|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Modern Civics | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I haven't given citizenship tests much thought. I don't see the point of making sure that immigrants know information that most adult citizens probably have either forgotten or never knew. Well, at least that's consistent.
We could say that about many artificial barriers to voting. But most "artificial barriers to voting" don't have that much of a rationale. Whereas there is at least something to be said for the idea that people should have some basic idea of how democracy works before we let them join in. I should say that I'm not terribly keen on the idea, I just don't think it's as bad as you paint it either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Suppose you're worried about the garbage dump in your back yard, and you want to vote for a mayoral candidate who's against it. Someone says: "But before we let you vote for a mayor, you've got to know whether the mayor of this town is subject to term limits". If you decide that you can't be bothered to learn that in order to be qualified to vote, how much did you care in the first place? The obvious answer is that I cared immensely, but the city knew that me and my neighbors, poor Spanish-speaking manual laborers that we are, don't have the time or resources enough to learn such and such arbitrary fact about Joe Dickhead and his opponent Jim Blowjob running for mayor or the office that they're running for and so figured setting up a city dump in our backyard would be ideal as we'd be unable to pass the medieval torture tests required to vote against the policy and they wouldn't have to worry about our opposition... or all the cancer our children would be getting. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Whereas there is at least something to be said for the idea that people should have some basic idea of how democracy works before we let them join in. But they already know everything there is to know about how democracy works, which is that they have an opinion and they can voice it through voting. The rest is all arbitrary icing and sprinkles. And not particularly tasty stuff either. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3266 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
What kind of test would have uncovered such a thing? Who gets to select the test questions? How do we prevent politics from creeping into the test? I cannot imagine that people who identify themselves as Republicans would think my summary of the policy positions of the leading Republican candidates were unbiased. Well, for one thing, we could have the candidate him/herself fill out a questionaire. I know it could still lead to the candidates lying to get elected, but we would also then have a written statement we could use to show they lied, etc.
What should happen in an election is that the candidates provide enough info to allow voters to make a decision. If one candidate is lying or over promising, that candidates opponent has every opportunity to expose him. Indeed, but people who pay little to no attention to what either candidate says are not going to have "their" candidate exposed to them. Then they vote, and then are shocked when "their" candidate, now elected, does something they think is wrong, but was exactly what he/she promised to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3266 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
The obvious answer is that I cared immensely, but the city knew that me and my neighbors, poor Spanish-speaking manual laborers that we are, don't have the time or resources enough to learn such and such arbitrary fact about Joe Dickhead and his opponent Jim Blowjob running for mayor or the office that they're running for and so figured setting up a city dump in our backyard would be ideal as we'd be unable to pass the medieval torture tests required to vote against the policy and they wouldn't have to worry about our opposition... or all the cancer our children would be getting. But what about if you care that they want to build a dump in your backyard. The Referendum Question says "Should the policy enacted on whether a dump be built at such and such location be passed?" Does that mean you vote for it or against it? Was the policy that was enacted one that provided for the building of the dump or one that opposed it? I'm not advocating for a voting test to prevent people from voting, per se. I want the test to be an informational one that ensures that the people voting for a candidate or policy are actually aware of what they're voting for. Edited by Perdition, : Half my post disappeared.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Any right-to-vote test is a moral abomination and has no place in a free democracy. Anyone thinking otherwise needs to get their head out of the clouds that are in their ass. A right-to-vote test can have a place in a free democracy. Anyone who proclaims that is impossible is a pompous ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I don't even understand what you're getting at with this.
I think Jos is entirely aware that he is going into the booth for the sole purpose of voting against the placement of a city landfill behind his house. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Anyone who proclaims that is impossible is a pompous ass. Guilty. But what I've said still stands. Your requirement that people demonstrate a certain standard of intelligence before being allowed to participate in their government has no place in a free democracy. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
I think a refresher should be necessary in order to keep your ability to vote, hold office, and receive a tax break In the United States, you don't have the "ability" to vote, you have the right to vote. I think that's pretty important, and among the two of us, I'm the one who thinks like a conservative, because I'm the one who believes we should preserve the rights afforded to us by the Constitution. You, on the other hand, are some kind of radical who wants to fundamentally change what it means to be an American.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3266 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
I think Jos is entirely aware that he is going into the booth for the sole purpose of voting against the placement of a city landfill behind his house. Yes, but the wording of referenda can be, and often are, misleading, especially if Jose happens to be less than perfect in his understanding of written English. Many times, it may seem that voting "No" on a referendum question means voting against that which it's about, but in reality, you need to vote "yes" to approve the policy banning the action. The test would ensure that everyone voting is aware of what each question on the referendum means. It could be as simple as, "Does voting "yes" on this question approve or ban the building of the landfill?" If the person answers that question correctly, they can then go vote. If they answer incorrectly, they are informed on what the question is actually asking. They then retake the test, and after passing it, are allowed to vote. There are far too many examples of people voting counter to how they thought they voted for me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Jon writes: First of all, we are not a free democracy. We are a republic, and we are not built to support every darn human on the planet. Altruistic though it may sound, it is simply feasibly impossible. In order to change the system, the voters must be educated. Using the teeming masses to change society will only lead to more wars in order to eliminate them.
Your requirement that people demonstrate a certain standard of intelligence before being allowed to participate in their government has no place in a free democracy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
But what I've said still stands. Stands as an unsupported assertion...
Your requirement that people demonstrate a certain standard of intelligence before being allowed to participate in their government has no place in a free democracy. Sure there is. For example, you have to be competent enough to vote in the first place. We're not going to wheelchair vegetables into the booth to push a random button. You're gonna hafta allow for a line to be drawn somewhere before we can discuss where it should be. But the absolute denial of a line anywhere is patently false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Yes, but the wording of referenda can be, and often are, misleading, Isn't that a problem with the language on the ballot? JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
First of all, we are not a free democracy. We are a republic, ... quote: Even an indirect democracy can be a free one.
In order to change the system, the voters must be educated. Couldn't agree with you more. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
We're not going to wheelchair vegetables into the booth to push a random button. And that is our loss as a society.Love your enemies!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024