it's not a magic bullet, but it's basic common sense for a start. All 'debates' should be aired on our public airwaves, commercial free, and also made available in writing, and elections should be publicly funded, not by piles of PAC bribes and laundered foreign money, etc.

If you can't be bothered to learn basic civics, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote, period. We have school house all over the place where classes can be held for those not up to speed, so no excuses for not knowing the whats and hows of your govts.

If you were going to implement testing and different demographics passed them at different rates, you could be accused of discrimination. In fact, it has been done. Tests were devised in the 1800s knowing that black Americans, because of a comparative lack of educational opportunities at the time, would fail them at a higher rate and be ineligible to vote.

Deciding which of your fellow law abiding citizens are and are not eligible to vote is a pretty dangerous road to go down. Want to stop poor working class people from voting in large numbers, simply devise the test so that most people who never went to college would fail it. Heck, fill it with postmodern socio-political BS and most conservatives would fail it and the leftists could take over.

It's not '1800' any more, school attendance is nearly universal and if some demographics are still 'having issues' they are entirely self-inflicted ones caused by minority politicians getting Affirmative Action replaced by quota systems that kept their own people from educational improvements.

'Discriminating' against ignorant illiterate people is a good thing, and as my post states there are easily available means to get those who want to learn up to speed if they want to vote, no problem. If you want to build ridiculous strawmen to knock down that's fine, I'm not interested in playing that game here in the CDZ; my post is pretty straightforward, and not at all 'dangerous'.

I have myself struggled with this one. How could a political literacy test be structured so that either side would not see it as dangerous if administered by the other side?

I would rather see the rules tightened across the nation to what they once were. Those who wanted to vote got themselves to the count/city clerk's office, provide proof of identity and residency, and registered themselves to vote and they had to do that some weeks before the election so that the registry could be completed and checked for accuracy before it was printed.

And they had to get themselves to the polls on election day to cast their vote.

Those who did that were the motivated and most likely informed electorate. Those unwilling to do that were most likely neither motivated nor informed and should not be voting period.

NOTE: You and I just had a civil difference of opinion on this topic, we didn't need to insult anybody, use a childish insulting name for anybody, express any assigned talking points or the slogan of the day. And we left the discussion open for the other to respond civilly and thoughtfully with the possibility that if we continue to exchange pros and cons as we see it, we might at some point achieve agreement or at least compromise that we both could live with.

When there is no room for discussion, compromise, give and take, and respect for the right of another to express his/her opinion without inviting retaliation, there is no debate.

And when there is no debate there soon will be no democracy, no representative democratic republic.

 

[Picaro]

Most people don't know what 'debate' is, so it's a moot issue.

Restrict voting to literate people who can pass basic civics tests on their, local, state, and Federal govts., and you have eliminated a large chunk of the Village Idiot Vote right off the bat, and THEN hold 'debates' for those demographics that have the best chance of knowing what is being 'debated'; it's not a magic bullet, but it's basic common sense for a start. All 'debates' should be aired on our public airwaves, commercial free, and also made available in writing, and elections should be publicly funded, not by piles of PAC bribes and laundered foreign money, etc.

If you can't be bothered to learn basic civics, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote, period. We have school house all over the place where classes can be held for those not up to speed, so no excuses for not knowing the whats and hows of your govts.

If you were going to implement testing and different demographics passed them at different rates, you could be accused of discrimination. In fact, it has been done. Tests were devised in the 1800s knowing that black Americans, because of a comparative lack of educational opportunities at the time, would fail them at a higher rate and be ineligible to vote.

Deciding which of your fellow law abiding citizens are and are not eligible to vote is a pretty dangerous road to go down. Want to stop poor working class people from voting in large numbers, simply devise the test so that most people who never went to college would fail it. Heck, fill it with postmodern sociopolitical BS and most conservatives would fail it and the leftists could take over.

It's not '1800' any more, school attendance is nearly universal and if some demographics are still 'having issues' they are entirely self-inflicted ones caused by minority politicians getting Affirmative Action replaced by quota systems that kept their own people from educational improvements.

'Discriminating' against ignorant illiterate people is a good thing, and as my post states there are easily available means to get those who want to learn up to speed if they want to vote, no problem. If you want to build ridiculous strawmen to knock down that's fine, I'm not interested in playing that game here in the CDZ; my post is pretty straightforward, and not at all 'dangerous'.

I have myself struggled with this one. How could a political literacy test be structured so that either side would not see it as dangerous if administered by the other side?

Well, we already have many fine college textbooks out there that explain the various divisions of powers, explain the differences between the types of government organizational methods, like 'Strong Mayor' vs 'City manager' type structures, how the tax revenues flow to say, the Water and Sewer Dept., etc., what the GAO is supposed to do, the functions of the CBO, State Dept., Congress, etc. I really don't get a sense of what you're struggling with as far as basic Civics education goes. Ideological rubbish is not what I'm talking about when advocating civics tests, nor am I talking about having to become a lawyer and having to explain a couple centuries of Supreme Court decisions or anything like that.

I would rather see the rules tightened across the nation to what they once were. Those who wanted to vote got themselves to the count/city clerk's office, provide proof of identity and residency, and registered themselves to vote and they had to do that some weeks before the election so that the registry could be completed and checked for accuracy before it was printed..

Agreed.

 

[Foxfyre]

Most people don't know what 'debate' is, so it's a moot issue.

Restrict voting to literate people who can pass basic civics tests on their, local, state, and Federal govts., and you have eliminated a large chunk of the Village Idiot Vote right off the bat, and THEN hold 'debates' for those demographics that have the best chance of knowing what is being 'debated'; it's not a magic bullet, but it's basic common sense for a start. All 'debates' should be aired on our public airwaves, commercial free, and also made available in writing, and elections should be publicly funded, not by piles of PAC bribes and laundered foreign money, etc.

If you can't be bothered to learn basic civics, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote, period. We have school house all over the place where classes can be held for those not up to speed, so no excuses for not knowing the whats and hows of your govts.

If you were going to implement testing and different demographics passed them at different rates, you could be accused of discrimination. In fact, it has been done. Tests were devised in the 1800s knowing that black Americans, because of a comparative lack of educational opportunities at the time, would fail them at a higher rate and be ineligible to vote.

Deciding which of your fellow law abiding citizens are and are not eligible to vote is a pretty dangerous road to go down. Want to stop poor working class people from voting in large numbers, simply devise the test so that most people who never went to college would fail it. Heck, fill it with postmodern sociopolitical BS and most conservatives would fail it and the leftists could take over.

It's not '1800' any more, school attendance is nearly universal and if some demographics are still 'having issues' they are entirely self-inflicted ones caused by minority politicians getting Affirmative Action replaced by quota systems that kept their own people from educational improvements.

'Discriminating' against ignorant illiterate people is a good thing, and as my post states there are easily available means to get those who want to learn up to speed if they want to vote, no problem. If you want to build ridiculous strawmen to knock down that's fine, I'm not interested in playing that game here in the CDZ; my post is pretty straightforward, and not at all 'dangerous'.

I have myself struggled with this one. How could a political literacy test be structured so that either side would not see it as dangerous if administered by the other side?

Well, we already have many fine college textbooks out there that explain the various divisions of powers, explain the differences between the types of government organizational methods, like 'Strong Mayor' vs 'City manager' type structures, how the tax revenues flow to say, the Water and Sewer Dept., etc., what the GAO is supposed to do, the functions of the CBO, State Dept., Congress, etc. I really don't get a sense of what you're struggling with as far as basic Civics education goes. Ideological rubbish is not what I'm talking about when advocating civics tests, nor am I talking about having to become a lawyer and having to explain a couple centuries of Supreme Court decisions or anything like that.

<<Foxfyre snipped out the remainder of your post so it would not get confused with the part quoted>>​

As I see it, a proficiency (in anything) test that would qualify somebody to vote and whatever criteria applies to the other entities you listed are not comparable. They are entirely different things.

I am with you re those who have no clue who they are voting for or why do the country or themselves no service when they vote just to obey somebody's order or are paid to go vote for the name on the piece of paper they are given.

But. . .

I simply see no way to design a test as a qualification to vote that would pass muster with or meet the smell test of 'motive' and/or political advantage and possible legal issues. But I also try to keep an open mind on these things and if you could illustrate how such a test could be worded, I'll listen.

 

[Picaro]

As I see it, a proficiency (in anything) test that would qualify somebody to vote and whatever criteria applies to the other entities you listed are not comparable. They are entirely different things.

Like what? I still don't see your point here.

But. . .

I simply see no way to design a test as a qualification to vote that would pass muster with or meet the smell test of 'motive' and/or political advantage and possible legal issues. But I also try to keep an open mind on these things and if you could illustrate how such a test could be worded, I'll listen.

You would have problems with questions like" What are the three branches of the Federal government', or similar questions? How is that sort of knowledge 'biased'? And, as I've said in other posts, the tests could be divided between local, state, and Federal tests; some people actually don't vote in all of them or want to, and wouldn't need to take some Big Giant Opus Exam all at one time or anything.

 

[jwoodie]

But debate people in person I won't do. The casualty rate in relationships is way too high, and I hate the fury and hatred.

Conservatives are generally willing to discuss their views with "progressives," but the reverse is generally not true. The hate and fury almost always come from the Left.

 

[Foxfyre]

As I see it, a proficiency (in anything) test that would qualify somebody to vote and whatever criteria applies to the other entities you listed are not comparable. They are entirely different things.

Like what? I still don't see your point here.

But. . .

I simply see no way to design a test as a qualification to vote that would pass muster with or meet the smell test of 'motive' and/or political advantage and possible legal issues. But I also try to keep an open mind on these things and if you could illustrate how such a test could be worded, I'll listen.

You would have problems with questions like" What are the three branches of the Federal government', or similar questions? How is that sort of knowledge 'biased'? And, as I've said in other posts, the tests could be divided between local, state, and Federal tests; some people actually don't vote in all of them or want to, and wouldn't need to take some Big Giant Opus Exam all at one time or anything.

I don't see that particular question as biased, but I also don't see it as necessary to know that to know whether you want "John Doe" to lead the country or somebody else or whether you want him to be your representative in Congress because he knows stuff like that or whatever.

 

[saveliberty]

As I see it, a proficiency (in anything) test that would qualify somebody to vote and whatever criteria applies to the other entities you listed are not comparable. They are entirely different things.

Like what? I still don't see your point here.

But. . .

I simply see no way to design a test as a qualification to vote that would pass muster with or meet the smell test of 'motive' and/or political advantage and possible legal issues. But I also try to keep an open mind on these things and if you could illustrate how such a test could be worded, I'll listen.

You would have problems with questions like" What are the three branches of the Federal government', or similar questions? How is that sort of knowledge 'biased'? And, as I've said in other posts, the tests could be divided between local, state, and Federal tests; some people actually don't vote in all of them or want to, and wouldn't need to take some Big Giant Opus Exam all at one time or anything.

That sounds more like government mechanics/citizenship testing. I would be more interested in personal maturity of a voter.

 

[RandomPoster]

Most people don't know what 'debate' is, so it's a moot issue.

Restrict voting to literate people who can pass basic civics tests on their, local, state, and Federal govts., and you have eliminated a large chunk of the Village Idiot Vote right off the bat, and THEN hold 'debates' for those demographics that have the best chance of knowing what is being 'debated'; it's not a magic bullet, but it's basic common sense for a start. All 'debates' should be aired on our public airwaves, commercial free, and also made available in writing, and elections should be publicly funded, not by piles of PAC bribes and laundered foreign money, etc.

If you can't be bothered to learn basic civics, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote, period. We have school house all over the place where classes can be held for those not up to speed, so no excuses for not knowing the whats and hows of your govts.

If you were going to implement testing and different demographics passed them at different rates, you could be accused of discrimination. In fact, it has been done. Tests were devised in the 1800s knowing that black Americans, because of a comparative lack of educational opportunities at the time, would fail them at a higher rate and be ineligible to vote.

Deciding which of your fellow law abiding citizens are and are not eligible to vote is a pretty dangerous road to go down. Want to stop poor working class people from voting in large numbers, simply devise the test so that most people who never went to college would fail it. Heck, fill it with postmodern socio-political BS and most conservatives would fail it and the leftists could take over.

It's not '1800' any more, school attendance is nearly universal and if some demographics are still 'having issues' they are entirely self-inflicted ones caused by minority politicians getting Affirmative Action replaced by quota systems that kept their own people from educational improvements.

'Discriminating' against ignorant illiterate people is a good thing, and as my post states there are easily available means to get those who want to learn up to speed if they want to vote, no problem. If you want to build ridiculous strawmen to knock down that's fine, I'm not interested in playing that game here in the CDZ; my post is pretty straightforward, and not at all 'dangerous'.

It is dangerous. There is a potential for abuse. Who determines how difficult it is going to be and what exact subjects it will cover? I am not in favor of any system that would likely result in disproportionately denying the law abiding members of certain races and economic groups the right to vote nor am I in favor of the divisive resentment it would almost assuredly bring.

We need to focus our efforts on voter IDs and document the person's unique voter ID as well as a fingerprint and photo taken at registration to prevent illegal aliens from voting.

 

[RandomPoster]

As much as people criticize internet discussions, I personally prefer the debates I have online to verbal discussion I have in real life. The removal of direct personal interaction improves the experience immensely. Think about it, we do our best work when we isolate ourselves from the world and focus entirely on the issue at hand without all the distractions and emotions involved in most human interactions.

We should listen to what others say whether we actually care how they feel or not because the best ideas will always flourish in a fair exchange of speech. Civility is not based on assumption of middle ground, it's about the fair exchange of ideas, removing emotions from the equation, and maintaining sportsmanship. Compassionate people follow rules of fair play and decency. They do what is right even when it may not be to their own advantage.