The Inverse Relationship between Qualified Voters and "Democracy"

[pknopp]

Imagine a campaign to "purify" national elections by ensuring "qualified" voters. The thrust of the campaign would be to pre-qualify voters based on intelligence, education, knowledge of the relevant issues, and knowledge about the candidates who are running.

So a written test is prepared by a non-partisan committee (no academicians), querying prospective voters about their formal education or personal readings, knowledge of civics (the constitutional roles of the elective offices being filled), understanding of the most important issues of the day, and basic knowledge about the candidates. Unless you "pass" this test, you cannot vote.

Who would argue that elections counting only the votes of these seriously-qualified electors would not yield the best possible election results? It is self evident. Candidates who are fakes, charlatans, panderers, liars, and fools would have no chance of winning. And one must say that a vote of "None of the Above" would also be possible, rendering a non-conclusion that would require a new slate of candidates.

And yet, even without a trace of racial discrimination, POC's would pass this test in far fewer numbers than their proportion of the general population, for a variety of reasons which it would be indelicate to explore.

In fact, no matter what pre-qualifications are imposed - even if they are utterly reasonable - they will take a greater toll on POC voters than the general population. Voter ID. Vote on Election Day. Register in advance. Maintain an accurate and current voting residence. Every single one of these minimal requirements excludes POC's in greater numbers than one would statistically predict. Maybe the people so excluded shouldn't be voting.

I thought poll tests went out with Jim Crow. It won't fly again, not even in the south.

What happens to a country when the most ignorant, most desperate are the majority?
Imagine if Amazon appointed all their shitter cleaners to the board tomorrow...what would happen to Amazon?

Probably the same thing that happens to a country when people read so little history, that they do not know that their great new idea was already widely tried, found illegal and outlawed.

You can't really address the question without feeling stupid can you?
Here...try again
"What happens to a country when the most ignorant, most desperate are the majority?

I suppose you are happy after an election.

 

[Flash]

I like the Starship Trooper model of "Service Guarantees Citizenship".

Of course the best model was what our Founding Fathers had. Only land owning White males could vote. We would have a much better government if that was the case.

We don't need all these welfare queens voting to get more welfare. That is destroying our country. Democracy fails when the majority finds out they can use the government to steal money from the minority.

 

[Correll]

I like the Starship Trooper model of "Service Guarantees Citizenship".

Of course the best model was what our Founding Fathers had. Only land owning White males could vote. We would have a much better government if that was the case.

We don't need all these welfare queens voting to get more welfare. That is destroying our country. Democracy fails when the majority finds out they can use the government to steal money from the minority.

Direct election of Senators was certainly a mistake. Having two houses of direct representatives was never the plan. Too democratic.

 

[rightwinger]

I like the Starship Trooper model of "Service Guarantees Citizenship".

Of course the best model was what our Founding Fathers had. Only land owning White males could vote. We would have a much better government if that was the case.

We don't need all these welfare queens voting to get more welfare. That is destroying our country. Democracy fails when the majority finds out they can use the government to steal money from the minority.

Direct election of Senators was certainly a mistake. Having two houses of direct representatives was never the plan. Too democratic.

Imagine having We the People elect our Senators instead of partisan politicians making back room deals

 

[Correll]

I like the Starship Trooper model of "Service Guarantees Citizenship".

Of course the best model was what our Founding Fathers had. Only land owning White males could vote. We would have a much better government if that was the case.

We don't need all these welfare queens voting to get more welfare. That is destroying our country. Democracy fails when the majority finds out they can use the government to steal money from the minority.

Direct election of Senators was certainly a mistake. Having two houses of direct representatives was never the plan. Too democratic.

Imagine having We the People elect our Senators instead of partisan politicians making back room deals

Imagine if you honestly addressed a point.


lol!! I know. I'm fucking hilarious.

Anyhow. We got both. You loving it? How is that working out for you/US?

 

[Flash]

I like the Starship Trooper model of "Service Guarantees Citizenship".

Of course the best model was what our Founding Fathers had. Only land owning White males could vote. We would have a much better government if that was the case.

We don't need all these welfare queens voting to get more welfare. That is destroying our country. Democracy fails when the majority finds out they can use the government to steal money from the minority.

Direct election of Senators was certainly a mistake. Having two houses of direct representatives was never the plan. Too democratic.

True! The purpose of the Senate was to protect the States from the abuses of the people. The Senators were to be appointed by the states, not elected. Elections brings in outside influence and that was not the purpose of the Senate.

Having Senators elected was another shitty outcome of the Civil War. It indirectly gave the House more power than our Founding Fathers envisoned that it should have. It turned the Senate into just an extension of the House. It destroyed state rights.

 

[rightwinger]

I like the Starship Trooper model of "Service Guarantees Citizenship".

Of course the best model was what our Founding Fathers had. Only land owning White males could vote. We would have a much better government if that was the case.

We don't need all these welfare queens voting to get more welfare. That is destroying our country. Democracy fails when the majority finds out they can use the government to steal money from the minority.

Direct election of Senators was certainly a mistake. Having two houses of direct representatives was never the plan. Too democratic.

Imagine having We the People elect our Senators instead of partisan politicians making back room deals

Imagine if you honestly addressed a point.


lol!! I know. I'm fucking hilarious.

Anyhow. We got both. You loving it? How is that working out for you/US?

That IS the point

 

[rightwinger]

True! The purpose of the Senate was to protect the States from the abuses of the people.

 

[Flash]

Notice something about this airplane load of Texas Democrat filth that are trying to stop reasonable voter ID law? They are all fucking women.

Great example of why women should not be allowed to vote.

 

[rightwinger]

Notice something about this airplane load of Texas Democrat filth that are trying to stop reasonable voter ID law? They are all fucking women.

Great example of why women should not be allowed to vote.

View attachment 512583

American Patriots

 

[TNHarley]

America is full of morons. They are the majority.
We need some sort of test for voting or something.
Personally, I wish it was only land owners that voted.

 

[rightwinger]

Personally, I wish it was only land owners that voted.

So did our founding fathers

 

[Correll]

Personally, I wish it was only land owners that voted.

So did our founding fathers

Yes, that has been covered.

 

[sealybobo]

Imagine a campaign to "purify" national elections by ensuring "qualified" voters. The thrust of the campaign would be to pre-qualify voters based on intelligence, education, knowledge of the relevant issues, and knowledge about the candidates who are running.

So a written test is prepared by a non-partisan committee (no academicians), querying prospective voters about their formal education or personal readings, knowledge of civics (the constitutional roles of the elective offices being filled), understanding of the most important issues of the day, and basic knowledge about the candidates. Unless you "pass" this test, you cannot vote.

Who would argue that elections counting only the votes of these seriously-qualified electors would not yield the best possible election results? It is self evident. Candidates who are fakes, charlatans, panderers, liars, and fools would have no chance of winning. And one must say that a vote of "None of the Above" would also be possible, rendering a non-conclusion that would require a new slate of candidates.

And yet, even without a trace of racial discrimination, POC's would pass this test in far fewer numbers than their proportion of the general population, for a variety of reasons which it would be indelicate to explore.

In fact, no matter what pre-qualifications are imposed - even if they are utterly reasonable - they will take a greater toll on POC voters than the general population. Voter ID. Vote on Election Day. Register in advance. Maintain an accurate and current voting residence. Every single one of these minimal requirements excludes POC's in greater numbers than one would statistically predict. Maybe the people so excluded shouldn't be voting.

I’m trying to keep an open mind. If we did this and the people who don’t bother to vote, then they can take the test and join the voting community. If you’re a dumb lazy stupid mother fucker, maybe you shouldn’t be voting.

Do you have to take the test every four years? I would say high schools should teach a class on this. Prepare every student to b a good citizen. Explain how important it is. If they decide not to vote then maybe they don’t care enough and shouldn’t vote.

Can the test be taken online? It should be. What about cheating? So we’re going to have to show up every 2 or 4 years to take a monitored test?

Im starting to think no to your idea. Every citizen should be able to vote. The poorest dumbest person should be able to vote how they think things are going.

Why?

Because the poorest and dumbest of us have a say too. They should be able to vote for pro union politicians. Politicians who won't force them to have babies they can't afford. Vote for politicians who realize we have an illegal employer problem here in this country. Vote for politicians who will make healthcare affordable for them. Politicians who want to strengthen social security and medicare not end them. Vote for politicians who will deal with the wage gap. Vote for politicians who won't try to pass a flat tax. Vote for anti war politicians because honestly, it'll be our dumbest and poorest who have to go fight.

How many Senators each state has doesn't really matter does it?

 

[sealybobo]

Personally, I wish it was only land owners that voted.

So did our founding fathers

I'm a land owner. I own a star. Cost me $34.99.

 

[Correll]

Imagine a campaign to "purify" national elections by ensuring "qualified" voters. The thrust of the campaign would be to pre-qualify voters based on intelligence, education, knowledge of the relevant issues, and knowledge about the candidates who are running.

So a written test is prepared by a non-partisan committee (no academicians), querying prospective voters about their formal education or personal readings, knowledge of civics (the constitutional roles of the elective offices being filled), understanding of the most important issues of the day, and basic knowledge about the candidates. Unless you "pass" this test, you cannot vote.

Who would argue that elections counting only the votes of these seriously-qualified electors would not yield the best possible election results? It is self evident. Candidates who are fakes, charlatans, panderers, liars, and fools would have no chance of winning. And one must say that a vote of "None of the Above" would also be possible, rendering a non-conclusion that would require a new slate of candidates.

And yet, even without a trace of racial discrimination, POC's would pass this test in far fewer numbers than their proportion of the general population, for a variety of reasons which it would be indelicate to explore.

In fact, no matter what pre-qualifications are imposed - even if they are utterly reasonable - they will take a greater toll on POC voters than the general population. Voter ID. Vote on Election Day. Register in advance. Maintain an accurate and current voting residence. Every single one of these minimal requirements excludes POC's in greater numbers than one would statistically predict. Maybe the people so excluded shouldn't be voting.

I’m trying to keep an open mind. If we did this and the people who don’t bother to vote, then they can take the test and join the voting community. If you’re a dumb lazy stupid mother fucker, maybe you shouldn’t be voting.

Do you have to take the test every four years? I would say high schools should teach a class on this. Prepare every student to b a good citizen. Explain how important it is. If they decide not to vote then maybe they don’t care enough and shouldn’t vote.

Can the test be taken online? It should be. What about cheating? So we’re going to have to show up every 2 or 4 years to take a monitored test?

Im starting to think no to your idea. Every citizen should be able to vote. The poorest dumbest person should be able to vote how they think things are going.

Why?

Because the poorest and dumbest of us have a say too. They should be able to vote for pro union politicians. Politicians who won't force them to have babies they can't afford. Vote for politicians who realize we have an illegal employer problem here in this country. Vote for politicians who will make healthcare affordable for them. Politicians who want to strengthen social security and medicare not end them. Vote for politicians who will deal with the wage gap. Vote for politicians who won't try to pass a flat tax. Vote for anti war politicians because honestly, it'll be our dumbest and poorest who have to go fight.

How many Senators each state has doesn't really matter does it?

1. All those issues and interests would be represented by voters who were actually educated enough to be aware of the positions of the politicians. So again, why?

2. Sure it does. The balance of power, to prevent too much concentration of power, it was designed that the states would have some control over the actions on the federal level.

 

[sealybobo]

Imagine a campaign to "purify" national elections by ensuring "qualified" voters. The thrust of the campaign would be to pre-qualify voters based on intelligence, education, knowledge of the relevant issues, and knowledge about the candidates who are running.

So a written test is prepared by a non-partisan committee (no academicians), querying prospective voters about their formal education or personal readings, knowledge of civics (the constitutional roles of the elective offices being filled), understanding of the most important issues of the day, and basic knowledge about the candidates. Unless you "pass" this test, you cannot vote.

Who would argue that elections counting only the votes of these seriously-qualified electors would not yield the best possible election results? It is self evident. Candidates who are fakes, charlatans, panderers, liars, and fools would have no chance of winning. And one must say that a vote of "None of the Above" would also be possible, rendering a non-conclusion that would require a new slate of candidates.

And yet, even without a trace of racial discrimination, POC's would pass this test in far fewer numbers than their proportion of the general population, for a variety of reasons which it would be indelicate to explore.

In fact, no matter what pre-qualifications are imposed - even if they are utterly reasonable - they will take a greater toll on POC voters than the general population. Voter ID. Vote on Election Day. Register in advance. Maintain an accurate and current voting residence. Every single one of these minimal requirements excludes POC's in greater numbers than one would statistically predict. Maybe the people so excluded shouldn't be voting.

I’m trying to keep an open mind. If we did this and the people who don’t bother to vote, then they can take the test and join the voting community. If you’re a dumb lazy stupid mother fucker, maybe you shouldn’t be voting.

Do you have to take the test every four years? I would say high schools should teach a class on this. Prepare every student to b a good citizen. Explain how important it is. If they decide not to vote then maybe they don’t care enough and shouldn’t vote.

Can the test be taken online? It should be. What about cheating? So we’re going to have to show up every 2 or 4 years to take a monitored test?

Im starting to think no to your idea. Every citizen should be able to vote. The poorest dumbest person should be able to vote how they think things are going.

Why?

Because the poorest and dumbest of us have a say too. They should be able to vote for pro union politicians. Politicians who won't force them to have babies they can't afford. Vote for politicians who realize we have an illegal employer problem here in this country. Vote for politicians who will make healthcare affordable for them. Politicians who want to strengthen social security and medicare not end them. Vote for politicians who will deal with the wage gap. Vote for politicians who won't try to pass a flat tax. Vote for anti war politicians because honestly, it'll be our dumbest and poorest who have to go fight.

How many Senators each state has doesn't really matter does it?

1. All those issues and interests would be represented by voters who were actually educated enough to be aware of the positions of the politicians. So again, why?

2. Sure it does. The balance of power, to prevent too much concentration of power, it was designed that the states would have some control over the actions on the federal level.

This is just you right wingers wanting to cheat to win elections. When everyone votes, you lose. Sorry pal. I gave you all the reasons and you rejected them. I see you aren't being open minded. I see you have decided that everyone who wants to vote should have to pass a test. Sorry, not gonna happen.

All the voters who would be negatively affected by those things the most would be people who don't/can't vote. It doesn't take intelligence to vote. Look at you.

And what you are assuming is we don't know the details and you do. Well I got news for you. Many of your voters wouldn't pass the test either. This might disqualify you.

And I don't know why you give a fuck. What percent of our population votes every 2 years? Midterms are the conservatives secret weapon Fifty-three percent voted in 2018, the highest midterm turnout in four decades, while the 2014 election had the lowest. So don't worry. Our most stupid citizens don't vote.

 

[Correll]

Imagine a campaign to "purify" national elections by ensuring "qualified" voters. The thrust of the campaign would be to pre-qualify voters based on intelligence, education, knowledge of the relevant issues, and knowledge about the candidates who are running.

So a written test is prepared by a non-partisan committee (no academicians), querying prospective voters about their formal education or personal readings, knowledge of civics (the constitutional roles of the elective offices being filled), understanding of the most important issues of the day, and basic knowledge about the candidates. Unless you "pass" this test, you cannot vote.

Who would argue that elections counting only the votes of these seriously-qualified electors would not yield the best possible election results? It is self evident. Candidates who are fakes, charlatans, panderers, liars, and fools would have no chance of winning. And one must say that a vote of "None of the Above" would also be possible, rendering a non-conclusion that would require a new slate of candidates.

And yet, even without a trace of racial discrimination, POC's would pass this test in far fewer numbers than their proportion of the general population, for a variety of reasons which it would be indelicate to explore.

In fact, no matter what pre-qualifications are imposed - even if they are utterly reasonable - they will take a greater toll on POC voters than the general population. Voter ID. Vote on Election Day. Register in advance. Maintain an accurate and current voting residence. Every single one of these minimal requirements excludes POC's in greater numbers than one would statistically predict. Maybe the people so excluded shouldn't be voting.

I’m trying to keep an open mind. If we did this and the people who don’t bother to vote, then they can take the test and join the voting community. If you’re a dumb lazy stupid mother fucker, maybe you shouldn’t be voting.

Do you have to take the test every four years? I would say high schools should teach a class on this. Prepare every student to b a good citizen. Explain how important it is. If they decide not to vote then maybe they don’t care enough and shouldn’t vote.

Can the test be taken online? It should be. What about cheating? So we’re going to have to show up every 2 or 4 years to take a monitored test?

Im starting to think no to your idea. Every citizen should be able to vote. The poorest dumbest person should be able to vote how they think things are going.

Why?

Because the poorest and dumbest of us have a say too. They should be able to vote for pro union politicians. Politicians who won't force them to have babies they can't afford. Vote for politicians who realize we have an illegal employer problem here in this country. Vote for politicians who will make healthcare affordable for them. Politicians who want to strengthen social security and medicare not end them. Vote for politicians who will deal with the wage gap. Vote for politicians who won't try to pass a flat tax. Vote for anti war politicians because honestly, it'll be our dumbest and poorest who have to go fight.

How many Senators each state has doesn't really matter does it?

1. All those issues and interests would be represented by voters who were actually educated enough to be aware of the positions of the politicians. So again, why?

2. Sure it does. The balance of power, to prevent too much concentration of power, it was designed that the states would have some control over the actions on the federal level.

This is just you right wingers wanting to cheat to win elections. When everyone votes, you lose. Sorry pal. I gave you all the reasons and you rejected them. I see you aren't being open minded. I see you have decided that everyone who wants to vote should have to pass a test. Sorry, not gonna happen.

All the voters who would be negatively affected by those things the most would be people who don't/can't vote. It doesn't take intelligence to vote. Look at you.

And what you are assuming is we don't know the details and you do. Well I got news for you. Many of your voters wouldn't pass the test either. This might disqualify you.

And I don't know why you give a fuck. What percent of our population votes every 2 years? Midterms are the conservatives secret weapon Fifty-three percent voted in 2018, the highest midterm turnout in four decades, while the 2014 election had the lowest. So don't worry. Our most stupid citizens don't vote.

I'm just discussing the idea. It's completely moot because it is politically impossible.

But, it is interesting that you cannot defend your position.

I do agree with you, that letting everyone vote, regardless of their education, or being informed, or even being able to read the ballot, does benefit your side.

You know, in my various jobs, I have dealt with "customers" who were illiterate several times. I had no problem with it. They appreciated my help and I was respectful and professional. I bear them no ill will, nor do I think that they are bad people.

 

[sealybobo]

Imagine a campaign to "purify" national elections by ensuring "qualified" voters. The thrust of the campaign would be to pre-qualify voters based on intelligence, education, knowledge of the relevant issues, and knowledge about the candidates who are running.

So a written test is prepared by a non-partisan committee (no academicians), querying prospective voters about their formal education or personal readings, knowledge of civics (the constitutional roles of the elective offices being filled), understanding of the most important issues of the day, and basic knowledge about the candidates. Unless you "pass" this test, you cannot vote.

Who would argue that elections counting only the votes of these seriously-qualified electors would not yield the best possible election results? It is self evident. Candidates who are fakes, charlatans, panderers, liars, and fools would have no chance of winning. And one must say that a vote of "None of the Above" would also be possible, rendering a non-conclusion that would require a new slate of candidates.

And yet, even without a trace of racial discrimination, POC's would pass this test in far fewer numbers than their proportion of the general population, for a variety of reasons which it would be indelicate to explore.

In fact, no matter what pre-qualifications are imposed - even if they are utterly reasonable - they will take a greater toll on POC voters than the general population. Voter ID. Vote on Election Day. Register in advance. Maintain an accurate and current voting residence. Every single one of these minimal requirements excludes POC's in greater numbers than one would statistically predict. Maybe the people so excluded shouldn't be voting.

I’m trying to keep an open mind. If we did this and the people who don’t bother to vote, then they can take the test and join the voting community. If you’re a dumb lazy stupid mother fucker, maybe you shouldn’t be voting.

Do you have to take the test every four years? I would say high schools should teach a class on this. Prepare every student to b a good citizen. Explain how important it is. If they decide not to vote then maybe they don’t care enough and shouldn’t vote.

Can the test be taken online? It should be. What about cheating? So we’re going to have to show up every 2 or 4 years to take a monitored test?

Im starting to think no to your idea. Every citizen should be able to vote. The poorest dumbest person should be able to vote how they think things are going.

Why?

Because the poorest and dumbest of us have a say too. They should be able to vote for pro union politicians. Politicians who won't force them to have babies they can't afford. Vote for politicians who realize we have an illegal employer problem here in this country. Vote for politicians who will make healthcare affordable for them. Politicians who want to strengthen social security and medicare not end them. Vote for politicians who will deal with the wage gap. Vote for politicians who won't try to pass a flat tax. Vote for anti war politicians because honestly, it'll be our dumbest and poorest who have to go fight.

How many Senators each state has doesn't really matter does it?

1. All those issues and interests would be represented by voters who were actually educated enough to be aware of the positions of the politicians. So again, why?

2. Sure it does. The balance of power, to prevent too much concentration of power, it was designed that the states would have some control over the actions on the federal level.

This is just you right wingers wanting to cheat to win elections. When everyone votes, you lose. Sorry pal. I gave you all the reasons and you rejected them. I see you aren't being open minded. I see you have decided that everyone who wants to vote should have to pass a test. Sorry, not gonna happen.

All the voters who would be negatively affected by those things the most would be people who don't/can't vote. It doesn't take intelligence to vote. Look at you.

And what you are assuming is we don't know the details and you do. Well I got news for you. Many of your voters wouldn't pass the test either. This might disqualify you.

And I don't know why you give a fuck. What percent of our population votes every 2 years? Midterms are the conservatives secret weapon Fifty-three percent voted in 2018, the highest midterm turnout in four decades, while the 2014 election had the lowest. So don't worry. Our most stupid citizens don't vote.

I'm just discussing the idea. It's completely moot because it is politically impossible.

But, it is interesting that you cannot defend your position.

I do agree with you, that letting everyone vote, regardless of their education, or being informed, or even being able to read the ballot, does benefit your side.

You know, in my various jobs, I have dealt with "customers" who were illiterate several times. I had no problem with it. They appreciated my help and I was respectful and professional. I bear them no ill will, nor do I think that they are bad people.

Politics is perception. People thought Reagan was doing a great job but because so few of you are into politics, they didn't realize he was fucking us. Maybe not immediately but his policies would fuck us in years to come. Consider he thought up NAFTA and Bush wrote it into law. Clinton only signed it. Back then you guys were in favor of free trade. So while you would have passed the test you failed with your vote.

Also, you dumb mother fuckers don't believe in global warming.

I have a 2 question test

1. Was the last election rigged?
2. Do you believe in man made climate change.

You my friend would not be allowed to vote.

 

[sealybobo]

Imagine a campaign to "purify" national elections by ensuring "qualified" voters. The thrust of the campaign would be to pre-qualify voters based on intelligence, education, knowledge of the relevant issues, and knowledge about the candidates who are running.

So a written test is prepared by a non-partisan committee (no academicians), querying prospective voters about their formal education or personal readings, knowledge of civics (the constitutional roles of the elective offices being filled), understanding of the most important issues of the day, and basic knowledge about the candidates. Unless you "pass" this test, you cannot vote.

Who would argue that elections counting only the votes of these seriously-qualified electors would not yield the best possible election results? It is self evident. Candidates who are fakes, charlatans, panderers, liars, and fools would have no chance of winning. And one must say that a vote of "None of the Above" would also be possible, rendering a non-conclusion that would require a new slate of candidates.

And yet, even without a trace of racial discrimination, POC's would pass this test in far fewer numbers than their proportion of the general population, for a variety of reasons which it would be indelicate to explore.

In fact, no matter what pre-qualifications are imposed - even if they are utterly reasonable - they will take a greater toll on POC voters than the general population. Voter ID. Vote on Election Day. Register in advance. Maintain an accurate and current voting residence. Every single one of these minimal requirements excludes POC's in greater numbers than one would statistically predict. Maybe the people so excluded shouldn't be voting.

I’m trying to keep an open mind. If we did this and the people who don’t bother to vote, then they can take the test and join the voting community. If you’re a dumb lazy stupid mother fucker, maybe you shouldn’t be voting.

Do you have to take the test every four years? I would say high schools should teach a class on this. Prepare every student to b a good citizen. Explain how important it is. If they decide not to vote then maybe they don’t care enough and shouldn’t vote.

Can the test be taken online? It should be. What about cheating? So we’re going to have to show up every 2 or 4 years to take a monitored test?

Im starting to think no to your idea. Every citizen should be able to vote. The poorest dumbest person should be able to vote how they think things are going.

Why?

Because the poorest and dumbest of us have a say too. They should be able to vote for pro union politicians. Politicians who won't force them to have babies they can't afford. Vote for politicians who realize we have an illegal employer problem here in this country. Vote for politicians who will make healthcare affordable for them. Politicians who want to strengthen social security and medicare not end them. Vote for politicians who will deal with the wage gap. Vote for politicians who won't try to pass a flat tax. Vote for anti war politicians because honestly, it'll be our dumbest and poorest who have to go fight.

How many Senators each state has doesn't really matter does it?

1. All those issues and interests would be represented by voters who were actually educated enough to be aware of the positions of the politicians. So again, why?

2. Sure it does. The balance of power, to prevent too much concentration of power, it was designed that the states would have some control over the actions on the federal level.

This is just you right wingers wanting to cheat to win elections. When everyone votes, you lose. Sorry pal. I gave you all the reasons and you rejected them. I see you aren't being open minded. I see you have decided that everyone who wants to vote should have to pass a test. Sorry, not gonna happen.

All the voters who would be negatively affected by those things the most would be people who don't/can't vote. It doesn't take intelligence to vote. Look at you.

And what you are assuming is we don't know the details and you do. Well I got news for you. Many of your voters wouldn't pass the test either. This might disqualify you.

And I don't know why you give a fuck. What percent of our population votes every 2 years? Midterms are the conservatives secret weapon Fifty-three percent voted in 2018, the highest midterm turnout in four decades, while the 2014 election had the lowest. So don't worry. Our most stupid citizens don't vote.

I'm just discussing the idea. It's completely moot because it is politically impossible.

But, it is interesting that you cannot defend your position.

I do agree with you, that letting everyone vote, regardless of their education, or being informed, or even being able to read the ballot, does benefit your side.

You know, in my various jobs, I have dealt with "customers" who were illiterate several times. I had no problem with it. They appreciated my help and I was respectful and professional. I bear them no ill will, nor do I think that they are bad people.

Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they're still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world).

The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined.

Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts

Our bridges are falling apart (among other things), and its Ronald Reagan's fault. A few hours before the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, a news release landed (among hundreds) in my email inbox. It was from the right-wing "Heartland Institute" and a Minnesota conservative group calling itself...

www.commondreams.org

And as smart as you are you voted for him a second time.