Should "literacy tests" be reinstated? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

flstf · 08-02-2005, 04:18 PM

I don't think a test would do much good. The winner of almost all elections would still probably be a professional polititian from the Democrat or Republican party so nothing would change. They are the only ones with enough special interest money to win and there's not much difference between them.

Aladdin Sane · 08-02-2005, 05:01 PM

With every civic duty comes a corresponding civic responsibility.
Requiring voters to be literate is not too much to ask of any citizen.

Anything that would reduce the imbecile vote is okay by me.

host · 08-03-2005, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Ummm really. Support of the teachers union has nothing to do with wanting children to have a better education, not in the least. Which party is for vouchers again so that students from failing inner city school get a chance to escape the crappy education system?

The issue of vouchers does not seem to me to be the "clear cut" positive that you are projecting. I would find it suspect if a group of well educated teaching professionals did not organize themselves into a body that takes advantage of their legal right to form a union to negotiate salary and benefits from a position of better co-ordinated and financed strength than any of them could, individually. Teachers who belong to unions seem to be the rarer group today who do not "vote against their own best interests", as so many other wage and salary earners seem to be doing lately.

Success of vouchers for private schools seems mixed, at best, in Florida.

Quote:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/state/c...dbiz_0731.html
By Nirvi Shah

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Sunday, July 31, 2005

Accountability. Pay for performance. Bonuses. Return on investment.

Think we're talking business?,,,,,,,,,,,

.......... The marketplace opens right on the schoolhouse steps: School choice, in the form of private-school vouchers, allows parents of many public school children to shop for schools. CATO has applauded Florida's three school voucher programs and suggests it would be ideal to give every parent the option of using public money at private schools.

"If you only give a few kids an option to leave, you're not going to see a lot of change," Salisbury said. "You want as many consumers as possible."

About 27,000 children use one of the state's three types of vouchers to attend private or religious schools. Parents whose children's public schools are labeled as failing are eligible. Any student with a disability or who is poor has the option of getting public or corporate money to attend a private school. Although the vouchers have been abused, the state legislature failed two years in a row to pass laws that would better monitor the programs.

Besides vouchers, a subsystem of public schools is flourishing in Florida. Since the creation of the first five charter schools in 1996, another 296 have opened statewide, and 50 more are expected to open this school year. And though they are hailed by parents, some of these schools are plagued by financial problems as a result of inexperienced owners. Others are simply corrupt. The alternative education some are providing is falling short of state standards.

Although groups such as Salisbury's believe the more competition the better, others are not convinced that the corporate culture is delivering better public schools.

"If you look at corporate culture, they talk about students as customers and consumers," said Damien Filer, spokesman for Citizens for Quality Education, which advocates for public schools. "But businesses don't do what's best for their customers. They do the least necessary to make as much money as possible for stockholders. That's not what's helpful for our students — to be treated like widgets."

Backgrounds in business

The man who chairs the state Board of Education, which oversees public schools; the woman who heads the state board that oversees state universities and colleges; and the former education commissioner are all businesspeople. All were appointed by Gov. Jeb Bush, who has had an integral role in making Florida's public education landscape look more like a marketplace.

"In our business, if you don't produce, you aren't paid," said Carolyn Roberts, who chairs the state Board of Governors that's over universities. Many of the members of that board are businesspeople. Roberts heads her own real estate firm in Ocala. "I want measurement. Accountability is important. We understand business procedure."

The most visible example of the shift in public education comes in the form of the FCAT, the test that rewards and punishes, gives and takes away. Though it was created before Bush took office, Bush turned the FCAT into a way of passing judgment on public schools — and as a vehicle for spending public money at private, in some cases religious, schools that aren't subject to the same kind of scrutiny. The tests are unparalleled in providing motivation to invest more money in teaching kids to read and do math, but opponents say the tests could be used more effectively if they didn't punish.

School districts already give bonuses to outstanding teachers, but the extra dollars aren't always tied to how well their students do in class. State education officials want to take the bonuses one step further, by pushing districts to tie a portion of every teacher's salary to student performance, including FCAT scores.

Yet another business-world manifestation in schools: Two years ago, the state debuted a return-on-investment index for every public school.

Predictably, schools with many students with wealthy parents are rated as being more efficient than schools with many poor students. The latter schools receive more money to provide extra services for their students, attention and assistance some don't get from their parents.

At the same time that schools have adopted a businesslike persona, they are putting aside a college-is-the-only-goal way of thinking. Although vocational and technical schools are a mainstay of public school systems, they recently have become a part of regular, comprehensive high schools.

Palm Beach County will have 25 new career academies in its high schools this year.

Most don't go to college

"Not every child is going to college, but every child is going to work," said Lt. Gov. Toni Jennings, a former teacher whose family owns a construction business. Developing a better workforce has been her cause since she was first elected to the state Senate 25 years ago.

"If you take 10 ninth-graders in the state of Florida, three will drop out, three will not go beyond high school. That's six who will never go on to college."

Of the remaining four who do, just two will graduate, she said.

"Our focus is on preparing young people for college," Jennings said. "Our focus needs to be on those six."

In response, many public schools statewide have created career academies. They teach students about everything from farming to biotechnology. In many programs, students end high school with certification in their fields that can open the door to jobs without any more schooling.

Because the programs are at regular high schools, more students are likely to enroll because they won't be isolated at schools that often have reputations as schools for underachievers.

"The best economic development incentive you could offer (a prospective business) is a well-trained workforce," Jennings said. "This needs to be the wave of the education of the future."

boatin · 08-03-2005, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Ummm really. Support of the teachers union has nothing to do with wanting children to have a better education, not in the least.

Well, we disagree on the teacher's union bit. My take is that if we don't take care of the teachers, the good ones go and do something else. Now, we could argue the merits of whether a union is the best way to do that (in another thread), but please don't be silly and say there is no connection.

There is for those in the unions. It's that casual dismissiveness of other's opinions that drives the forum into flame. rolleyes, indeed...

boatin · 08-03-2005, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane

With every civic duty comes a corresponding civic responsibility.
Requiring voters to be literate is not too much to ask of any citizen.

Anything that would reduce the imbecile vote is okay by me.

While i don't disagree with the thought, how do you do it?

Aladdin Sane · 08-04-2005, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

While i don't disagree with the thought, how do you do it?

Do what? Think?

boatin · 08-05-2005, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane

Do what? Think?

Is this flamebait? Assuming you really didn't understand my question, I'll try again:

How do you test for literacy on a national level? Create a multiple choice test? In every language? Or do you start by creating a requirement for knowing written English before you can vote? Do you mandate an essay portion? Who grades that? If you go with Q&A, what kinds of questions do you ask?

Many of those issues were spelled in this thread already. The point is there are some significant logistical hurdles for this idea. Not the least of which is: who do you put in charge of creating this process? Find someone that wouldn't create a "Bush nominates Bill Clinton for the Supreme Court" sized controversy and I'll be surprised/impressed.

More clear?

Stompy · 08-05-2005, 11:22 AM

Literacy/knowledge tests... totally. Woulda definitely changed the results of the last election too :P

Some might consider that elitist, but stupid people who don't know what they're doing shouldn't be voting - period. There's just too much at stake for someone to be sitting there going, "Gee, I like Bush's tie and I recognize his name. Ima vote for him. I don't know anything about the other fellow."

You need to take a test to get your driver's license, so at the time you register to vote, you should be quizzed on current political events. Names of people who represent your district, their stance, etc.

Flat out, if you don't know about what you're voting on, your vote shouldn't count.

joshbaumgartner · 08-05-2005, 12:17 PM

I guess I still haven't seen a compelling case made as to what harm so-called stupid voters do to the process. Besides partisans on both sides that somehow feel their supporters are 'smarter' than their opponents' supporters, the only argument is that people don't like the idea of their thoughtful vote being cancelled by some dummy that picks the guy with the funny name. So I'd like someone to really demonstrate how someone's ability to pass a test will improve the public safety.

SirLance · 08-05-2005, 12:32 PM

I find the thread title confusing. You speak of literacy tests, but seem to be advocating a civics exam.

As to the question you ask, I favor universal suffrage for all citizens. Our republic, as you correctly point out, does insulate the decision makers from the whims of the populace.

While it is true that not all of the electorate votes in each election, that is no indication that those who vote are any more or less informed than those who do not. Nor is it any indication that those who do vote make better decisions than their non-voting counterparts.

What I find infuriating is this: During my service in the Army, I went to places where people are KILLED for trying to vote. They keep trying. And yet our non-voters can't be bothered to go to the polling place.

joshbaumgartner · 08-05-2005, 01:04 PM

Well said, Lance, I couldn't agree more. That so many Americans can't be bothered to stake their claim and participate at the most basic level in ensuring that they get governance that best reflects their will is a constant irritant. However, for me it is tempered by the fact that those who do go to the polls are doing so of their own will without any coercement beyond their own desire to participate in the process.

As far as any kind of test, the fact that these people take the time and effort to go to the polls, often enduring hurdles to do so, is enough for me. When I see people standing on line for hours, eduring the elements, overcoming harrassment, tracking down bureaucratic mix-ups, and otherwise dealing with numerous hassles just to ensure their one anonymous vote, which they know isn't enough to sway things one way or another, is counted and goes into the pool correctly, I have to say that those people have earned their right to vote, and I would have to see a very compelling case to warrant putting yet more hurdles in front of them.

Stompy · 08-05-2005, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshbaumgartner

So I'd like someone to really demonstrate how someone's ability to pass a test will improve the public safety.

You just did.

I'm into politics. I know each candidate's stance on sisues. I know my representatives and senators as well as their position.

I care about how things are run.

My vote, or anyone else's, shouldn't be cancelled out by the person who voted simply based on "president with the familiar name."

It's kinda self explanitory. Why should someone that doesn't know what they're doing have a say in how this country is run? Makes no sense.

joshbaumgartner · 08-05-2005, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stompy

You just did.

I'm into politics. I know each candidate's stance on sisues. I know my representatives and senators as well as their position.

I care about how things are run.

My vote, or anyone else's, shouldn't be cancelled out by the person who voted simply based on "president with the familiar name."

It's kinda self explanitory. Why should someone that doesn't know what they're doing have a say in how this country is run? Makes no sense.

Fair enough. Let me ask a more fundamental question to better understand you: What is the purpose of an election? I don't mean to elect a candidate, but why make it an election for the general populace to participate in, versus simply having a 'Council of Wise Men' or some such to review and select candidates for positions of authority?

ubertuber · 08-05-2005, 04:06 PM

I have an even better idea - let's make the test harder, so then only the REALLY smart people can vote. In fact, let's make it stupid hard and have 15 people vote. Surely that would be best. Of course, you figure out who makes the test, what's on it, and who grades it.

I think everyone here that thinks any part of this thread is a good idea also ASSumes that they'd pass the test.

boatin · 08-05-2005, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

I have an even better idea - let's make the test harder, so then only the REALLY smart people can vote. In fact, let's make it stupid hard and have 15 people vote. Surely that would be best. Of course, you figure out who makes the test, what's on it, and who grades it.

I think everyone here that thinks any part of this thread is a good idea also ASSumes that they'd pass the test.

Amen, brother Tuber! It's a tough line to draw...

Stompy · 08-05-2005, 07:17 PM

Nah, I think it should be really easy common sense questions that apply for that particular district (ex: senator, representative).

You'd be surprised at how many people hate the candidates just because their friends/family/neighbors do. Those are the people you wanna weed out.

Ustwo · 08-05-2005, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

I have an even better idea - let's make the test harder, so then only the REALLY smart people can vote. In fact, let's make it stupid hard and have 15 people vote. Surely that would be best. Of course, you figure out who makes the test, what's on it, and who grades it.

I think everyone here that thinks any part of this thread is a good idea also ASSumes that they'd pass the test.

This seems to be a slippery slope fallacy. Asking people know WHAT they are voting for is far different than a meritocracy. So yes we all expect to pass this test since we assume the test to be quite easy.

ubertuber · 08-05-2005, 07:50 PM

It may be a slippery slope, or it may be an analogy that simply magnifies the original concept to show that the acceptability of this idea depends on your perspective. Which way you label my post probably correlates to which perspective you have. I'd also point out that since our legal system operates on precedent, not all slippery slope arguments are invalid in politics.

Personally, I only favor restricting the right to vote based on voluntary things - like committing felonies. Since dunder-heads are represented the same as you and I (assuming neither of us is a dunder-head), they should be allowed to vote. I'm most especially reminded of the thoughts last November that anyone who voted different from (insert your own party ideolodgy) must have been ignorant, bigoted, out-of-touch, or not paying attention. This came from both sides. Restricting the right to vote is a slippery slope in itself - perhaps that is a possibility that bears consideration.

Aladdin Sane · 08-05-2005, 07:57 PM

Yes, I'm for literacy tests. Not just yes, but HELL YES. I'm not advocating a civics test. Literacy means the ability to read and write at a minimum level.
It is bullshit trying to "get out the vote." What a load of rubbish. If you're not interested or responsible enough to get your own self "out to vote," then you have no business being enticed into it by some self-serving political party or politician who doesn't give a shit about you anyway.
The honest truth is, I want fewer people to vote, not more. I want to make voting more difficult. If literacy tests result in a smaller turnout--fine, lets put them in place. Making it easier for people to vote only encourages the less engaged and informed citizens to cast a ballot. If I have to beg halfwit Homer Jones and his alcoholic wife Claire to show up on election day, then they haven't been paying attention, and frankly, their ignorance isn't gonna add one wit of positive value to the election results anyway.
When a citizen casts a ballot, he could be making a life-altering decision for thousands of people. With the right to vote comes the responsibility to be, at a bare minimum, literate. If you can't manage to learn to read and write in today's society, if you are so lacking in responsibility that you need to be enticed to vote-- please stay home. Please.
There is no other serious decision-making process in life where the most uninformed, illiterate, and irrational among us are so enthusiastically encouraged to participate.

Cynthetiq · 08-05-2005, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane

Yes, I'm for literacy tests. Not just yes, but HELL YES. I'm not advocating a civics test. Literacy means the ability to read and write at a minimum level.
It is bullshit trying to "get out the vote." What a load of rubbish. If you're not interested or responsible enough to get your own self "out to vote," then you have no business being enticed into it by some self-serving political party or politician who doesn't give a shit about you anyway.
The honest truth is, I want fewer people to vote, not more. I want to make voting more difficult. If literacy tests result in a smaller turnout--fine, lets put them in place. Making it easier for people to vote only encourages the less engaged and informed citizens to cast a ballot. If I have to beg halfwit Homer Jones and his alcoholic wife Claire to show up on election day, then he hasn't been paying attention, and frankly, his ignorance isn't gonna add one wit of positive value to the election results anyway.
When a citizen casts a ballot, he could be making a life-altering decision for thousands of people. With the right to vote comes the responsibility to be, at a bare minimum, literate. If you can't manage to learn to read and write in today's society, if you are so lacking in responsibility that you need to be enticed to vote-- please stay home. Please.
There is no other serious decision-making process in life where the most uninformed, illiterate, and irrational among us are so enthusiastically encouraged to participate.

I guess the whole, taxation without representation doesn't mean anything to you, since you're basically saying that those that cannot vote are just your tax base fodder.And who's to say that they don't have a particular testing strategy that Omits you from voting... if you say that that's fare then too, then I'm all behind you.

Otherwise, sorry, no taxation without representation, it's what the country was founded on, and what I feel is only fair for tbose that do have to pay taxes which is each and everyone of us.

Ustwo · 08-05-2005, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I guess the whole, taxation without representation doesn't mean anything to you, since you're basically saying that those that cannot vote are just your tax base fodder.And who's to say that they don't have a particular testing strategy that Omits you from voting... if you say that that's fare then too, then I'm all behind you.

Otherwise, sorry, no taxation without representation, it's what the country was founded on, and what I feel is only fair for tbose that do have to pay taxes which is each and everyone of us.

Cynthetiq - In all honesty do you think the illiterate are the ones paying the bulk of the taxes? I think a far fairer argument is why people who pay no income taxes can decide what happens with the money (by voting) and who gets taxed. You say no taxation without representation, I say no representation without taxation.

Cynthetiq · 08-06-2005, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Cynthetiq - In all honesty do you think the illiterate are the ones paying the bulk of the taxes? I think a far fairer argument is why people who pay no income taxes can decide what happens with the money (by voting) and who gets taxed. You say no taxation without representation, I say no representation without taxation.

The bulk? no... I do get what you are saying about it in converse.

At some point in time should we not be paying income tax? or not as much? Since I'm slowly amassing retirement funds in different vehicles and careful as to what those income tax penalties are. Could I at some point in time have very little to no income and then suddenly not be represented?

edit: Everyone pays taxes, maybe not income taxes, but there's hidden taxes in bread, soda, manufactured goods, all passed onto the consumer built into the price.

purchasing almost any goods nets you some sort of sales tax. communications, TV, all these other taxes surround those... then gasoline... there's lots of taxes in that...

joke in NJ at one point in time was that you paid sales tax even to wipe your ass since toilet paper was a taxable item.

Charlatan · 08-06-2005, 04:51 AM

Ustwo are you suggesting that if someone doesn't pay taxes they shouldn't be allowed to vote? Or when you say bulk do mean that only those who pay taxes abouve a certain percentage or their income or a fixed dollar amount?

Either way you are either disenfranchising the poor (who are not neccessarily illiterate) or the wealthy who have tax sheltered their income (who are not neccessarily literate).

In the end everyone over certain age is, generally, responsible for paying taxes. I don't see that it matters who pay more. When broken down as a percentage of income (which income taxes generally are) we are all effected equally.

Ustwo · 08-06-2005, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Ustwo are you suggesting that if someone doesn't pay taxes they shouldn't be allowed to vote? Or when you say bulk do mean that only those who pay taxes abouve a certain percentage or their income or a fixed dollar amount?

Either way you are either disenfranchising the poor (who are not neccessarily illiterate) or the wealthy who have tax sheltered their income (who are not neccessarily literate).

In the end everyone over certain age is, generally, responsible for paying taxes. I don't see that it matters who pay more. When broken down as a percentage of income (which income taxes generally are) we are all effected equally.

I am suggesting that when you have a disconnect from the system, it will lead to unfair policies. Somewhere I read that 30-40% of the eligible voters pay no income tax, and that the number is on the rise. Why should they care about fiscal responsibility, tax rates, or the like, they have no investment in the system?

Charlatan · 08-06-2005, 05:57 AM

Fair enough... are you suggesting that even those who make millions and pay no income tax (due to shelters or off shore havens) not be allowed to vote?

...and doesn't everyone have to pay sales tax?

Cynthetiq · 08-06-2005, 06:07 AM

as i edited into my last comment.

Quote:

edit: Everyone pays taxes, maybe not income taxes, but there's hidden taxes in bread, soda, manufactured goods, all passed onto the consumer built into the price.

purchasing almost any goods nets you some sort of sales tax. communications, TV, all these other taxes surround those... then gasoline... there's lots of taxes in that...

joke in NJ at one point in time was that you paid sales tax even to wipe your ass since toilet paper was a taxable item.

ubertuber · 08-06-2005, 06:27 AM

and social security and medicare/medicaid and state, and local (in my case, city)... and, and, and... excise taxes in cigarettes, gasoline... Arguing that there is anyone in the US that doesn't pay any taxes at all is silly - and it is the government that levies those taxes, so I think the taxation without representation argument is much more valid than its converse.

Ustwo · 08-06-2005, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

as i edited into my last comment.

Most of those taxes are local not Federal, and as such have little do to with the question. Likewise I am not going to assume that paying the gas tax (which is hidden in the price) has any effect on people in question.

ubertuber · 08-06-2005, 06:41 AM

Ustwo, I think we crossed each other. I think local taxes do fit into the question. At least in NY, you vote for local, state and federal elections on the same day - so presumably being prevented from voting means you can't vote at all. I'm also surprised. In the past I have gotten the idea that many of your positions were based on principles - in some cases, practicality be damned. I may have been wrong about that, but it is surprising to me that on the issue of excise and sales taxes your response could be summed up as "well, they're really little taxes. People don't notice them because the effect isn't big enough." Am I missing something in your thinking?

Aladdin Sane · 08-06-2005, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I guess the whole, taxation without representation doesn't mean anything to you, since you're basically saying that those that cannot vote are just your tax base fodder.And who's to say that they don't have a particular testing strategy that Omits you from voting... if you say that that's fare then too, then I'm all behind you.

Otherwise, sorry, no taxation without representation, it's what the country was founded on, and what I feel is only fair for tbose that do have to pay taxes which is each and everyone of us.

First of all, when our ancestors used the rallying cry of "No taxation without representation," they certainly weren't advocating universal suffrage. In colonial society, only land-owning white males were permitted to vote.

For the sake of argument, let's not even discuss the early settler's view of Blacks, white women, and non-land owning white males. If for one second the leaders of the American Revolution would have thought that one day the illiterate would be allowed, no actually encouraged, to cast a ballot, they would've thrown the whole thing in. "No taxation without representation" was NEVER an argument for universal suffrage.

Unlike our American ancestors, I believe that all literate citizens, regardless of race, gender, or economic class, should have the franchise. But like the Founding Fathers, I understand that the survival of democratic government depends on an educated and informed citizenry.

Look, democratic governments spend billions on public education. If you are lucky enough to find yourself living in a democracy, you have very, very few duties or responsibilities placed on you by the society. The least that citizens can do, for the benefit of us all, is to learn to read and write.
Democracy is not a suicide pact. There's nothing in its theory or in its practice that says its survival is dependant on the bag-lady vote.

ubertuber · 08-06-2005, 10:22 AM

Aladdin Sane - First off, this thread is not about literacy tests. It is about 'literacy tests', or as you astutely pointed out, civics tests. Secondly, a literacy test wouldn't eliminate many people.The CIA world factbook lists a literacy rate in the US of 97%, while George Mason University figures 60.3% voter turnout in the 2004 presidential election. I respectfully submit that many of the 3% who can't read are part of the 39.7% who didn't vote. Of course, in the last election that 3% could have swung the result, if they had somehow arrived at polling places they couldn't read the directions to, after correctly filling out voter registration forms they couldn't read, and of course, managing to vote in a unified block on a ballot containing names they couldn't read. I think the difficulties built into the system for illiterate people pose enough of a barrier.

Secondly, on your points regarding the history of suffrage:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane

First of all, when our ancestors used the rallying cry of "No taxation without representation," they certainly weren't advocating universal suffrage. In colonial society, only land-owning white males were permitted to vote.

For the most part these were the only people paying taxes until the stamp tax, tea tax, and other excise taxes on goods were instituted. Secondly, I don't argue that we should create ONLY the system that the framers envisioned. I do think that we should not descend below the basic principles that were good. That means extending the right to vote as much as is practical and allowing people affected by laws the opportunity to select the representatives who make those laws. A common theme among those founders was that the independence was worth pursuing because the industry and worth of the American people was intrinsic and vigorous enough to sustain a nation. In other words, when they wrote "we, the people" they were indicating a certain substantial amount of faith in those people to negotiate their own futures after independence was won. That is how I still see this country, and I would not describe honoring a bag lady's vote as a suicide pact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ustwo

Somewhere I read that 30-40% of the eligible voters pay no income tax, and that the number is on the rise. Why should they care about fiscal responsibility, tax rates, or the like, they have no investment in the system?

Ustwo, respectfully, I don't believe that for a second. Not to mention the fact that this ambiguous statistic also ignores social security, medicare/medicaid, sales tax, property tax, excise tax, etc... I suspect that asking for some documentation would send this thread veering off course though, as it is more about preventing people from voting than it is about who pays what kind of taxes. Suffice it to say that the percentage of people who escape ALL form of tax is low enough that I think the (alleged) evil of their participation in the voting process does not warrant compromising a fundamental right in this country.

Aladdin Sane · 08-06-2005, 11:06 AM

A literacy test is a literacy test is a literacy test.

My central point still stands unmolested: If you are lucky enough to find yourself living in a democracy, you have very, very few duties or responsibilities placed on you by the society. The least that citizens can do, for the benefit of us all, is to learn to read and write.

Charlatan · 08-06-2005, 01:38 PM

And the fact still remains that not being able to read is besides the point. Someone can still be aware of all of the issues and still give a damn about who they elect even if they can't read. Amazingly, they might even pay taxes.

Ustwo · 08-06-2005, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

And the fact still remains that not being able to read is besides the point. Someone can still be aware of all of the issues and still give a damn about who they elect even if they can't read. Amazingly, they might even pay taxes.

I rather doubt you have met such an individual

pan6467 · 08-06-2005, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I rather doubt you have met such an individual

That's a very pompous statement. There are many individuals out there that cannot read but keep up on current events and work hard to compensate for their problem.

Ustwo · 08-06-2005, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

That's a very pompous statement. There are many individuals out there that cannot read but keep up on current events and work hard to compensate for their problem.

So you know these people then or are you just assuming?

kutulu · 08-06-2005, 03:07 PM

If you want to see a fucking revolution, go and take voting rights from the poor who pay less taxes. They get fucked over by the rich enough as it is. That would likely be the last straw.

Ustwo · 08-06-2005, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

If you want to see a fucking revolution, go and take voting rights from the poor who pay less taxes. They get fucked over by the rich enough as it is. That would likely be the last straw.

When the poor get upset in the US they burn down their own homes. The poor don't win revolutions, sorry.

Edit: Oh and saying they get 'fucked over' by the rich is silly but for another thread.

pan6467 · 08-06-2005, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

So you know these people then or are you just assuming?

I happen to know quite a few..... in my line of work I meet people from all walks of life. The same way I know people who graduated from Ivy League schools, everyone deserves the same respect, dignity and rights and to assume that because someone can't read they are beneath you or cannot be solid, hardworking, taxpaying citizens; is pompous, self righteous BS.

As for revolution... don't be so sure that those in the ghettoes and the poor would just burn down their own......

Not everyone who can't read has a sign on them saying they can't read

Xazy · 08-07-2005, 06:50 AM

Quote:

So you know these people then or are you just assuming?

I happen to know several like that, including my barber who came from another country, he watches the news all day, and talks about politics non-stop.

At the same time a girl who worked with me, she can read, she is a substitute teacher and scares me with her ignorance. She thought Giuliani was the vice-president; she thinks there are 53 states. And yes she can read, and somehow teaches!

Literacy does not equal intelligence!

08-02-2005, 05:01 PM	#42 (permalink)
Aladdin Sane Degenerate Location: San Marvelous	With every civic duty comes a corresponding civic responsibility. Requiring voters to be literate is not too much to ask of any citizen. Anything that would reduce the imbecile vote is okay by me. __________________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

08-05-2005, 11:22 AM	#48 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	Literacy/knowledge tests... totally. Woulda definitely changed the results of the last election too :P Some might consider that elitist, but stupid people who don't know what they're doing shouldn't be voting - period. There's just too much at stake for someone to be sitting there going, "Gee, I like Bush's tie and I recognize his name. Ima vote for him. I don't know anything about the other fellow." You need to take a test to get your driver's license, so at the time you register to vote, you should be quizzed on current political events. Names of people who represent your district, their stance, etc. Flat out, if you don't know about what you're voting on, your vote shouldn't count. __________________ I love lamp.

08-05-2005, 12:32 PM	#50 (permalink)
SirLance Junkie Location: In the middle of the desert.	I find the thread title confusing. You speak of literacy tests, but seem to be advocating a civics exam. As to the question you ask, I favor universal suffrage for all citizens. Our republic, as you correctly point out, does insulate the decision makers from the whims of the populace. While it is true that not all of the electorate votes in each election, that is no indication that those who vote are any more or less informed than those who do not. Nor is it any indication that those who do vote make better decisions than their non-voting counterparts. What I find infuriating is this: During my service in the Army, I went to places where people are KILLED for trying to vote. They keep trying. And yet our non-voters can't be bothered to go to the polling place. __________________ DEMOCRACY is where your vote counts, FEUDALISM is where your count votes.

08-05-2005, 04:06 PM	#54 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	I have an even better idea - let's make the test harder, so then only the REALLY smart people can vote. In fact, let's make it stupid hard and have 15 people vote. Surely that would be best. Of course, you figure out who makes the test, what's on it, and who grades it. I think everyone here that thinks any part of this thread is a good idea also ASSumes that they'd pass the test. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

08-05-2005, 07:17 PM	#56 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	Nah, I think it should be really easy common sense questions that apply for that particular district (ex: senator, representative). You'd be surprised at how many people hate the candidates just because their friends/family/neighbors do. Those are the people you wanna weed out. __________________ I love lamp.

08-02-2005, 04:18 PM	#41 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I don't think a test would do much good. The winner of almost all elections would still probably be a professional polititian from the Democrat or Republican party so nothing would change. They are the only ones with enough special interest money to win and there's not much difference between them.

08-05-2005, 12:17 PM	#49 (permalink)
joshbaumgartner Insane	I guess I still haven't seen a compelling case made as to what harm so-called stupid voters do to the process. Besides partisans on both sides that somehow feel their supporters are 'smarter' than their opponents' supporters, the only argument is that people don't like the idea of their thoughtful vote being cancelled by some dummy that picks the guy with the funny name. So I'd like someone to really demonstrate how someone's ability to pass a test will improve the public safety.

08-05-2005, 01:04 PM	#51 (permalink)
joshbaumgartner Insane	Well said, Lance, I couldn't agree more. That so many Americans can't be bothered to stake their claim and participate at the most basic level in ensuring that they get governance that best reflects their will is a constant irritant. However, for me it is tempered by the fact that those who do go to the polls are doing so of their own will without any coercement beyond their own desire to participate in the process. As far as any kind of test, the fact that these people take the time and effort to go to the polls, often enduring hurdles to do so, is enough for me. When I see people standing on line for hours, eduring the elements, overcoming harrassment, tracking down bureaucratic mix-ups, and otherwise dealing with numerous hassles just to ensure their one anonymous vote, which they know isn't enough to sway things one way or another, is counted and goes into the pool correctly, I have to say that those people have earned their right to vote, and I would have to see a very compelling case to warrant putting yet more hurdles in front of them.

08-05-2005, 07:50 PM	#58 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	It may be a slippery slope, or it may be an analogy that simply magnifies the original concept to show that the acceptability of this idea depends on your perspective. Which way you label my post probably correlates to which perspective you have. I'd also point out that since our legal system operates on precedent, not all slippery slope arguments are invalid in politics. Personally, I only favor restricting the right to vote based on voluntary things - like committing felonies. Since dunder-heads are represented the same as you and I (assuming neither of us is a dunder-head), they should be allowed to vote. I'm most especially reminded of the thoughts last November that anyone who voted different from (insert your own party ideolodgy) must have been ignorant, bigoted, out-of-touch, or not paying attention. This came from both sides. Restricting the right to vote is a slippery slope in itself - perhaps that is a possibility that bears consideration. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

08-05-2005, 07:57 PM	#59 (permalink)
Aladdin Sane Degenerate Location: San Marvelous	Yes, I'm for literacy tests. Not just yes, but HELL YES. I'm not advocating a civics test. Literacy means the ability to read and write at a minimum level. It is bullshit trying to "get out the vote." What a load of rubbish. If you're not interested or responsible enough to get your own self "out to vote," then you have no business being enticed into it by some self-serving political party or politician who doesn't give a shit about you anyway. The honest truth is, I want fewer people to vote, not more. I want to make voting more difficult. If literacy tests result in a smaller turnout--fine, lets put them in place. Making it easier for people to vote only encourages the less engaged and informed citizens to cast a ballot. If I have to beg halfwit Homer Jones and his alcoholic wife Claire to show up on election day, then they haven't been paying attention, and frankly, their ignorance isn't gonna add one wit of positive value to the election results anyway. When a citizen casts a ballot, he could be making a life-altering decision for thousands of people. With the right to vote comes the responsibility to be, at a bare minimum, literate. If you can't manage to learn to read and write in today's society, if you are so lacking in responsibility that you need to be enticed to vote-- please stay home. Please. There is no other serious decision-making process in life where the most uninformed, illiterate, and irrational among us are so enthusiastically encouraged to participate. __________________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. Last edited by Aladdin Sane; 08-06-2005 at 09:17 AM..

08-06-2005, 04:51 AM	#63 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Ustwo are you suggesting that if someone doesn't pay taxes they shouldn't be allowed to vote? Or when you say bulk do mean that only those who pay taxes abouve a certain percentage or their income or a fixed dollar amount? Either way you are either disenfranchising the poor (who are not neccessarily illiterate) or the wealthy who have tax sheltered their income (who are not neccessarily literate). In the end everyone over certain age is, generally, responsible for paying taxes. I don't see that it matters who pay more. When broken down as a percentage of income (which income taxes generally are) we are all effected equally. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

08-06-2005, 05:57 AM	#65 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Fair enough... are you suggesting that even those who make millions and pay no income tax (due to shelters or off shore havens) not be allowed to vote? ...and doesn't everyone have to pay sales tax? __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

08-06-2005, 06:27 AM	#67 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	and social security and medicare/medicaid and state, and local (in my case, city)... and, and, and... excise taxes in cigarettes, gasoline... Arguing that there is anyone in the US that doesn't pay any taxes at all is silly - and it is the government that levies those taxes, so I think the taxation without representation argument is much more valid than its converse. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

08-06-2005, 06:41 AM	#69 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Ustwo, I think we crossed each other. I think local taxes do fit into the question. At least in NY, you vote for local, state and federal elections on the same day - so presumably being prevented from voting means you can't vote at all. I'm also surprised. In the past I have gotten the idea that many of your positions were based on principles - in some cases, practicality be damned. I may have been wrong about that, but it is surprising to me that on the issue of excise and sales taxes your response could be summed up as "well, they're really little taxes. People don't notice them because the effect isn't big enough." Am I missing something in your thinking? __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

08-06-2005, 11:06 AM	#72 (permalink)
Aladdin Sane Degenerate Location: San Marvelous	A literacy test is a literacy test is a literacy test. My central point still stands unmolested: If you are lucky enough to find yourself living in a democracy, you have very, very few duties or responsibilities placed on you by the society. The least that citizens can do, for the benefit of us all, is to learn to read and write. __________________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

08-06-2005, 01:38 PM	#73 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	And the fact still remains that not being able to read is besides the point. Someone can still be aware of all of the issues and still give a damn about who they elect even if they can't read. Amazingly, they might even pay taxes. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

08-06-2005, 03:07 PM	#77 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	If you want to see a fucking revolution, go and take voting rights from the poor who pay less taxes. They get fucked over by the rich enough as it is. That would likely be the last straw.