Political Opinion

[Sydels]

So I know voting was two weeks ago, but Ive been thinking about it for a while. In the 1800's or so people were required to have a literacy test to vote, but it was corrupt because white males would have a very easy test while the minority would have a harder test. In today's society where people are more worried about facebook than the government i believe that we should readopt a literacy/competence test for voters registration. do you agree/disagree?

[Browny]

I disagree because the illiteracy rates in the us are getting higher and higher.

[Taryn98]

There's definitely pros and cons to something like this, but I think it's a good idea. People shouldn't be allowed to vote if they don't understand what's going on in the country and world. I think people vote for the wrong reason's a lot of the time and have no clue what the big problems are or what is needed to solve them. They're only concerned with themselves, and what's going on today, not how today's decisions could effect next year or ten years from now.
If people are uneducated, do you really think they're going to make a good decision on who should be running the country?

[crashing]

i think their's a lot more to be worried about than if you can read and or write. and these days how many people can't read at least a bit?

[TigerBoy]

A test based on an awareness and understanding of the issues at stake seems reasonable on face value, since it might at least remove votes cast purely out of habit or apathy. However those that vote in ignorance may well find that what they voted for doesn't deliver what they want, in which case they are more likely to do their homework next time anyway.

Of course some may not be capable of fully understanding the issues, but there are plenty of potential issues with a general test of competency even if everyone got the same test.

If the existing government denied me education, I might be in a situation where I'd never pass a test requiring that eduction in order to qualify to vote to have them give me that education.

A test based on intelligence doesn't guarantee the cleverest people are informed on the subject. (Measuring intelligence is very flawed anyway : current theories of "intelligence" suggest that it is actually expressed in a much wider variety than traditional 'IQ' tests are designed for).

So ultimately I think the only practical 'test' is that of the election itself: if you don't like what you have now, educate yourself and vote accordingly.

[Cicero]

I completely agree. If they are illiterate how can we trust that they know about the hard pressing issues? I also think that the test should be given in only English. Its great knowing Spanish, but I think everyone who votes should know basic English. If someone doesn't know English, they should at least try to learn it, either on their own or by a teacher. You don't need a teacher to teach you English, you can learn it on your own. Back in the 1920s the immigrant Italians, Germans, Russians, etc would try their best to learn English (and if I'm not mistaken they had to learn English). We as a society, didn't conform to the Italian/Russian/German/etc immigrants language. If anything, people should be taught Latin, not Spanish. Because there is a variety of languages you can easily understand if you know Latin, such as English, Spanish, and Italian. If you learn/know just Spanish, you can't really understand Italian or English. If you just know Italian, you don't really understand English or Spanish. So instead, Latin should be taught, so you more easily understand English, Italian, and/or Spanish. There are so many things now in society that's conforming to Spanish that I barely understand a lot of the billboards or commercials.

[TigerBoy]

If they are illiterate how can we trust that they know about the hard pressing issues?

See my point above - if they are illiterate, how can they vote to get the education they need if they are prevented from voting for being illiterate?

I also think that the test should be given in only English.
Agreed. As a nation, part of that national identity is a common language. Individual cultures (and languages) should be maintained and celebrated, but so should national identity. They are not mutually exclusive.

If anything, people should be taught Latin, not Spanish. Because there is a variety of languages you can easily understand if you know Latin, such as English, Spanish, and Italian.
Not so helpful for your immigrants from countries with non-romance roots. Latin is just one branch (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/IndoEuropeanTree.svg) of 'indo-european' languages alongside indo-iranian and balto-slavic languages, so is itself only a small percentage of a larger group who in their entirety represent only 45% of the worlds speakers. Also if you are using it to justify an understanding of English this would not be so helpful since English primarily derives from the Germanic branch not from vulgar latin. You would be better off learning German, and if Latin then also Old Norse, Anglo Saxon and a bit of Norman French.

If you are going to take the trouble to teach a common language, I suggest you start with the one that is already established :P

[CharlieFinley]

A high school degree or GED should be required to vote. If you are too lazy or mentally incapable of achieving a GED, you have no business voting.

[Sugaree]

i think their's a lot more to be worried about than if you can read and or write. and these days how many people can't read at least a bit?

Plenty. Did you know that R. Kelley is illiterate? Illiteracy is a huge problem; it could eventually result in the government being able to brainwash those who can't read into being their supporters. Education as a whole in the United States has gone down in the past two decades, and it's starting to show.

[FreeFall]

A high school degree or GED should be required to vote. If you are too lazy or mentally incapable of achieving a GED, you have no business voting.
This is what I think too.

I know some Americans cannot help wheter they finish school or not, but they're in such a minority I think they can be pushed to the side and just get the right to vote once they're able to have their GED. It shouldn't be that difficult but I could be wrong. At least with proof of a high school education, they may be seen as having a better grasp of certain things than someone that is 40 and never finished middle school and has such limited education and understanding.
Being the of the age to vote doesn't mean they aren't ignorant of politics and what it is they're doing. I think it's more important to focus on political information but illteracy being it's own issue aside from politics, should also be adressed.

[Azunite]

Let the mightiest take over, oppa tribe style

[Gigablue]

While I see where you're coming from, I think you would be going down a slippery slope. If you start taking away people's voting rights based in literacy or intelligence, you could eventually end up taking away people's rights for other reasons. I don't really think it would be a good idea.

[CharlieFinley]

While I see where you're coming from, I think you would be going down a slippery slope. If you start taking away people's voting rights based in literacy or intelligence, you could eventually end up taking away people's rights for other reasons. I don't really think it would be a good idea.

That's a fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Fallacy)

You even said the actual words, "slippery slope."

[TigerBoy]

That's a fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Fallacy)

You even said the actual words, "slippery slope."

A slippery slope analogy doesn't have to be a fallacy. It is only a fallacy where conclusions are drawn via a chain of events without proving each link in the chain of events leading to that conclusion.

In this case the word "could" infers possibility not certainty, so the conclusion is not deemed inevitable.

There is also not that big of a gap in causality, so the "slope" barely exists here. Setting a legal precedent by creating a legal mechanism to take away voting rights is the big change. One this is in place, amending that legislation to permit other uses becomes easier.

Legislative creep is a well understood phenomenon. Many dictators have risen to power this way, and many countries are seeing ever tightening legislation around internet usage and other civil liberties as a result of such emotionally powerful arguments as the "think of the children" lobby, or "anti-terrorism".

[CharlieFinley]

A slippery slope analogy doesn't have to be a fallacy. It is only a fallacy where conclusions are drawn via a chain of events without proving each link in the chain of events leading to that conclusion.

In this case the word "could" infers possibility not certainty, so the conclusion is not deemed inevitable.

There is also not that big of a gap in causality, so the "slope" barely exists here. Setting a legal precedent by creating a legal mechanism to take away voting rights is the big change. One this is in place, amending that legislation to permit other uses becomes easier.

Legislative creep is a well understood phenomenon. Many dictators have risen to power this way, and many countries are seeing ever tightening legislation around internet usage and other civil liberties as a result of such emotionally powerful arguments as the "think of the children" lobby, or "anti-terrorism".

However, unless you can demonstrate that's LIKELY to happen in this case, it's still a fallacy.

[TigerBoy]

However, unless you can demonstrate that's LIKELY to happen in this case, it's still a fallacy.

No, it still doesn't have to be a fallacy, and I don't believe it is in this case. I would agree with you if a specific outcome had been stated as being certain or even likely in the first place. In that instance yes, absolutely you would need to show the cumulative truth (or probability) of each link in the chain of logic in order to make such a statement. That is not the case here, however.

Instead here you have a statement raising a (broad) consideration with regards to any new legislation. This consideration is justified by past experiences such as mentioned previously: in this specific instance experience teaches us that the speculated causal link (legislative creep) is not highly improbable, and at the same time that the potential impact quite alarming.

We have something very similar to this going on currently with the Levison inquiry in the UK with respect to it recommending new legislation of media, which many fear puts in place a mechanism that "could" be abused in future to limit free speech. This concern has been expressed by the PM himself: he is clearly not suggesting he will personally abuse or extend this legislation, however the impact of that (as yet unquantified) risk is sufficiently large to make it a reasonable consideration.

[Human]

A test based on an awareness and understanding of the issues at stake seems reasonable on face value, since it might at least remove votes cast purely out of habit or apathy. However those that vote in ignorance may well find that what they voted for doesn't deliver what they want, in which case they are more likely to do their homework next time anyway.

Of course some may not be capable of fully understanding the issues, but there are plenty of potential issues with a general test of competency even if everyone got the same test.

If the existing government denied me education, I might be in a situation where I'd never pass a test requiring that eduction in order to qualify to vote to have them give me that education.

A test based on intelligence doesn't guarantee the cleverest people are informed on the subject. (Measuring intelligence is very flawed anyway : current theories of "intelligence" suggest that it is actually expressed in a much wider variety than traditional 'IQ' tests are designed for).

So ultimately I think the only practical 'test' is that of the election itself: if you don't like what you have now, educate yourself and vote accordingly.

I agree.
Also, the voting would be monopolized by the richer, ones who could afford better education like private schooling, would come out with better results and there would be a greater majority than perfectly good yet illiterate people who can't vote, worsening the situation for them as those who did vote won't want to help the illiterate people.

[CharlieFinley]

[QUOTE=TigerBoy;2036739]No, it still doesn't have to be a fallacy, and I don't believe it is in this case. I would agree with you if a specific outcome had been stated as being certain or even likely in the first place. In that instance yes, absolutely you would need to show the cumulative truth (or probability) of each link in the chain of logic in order to make such a statement. That is not the case here, however.

Instead here you have a statement raising a (broad) consideration with regards to any new legislation. This consideration is justified by past experiences such as mentioned previously: in this specific instance experience teaches us that the speculated causal link (legislative creep) is not highly improbable, and at the same time that the potential impact quite alarming.

[quote] and yet we have a provision that has lasted quite some time without legislative creep that denies a group the right to vote based on their failures. The GED is unutterably easy. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be voting. It's not a question of fairness or what have you, it's a question of what will produce the best outcome.

[TigerBoy]

and yet we have a provision that has lasted quite some time without legislative creep that denies a group the right to vote based on their failures. The GED is unutterably easy. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be voting. It's not a question of fairness or what have you, it's a question of what will produce the best outcome.

The goalposts appear to have moved, we're now moving away from a discussion of what is or is not a fallacy.

I didn't at any point say legislative creep was inevitable, the most I said was that it wasn't highly improbable.

I'm not clear what "provision" you are referring to- is there some legislation in place in your country that bars you from voting without a qualification?

You appear to be using this GED as a measurement of intelligence. I refer you to my previous point:


A test based on intelligence doesn't guarantee the cleverest people are informed on the subject. (Measuring intelligence is very flawed anyway : current theories of "intelligence" suggest that it is actually expressed in a much wider variety than traditional 'IQ' tests are designed for).

[CharlieFinley]

The goalposts appear to have moved, we're now moving away from a discussion of what is or is not a fallacy.

I didn't at any point say legislative creep was inevitable, the most I said was that it wasn't highly improbable. You're right. I apologize.

I'm not clear what "provision" you are referring to- is there some legislation in place in your country that bars you from voting without a qualification?http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/states-prevent-felons-voting/story?id=17431663#.ULgPmaw818E

You appear to be using this GED as a measurement of intelligence. I refer you to my previous point:It's just the equivalent of a high school degree for people who dropped out. It's by no means a general intelligence test.

[FreeFall]

Going back and looking on this, my opinion is wavering. But I'm still in favor of political awareness and maybe stronger methods for voting. Just because you're of the age to do something, doesn't mean you should. Some people should never drink, some should never drive. Some of breeding age, should really never reproduce.

Simply being the voting age, in my opinion, doesn't mean one should really "have" the right to vote. Before the "but the women, but the blacks" replies, I don't mean on discrimination of gender or color. I mean in intelligence. I can honestly say some, thanks to facebook, of my peers only voted because they are a) 18 and b) "Obama's black, keep the black guy in office" and "Romney did a Gangnam Style dance! Vote for him!" -Direct Quote. Seems like great way to rule how you vote, no? And no, they were dead serious. I know these kids, trust me, no hope for them at this moment. When probably half, I'm just assuming, of the country/county/state is voting for pathetic reasons and can't/don't/won't take the time to actually grasp and understand what they're doing when they cast a vote, we may one day pull a bad draw and hope after that those who were too careless or were ignorant can learn to be more aware.

[TigerBoy]

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/states-prevent-felons-voting/story?id=17431663#.ULgPmaw818E

That's really interesting. We already have a ban on prisoners voting in the UK (and the EU wants us to remove it ... which isn't going to happen without a big fight).

I suppose that one hasn't "crept" simply because the criteria for exclusion from voting is self determining via anti-social actions. In the UK the overwhelmingly prevalent view in society is that prisoners have broken the 'social contract', so it would be a completely different philosophical issue to apply a voting ban to groups within legitimate society.


It's just the equivalent of a high school degree for people who dropped out. It's by no means a general intelligence test.
So does it genuinely exclude people who are "lazy or mentally incapable" I wonder? Does it ONLY exclude those people?

I suggest that disadvantaged but intelligent, motivated people may find themselves without a GED and struggling to make ends meet via work. Is it fair to burden them further with the obligation to gain their GED, and penalise them for however many years until they can do so?

When probably half, I'm just assuming, of the country/county/state is voting for pathetic reasons and can't/don't/won't take the time to actually grasp and understand what they're doing when they cast a vote, we may one day pull a bad draw and hope after that those who were too careless or were ignorant can learn to be more aware.
I totally agree with all of you saying that there are some real issues with how, why or even if people vote. As I said earlier, if they are foolish enough to vote in that way, at some point their choices will bite them in the arse. The scarey part to me is how bad things need to get before eg you wake up and find yourself living in a theocracy instead of a democracy (*cough* The Tea Party *cough*).

I think it is wrong to simply blame these voting habits on the ignorant and uneducated voter however: while there is so much money being spent to buy opinion, and so much media bias, and so many immoral, self-serving, devious and lying politicians, exactly where are voters meant to get "the plain facts"? Who can they trust to provide those facts?

[FreeFall]

I totally agree with all of you saying that there are some real issues with how, why or even if people vote. As I said earlier, if they are foolish enough to vote in that way, at some point their choices will bite them in the arse. The scarey part to me is how bad things need to get before eg you wake up and find yourself living in a theocracy instead of a democracy (*cough* The Tea Party *cough*).

I think it is wrong to simply blame these voting habits on the ignorant and uneducated voter however: while there is so much money being spent to buy opinion, and so much media bias, and so many immoral, self-serving, devious and lying politicians, exactly where are voters meant to get "the plain facts"? Who can they trust to provide those facts?

That is also the scarey part to me.

There is a whole bunch of corruption that will take years to go away and fix, but that's not what my focus was.
My focus was the careless and ignorant, and in my opinion anyone who wants to remedy it will look everywhere and anywhere for information. To form a round opinion on the political candidates I have both gone to extremely biased sites and neutral sights. Republican dominated sights, democratic dominated, free party dominated, etc. Even watching the debates and re-runs of them, or whatever speeches have been given.
You're right, there's no one to trust for facts. That's why they should take it into their own hands and find out for themselves. And if they can't read or don't have the means to, yet they can push a ballot button with the greatest of ease blissfully, do they really know whom and what
they're voting for? And the careless, they just need to be taught to care but I cannot figure out what other wake up call is needed at this moment.

Corruption and the corrupted are on a different scale than those who are actively ignorant and apathetic. Though actively is a bad word there are many places for those, even the homeless, to go to an adults reading school, sadly there are also teenager places for that aimed at those who dropped out. I see no excuse when there's free, service work, charity work education to help them gain the knowledge needed to gather information.

After we get people to be smart enough to vote for themselves and what they feel the country needs, then we can tackle corruption. Not to sound like a heartless thing, but it's easier to grab hold of the mind of someone no so caring or intelligent to make it do as you please than someone with knowledge. Intelligence is power.

[TigerBoy]

My focus was the careless and ignorant, and in my opinion anyone who wants to remedy it will look everywhere and anywhere for information.

Yep but how to make them do that? Or in the spirit of the OP's question, how to test they have done that?


Not to sound like a heartless thing, but it's easier to grab hold of the mind of someone no so caring or intelligent to make it do as you please than someone with knowledge. Intelligence is power.
I don't think that is heartless at all, I think this is an important observation - there are vast numbers of sheeple who will think and believe what others tell them to. Independent and critical thought is systematically discouraged by a variety of powerful organisations.

Perhaps rather than a test for intellect per se, what we might need is a test for is competency in critical thinking and motivation to self-educate.

[CharlieFinley]

That's really interesting. We already have a ban on prisoners voting in the UK (and the EU wants us to remove it ... which isn't going to happen without a big fight).

I suppose that one hasn't "crept" simply because the criteria for exclusion from voting is self determining via anti-social actions. In the UK the overwhelmingly prevalent view in society is that prisoners have broken the 'social contract', so it would be a completely different philosophical issue to apply a voting ban to groups within legitimate society. I'm in complete agreement with you about the social contract issue. Have you read Starship Troopers? A lot of what he says is full of shit, but he proposes a (very extreme) version of the "upholding the social contract" requirement to vote.


So does it genuinely exclude people who are "lazy or mentally incapable" I wonder? Does it ONLY exclude those people? You're right. Last time I proposed this, I suggested that they be able to take a short place-of-voting exam, but this time I left it off and I'm not really sure why. Completely my fault.

[TigerBoy]

I'm in complete agreement with you about the social contract issue. Have you read Starship Troopers? A lot of what he says is full of shit, but he proposes a (very extreme) version of the "upholding the social contract" requirement to vote..

Hah yep :P I think I've read everything by Robert Heinlein (my mum's got around 40 of his books anyway). In fact for me it was Stranger in a Strange Land is what got me thinking objectively about the state and questioning the status quo for the first time, and then theres the stuff the Lunar Colonies and "TANSTAAFL" etc (and in those you'd be spaced for crimes like rape). Oh, and pantheistic solipsism. Mustn't forget that one ;-)

[ECSTASY]

i agree . unless some bitches like our president won't destroy our country .
anyways i'll never vote for the elections here in iran -.- cause all of those elected people are a bunch of assholes -.-

[CharlieFinley]

Hah yep :P I think I've read everything by Robert Heinlein (my mum's got around 40 of his books anyway). In fact for me it was Stranger in a Strange Land is what got me thinking objectively about the state and questioning the status quo for the first time, and then theres the stuff the Lunar Colonies and "TANSTAAFL" etc (and in those you'd be spaced for crimes like rape). Oh, and pantheistic solipsism. Mustn't forget that one ;-)

Solipsism makes me angry.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

Whereas there are many benefits to ensuring the future of the industrialized and modern world is in the best capable hands, there are disparities between generations in regards to literacy and common intelligence. I feel that in time, this sort of practice would be seen as redundant, but now, it may help to reduce the crazies who watch fox news and don't read anything for themselves from voting and messing up our future.

[CharlieFinley]

Whereas there are many benefits to ensuring the future of the industrialized and modern world is in the best capable hands, there are disparities between generations in regards to literacy and common intelligence. I feel that in time, this sort of practice would be seen as redundant, but now, it may help to reduce the crazies who watch fox news and don't read anything for themselves from voting and messing up our future.

Right. Because there aren't stupid liberals or anything, no sir.

[CharlieHorse]

I hate politics, and seeing people hate other people because of how they think a country should be run, when they never really acknowledge the big picture. They never forget their differences and compromise, or work together. It's all about conpetition, and media, and fame, and money.
Seeing all this shit makes me hate the world, and makes me not want to live anymore. :(

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

Right. Because there aren't stupid liberals or anything, no sir.

There are, and there are stupid democrats, and stupid independents as well. :P