Why the objection to literacy tests for potential voters?

[del]

It's not like anyone is denied an education nowadays. If you can't read/write English, you don't know what form of government the US has, or you can't name the two houses of Congress, why the fuck should your be allowed to vote and fuck this country up more?

i see people on these boards every day who are, QED, *literate* and interested in politics, who think that the 3 branches of govt are the house,senate and president, who think that obama is up for reelection this year or who think that obama's term runs through 2016. it's not confined to the right nor the left, nor dem nor republican.

and you think a literacy test would fix that?

 

[Si modo]

It's not like anyone is denied an education nowadays. If you can't read/write English, you don't know what form of government the US has, or you can't name the two houses of Congress, why the fuck should your be allowed to vote and fuck this country up more?

i see people on these boards every day who are, QED, *literate* and interested in politics, who think that the 3 branches of govt are the house,senate and president, who think that obama is up for reelection this year or who think that obama's term runs through 2016. it's not confined to the right nor the left, nor dem nor republican.

and you think a literacy test would fix that?

No matter how hard Man tries, we cannot escape the fact that the shape of the distribution of traits in a population is bell shaped. We need to stop trying, especially government.

 

[Xenophon]

It's not like anyone is denied an education nowadays. If you can't read/write English, you don't know what form of government the US has, or you can't name the two houses of Congress, why the fuck should your be allowed to vote and fuck this country up more?

You can make a valid argument that smart people have done far more damage in government then stupid people.

 

[editec]

There is no citizen test for people born in the USA.

There should be.

Democracy is too important to let retarded people be manipulated by more intelligent but essentially sociopthic personalities.

There's tests to establish if you're smart enough to drive, but none to determine if you are smart enough to decide who should commandeer our nation.

It's absurd.

 

[Xenophon]

The major problem I have with literacy is this, you end up thinking a lot about the nature of the world and find out what a fucking farce the entire blue ball is and so to have any chance of happiness you have to drink your literacy away.

That and the fact that it makes your eyes go to shit.

Oh, and the poetry of Harold Pinter.

Whiney bitch.

 

[Si modo]

The major problem I have with literacy is this, you end up thinking a lot about the nature of the world and find out what a fucking farce the entire blue ball is and so to have any chance of happiness you have to drink your literacy away.

That and the fact that it makes your eyes go to shit.

Oh, and the poetry of Harold Pinter.

Whiney bitch.

Your and JW's interaction cracks me up.

 

[jillian]

Most still are.

How can anyone who doesn't demonstrate a basic knowledge of the nation, the language in which its laws are written, and the form of its government be trusted to participate in the government?

Who's to say what 'basic knowledge of the nation' means?

i see people make pronouncements on this board every day about our government that I know would never be made by anyone who ever actually studied it would make. I see pretend constitutionalists make pronouncements about what our constitution is every day that I know none of them would ever make if they had ever studied constitutional law.

Do I get to judge what 'knowledge' means?

I think not. And THAT isn't what was intended by our form of government.

Or should we just let those in power vote for us since apparently people are too stupid to vote?

If you're a citizen of this country over voting age, you get to vote. Or should we disenfranchise someone who's written english perhaps isn't as good as their conversational english? do we have a literacy requirement? Nope.

Absolutely right on! Why put up more barriers to democracy? Why disenfranchise people based on snobbish, elitist 'principles' designed to alienate one group from another? What's next? A civics test to assure one's vote is according to a given ideology or political philosophy? Making sure only property owners, men and earners get to vote while those who need the democratic process the most.

I think you'll find if you look at who likes the idea of testing people before they can vote, you aren't looking at 'elitists'. I think you're looking at racism in the first instance, particulary by people who mention 'language' and talk about how blacks score on tests. Those aren't 'elitists' in the sense they're generally referred to (by those same people, btw) on this board.

Anyone who is a citizen by the naturalization process has already taken a basic citizenship test. They probably know more about this country than the people demanding the test and I believe before they take that test, they have to be able to speak English, but I'm not certain of that.

So who are they talking about? Black people. Minorities... people who were born in this country but raised in spanish (or other) speaking communities -- people they think won't pass the test and people they think don't vote like them. And, as you said, seems to be they don't see lower class whites as being excluded. I'm thinking that's pretty funny.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. What percent of Americans who vote would you guess are illiterate?

2. What do you suppose the cost would be to literacy test 100% of registered voters to weed out those in 1.?

 

[amrchaos]

It is due to literacy tests were used to discrimnate against minority voters. I hear that there are documented cases where the tests was changed so that White voters in some states where given easier tests than their non-white counter-parts.


Also, is not a diploma all that one would need to demonstrate mastery of basic knowledge. Why then institute a literacy test if one hold a highschool diploma or GED? Why not put the requirement at holding a degree or diploma of applicable knowledge or pass a random literacy test?

By the way, you do not need to know how to write/read English to know the form of government the US has nor be able to state the names of two houses of congress in order to have a precise opinion on who you wish to chose to represent you in matters of government. All you really need to know is where a politician stand and decide if that individual represents your particular interests or not. No need for formal literacy nor education about the ins and outs of US government for that.

Come to think about it--this is not really a good topic, prolat. Are you probing the boards?

 

[del]

lysdexics of the world, untie!

 

[amrchaos]

Everyone of the proper age has a protected right to vote.

They should not.

Voting should be reserved for those willing to learn what they're voting on.

The 'universal right to vote' is abuse- it enables those in power to manipulate the ignorant masses into supporting them. The useful idiots are a tool used by the elite to oppress the People.

So--in other words--you wish to have a meritocracy staffed with Technocrats??

Then I have a question--why not reserve the right to vote only to lawyers that pass the bar exam in a state or district of the US.

They can demonstrate how to pose legal arguements and are better equiped to become a Congressperson than say the average citizen.

 

[amrchaos]

. And THAT isn't what was intended by our form of government.

Not true.

The FF clearly intended for one class to rule over the rest. That's why only landed gentry could vote. If you plan to appeal to the FF, you'll have a hard time arguing for what you seem to want.

Or should we just let those in power vote for us since apparently people are too stupid to vote?

People know they're too stupid to govern themselves. That's why they turn to kings and gods to tell them what to do. The People need a strong hand to guide them.

If you're a citizen of this country over voting age, you get to vote.

Why should person A get to control the government and not person B, just because they were born a mile apart, on opposite sides of a lie on a map. when neither has demonstrated competency?

The concept of citizenship as it exists is mutually exclusive with the universal rights you advocate.

I have an issue of referring to the founding fathers in terms on how we should govern today.

Remember folks, the FF gave us this government--to do with as we please. So whatever their intentions were then, tough. What matters is our intentions today. If we want more lbertarin approach, or more diverse opinions then we can ammend the constitution in order to gain those things we want. What we surmise is the FF opinions should be treated as advise(if it is actually stated) or worst, warnings read through tea leaves(If it is not stated!!)

The best that the founding fathers can do for us now has been written. They have given us all the advice that they can come up with in terms of problems that will face the nation. The idea of standing of their graves in order to channel their opinion is a propagandist technique to win an argument based on the views of an 18th centurary gentlement that may not fully understand the problems we are facing today.

I say to you--should we not work in the spirit of egalitarianism and rule justly as we see fit, or should we constantly confront a ouija board whenever someone ask the question "Is this what our long dead FF envisioned?" Our forefathers gave us this wonderful gift--our Republic. But it is now left to us to think wisely and how to govern ourselves!!

 

[amrchaos]

Who's to say what 'basic knowledge of the nation' means?

i see people make pronouncements on this board every day about our government that I know would never be made by anyone who ever actually studied it would make. I see pretend constitutionalists make pronouncements about what our constitution is every day that I know none of them would ever make if they had ever studied constitutional law.

Do I get to judge what 'knowledge' means?

I think not. And THAT isn't what was intended by our form of government.

Or should we just let those in power vote for us since apparently people are too stupid to vote?

If you're a citizen of this country over voting age, you get to vote. Or should we disenfranchise someone who's written english perhaps isn't as good as their conversational english? do we have a literacy requirement? Nope.

Absolutely right on! Why put up more barriers to democracy? Why disenfranchise people based on snobbish, elitist 'principles' designed to alienate one group from another? What's next? A civics test to assure one's vote is according to a given ideology or political philosophy? Making sure only property owners, men and earners get to vote while those who need the democratic process the most.

I think you'll find if you look at who likes the idea of testing people before they can vote, you aren't looking at 'elitists'. I think you're looking at racism in the first instance, particulary by people who mention 'language' and talk about how blacks score on tests. Those aren't 'elitists' in the sense they're generally referred to (by those same people, btw) on this board.

Anyone who is a citizen by the naturalization process has already taken a basic citizenship test. They probably know more about this country than the people demanding the test and I believe before they take that test, they have to be able to speak English, but I'm not certain of that.

So who are they talking about? Black people. Minorities... people who were born in this country but raised in spanish (or other) speaking communities -- people they think won't pass the test and people they think don't vote like them. And, as you said, seems to be they don't see lower class whites as being excluded. I'm thinking that's pretty funny.

Jillian

I think yare point out a habitual misconception that some may have about minorities. In truth, this comes from not understanding the life of a minority classed citizen.

If this is so, then as a person that enjoys watching a good fight between left and right, I must tell you to stop. The right is famous for shooting first, second, and third and not bother with questions. If they can ever draw down their over excitement, they may become the dominant political ideology in the nation. As of now, they are edging pretty close to that due to Democrat ineptness and I really want to see some good election years before I kick the bucket.

 

[uscitizen]

1. What percent of Americans who vote would you guess are illiterate?

2. What do you suppose the cost would be to literacy test 100% of registered voters to weed out those in 1.?

some people just like larger govt it appears.

 

[boedicca]

50% of this country DOES NOT vote....

THAT is a more serious issue to me....

no one should be required to take a test, in order to be represented.

That is an issue - but if someone doesn't care enough to vote, I'd rather not have them hunt and peck on the ballot on topics about which they are probably ill-informed.

 

[Dr Gregg]

It's not like anyone is denied an education nowadays. If you can't read/write English, you don't know what form of government the US has, or you can't name the two houses of Congress, why the fuck should your be allowed to vote and fuck this country up more?

Um, plenty of people who can read and write are complete dumbasses, so I fail to see how that would prevent anything

 

[rightwinger]

Why the objection to literacy tests for potential voters?

The reason is than an elected official represents both the literate and the illiterate. To say that an illiterate person does not get to vote for who represents them is a Constitutional violation

 

[uscitizen]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wroj0FLvzs]YouTube - Patriotic drunk rednecks[/ame]

 

[amrchaos]

50% of this country DOES NOT vote....

THAT is a more serious issue to me....

no one should be required to take a test, in order to be represented.

That is an issue - but if someone doesn't care enough to vote, I'd rather not have them hunt and peck on the ballot on topics about which they are probably ill-informed.

I think choosing not to vote is an exercise of a citizens voting rights.

50% of the population choose not to vote--I wonder if it is due to not having enough "VIABLE" choices?

 

[editec]

We don't necessarily have to have a literacy test and by all means we don't need even a test of one's understanding of this nation, our government or the challenges facing us either.

But it would be a grand idea, I think, to know that the people voting are at least competent that they know why they're there and what they're doing.

Or does expecting that modest litmus test of presence of mind from my fellow voting citizens make me an elitist?

We won't let very intelligent, very well informed teenagers vote, but we bus retarded people to the polls?

Something ain't right about that.