Literacy Tests?

[Semper Fi]

I was thinking the other day. Does it sound feasible to have a test to have to pass before getting the right to vote? That way we don't have mindless robots (celebrities and the girls from that Outback show come to mind) going to the polls and voting what they think is "right", because the man on the screen said it was. It wouldnt be like the literacy tests of pre-Civil War south, but more of an interview, asking if you contribute to society, if you at all have an interest in politics, ect. I think it sounds like a good idea. If your not smart enough to pass the test, it'll be another 4 years for you. That kind of ammends the constitution, so that may be a problem.

 

[dmp]

No tests - just give that power to me. I'll make the decisions on who has the right to vote or not.

 

[mattskramer]

Yes, I think that prospective voters should be required to pass a simple test that would measure their abilities to pay attention and follow instructions. It would not ask whether or not they contribute to society. It would not ask about their interest in politics. I would measure their ability to read and follow simple instructions. For it to be fair, it should be given to every prospective voter but perhaps some emphasis should be placed on Florida Democrats.

 

[Avatar4321]

It will never happen. There were literacy tests in the past down south. They were used in a way to keep Blacks from voting. and even though times have changed i doubt there is going to be a strong movement of people supporting requiring literacy tests which have had a racist past.

 

[HGROKIT]

Perhpas someone should be a bit concerned about the constitutionality of such and endeavor?

 

[Semper Fi]

Yeah, thats what I was thinking would be the flaw. The Constitution, however, is a living document. So it can change.

Oh and Avatar, I noted that in my first post. That test was ridiculously hard, none of my eighth grade classmates passed it, let alone any 19th century farmers and sharecroppers (no offense). I should have said not a literacy test, but more of an interview, to make sure we're not dealing with a bunch of ditzy pot-heads.

And Im wondering, what is the politcally correct term for a person with dark skin? Negro is frowned upon, AA is segratory, in a way. Black is the only real choice, but its a bit harsh, in my opinion. But you cant say 'the blacks' without being a racist or a redneck in the eyes of the common American. I dont know, I just avoid it alltogether.

 

[William Joyce]

Originally posted above
Perhpas someone should be a bit concerned about the constitutionality of such and endeavor?

The Constitution does not guarantee the right to vote. Women, 18-year-olds and blacks are given the right to vote vis a vis others, but. If a state wanted to pull up the right to vote on everyone, nothing in the Constitution would prevent this. The Supreme Court would probably lie and say it did, however, so none of you ninny-heads need fear that the punk with the lip ring, age 19, won't be able to vote for John Kerry.

The extension of the franchise was the beginning of the end. Democracy makes the stupid relevant. They shouldn't be. But there they are. Please everyone, and you do nothing of consequence. Thus, our elected leaders do nothing of consequence.

Not that it matters, really. Those with a will to power will get it, neverminding the right of all people to vote. Those who sought power during the age of kings just had to do it a little differently, that's all. The same sorts always seem to float upward, no matter what political system you put in place. We all like to pretend we're so enlightened and different from our ancestors, but I doubt it.

Democracy is the same sham that monarchy was --- it just has better public relations.

 

[NightTrain]

William, you didn't work a vast Jewish conspiracy into your post... are you feeling okay?

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by NightTrain
William, you didn't work a vast Jewish conspiracy into your post... are you feeling okay?

Wow, you're correct. I thought we must have misread, but no, not a one! :clap1:

 

[Big D]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
It will never happen. There were literacy tests in the past down south. They were used in a way to keep Blacks from voting. and even though times have changed i doubt there is going to be a strong movement of people supporting requiring literacy tests which have had a racist past.

Blacks vote for other blacks no matter what, does the name Marion Berry ring a bell?

 

[menewa]

Originally posted by Big D
Blacks vote for other blacks no matter what, does the name Marion Berry ring a bell?

Not true. Recently, there have been Christian oriented blacks from the South switching to the Republican party due to the abortion issue even though every black member of the House is a Democrat.

However, I think it's interesting that, IMO, the best Republican running in the 2000 presidential primaries was Alan Keyes, a black man. McCain was my second fave at that time. How the hell did Bush beat those two? I still don't understand that one.

As for the voting test, any tests would probably be too subjective. How does one decide who has a politically sound mindset and who does not? Such a test would verge on fascism.

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by William Joyce
The Constitution does not guarantee the right to vote. Women, 18-year-olds and blacks are given the right to vote vis a vis others, but. If a state wanted to pull up the right to vote on everyone, nothing in the Constitution would prevent this. The Supreme Court would probably lie and say it did, however, so none of you ninny-heads need fear that the punk with the lip ring, age 19, won't be able to vote for John Kerry.

The extension of the franchise was the beginning of the end. Democracy makes the stupid relevant. They shouldn't be. But there they are. Please everyone, and you do nothing of consequence. Thus, our elected leaders do nothing of consequence.

Not that it matters, really. Those with a will to power will get it, neverminding the right of all people to vote. Those who sought power during the age of kings just had to do it a little differently, that's all. The same sorts always seem to float upward, no matter what political system you put in place. We all like to pretend we're so enlightened and different
from our ancestors, but I doubt it.

Democracy is the same sham that monarchy was --- it just has better public relations.

Prove any of this crap!

Hey! News Flash! This is a republic, not a democracy.

 

[Semper Fi]

Originally posted by menewa
Not true. Recently, there have been Christian oriented blacks from the South switching to the Republican party due to the abortion issue even though every black member of the House is a Democrat.

However, I think it's interesting that, IMO, the best Republican running in the 2000 presidential primaries was Alan Keyes, a black man. McCain was my second fave at that time. How the hell did Bush beat those two? I still don't understand that one.

As for the voting test, any tests would probably be too subjective. How does one decide who has a politically sound mindset and who does not? Such a test would verge on fascism.

Well it s common sense! If someone says "politics yo? Is dat be like pot o' crack?" then they probably shouldnt vote, now should they? If people were at least respectable and even the slightest knowledgeable, then they could vote.

I made a mistake by saying this would be a test. An interview, morerather, to see if you fit either of the personalities abocve and thus could or could not vote.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Semper Fi
Yeah, thats what I was thinking would be the flaw. The Constitution, however, is a living document. So it can

Prove it.

I am batting 1000 against you guys so make it good.



I garantee a happy time for you of GNASHING of TEETH.

 

[Semper Fi]

The constitutuion is a living document, thats what the ammendments are. I think it could work if we have some sort of qualifications before you can vote, that way only the serious and contributing potent voters would take initiative to take the test/interview. As long is it isnt impossibely hard to pass and aims at segregating certain racial and ethnic groups and denying them the right to vote. If they dont pass the test, thats that. Any one could take it (provided you are 18 or over), anyone could fail or pass it.

 

[jon_forward]

why not keep it sort of simple. If you graduate from the 12th grade with a diploma(not a certificate of completion) you may vote. This simple test would pretty much rule out the mid to deep south power base of the Democrats. The party of the hand-outs instead of the hand ups would be no more.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

But I thought living in a democracy meant that everyone has a right to vote? It's a right, not a privilege or am I mistaken on that?

Why put a test on it? That's one of the things that makes this country so great is that everyone has a voice (supposedly) when it comes to voting. Wouldn't putting a test on it go against democracy?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
But I thought living in a democracy meant that everyone has a right to vote? It's a right, not a privilege or am I mistaken on that?

Why put a test on it? That's one of the things that makes this country so great is that everyone has a voice (supposedly) when it comes to voting. Wouldn't putting a test on it go against democracy?

Ordinarily i would've agreed, but who could foresee the dems working actively to keep people stupid and ignorant and dependant, question nothing, believing the lies of their federal plantation masters, and bringing our entire society down in an apoplectic fit of collectivist idiocy.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

I know where you're coming from RWA, but overall, I don't think it would be democratic to start testing just because one politcal party is starting to get a lot more active.

You know where I stand politically and you can pretty much guess that I did not vote for Bush in 2000, but that doesn't mean that I wanted to start having testing done so people could vote just because Republicans won the election. That's why it's called voting, so the majority can have what they want. Some people like the outcome, others don't, but you only have to live with it for 4 years unless the same person becomes re-elected.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
I know where you're coming from RWA, but overall, I don't think it would be democratic to start testing just because one politcal party is starting to get a lot more active.

You know where I stand politically and you can pretty much guess that I did not vote for Bush in 2000, but that doesn't mean that I wanted to start having testing done so people could vote just because Republicans won the election. That's why it's called voting, so the majority can have what they want. Some people like the outcome, others don't, but you only have to live with it for 4 years unless the same person becomes re-elected.

The dems are intentionally creating government controlled idiots, by ruining the education system, by eliminating standards and achievement on the grounds that they're racially biased. They do this full well knowing it's not in the best interest of the people, it's in the best interest of the big government liberals.