As I mentioned in the other thread, it seems like you actually want to disenfranchise voters who have religious beliefs that you disagree with, in the guise of making sure voters are "knowledgeable".
Interesting that you got "religious" out of what I said in the other thread, because I didn't even vaguely allude to it.
Besides, this isn't about someone's favorite flavor of ice cream.
With intelligent design, we see legions of voters in the country who are exceedingly hostile to education, seemingly without a concept of what science is, attempting to force their belief in magic into a classrooms that are supposed to be teaching science.
This sort of thing damages our country. And it shows how back-asswards our electorate frequently is.
While this is true, it's not a compelling reason for taking away their right to vote. Look at it this way: if the roles were reversed, these people would be arguing for a test to weed out people that are hostile towards their beliefs. This is why I called the tests arbitrary, because they will change depending on the people who compose them.
As I mentioned in the other thread, it seems like you actually want to disenfranchise voters who have religious beliefs that you disagree with, in the guise of making sure voters are "knowledgeable".
Interesting that you got "religious" out of what I said in the other thread, because I didn't even vaguely allude to it.
Besides, this isn't about someone's favorite flavor of ice cream.
With intelligent design, we see legions of voters in the country who are exceedingly hostile to education, seemingly without a concept of what science is, attempting to force their belief in magic into a classrooms that are supposed to be teaching science.
This sort of thing damages our country. And it shows how back-asswards our electorate frequently is.
It is their country too though. Disenfranchising them because they are too ignorant to know any better is tyranny. No more, no less.
I really don't know how you can believe in democracy and not be an optimist when it comes to the majority of people though.
Interesting that you got "religious" out of what I said in the other thread, because I didn't even vaguely allude to it.
You asked about the age of the earth. This, to me, would indicate you're looking to trap anyone who believes that their god created it 10k/4k years ago.
As I mentioned in the other thread, it seems like you actually want to disenfranchise voters who have religious beliefs that you disagree with, in the guise of making sure voters are "knowledgeable".
Interesting that you got "religious" out of what I said in the other thread, because I didn't even vaguely allude to it.
Besides, this isn't about someone's favorite flavor of ice cream.
With intelligent design, we see legions of voters in the country who are exceedingly hostile to education, seemingly without a concept of what science is, attempting to force their belief in magic into a classrooms that are supposed to be teaching science.
This sort of thing damages our country. And it shows how back-asswards our electorate frequently is.
So let me boil down your point....
Instead of working inside the system to fix the wrongs that are at hand, I present we just don't let the people I disagree with vote. Then the problem will solve itself.
Your stance is just as silly as "magic in the classroom" and it is MORE outrageous, because your stances prove you are at least somewhat educated on the matters at hand.
You're basically proposing an expensive boondoggle where the best case scenario is you spend a lot of money to erect barriers to voting so as to prevent an group of people from exercising their fundamental rights in the name of some ill defined intellectual fitness that you can't even reasonably measure.
As I mentioned in the other thread, it seems like you actually want to disenfranchise voters who have religious beliefs that you disagree with, in the guise of making sure voters are "knowledgeable".
Interesting that you got "religious" out of what I said in the other thread, because I didn't even vaguely allude to it.
Besides, this isn't about someone's favorite flavor of ice cream.
With intelligent design, we see legions of voters in the country who are exceedingly hostile to education, seemingly without a concept of what science is, attempting to force their belief in magic into a classrooms that are supposed to be teaching science.
This sort of thing damages our country. And it shows how back-asswards our electorate frequently is.
Bullshit. Sorry, the only practical purpose of your "How old is the Earth?" question is to disenfranchise voters who believe in "young Earth" creationism.
Those beliefs are based on taking the Bible literally, and thus have everything to do with religion. Unless you can summon forth some large number of atheist or agnostic Americans who think the Earth is 6,000 years old.
See, this is a perfect example of why "knowledge testing" for voters is a terrible idea. Because the biases and prejudices of the folks making the tests are exceedingly likely to manifest themselves in those tests. Your contempt, deserved or otherwise, for proponents of "intelligent design" would lead to them being disenfranchised if your ideal test was passed into law. But what if the fine folks of the Kansas legislature made a test that disenfranchised atheists, or homosexuals?
Churchill said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute discussion with the average voter.
Again, though, who is going to write the test? Until you answer this question, you're wasting our time.
The OP has merit, even without answering that question. Follow me into hypothetical-land here. What if a device was invented that could accurately measure a persons intelligence (whatever that is) on a percentile scale. Said device could also easily be audited to prevent fraud.
Would we be justified in excluding the first percentile, i.e. the functionally retarded that cannot feed, cloth, or go to the bathroom themselves?
What about the second percentile, those that likely cannot live without supervision?
What about the fiftieth percentile, Churchill's average voter?
Churchill said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute discussion with the average voter.
Again, though, who is going to write the test? Until you answer this question, you're wasting our time.
The OP has merit, even without answering that question. Follow me into hypothetical-land here. What if a device was invented that could accurately measure a persons intelligence (whatever that is) on a percentile scale. Said device could also easily be audited to prevent fraud.
Would we be justified in excluding the first percentile, i.e. the functionally retarded that cannot feed, cloth, or go to the bathroom themselves?
What about the second percentile, those that likely cannot live without supervision?
What about the fiftieth percentile, Churchill's average voter?
Wouldn't giving a say to anyone who isn't at the very top be bringing down our chances of making the "best" decision?
This is just assuming "intelligence" is a mask for knowledge / diligence / random good attribute for making decisions. Since there are other factors involved beyond IQ...
So, say we adhere to allowing everyone to vote. But we add a knowledge-based test. It's optional. And this test - for the sake of argument - is as objective as any test could actually be, and non-controversial. Say, your performance on the test weights your vote. You can't get less than one. But if you do really well on the test, you can get, say... three votes.
Any problem with that?
Note that this is basically the effect of our electoral college, except I've replaced wealth, color, political preference and the other criteria used to redrawing districts with the knowledge of the individual voter.
As I mentioned in the other thread, it seems like you actually want to disenfranchise voters who have religious beliefs that you disagree with, in the guise of making sure voters are "knowledgeable".
Interesting that you got "religious" out of what I said in the other thread, because I didn't even vaguely allude to it.
Interesting how people got 'racist' out of poll taxes and grandfather clauses, because they don't even vaguely allude to it. Just to economic status, literacy, and heritage.
Guys, we should just drop this, because s3rial one is obviously trolling.
Or, at the very least, stop talking to him until he actually tells us who is going to write the test.
I said I'd make a thread if you wanted. But no, now that someone else has already started it, derailed it, and shat all over it, I'm not particularly inclined to spend a lot of time writing up the idea and posting it somewhere on page 6, where I have to spend the rest of the thread referring people back to it and fielding questions I've already answered.
I'm inclined to think that a system that measures knowledge and helps more knowledgeable people have a greater impact on elections in our country is a good thing. A test is one way to do that. Possibly not the only. I'd like to discuss the pros and cons of those possible methods. But instead, I've been called stupid, an elitist, and accused of only wanting to use it to further my racist/anti-religious beliefs.
The other thing is, your knowledge test is going to disenfranchise plenty of voters who do know their shit about the candidates. If what your trying to test is whether people know their shit about what their voting on, then asking them about the framers of the constitution isn't going to figure that out. You assume the two go hand-in-hand but they definitely don't.
As I mentioned in the other thread, it seems like you actually want to disenfranchise voters who have religious beliefs that you disagree with, in the guise of making sure voters are "knowledgeable".
Interesting that you got "religious" out of what I said in the other thread, because I didn't even vaguely allude to it.
Interesting how people got 'racist' out of poll taxes and grandfather clauses, because they don't even vaguely allude to it. Just to economic status, literacy, and heritage.
Poll taxes were designed to disenfranchise poor people. Who was poor when Jim Crow laws were around? BLACK PEOPLE.
Grandfather clauses were designed to allow people to vote as long as their grandfather was a citizen. Who's grandfathers were not citizens when Jim Crow laws were around? BLACK PEOPLE.
I mean, read between the lines. Christ.
On the off chance that was sarcasm, sorry.
Armored Gorilla on
"I'm a mad god. The Mad God, actually. It's a family title. Gets passed down from me to myself every few thousand years."
So, say we adhere to allowing everyone to vote. But we add a knowledge-based test. It's optional. And this test - for the sake of argument - is as objective as any test could actually be, and non-controversial. Say, your performance on the test weights your vote. You can't get less than one. But if you do really well on the test, you can get, say... three votes.
Any problem with that?
Note that this is basically the effect of our electoral college, except I've replaced wealth, color, political preference and the other criteria used to redrawing districts with the knowledge of the individual voter.
As long as we're imagining this hypothetical, kowledge-based, objective, non-controversial test, I say we just imagine we have an immortal benevolent dictator who rules the country for the rest of time. That would make things much easier.
So, say we adhere to allowing everyone to vote. But we add a knowledge-based test. It's optional. And this test - for the sake of argument - is as objective as any test could actually be, and non-controversial. Say, your performance on the test weights your vote. You can't get less than one. But if you do really well on the test, you can get, say... three votes.
Any problem with that?
Note that this is basically the effect of our electoral college, except I've replaced wealth, color, political preference and the other criteria used to redrawing districts with the knowledge of the individual voter.
I thought of something like that once. The problem is this: What happens when a candidate wins the popular vote, but loses because the other guy's votes counted for more? That'd make the trouble we had in 2000 look like a picnic.
It's clear that democracies function more strongly when the voters are well-informed. Jefferson said that. But if there's a fair, practical way to make every voter informed, damned if I know what it is.
So, say we adhere to allowing everyone to vote. But we add a knowledge-based test. It's optional. And this test - for the sake of argument - is as objective as any test could actually be, and non-controversial. Say, your performance on the test weights your vote. You can't get less than one. But if you do really well on the test, you can get, say... three votes.
Any problem with that?
Note that this is basically the effect of our electoral college, except I've replaced wealth, color, political preference and the other criteria used to redrawing districts with the knowledge of the individual voter.
For instance, maybe people who don't do well on the "test" has a vote worth 3/5 as much as other voters!
As long as we're imagining this hypothetical, kowledge-based, objective, non-controversial test, I say we just imagine we have an immortal benevolent dictator who rules the country for the rest of time. That would make things much easier.
This is another reason I'm not going to bother.
You're so far gone on the idea of even having an adult discussion about it, that you can't even do a trivial thought experiment without snarking all over it.
Guys, we should just drop this, because s3rial one is obviously trolling.
Or, at the very least, stop talking to him until he actually tells us who is going to write the test.
I said I'd make a thread if you wanted. But no, now that someone else has already started it, derailed it, and shat all over it, I'm not particularly inclined to spend a lot of time writing up the idea and posting it somewhere on page 6, where I have to spend the rest of the thread referring people back to it and fielding questions I've already answered.
I'm inclined to think that a system that measures knowledge and helps more knowledgeable people have a greater impact on elections in our country. A test is one way to do that. I'd like to discuss the pros and cons of it. But instead, I've been called stupid, an elitist, and accused of only wanting to use it to further my racist/anti-religious beliefs.
Yeah, that's a great foundation to start with.
How about you recognize that no matter how you turn it your idea is one of elitism and possible racism(based on the number of uneducated minorities vs. white people).
Giving me 5 votes to their 1 because I happen to have "studied for the test" doesn't work. This system is patently idiotic and simply devalues the voting process into who can read the political cliff notes.
Putting any form of intelligence/knowledge on the ability to vote is as silly as saying...If you cannot do 10 pullups you are not physically fit enough to vote.
So, say we adhere to allowing everyone to vote. But we add a knowledge-based test. It's optional. And this test - for the sake of argument - is as objective as any test could actually be, and non-controversial. Say, your performance on the test weights your vote. You can't get less than one. But if you do really well on the test, you can get, say... three votes.
Any problem with that?
Note that this is basically the effect of our electoral college, except I've replaced wealth, color, political preference and the other criteria used to redrawing districts with the knowledge of the individual voter.
For instance, maybe people who don't do well on the "test" has a vote worth 3/5 as much as other voters!
We'll make sure they vote in a seperate booth too, so we can be sure their votes don't mix in with the rest.
Armored Gorilla on
"I'm a mad god. The Mad God, actually. It's a family title. Gets passed down from me to myself every few thousand years."
As I mentioned in the other thread, it seems like you actually want to disenfranchise voters who have religious beliefs that you disagree with, in the guise of making sure voters are "knowledgeable".
Interesting that you got "religious" out of what I said in the other thread, because I didn't even vaguely allude to it.
Interesting how people got 'racist' out of poll taxes and grandfather clauses, because they don't even vaguely allude to it. Just to economic status, literacy, and heritage.
Poll taxes were designed to disenfranchise poor people. Who was poor when Jim Crow laws were around? BLACK PEOPLE.
Grandfather clauses were designed to allow people to vote as long as their grandfather was a citizen. Who's grandfathers were not citizens when Jim Crow laws were around? BLACK PEOPLE.
I mean, read between the lines. Christ.
On the off chance that was sarcasm, sorry.
It was sarcasm. I was pointing out how every type of disenfranchisement is hidden inside another goal.
As long as we're imagining this hypothetical, kowledge-based, objective, non-controversial test, I say we just imagine we have an immortal benevolent dictator who rules the country for the rest of time. That would make things much easier.
This is another reason I'm not going to bother.
You're so far gone on the idea of even having an adult discussion about it, that you can't even do a trivial thought experiment without snarking all over it.
"Thought experiments" are mental masturbation. I'm not really interested in what's possible in imaginary worlds where we can create things that are perfect; I'm interested in reality.
If you were only interested in implementing your political literacy test in Imaginationland, okay, you should have said so to begin with and I wouldn't have bothered replying. So, are you actually advocating that this is something that should be implemented in real life, or are you just playing pretend?
As I mentioned in the other thread, it seems like you actually want to disenfranchise voters who have religious beliefs that you disagree with, in the guise of making sure voters are "knowledgeable".
Interesting that you got "religious" out of what I said in the other thread, because I didn't even vaguely allude to it.
Interesting how people got 'racist' out of poll taxes and grandfather clauses, because they don't even vaguely allude to it. Just to economic status, literacy, and heritage.
Poll taxes were designed to disenfranchise poor people. Who was poor when Jim Crow laws were around? BLACK PEOPLE.
Grandfather clauses were designed to allow people to vote as long as their grandfather was a citizen. Who's grandfathers were not citizens when Jim Crow laws were around? BLACK PEOPLE.
I mean, read between the lines. Christ.
On the off chance that was sarcasm, sorry.
It was sarcasm. I was pointing out how every type of disenfranchisement is hidden inside another goal.
I am sorry.
Armored Gorilla on
"I'm a mad god. The Mad God, actually. It's a family title. Gets passed down from me to myself every few thousand years."
So, say we adhere to allowing everyone to vote. But we add a knowledge-based test. It's optional. And this test - for the sake of argument - is as objective as any test could actually be, and non-controversial. Say, your performance on the test weights your vote. You can't get less than one. But if you do really well on the test, you can get, say... three votes.
Any problem with that?
Note that this is basically the effect of our electoral college, except I've replaced wealth, color, political preference and the other criteria used to redrawing districts with the knowledge of the individual voter.
But see, you can't divorce "knowledge" from issues of class and race in American society (or pretty much any society anywhere, for that matter).
Then there's the issue of what types of knowledge your testing favors. Should someone who's a certified genius in the fields of mathematics, or poetry, or finance, have their vote valued less than a political history fan of limited practical intellect?
So, say we adhere to allowing everyone to vote. But we add a knowledge-based test. It's optional. And this test - for the sake of argument - is as objective as any test could actually be, and non-controversial. Say, your performance on the test weights your vote. You can't get less than one. But if you do really well on the test, you can get, say... three votes.
Any problem with that?
Note that this is basically the effect of our electoral college, except I've replaced wealth, color, political preference and the other criteria used to redrawing districts with the knowledge of the individual voter.
Yes, I have a problem with it. For one thing, it's no different than weighting your vote as 1 or 0 based on knowledge - it just uses different numbers to achieve the same effect. For another, you now seem to be promoting the idea that not only is being retardodumb a disenfranchisable offense, but that the smarter and more educated you are, the more your vote should be worth. Sorry, but Bob Genius should not have more say than Alfred Average. Just because Bob is the smartest guy in the world does not mean he knows fuck-all about what Alfred wants or needs. Rule by the intelligentsia isn't a great idea.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Churchill said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute discussion with the average voter.
Again, though, who is going to write the test? Until you answer this question, you're wasting our time.
The OP has merit, even without answering that question. Follow me into hypothetical-land here. What if a device was invented that could accurately measure a persons intelligence (whatever that is) on a percentile scale. Said device could also easily be audited to prevent fraud.
Would we be justified in excluding the first percentile, i.e. the functionally retarded that cannot feed, cloth, or go to the bathroom themselves?
What about the second percentile, those that likely cannot live without supervision?
What about the fiftieth percentile, Churchill's average voter?
First of all the dumbest percentile of people can still feed and cloth themselves, your talking about 3 million Americans. The number of people who's brains don't work to the extent your describing is a tiny tiny fraction of the population, and seeing as how they are probly mostly institutionalized people who are dying of brain trauma/stroke/advanced-Alzheimer's or severely mentally handicapped, these people don't exactly vote in droves under the current system because its just too difficult for them to get to a polling station and they don't care/don't remember to vote.
The next problem is how you measure intelligence. I'm assuming your talking about IQ which is a measure of how well you observe patterns and solve problems, not exactly relevant to voting issues.
And again, suppose you implement this system. Only intelligent people's votes get counted, so they vote for people who will best represent them, leading to elitism which just feeds itself in an endless cycle.
As long as we're imagining this hypothetical, kowledge-based, objective, non-controversial test, I say we just imagine we have an immortal benevolent dictator who rules the country for the rest of time. That would make things much easier.
This is another reason I'm not going to bother.
You're so far gone on the idea of even having an adult discussion about it, that you can't even do a trivial thought experiment without snarking all over it.
"Thought experiments" are mental masturbation. I'm not really interested in what's possible in imaginary worlds where we can create things that are perfect; I'm interested in reality.
Schroedinger's cat would like to have a word with you.
Unless, you know, he doesn't.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
As long as we're imagining this hypothetical, kowledge-based, objective, non-controversial test, I say we just imagine we have an immortal benevolent dictator who rules the country for the rest of time. That would make things much easier.
This is another reason I'm not going to bother.
You're so far gone on the idea of even having an adult discussion about it, that you can't even do a trivial thought experiment without snarking all over it.
"Thought experiments" are mental masturbation. I'm not really interested in what's possible in imaginary worlds where we can create things that are perfect; I'm interested in reality.
If you were only interested in implementing your political literacy test in Imaginationland, okay, you should have said so to begin with and I wouldn't have bothered replying. So, are you actually advocating that this is something that should be implemented in real life, or are you just playing pretend?
Are you familiar with the scientific method? What I'm attempting to do is control for variables.
The problem is that objections to the idea have been all over the place. They are, so far:
1. A test can't be objective
2. A test can't be fair
3. A test is racist
4. I am a racist
5. I'm a secret racist, trying to shuttle in a racist idea in the guise of something else
...and so on and so on.
What I'm trying to do is create a list of problems that a test system entails, to see if there are ways to correct those problems. And if there are, so see how some of those corrections might play into a test-based system.
Maybe the whole thing's a waste. I'm not willing to start shrieking like a chimp and flinging poo at it, though. It warrants discussion. I mean, what's the worst thing that happens? Someone learns?
But to directly answer your question: no, I don't believe knowledge-based tests should be implemented as a requirement for voting. I'm just interested in seeing if they might be feasible, and I'm trying to get a list of reasonable arguments (e.g. not based on fallacies) for and against it.
Having high intelligence does not mean someone will make better decisions voting. Being dumb does not mean a person wont make good choices voting. Asserting intelligence corresponds to better voting is foolish.
Heck maybe the unintelligent would be voting for a candidate who has a good education reform platform. I sure as heck want them voting because they have issues important to them that may not be important to me.
As long as we're imagining this hypothetical, kowledge-based, objective, non-controversial test, I say we just imagine we have an immortal benevolent dictator who rules the country for the rest of time. That would make things much easier.
This is another reason I'm not going to bother.
You're so far gone on the idea of even having an adult discussion about it, that you can't even do a trivial thought experiment without snarking all over it.
What's bothered me about this conversation is that you go from a logical and admirable idea (wanting to have a more informed electorate) to a poorly thought out solution that, while enacting the idea, also disenfranches people without sufficiently justifying that action. You basically want to use a sledgehammer to drive a one inch nail into a wall, even though you know that doing so will fundamentally damage the wall.
The OP has merit, even without answering that question. Follow me into hypothetical-land here. What if a device was invented that could accurately measure a persons intelligence (whatever that is) on a percentile scale. Said device could also easily be audited to prevent fraud.
Would we be justified in excluding the first percentile, i.e. the functionally retarded that cannot feed, cloth, or go to the bathroom themselves?
What about the second percentile, those that likely cannot live without supervision?
What about the fiftieth percentile, Churchill's average voter?
First of all the dumbest percentile of people can still feed and cloth themselves, your talking about 3 million Americans. The number of people who's brains don't work to the extent your describing is a tiny tiny fraction of the population, and seeing as how they are probly mostly institutionalized people who are dying of brain trauma/stroke/advanced-Alzheimer's or severely mentally handicapped, these people don't exactly vote in droves under the current system because its just too difficult for them to get to a polling station and they don't care/don't remember to vote.
The next problem is how you measure intelligence. I'm assuming your talking about IQ which is a measure of how well you observe patterns and solve problems, not exactly relevant to voting issues.
And again, suppose you implement this system. Only intelligent people's votes get counted, so they vote for people who will best represent them, leading to elitism which just feeds itself in an endless cycle.
You're right about my percentile categories. Let's call them 0.001% and 0.01% instead. That's probably closer, but of course still way off.
I'm specifically not talking about IQ. I'm talking about us figuring out "intelligence." Yes, it's a thought-experiment. Some people don't like to engage in them. I'm using it to make a moral point.
Lastly, the point about elitism is exactly where my question leads. Is elitism justified, if it were objective?
1. A test is unlikely to be objective
2. A test is unlikely to be fair
3. A test likely to be racist
Fix'd. When you add in:
4. The problem of uneducated voters is not one that is actively crippling democracy
I think you wind up with a solution that is likely to be far worse than the problem. Dumb voters annoys the piss out of me, but I'm skeptical that "dumb" people of the sort we're lamenting have actively shifted a substantial number of election outcomes, given that they appear on both sides of the aisle.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
This is a terrible, terrible idea. Being educated enough to answer the questions (not to mention how many people would lie just to be able to vote, especially on religious matters), doesn't make you smarter, only more educated.
The OP has merit, even without answering that question. Follow me into hypothetical-land here. What if a device was invented that could accurately measure a persons intelligence (whatever that is) on a percentile scale. Said device could also easily be audited to prevent fraud.
Would we be justified in excluding the first percentile, i.e. the functionally retarded that cannot feed, cloth, or go to the bathroom themselves?
What about the second percentile, those that likely cannot live without supervision?
What about the fiftieth percentile, Churchill's average voter?
First of all the dumbest percentile of people can still feed and cloth themselves, your talking about 3 million Americans. The number of people who's brains don't work to the extent your describing is a tiny tiny fraction of the population, and seeing as how they are probly mostly institutionalized people who are dying of brain trauma/stroke/advanced-Alzheimer's or severely mentally handicapped, these people don't exactly vote in droves under the current system because its just too difficult for them to get to a polling station and they don't care/don't remember to vote.
The next problem is how you measure intelligence. I'm assuming your talking about IQ which is a measure of how well you observe patterns and solve problems, not exactly relevant to voting issues.
And again, suppose you implement this system. Only intelligent people's votes get counted, so they vote for people who will best represent them, leading to elitism which just feeds itself in an endless cycle.
You're right about my percentile categories. Let's call them 0.001% and 0.01% instead. That's probably closer, but of course still way off.
I'm specifically not talking about IQ. I'm talking about us figuring out "intelligence." Yes, it's a thought-experiment. Some people don't like to engage in them. I'm using it to make a moral point.
Lastly, the point about elitism is exactly where my question leads. Is elitism justified, if it were objective?
I answered in the presidency thread, but I'll answer here as well. No, objective elitism isn't justified, because every person should have a say over their own life. The important part of democracy for me is not that the masses will make the right decision, but that they have a voice in what happens to them. That is entirely a value judgment on my part though.
Setting up any system by which a test or some arbitrary device determines who can or cannot vote will disenfranchise far more voters than it will help correct the problem.
1) Who writes the test.
2) Who vets the test.
3) Is it fair to all races/languages/cultural differences.
4) Is it fair to women.
5) Is it fair to the mentally retarded that still retain voting rights.
6) Is it relevant.
7) Does it lean to the right or left.
8) What if I cannot read, do I get to use a picture menu?
The main issue here is there was a long period of time where groups fought for the right to vote, and this would be viewed as a way to completely destroy that progress.
There is no test that would have universal appeal, so the point is moot.
In the real world, even bringing this up politically would be the same as slitting your own throat.
Posts
While this is true, it's not a compelling reason for taking away their right to vote. Look at it this way: if the roles were reversed, these people would be arguing for a test to weed out people that are hostile towards their beliefs. This is why I called the tests arbitrary, because they will change depending on the people who compose them.
It is their country too though. Disenfranchising them because they are too ignorant to know any better is tyranny. No more, no less.
I really don't know how you can believe in democracy and not be an optimist when it comes to the majority of people though.
So let me boil down your point....
Instead of working inside the system to fix the wrongs that are at hand, I present we just don't let the people I disagree with vote. Then the problem will solve itself.
Your stance is just as silly as "magic in the classroom" and it is MORE outrageous, because your stances prove you are at least somewhat educated on the matters at hand.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Bullshit. Sorry, the only practical purpose of your "How old is the Earth?" question is to disenfranchise voters who believe in "young Earth" creationism.
Those beliefs are based on taking the Bible literally, and thus have everything to do with religion. Unless you can summon forth some large number of atheist or agnostic Americans who think the Earth is 6,000 years old.
See, this is a perfect example of why "knowledge testing" for voters is a terrible idea. Because the biases and prejudices of the folks making the tests are exceedingly likely to manifest themselves in those tests. Your contempt, deserved or otherwise, for proponents of "intelligent design" would lead to them being disenfranchised if your ideal test was passed into law. But what if the fine folks of the Kansas legislature made a test that disenfranchised atheists, or homosexuals?
Or, at the very least, stop talking to him until he actually tells us who is going to write the test.
The OP has merit, even without answering that question. Follow me into hypothetical-land here. What if a device was invented that could accurately measure a persons intelligence (whatever that is) on a percentile scale. Said device could also easily be audited to prevent fraud.
Would we be justified in excluding the first percentile, i.e. the functionally retarded that cannot feed, cloth, or go to the bathroom themselves?
What about the second percentile, those that likely cannot live without supervision?
What about the fiftieth percentile, Churchill's average voter?
Wouldn't giving a say to anyone who isn't at the very top be bringing down our chances of making the "best" decision?
This is just assuming "intelligence" is a mask for knowledge / diligence / random good attribute for making decisions. Since there are other factors involved beyond IQ...
Any problem with that?
Note that this is basically the effect of our electoral college, except I've replaced wealth, color, political preference and the other criteria used to redrawing districts with the knowledge of the individual voter.
Interesting how people got 'racist' out of poll taxes and grandfather clauses, because they don't even vaguely allude to it. Just to economic status, literacy, and heritage.
I'm inclined to think that a system that measures knowledge and helps more knowledgeable people have a greater impact on elections in our country is a good thing. A test is one way to do that. Possibly not the only. I'd like to discuss the pros and cons of those possible methods. But instead, I've been called stupid, an elitist, and accused of only wanting to use it to further my racist/anti-religious beliefs.
Yeah, that's a great foundation to start with.
Poll taxes were designed to disenfranchise poor people. Who was poor when Jim Crow laws were around? BLACK PEOPLE.
Grandfather clauses were designed to allow people to vote as long as their grandfather was a citizen. Who's grandfathers were not citizens when Jim Crow laws were around? BLACK PEOPLE.
I mean, read between the lines. Christ.
On the off chance that was sarcasm, sorry.
I thought of something like that once. The problem is this: What happens when a candidate wins the popular vote, but loses because the other guy's votes counted for more? That'd make the trouble we had in 2000 look like a picnic.
It's clear that democracies function more strongly when the voters are well-informed. Jefferson said that. But if there's a fair, practical way to make every voter informed, damned if I know what it is.
For instance, maybe people who don't do well on the "test" has a vote worth 3/5 as much as other voters!
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
You're so far gone on the idea of even having an adult discussion about it, that you can't even do a trivial thought experiment without snarking all over it.
How about you recognize that no matter how you turn it your idea is one of elitism and possible racism(based on the number of uneducated minorities vs. white people).
Giving me 5 votes to their 1 because I happen to have "studied for the test" doesn't work. This system is patently idiotic and simply devalues the voting process into who can read the political cliff notes.
Putting any form of intelligence/knowledge on the ability to vote is as silly as saying...If you cannot do 10 pullups you are not physically fit enough to vote.
We'll make sure they vote in a seperate booth too, so we can be sure their votes don't mix in with the rest.
Wow.
If you were only interested in implementing your political literacy test in Imaginationland, okay, you should have said so to begin with and I wouldn't have bothered replying. So, are you actually advocating that this is something that should be implemented in real life, or are you just playing pretend?
I am sorry.
But see, you can't divorce "knowledge" from issues of class and race in American society (or pretty much any society anywhere, for that matter).
Then there's the issue of what types of knowledge your testing favors. Should someone who's a certified genius in the fields of mathematics, or poetry, or finance, have their vote valued less than a political history fan of limited practical intellect?
People with degrees who think that everyone without one is a slobbering neanderthal.
Since when does someone need a degree to be an intelligentsia-elitist? Or intelligence, for that matter?
That was his point.
Yes, I have a problem with it. For one thing, it's no different than weighting your vote as 1 or 0 based on knowledge - it just uses different numbers to achieve the same effect. For another, you now seem to be promoting the idea that not only is being retardodumb a disenfranchisable offense, but that the smarter and more educated you are, the more your vote should be worth. Sorry, but Bob Genius should not have more say than Alfred Average. Just because Bob is the smartest guy in the world does not mean he knows fuck-all about what Alfred wants or needs. Rule by the intelligentsia isn't a great idea.
First of all the dumbest percentile of people can still feed and cloth themselves, your talking about 3 million Americans. The number of people who's brains don't work to the extent your describing is a tiny tiny fraction of the population, and seeing as how they are probly mostly institutionalized people who are dying of brain trauma/stroke/advanced-Alzheimer's or severely mentally handicapped, these people don't exactly vote in droves under the current system because its just too difficult for them to get to a polling station and they don't care/don't remember to vote.
The next problem is how you measure intelligence. I'm assuming your talking about IQ which is a measure of how well you observe patterns and solve problems, not exactly relevant to voting issues.
And again, suppose you implement this system. Only intelligent people's votes get counted, so they vote for people who will best represent them, leading to elitism which just feeds itself in an endless cycle.
Schroedinger's cat would like to have a word with you.
Unless, you know, he doesn't.
The problem is that objections to the idea have been all over the place. They are, so far:
1. A test can't be objective
2. A test can't be fair
3. A test is racist
4. I am a racist
5. I'm a secret racist, trying to shuttle in a racist idea in the guise of something else
...and so on and so on.
What I'm trying to do is create a list of problems that a test system entails, to see if there are ways to correct those problems. And if there are, so see how some of those corrections might play into a test-based system.
Maybe the whole thing's a waste. I'm not willing to start shrieking like a chimp and flinging poo at it, though. It warrants discussion. I mean, what's the worst thing that happens? Someone learns?
But to directly answer your question: no, I don't believe knowledge-based tests should be implemented as a requirement for voting. I'm just interested in seeing if they might be feasible, and I'm trying to get a list of reasonable arguments (e.g. not based on fallacies) for and against it.
Heck maybe the unintelligent would be voting for a candidate who has a good education reform platform. I sure as heck want them voting because they have issues important to them that may not be important to me.
What's bothered me about this conversation is that you go from a logical and admirable idea (wanting to have a more informed electorate) to a poorly thought out solution that, while enacting the idea, also disenfranches people without sufficiently justifying that action. You basically want to use a sledgehammer to drive a one inch nail into a wall, even though you know that doing so will fundamentally damage the wall.
You're right about my percentile categories. Let's call them 0.001% and 0.01% instead. That's probably closer, but of course still way off.
I'm specifically not talking about IQ. I'm talking about us figuring out "intelligence." Yes, it's a thought-experiment. Some people don't like to engage in them. I'm using it to make a moral point.
Lastly, the point about elitism is exactly where my question leads. Is elitism justified, if it were objective?
Fix'd. When you add in:
4. The problem of uneducated voters is not one that is actively crippling democracy
I think you wind up with a solution that is likely to be far worse than the problem. Dumb voters annoys the piss out of me, but I'm skeptical that "dumb" people of the sort we're lamenting have actively shifted a substantial number of election outcomes, given that they appear on both sides of the aisle.
I answered in the presidency thread, but I'll answer here as well. No, objective elitism isn't justified, because every person should have a say over their own life. The important part of democracy for me is not that the masses will make the right decision, but that they have a voice in what happens to them. That is entirely a value judgment on my part though.
1) Who writes the test.
2) Who vets the test.
3) Is it fair to all races/languages/cultural differences.
4) Is it fair to women.
5) Is it fair to the mentally retarded that still retain voting rights.
6) Is it relevant.
7) Does it lean to the right or left.
8) What if I cannot read, do I get to use a picture menu?
The main issue here is there was a long period of time where groups fought for the right to vote, and this would be viewed as a way to completely destroy that progress.
There is no test that would have universal appeal, so the point is moot.
In the real world, even bringing this up politically would be the same as slitting your own throat.