NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?ex=1125547200&en=631977063d726261&ei=5070

I took that from another NS thread (Kudos to man who posted it), and this is just embarrasing. This is just embarrasing.

In America, I believe we need Voting Competancy Tests. In order to vote for anything in America, they must complete a test testing basic math. (Middle School Level. Pre-Algebra stuff I'd guess.). They must also complete a basic Science test. (To make sure the people who don't know what a Molecule can't vote. Basic stuff. Middle school level) They must also complete a basic History test (You know, covering the basics. WWI, WWII, Civil War, all that stuff. Just basic stuff. Like who were the Romans, or the Egyptians. Just very basic. Primary School Stuff.) They must also take a basic political test (Just basic information, like who's running for Democrat, who's running for Republican, etc. etc.)

After they pass all these tests, then only then, and only then, may they vote. Anyone else who does not pass every single one of the those tests, with an 80% or higher, cannot vote.

I think it's a great idea.

What do you all think?

No, I think people, no matter how intelligent, deserve to be represented.

This idea has been done before and look at the results. :headbang:

No, I think people, no matter how intelligent, deserve to be represented.

So you support Mob Rule?

This idea has been done before and look at the results. :headbang:

Wrong. The Poll Tax graded you on how rich you were. Not if you weren't a dumbass.

Voter qualification laws have been ruled to be unconstitutional many years ago.




Let it go.

Unrestricted Democracy is Mob Rule and Anarchy.

Wrong. The Poll Tax graded you on how rich you were. Not if you weren't a dumbass.
And they had voting competancy tests in the south. African americans would have to write a certain part of the constitution which since most couldnt write were unable to do. If they could they would be asked to interpret what the passage meant and because the constitution is so vaguely worded anything they wrote could be rejected. One of my highschool teachers had to go through that when she was a kid in the south. She was white and they really didn't bother making sure if she was right.

Wrong. The Poll Tax graded you on how rich you were. Not if you weren't a dumbass.

There were actually literacy tests at some point, but they were also used to oppress blacks.

In any case the problem with the original idea is that it already exists. School up to 8th grade is mandatory, and you can't vote before you finish it. People have to know that stuff, it just doesn't help.

And they had voting competancy tests in the south. African americans would have to write a certain part of the constitution which since most couldnt write were unable to do. If they could they would be asked to interpret what the passage meant and because the constitution is so vaguely worded anything they wrote could be rejected. One of my highschool teachers had to go through that when she was a kid in the south. She was white and they really didn't bother making sure if she was right.

Well, today, everyone goes to a school, where they are taught BASIC THINGS.

This isn't the past. Everyone today goes to school, where everyone learns basic things.

If you can't add, and you don't know the earth revolves around the sun, and you don't know who Hitler was, you shouldn't be able to vote.

In fact, you're lucky we ain't rounding you into labor camps and gulags.

Unrestricted Democracy is Mob Rule and Anarchy.
No, you get dictatorship then anarchy when you restrict democracy. If our nation is truly as dumb as we are said to be, we might as well be led by the people who best represent us. Then I'll move to Canada! :headbang:

Well, I gues I haven't thought the issue through much. Perhaps some limitation is acceptable, but I don't believe lack of intelligence itself is enough for a person to lose voting rights. In fact, I don't know where to draw the line. I haven't really thought it through.

Well, today, everyone goes to a school, where they are taught BASIC THINGS.

This isn't the past. Everyone today goes to school, where everyone learns basic things.

If you can't add, and you don't know the earth revolves around the sun, and you don't know who Hitler was, you shouldn't be able to vote.

In fact, you're lucky we ain't rounding you into labor camps and gulags.

Yes this is the present. The present where people are trying to ban gay marriage. But this is the USA and everyone has the right to vote. So who are you to say some people dont deserve the right to vote. And if you can whats to say you can't start taking other rights as well?

If you can't add, and you don't know the earth revolves around the sun, and you don't know who Hitler was, you shouldn't be able to vote.

What if you form terrible run-on sentences? I remember being taught that in grade school. Seems like something they should test you on for voter competency.

Meh ... I wouldn't do it.

As much as I detest them sometimes, Republicans do deserve representation and, well, any test that makes them do simple math or reading comprehension would lead to furrowed brows and armpit scratching. Let the unclean masses vote. We'll be ok.

True democracy provides a true representation of the citizens. If the citizens are uneducated or lazy, their leader should reflect that. The majority of this country does realize that the Earth orbits the Sun, though, so I don't think that the total of "uneducated" votes impacts elections as much as people think, except in the case of Dubya Bush.

Yes this is the present. The present where people are trying to ban gay marriage. The present where terrorists blow themselves up to kill people and those that are caught are put into a camp where they dont have certain rights afforded to them. But this is the USA and everyone has the right to vote. So who are you to say some people dont deserve the right to vote. And if you can whats to say you can't start taking other rights as well?

You have to take away rights because rights contradict. Governments almost always take away rights while trying to protect other rights, and voting rights are no exception. We take away the right to complete unimpeded control of the government by the majority in order to protect the rights of the minority. We take the right of some to vote in order to protect other's rights from stupid mistakes.

Yes this is the present. The present where people are trying to ban gay marriage. But this is the USA and everyone has the right to vote. So who are you to say some people dont deserve the right to vote. And if you can whats to say you can't start taking other rights as well?

You've hit a great point.

We should take away several other rights.

The right to your body is not a right in the constitution, and it's NOT a right that we should keep. As long as whatever we do isn't painful, deadly, or generally have substantial negative consequences, we can do it as long as you're under our airspace.

Also, another right we need to take away, is the right of having kids. We need basic parental tests, which test basic skills. If you still have kids and you don't have a licesne, we can take away your kids, and put them in adoption, where with a sleek system, we can find them loving parents, who aren't IDIOTS, and they won't even notice the difference.

Also, another idea, is that we can DRAFT babies.

Abandoned Babies, that no one wants, can be DRAFTED into the Army, where they will be trained from birth. We'd teach them to be the perfect soldier. Unstoppable in combat, but a great person outside of combat.

I might have a few more, but my hand hurts.

True democracy provides a true representation of the citizens. If the citizens are uneducated or lazy, their leader should reflect that. The majority of this country does realize that the Earth orbits the Sun, though, so I don't think that the total of "uneducated" votes impacts elections as much as people think, except in the case of Dubya Bush.

True Democracy is Mob Rule and Anarchy.

True Democracy is just as bad as a Dictatorship.

You've hit a great point.

We should take away several other rights.

The right to your body is not a right in the constitution, and it's NOT a right that we should keep. As long as whatever we do isn't painful, deadly, or generally have substantial negative consequences, we can do it as long as you're under our airspace.

Also, another right we need to take away, is the right of having kids. We need basic parental tests, which test basic skills. If you still have kids and you don't have a licesne, we can take away your kids, and put them in adoption, where with a sleek system, we can find them loving parents, who aren't IDIOTS, and they won't even notice the difference.

Also, another idea, is that we can DRAFT babies.

Abandoned Babies, that no one wants, can be DRAFTED into the Army, where they will be trained from birth. We'd teach them to be the perfect soldier. Unstoppable in combat, but a great person outside of combat.

I might have a few more, but my hand hurts.
God save you from yourself because I sure can’t. I’m too scared.

True Democracy is Mob Rule and Anarchy.

True Democracy is just as bad as a Dictatorship.
It doesn't seem that we are under rule of either the mob OR a dictator yet, so let's wait until the next presidential election to see if we are a dictatorship or mob country.

It doesn't seem that we are under rule of either the mob OR a dictator yet, so let's wait until the next presidential election to see if we are a dictatorship or mob country.

Who? I don't see any true democracies.

It doesn't seem that we are under rule of either the mob OR a dictator yet, so let's wait until the next presidential election to see if we are a dictatorship or mob country.

That's because we're not a true democracy. We should edge a little toward Dicatorship. Something in the middle is great. Democracy is needed to keep dictators from being crazy, and a bit of anti-democracy, is to keep idiots from doing stuff.

It isn't anti-democracy, it's minority rights. Things are protected by a constitution of some sort.

(on the other hand, America's 1st amendment is slowly slipping down the pooper. Religious freedom (crosses on all soldiers' graves), censorship, government wiretaps, protesting (only in designated protest locations, where nobody can hear you!), and profanity laws)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?ex=1125547200&en=631977063d726261&ei=5070

I took that from another NS thread (Kudos to man who posted it), and this is just embarrasing. This is just embarrasing.

In America, I believe we need Voting Competancy Tests. In order to vote for anything in America, they must complete a test testing basic math. (Middle School Level. Pre-Algebra stuff I'd guess.). They must also complete a basic Science test. (To make sure the people who don't know what a Molecule can't vote. Basic stuff. Middle school level) They must also complete a basic History test (You know, covering the basics. WWI, WWII, Civil War, all that stuff. Just basic stuff. Like who were the Romans, or the Egyptians. Just very basic. Primary School Stuff.) They must also take a basic political test (Just basic information, like who's running for Democrat, who's running for Republican, etc. etc.)

After they pass all these tests, then only then, and only then, may they vote. Anyone else who does not pass every single one of the those tests, with an 80% or higher, cannot vote.

I think it's a great idea.

What do you all think?


No. There are two possible outcomes:

One: stupid people cease to be a part of our society. They become Second Class Citizens.

Two: the party that is in power would rig the test and purge the voting roles of the opposition party.

I'm nt saying our ignorance is not disgusting, just that voting tests open up the countr to worse.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?ex=1125547200&en=631977063d726261&ei=5070

I took that from another NS thread (Kudos to man who posted it), and this is just embarrasing. This is just embarrasing.

In America, I believe we need Voting Competancy Tests. In order to vote for anything in America, they must complete a test testing basic math. (Middle School Level. Pre-Algebra stuff I'd guess.). They must also complete a basic Science test. (To make sure the people who don't know what a Molecule can't vote. Basic stuff. Middle school level) They must also complete a basic History test (You know, covering the basics. WWI, WWII, Civil War, all that stuff. Just basic stuff. Like who were the Romans, or the Egyptians. Just very basic. Primary School Stuff.) They must also take a basic political test (Just basic information, like who's running for Democrat, who's running for Republican, etc. etc.)

After they pass all these tests, then only then, and only then, may they vote. Anyone else who does not pass every single one of the those tests, with an 80% or higher, cannot vote.

I think it's a great idea.

What do you all think?
I agree, and the voting age should be raised to thirty.
I am guessing that would put you voting in about fifteen years.

So, lets look at your great idea.

Poverty stricken illiterates are now no longer allowed to vote.

Oh, hey there country boy--been working your whole life never learned to read--but you pay taxes--you dont get to vote because some snobby highschool twit thinks citizens should have to fulfill all the obligations of citizenry but only receive the benefits if they meet what he considers to be the required intelligence to vote. Oddly enough it seems he has set the bar right where he can skate through.

How about this--only people who have a PHD can vote--and only if they hold land, and slaves, and oh feck--voting restriction are simply another way to keep the caste system alive.
Well hooorah I paidf attention in civics class--to bad they dont have those anymore maybe then kids wouldnt be calling for us to piss on the basic rights of all people created equal and all that crap. :rolleyes:

Voting test.

It is racist to demand voter competancy tests of any kind.

No. There are two possible outcomes:

One: stupid people cease to be a part of our society. They become Second Class Citizens.

Two: the party that is in power would rig the test and purge the voting roles of the opposition party.

I'm nt saying our ignorance is not disgusting, just that voting tests open up the countr to worse.
Your two outcomes are not final--you forgot ervolution from those second class citizens--as history dictates it happens everytime.

Antre_Travarious']It is racist to demand voter competancy tests of any kind.
You mean it is discriminatory--"racist" only applies where race is a factor.

But yeah--youre right.

I agree, and the voting age should be raised to thirty.
I am guessing that would put you voting in about fifteen years.

So, lets look at your great idea.

Poverty stricken illiterates are now no longer allowed to vote.

Oh, hey there country boy--been working your whole life never learned to read--but you pay taxes--you dont get to vote because some snobby highschool twit thinks citizens should have to fulfill all the obligations of citizenry but only receive the benefits if they meet what he considers to be the required intelligence to vote. Oddly enough it seems he has set the bar right where he can skate through.

How about this--only people who have a PHD can vote--and only if they hold land, and slaves, and oh feck--voting restriction are simply another way to keep the caste system alive.
Well hooorah I paidf attention in civics class--to bad they dont have those anymore maybe then kids wouldnt be calling for us to piss on the basic rights of all people created equal and all that crap. :rolleyes:

Voting test.

Dude, High School and Middle School are MANDATORY.

Everyone knows the Earth Revolves around the Sun.

Everyone knows who Hitler and Stalin were.

Everyone knows how to add 2 + 2.

We can't just institute it instantly. We'll create a cut-off date. People reaching age 18 at a certain date, have to take it, because by then, EVERYONE has gone to high school and Middle School.

Dude, High School and Middle School are MANDATORY.

Everyone knows the Earth Revolves around the Sun.

Everyone knows who Hitler and Stalin were.

Everyone knows how to add 2 + 2.

We can't just institute it instantly. We'll create a cut-off date. People reaching age 18 at a certain date, have to take it, because by then, EVERYONE has gone to high school and Middle School.
You are an Idiot.
Do you know how many functional illiterates there are in the country?
The fact that you called me dude only proves my assumptions about you are correct, you are a snotty kid.
I have worked with very intelligent people who couldnt read a street sign.
I worked with a man who started working at nine years old--Middle School and High school are mandatory--you live in a fantasy world.
When you get your drivers permit take a ride through the poverty in Appalachia(look it up).
Most of those people dont have running water, and when they have babies they dont go to the hospital, family and the local women aid in the birth.

Stick to your little suburb son, the real world is not a happy place.

I grew up a Detroit housing project where a white truance officer would not have have come to send a little "******" to school even if he did give a damn one way or another.

Take a visit to Caprini Green in Chicago, the neighborhoods of South Tucson AZ, the back woods around Nashville TN, The Bronx/Queens/Staten Island New York---they dont enforce truancy laws--they can barely enforce criminal law. Police are busy failing at keeping people safe-there isnt anytime for getting little johnny to school.

But someone like you doesnt have the mental capacity to grasp the real world and you more then likely never will.

You have no concept of the nation you live in "Dude".

Point blank, you are a soon to be elitist piece of shit, I lament your existence.

Seems to me that the thread starter would be the first to have his voting rights rescinded, as he can't even spell "competency," let alone demonstrate it.

Unrestricted Democracy is Mob Rule and Anarchy.
By the way--we do not have an unrestricted Democracy.
Seems you would indeed fail that test.

Jesus, haven't we already dealt with these things in the form of Literacy tests, which were made EXPLICITLY illegal?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?ex=1125547200&en=631977063d726261&ei=5070

I took that from another NS thread (Kudos to man who posted it), and this is just embarrasing. This is just embarrasing.

In America, I believe we need Voting Competancy Tests. In order to vote for anything in America, they must complete a test testing basic math. (Middle School Level. Pre-Algebra stuff I'd guess.). They must also complete a basic Science test. (To make sure the people who don't know what a Molecule can't vote. Basic stuff. Middle school level) They must also complete a basic History test (You know, covering the basics. WWI, WWII, Civil War, all that stuff. Just basic stuff. Like who were the Romans, or the Egyptians. Just very basic. Primary School Stuff.) They must also take a basic political test (Just basic information, like who's running for Democrat, who's running for Republican, etc. etc.)

After they pass all these tests, then only then, and only then, may they vote. Anyone else who does not pass every single one of the those tests, with an 80% or higher, cannot vote.

I think it's a great idea.

What do you all think?
I think the Blacks will be very pissed off at you... not to be racist or anything but lets be honest, the people who won't get to vote after a test like that would be the poor, and the poorly educated. Which mainly is made up of minorities and poor white rednecks. Thus firmly handing over politics to whites and Asians...

Even if there are some good arguments for it, think about this:

Some politicians would be elected. While in office, they might determine that the uneducated, if allowed to vote, would vote for their political opponents.

We have just created politicians who have an interest in not educating part of the population.

That cannot be healthy for democracy.

If we want people to be better voters, we shouldn't exclude any of them... Instead, we should educate all of them. (Yes, in a well-educated population you may still have a few numbnuts... but that should be a small price to pay for democracy.)

I think the Blacks will be very pissed off at you... not to be racist or anything but lets be honest, the people who won't get to vote after a test like that would be the poor, and the poorly educated. Which mainly is made up of minorities and poor white rednecks. Thus firmly handing over politics to whites and Asians...

I think most minorities can add 2 + 2. and Asian is a minority.

My point is, the people who can't understand simple things like this, cannot understand politics, and make an informed decision. That's my point. It's just like saying that a job shouldn't be given to people who can't do it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?ex=1125547200&en=631977063d726261&ei=5070

I took that from another NS thread (Kudos to man who posted it), and this is just embarrasing. This is just embarrasing.

In America, I believe we need Voting Competancy Tests. In order to vote for anything in America, they must complete a test testing basic math. (Middle School Level. Pre-Algebra stuff I'd guess.). They must also complete a basic Science test. (To make sure the people who don't know what a Molecule can't vote. Basic stuff. Middle school level) They must also complete a basic History test (You know, covering the basics. WWI, WWII, Civil War, all that stuff. Just basic stuff. Like who were the Romans, or the Egyptians. Just very basic. Primary School Stuff.) They must also take a basic political test (Just basic information, like who's running for Democrat, who's running for Republican, etc. etc.)

After they pass all these tests, then only then, and only then, may they vote. Anyone else who does not pass every single one of the those tests, with an 80% or higher, cannot vote.

I think it's a great idea.

What do you all think?


That was actually a Jim Crow law. Voters were subjected to screening tests that were designed to indirectly filter out black people and prey on the poor education of blacks. I hope to God that particular law never comes back again.

I think most minorities can add 2 + 2. and Asian is a minority.

My point is, the people who can't understand simple things like this, cannot understand politics, and make an informed decision. That's my point. It's just like saying that a job shouldn't be given to people who can't do it.

But voting isn't a job. People don't get salaries for voting. It's supposed to be an instrinic right. If you can't deal with that fact then ultimately you can't deal with democracy.

So you support Mob Rule?

Yes I do. The "mob" tends to be both wiser and smarter than the "anointed". I see no reason to pretend otherwise.

So, having skimmed through the posts, I see that no consensus has been reached as to the need for voter competency tests (and thank you to the poster who did the spell check!, if you hadn't I would have).

Basically, here in the good ol' USA, even I, a Republican of little education (BA in Education) and even less common sense, according to my Democrat/liberal acquaintances can vote.

We could always revert to the Roman Empire model where only citizens could take part in the action and you could either a) be born a citizen or b) buy your citizenship at a high price. That leaves everyone else to be slaves and worker bees.

Or we could always go back to the good old days when we had a monarch to tell us what was good for us....

I like what we have, with all it's faults, but mostly with all it's great things. Think about it. A man that grew up in CABRINI GREEN in Chicago can vote, and so can I, a suburban born and bred, with a middle class income and a car. Even poor spellers get a chance. Golly.

One of these days, I'll figure out what it is that makes some folks figure that they have it all right and anyone that disagrees with them is an idiot.

i agree with Serapindal. i have been ashamed to live in the us with a national intellect level averaging out somewhere between starfish and toaster. people need to know history, political issues, and what the nation needs to advance. i.e. slum clearance, increasing jobs, limiting imports, etc. randomly electing a cowboy who cheated to get to where he is is going to turn the us into a second world country within fifteen years.

i agree with Serapindal. i have been ashamed to live in the us with a national intellect level averaging out somewhere between starfish and toaster. people need to know history, political issues, and what the nation needs to advance. i.e. slum clearance, increasing jobs, limiting imports, etc. randomly electing a cowboy who cheated to get to where he is is going to turn the us into a second world country within fifteen years.


I'm ashamed of your writing skills. People need to know how to express themselves clearly and intelligently.

Next time there's an election, vote and see if you get what you want. That's what I do every time. I've voted for winners and losers both. There's nothing like actually being able to complain about someone in office that you voted for or against.

BTW, technically, the US is IN the "Second World" as it is part of what is historically known as "the New World" with Europe being "the Old World" and Africa and some other places being considered "Third World."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?ex=1125547200&en=631977063d726261&ei=5070

This is just embarrasing...
What do you all think?

I think this is embarrasing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?ex=1125547200&en=631977063d726261&ei=5070

This is just embarrasing.

Voting Competancy Tests
Pre-Algebra
basic Science test
who don't know what a Molecule can't vote.
basic History test
Primary School Stuff.

What do you all think?

I think there should also be a section in the test on inproper capitalization of common nouns. "what a Molecule can't vote"? C'mon.

The answer is not to exclude people from the electoral process, but rather to better equip them during their formative schooling years to deal with the complex issues that define our society's politics.

The answer is not to exclude people from the electoral process, but rather to better equip them during their formative schooling years to deal with the complex issues that define our society's politics.
Most people wouldn't want to pay the money for that schooling.

Most people wouldn't want to pay the money for that schooling.
Don't you people have free education? Do what we here in Australia do, raise taxes until your schools have enough money to churn out people who don't need a colourcoded ballot form.

This is something I completely agree with. Im sorry, but its a decision(at its base) between efficiency and fairness. Do we give sub-par to many, or the best to those that try? If you try in school, try to understand the basics of politics, you deserve to have a say in its direction. Its similar to the discussion of communism/socialism vs capitalism. Or of voting age. By the outlooks of many here, it seems they favor abolishing age limits on voting, and even smoking, drinking, buying guns, etc. Maybe you think its a slippery-slope, but its the same argument. You are arguing fairness over efficiency. Why should someone 17 not be able to vote, drink, or buy a gun? Because they are, in general, not as intelligent as older people? So what? If fairness is such an issue for voting, why not these things?

Im sorry, but I would much rather have my leaders elected by the most informed people, not the least.

Don't you people have free education? Do what we here in Australia do, raise taxes until your schools have enough money to churn out people who don't need a colourcoded ballot form.
Most politians seem to be in favor of tax cuts even though taxes aren't a top ten issue (in my province). I do, however, agree with the idea.

This is something I completely agree with. Im sorry, but its a decision(at its base) between efficiency and fairness. Do we give sub-par to many, or the best to those that try? If you try in school, try to understand the basics of politics, you deserve to have a say in its direction. Its similar to the discussion of communism/socialism vs capitalism. Or of voting age. By the outlooks of many here, it seems they favor abolishing age limits on voting, and even smoking, drinking, buying guns, etc. Maybe you think its a slippery-slope, but its the same argument. You are arguing fairness over efficiency. Why should someone 17 not be able to vote, drink, or buy a gun? Because they are, in general, not as intelligent as older people? So what? If fairness is such an issue for voting, why not these things?

Im sorry, but I would much rather have my leaders elected by the most informed people, not the least.
I do see a problem with the test having a bias towards the party in power. Some governments would try to make a fair test but plenty would try to make it easier for their supporters to pass.

I do see a problem with the test having a bias towards the party in power. Some governments would try to make a fair test but plenty would try to make it easier for their supporters to pass.

I agree, this is the worst part of it, but its possible to overcome. Especially in America. We may not have a genius population(not that any other populace is much different), but we are highly observant. If people started complaining about bias, there would be instant inqueries, etc etc. There would probably be a board, with tens of members and hundreds of underlings, in charge of regulating fairness.

The test would be as basic as possible, as well. Simple questions like...

"France is..."
A. A friend of the US
B. A enemy of the US
C. Occupied by germany

"America is..."
A. An incredibly wealthy nation
B. A poor nation
C. A bankrupt nation

"Gun laws in the US..."
A. Allow unrestricted access to all guns
B. Are at a medium level of restriction, including liscencing, etc.
C. Are complete; Gun ownership is illegal

"America is nearest to..."
A. Capitalism
B. Socialism
C. Anarchy

I know certain people seem to waste their vote, but if everyone did'nt have their right to vote that would be what we call the 1900's. So if you want to live in a technologically depressed world then here is my time machine
___
| :p | its a bit wonky but it works :D
|___|

Similarly it would also be called a dictatorship :D

I agree, this is the worst part of it, but its possible to overcome. Especially in America. We may not have a genius population(not that any other populace is much different), but we are highly observant. If people started complaining about bias, there would be instant inqueries, etc etc. There would probably be a board, with tens of members and hundreds of underlings, in charge of regulating fairness.

The test would be as basic as possible, as well. Simple questions like...

"France is..."
A. A friend of the US
B. A enemy of the US
C. Occupied by germany

"America is..."
A. An incredibly wealthy nation
B. A poor nation
C. A bankrupt nation

"Gun laws in the US..."
A. Allow unrestricted access to all guns
B. Are at a medium level of restriction, including liscencing, etc.
C. Are complete; Gun ownership is illegal

"America is nearest to..."
A. Capitalism
B. Socialism
C. Anarchy


Ah come here now is A a series of trick questions.
France is generally a friend of the US, except before and during the initial stage of the Iraq war..when half the US population would have liked to nuke France because they did not support a phony war :eek: Hence France was an enemy of the US

Most test results can be interpreted in many ways.

So HELL NO!

I agree, this is the worst part of it, but its possible to overcome. Especially in America. We may not have a genius population(not that any other populace is much different), but we are highly observant. If people started complaining about bias, there would be instant inqueries, etc etc. There would probably be a board, with tens of members and hundreds of underlings, in charge of regulating fairness.

The test would be as basic as possible, as well. Simple questions like...

"France is..."
A. A friend of the US
B. A enemy of the US
C. Occupied by germany

"America is..."
A. An incredibly wealthy nation
B. A poor nation
C. A bankrupt nation

"Gun laws in the US..."
A. Allow unrestricted access to all guns
B. Are at a medium level of restriction, including liscencing, etc.
C. Are complete; Gun ownership is illegal

"America is nearest to..."
A. Capitalism
B. Socialism
C. Anarchy
Lets see how I do:
1: Well America does not like that France did not support the war, but so did most other countries. My guess is A.
2: A. However C could be possible in the future.
3: A?
4: A

I would like to see questions that make sure the person understands both sides of an issue: ie Why do people oppose stem cell research? Why do they support it?

And what if you are too drunk to make the test? Or just guess your way though it when it's multiple choice? I could just be not in the mood for such nonsense

Unrestricted Democracy is Mob Rule and Anarchy.
"Restricted" democracy is not democracy at all.

I find it exceptionally difficult to believe that one in five Americans honestly don't know that the Earth revolves around the Sun. I think you had people putting that answer down as a joke.

Rule #1:

Must be able to spell the word "competence"

So what we're saying is that if one attains these basic levels of education one is deemed worthy of a vote. That would mean that a 3 year old attaining said levels gets a vote yes?

Dude, High School and Middle School are MANDATORY.

Everyone knows the Earth Revolves around the Sun.

Everyone knows who Hitler and Stalin were.

Everyone knows how to add 2 + 2.

We can't just institute it instantly. We'll create a cut-off date. People reaching age 18 at a certain date, have to take it, because by then, EVERYONE has gone to high school and Middle School.

Anyone have the link to that thread with the study of American intelligence? The stat about how many Americans believe the sun revolves around the Earth would be quite relevant here.

"Restricted" democracy is not democracy at all.

That's bollocks. 'Unrestricted' democracy would mean that every citizen directly makes EVERY decision through referendums, which would be unworkabl and pointless. What we call democracies are representative democracies, which are definitely restricted. Plus, I would say that the tyranny of the majority is not democracy at all either, but that's what would come out of removing all restrictions.

stupid and or ignorant people should neither breed nor vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?ex=1125547200&en=631977063d726261&ei=5070

I took that from another NS thread (Kudos to man who posted it), and this is just embarrasing. This is just embarrasing.

In America, I believe we need Voting Competancy Tests. In order to vote for anything in America, they must complete a test testing basic math. (Middle School Level. Pre-Algebra stuff I'd guess.). They must also complete a basic Science test. (To make sure the people who don't know what a Molecule can't vote. Basic stuff. Middle school level) They must also complete a basic History test (You know, covering the basics. WWI, WWII, Civil War, all that stuff. Just basic stuff. Like who were the Romans, or the Egyptians. Just very basic. Primary School Stuff.) They must also take a basic political test (Just basic information, like who's running for Democrat, who's running for Republican, etc. etc.)

After they pass all these tests, then only then, and only then, may they vote. Anyone else who does not pass every single one of the those tests, with an 80% or higher, cannot vote.

I think it's a great idea.

What do you all think?

stupid and or igorant people should neither breed nor vote. Ah, but what is your definition of stupid/ignorant, glasshopper?

It's not always a money issue crappy parents can't be bothered with their kids or are more intrested if Johnny will be a "starter" than if Johnny can read.


Don't you people have free education? Do what we here in Australia do, raise taxes until your schools have enough money to churn out people who don't need a colourcoded ballot form.

It seems to me that the people who would likely fail such tests are the people with the most reason to vote for a government who would actually give their area better schools. A lot of people aren't uneducated because they want to be, but because they have no opportunities to change that. Especially in America, where there is little or no support for the poor in that regard.

And then of course, you have the question -- how high do you set the bar? If you give the government the power to restrict who can and can't vote based on their intelligence, you'd have a society run entirely by the rich, educated elite within no time and you'd be back to a medieval form of society. Not a good thing. The government would be able to restrict education to certain 'undesirables' and then make them ineligible to vote. If you can trust politicians with that sort of power, that's great. But in doing so, you're proving that you're probably not intelligent enough to vote...

The actual solution to this problem is to make sure everyone is educated, not take a 19th century outlook on things and blame the uneducated for the lack of decent schools in their area.

stupid and or igorant people should neither breed nor vote.
Hope that was a typo

What about those that refuse to learn, like the ultra conservative religious that believe in the supernateral over science?


Even if there are some good arguments for it, think about this:

Some politicians would be elected. While in office, they might determine that the uneducated, if allowed to vote, would vote for their political opponents.

We have just created politicians who have an interest in not educating part of the population.

That cannot be healthy for democracy.

If we want people to be better voters, we shouldn't exclude any of them... Instead, we should educate all of them. (Yes, in a well-educated population you may still have a few numbnuts... but that should be a small price to pay for democracy.)

The test were used unfairly to exclude Blacks if the tests were the same across the board it would be fair, let the people study provide study guides and classes. Let members of differnt ethnic groups have input, with one caveat THE TEST WILL BE IN STANDARD ENGLISH!.

That was actually a Jim Crow law. Voters were subjected to screening tests that were designed to indirectly filter out black people and prey on the poor education of blacks. I hope to God that particular law never comes back again.

Mobs are great! :eek: ask anybody who was lynched. :eek:


Yes I do. The "mob" tends to be both wiser and smarter than the "anointed". I see no reason to pretend otherwise.

I like the idea in principle but it would be very hard to work fairly and without risk of discrimination.

I like the idea in principle but it would be very hard to work fairly and without risk of discrimination.

Erm... the very idea is discriminatory, that'll be why it's hard to put into practice without discrimination. Because that's all it is.

fundamental understanding of thes issues and canidates to be voted on. Ah, but what is your definition of stupid/ignorant, glasshopper?

poor typing (and spelling) should be constitutionally protected
;) Hope that was a typo

Publish study guides 6 months before the test give them to everybody that wants one ...let citizen groups offer classes and tutors it removes the whole dicrimination except of the willfully ignorant or the truly stupid. Erm... the very idea is discriminatory, that'll be why it's hard to put into practice without discrimination. Because that's all it is.

Yes, it is a good idea, though I think it is more important to test on political knowledge... At least it may seem more relevant though testing in other subjects would be ideal...

Before someone should vote, they should know at least the basics of the political system, I say even allow the person to have a 'study guide' to review before testing, not only does this still support the 'everyone is equal' ideal, it also raises political awareness (even in those...that... don't pass...), and though it may not as effectivly filter out all stupid people it might help a little...

That's still constitutional...right? We could even have it in different languages! It could be read outloud for the blind...etc ...and age wouldn't be a factor knowledge and intellegence would... and that... should be kinda more important in voting than just a warm body, right?

I'd rather the mandatory test be for common sense........

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?ex=1125547200&en=631977063d726261&ei=5070

I took that from another NS thread (Kudos to man who posted it), and this is just embarrasing. This is just embarrasing.

In America, I believe we need Voting Competancy Tests. In order to vote for anything in America, they must complete a test testing basic math. (Middle School Level. Pre-Algebra stuff I'd guess.). They must also complete a basic Science test. (To make sure the people who don't know what a Molecule can't vote. Basic stuff. Middle school level) They must also complete a basic History test (You know, covering the basics. WWI, WWII, Civil War, all that stuff. Just basic stuff. Like who were the Romans, or the Egyptians. Just very basic. Primary School Stuff.) They must also take a basic political test (Just basic information, like who's running for Democrat, who's running for Republican, etc. etc.)

After they pass all these tests, then only then, and only then, may they vote. Anyone else who does not pass every single one of the those tests, with an 80% or higher, cannot vote.

I think it's a great idea.

What do you all think?


Who creates the test? The government? (cause that would be a great idea [/sarcasm])

Unrestricted Democracy is Mob Rule and Anarchy.
Care to explain what it has to do with anarchy?

EDIT: Gah.. Forgot to say: In my opinion, the solution to this is education. Not an even more elitist regime.

What we have is a democratic republic. We democratically elect our republicans. Thus, we attempt to have majority rule without the "tyrrany of the majority".

Or we could just soak the rich. The rich are a minority, especially as most people see themselves as middle class. The majority hold a certain resentment for the rich. If the majority could decide directly, that is one of the things that would happen, and has happened. In France in the 1790's, and Germany in the 1930's. Okay, granted, the Jews weren't necessarily the rich, but they were a convenient minority to soak for the benefit of the majority.
In short, there is a reason we don't have an undiluted democracy.

If we instituted poll tests, as has been done in the past, and as has been noted here by persons more learned in this area than myself, it would be abused.

As for the un-edukat'd putting Mr. Bush in office, I have to disagree. Perhaps it is true that the college educated population did vote, as a whole, for Kerry and Gore before him. There has been a connection made between getting a college education and becoming more liberal. Schools are, after all, one of the oldest methods of indoctrination. Teachers will teach their beliefs, the bias is near impossible to avoid, and more teachers are liberal than conservative. However, stating that the conservatives voted for Bush as a whole, due to a lack of education, is in my opinion false. This last election, perhaps more than previous ones, got boiled down to a series of issues with none of the choices actually desirable. I for instance, voted for Bush, as I felt he'd be less inclined than Kerry (or Gore before him,) to attempt to limit or repeal the second ammendment. I don't like his actions concerning the first ammendment or the fourth, fifth, or sixth. I like the fact that every recent elected official has ignored the tenth ammendment even less.


Ah. And thus we come to limiting the rights of reproduction.
Yes, I have met some people who I truly felt were unfit to breed. I'm even related to a few. Mostly, I'd like to see those people, who don't pass along good values to their children, not breed.
But whos' values? Mine? If you restrict the freedom of parents to raise children to the parents' own specifications, you again give the government the ability, which will get used, to decide what values the society will have in a few years. Imagine, if you will, if Mr. Bush and the Republican controlled congress decided all persons professing no belief in a higher being was unfit to raise children. Imagine further that this same group decided anyone caught protesting any government action was an unfit parent. Get caught passing a Bush joke? Lose your kids. Participate in a protest march? Lose your kids. They will be raised up to be good little Southern Babtist Republicans, you can be sure. Aren't you glad that they won't have the incorrect beliefs that you do?

Oh, this applies if the Democrats were in power too. Believe in a higher diety? Wish to worship openly? Feel that morals should inform laws? Lose your kids. Feel that violence is acceptable if it saves the life, or well being, of the victim of a crime, up to the point of killing the attacker to stop him or her? (In other words, the victim is allowed to defend him or herself from attack, using whatever force is necessary to stop the attack, including lethal force.) Lose your kids. Aren't you glad they they won't grow up to have your outmoded and ignorant beliefs and values?


For more fun, read Thomas Kratmans' "State of disobedience"

Ah come here now is A a series of trick questions.
France is generally a friend of the US, except before and during the initial stage of the Iraq war..when half the US population would have liked to nuke France because they did not support a phony war :eek: Hence France was an enemy of the US

No. France was not an enemy of the US during that time. They had one disagreement. Rhetoric was launched between the nation. There is a huge leap from that to being an enemy. When french troops have fought with the US for their entire history, with the exception of a couple in ww2, they are our friends.

When french troops are currently fighting with americans in afghanistan, trading counter-terrorism information heavily, and even working on joint counter-terrorism projects, when they are heavy trading partners, they are friends.

(I think you may be joking, but many people would actually believe they were enemies. They have not been, except for a brief period in ww2 with vichy in '43.)

Lets see how I do:
1: Well America does not like that France did not support the war, but so did most other countries. My guess is A.
2: A. However C could be possible in the future.
3: A?
4: A

I would like to see questions that make sure the person understands both sides of an issue: ie Why do people oppose stem cell research? Why do they support it?

Ahh, close. 3 is B.

The US requires liscencing for guns, and wait period for most guns. Automatic firearms are all but illegal. We had the brady bill, but it was recently overturned. Multiple US states have heavy restrictions on weaponry, including California.

The test were used unfairly to exclude Blacks if the tests were the same across the board it would be fair, let the people study provide study guides and classes. Let members of differnt ethnic groups have input, with one caveat THE TEST WILL BE IN STANDARD ENGLISH!.

Indeed. The tests would be retakeable every two years, maybe a month or two before elections(presidential and congressional). The questions would change bi-yearly, and im sure classes would come around to help people get ready for the tests. Really, anyone who honestly desired to be able to vote, would be able to study enough to get ready. There are library's, etc.

And to make it more fair, you only have to pass the test once. Would mean that if someone wanted to corrupt it, the next elections would landslide against them/

True democracy provides a true representation of the citizens. If the citizens are uneducated or lazy, their leader should reflect that. The majority of this country does realize that the Earth orbits the Sun, though, so I don't think that the total of "uneducated" votes impacts elections as much as people think, except in the case of Dubya Bush.


actually, most uneducated people in this country are democrats... at least there are more uneducated democrats than there are uneducated repubs.

think about it:

inner-city poor are democrats mostly (want the government to give them other people's money)

about half of the rednecks in the south (give or take a percentage point) are democrats or lean toward the left from The Great Center.

Voting comes down to motivation:

If you want more free enterprise (freedom from government/others' fingers on your money, freedom to succeed in business, etc.) you vote repub.

If you want more socialism (don't thibnk you can make it on your own and want, no, demand that others help you) then you're likely to vote for democrats.

If you think that America has a responsibility to help people become free when they're unable to do so themselves (nice spin, huh? hehe), you vote repub.

If you want the US to stay home, you vote Dem.

etc.

actually, most uneducated people in this country are democrats... at least there are more uneducated democrats than there are uneducated repubs.

think about it:

inner-city poor are democrats mostly (want the government to give them other people's money)

about half of the rednecks in the south (give or take a percentage point) are democrats or lean toward the left from The Great Center.

Voting comes down to motivation:

If you want more free enterprise (freedom from government/others' fingers on your money, freedom to succeed in business, etc.) you vote repub.

If you want more socialism (don't thibnk you can make it on your own and want, no, demand that others help you) then you're likely to vote for democrats.

If you think that America has a responsibility to help people become free when they're unable to do so themselves (nice spin, huh? hehe), you vote repub.

If you want the US to stay home, you vote Dem.

etc.

If you want to be fair, the democrats have more educated people.

They have most teachers and professors, as well as college students(At least at the time, they are pretty smart).

They have most of the sub-urbanites.

Republicans are closer to the line. Farmers and the like arent dumb, but a good chance they, or their families, dont have too much knowledge into politics, other than television, etc. I dont want to make too big an assumption with this, but last national guard training I was at, one of the instructors was talking about the war in iraq. Some high rank was talking to us, and asked us why we went in. The first two answers were terrorism and humanitarian reasons. I giggled on the inside. He got a sour face, then corrected them by saying wmd.

Its not really fair to generalize like this, though. Especially with the internet and all, anyone can become informed on these things, if they spend a little time. They just dont bother currently.

What The Fuck Is Your Fucking Problem. If you think that people should take tests to vote you really are a fucking idiot. We don't need to go back to the days of African American testing. Besides this idea is unconstitutional. You should be paying more attention to the Hurricane then you should to this bullshit. (excuse the language i'm a bit fired up)

What The Fuck Is Your Fucking Problem. If you think that people should take tests to vote you really are a fucking idiot. We don't need to go back to the days of African American testing. Besides this idea is unconstitutional. You should be paying more attention to the Hurricane then you should to this bullshit. (excuse the language i'm a bit fired up)

This has nothing to do with african americans. I find your post quite racist actually, as we are talking about a fair test across the board, and you are saying it will be against african americans, implying they arent able to take tests like the rest of us.

I honestly believe anyone in the US, if they are driven to, can learn the basics. If they cant, they shouldnt be able to vote. Again, its fairness over efficiency. Do we want to be fair, and allow everyone to have guns, regardless of age, etc?

The constitution is able to be changed. They already changed it, making 18 the voting age. We already have put restrictions on voters, based on age, which is indirectly based on intelligence. This is no different. I find it funny how so many people are scared of this.

about half of the rednecks in the south (give or take a percentage point) are democrats or lean toward the left from The Great Center.
Quick news report from me in the 'redneck rivera'- almost (ok, a VAST majority of) everyone here is republican. Here democrats tend to keep their mouths shut for the fear of being run over in confederate flag bearing/country music spewing pick-up trucks (that are usually full to brim with gay bashing/bible humping/alcholics idiots) ;)

As dumb as some people or americans can be, their rights should not be restricted or limited in any way. That is how they end up electing men like Bush, but that's just democracy's double edged sword.

I think they should have a literacy test. If you can't read, why bother voting.

If people are honestly working to learn English(enrolled in a class and are getting good remarks), then they should be able to vote.

Anyway, the electoral college is supposed to be insurance for these problems...

Quick news report from me in the 'redneck rivera'- almost (ok, a VAST majority of) everyone here is republican. Here democrats tend to keep their mouths shut for the fear of being run over in confederate flag bearing/country music spewing pick-up trucks (that are usually full to brim with gay bashing/bible humping/alcholics idiots) ;)

It's just like that, except in the more Liberal Areas, Republicans tend to keep their mouths shut for fear of being run over by Sovet Union Flag Bearing/Rap Music spewing Cars, that are usually filled to the brim with Communist Spies.

It's just like that, except in the more Liberal Areas, Republicans tend to keep their mouths shut for fear of being run over by Sovet Union Flag Bearing/Rap Music spewing Cars, that are usually filled to the brim with Communist Spies.
You've actually witnessed a rednecks car bear a soviet union flag? That really would be a sight o.o

Unrestricted Democracy is Mob Rule and Anarchy.
Correct. What makes your proposition any better, though? All your restrictions do is make the 'ruling mob' smaller and more intelligent.

Correct. What makes your proposition any better, though? All your restrictions do is make the 'ruling mob' smaller and more intelligent.
Considering your nick, I'm sort of amazed you'd concede that anarchy = mob rule??

Correct. What makes your proposition any better, though? All your restrictions do is make the 'ruling mob' smaller and more intelligent.

Sounds good.

You've actually witnessed a rednecks car bear a soviet union flag? That really would be a sight o.o

Uh...it was more like uber-liberals. But still, that's what you get for being in California.

I think we can safely conclude from this thread that Serapindal does not believe in the concept of the republic.

Uh...it was more like uber-liberals. But still, that's what you get for being in California.
Um... well if you would notice that my orriginal post was in response to the claim that most 'rednecks' were democrats... so... what is your point exactly?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?ex=1125547200&en=631977063d726261&ei=5070

I took that from another NS thread (Kudos to man who posted it), and this is just embarrasing. This is just embarrasing.

In America, I believe we need Voting Competancy Tests. In order to vote for anything in America, they must complete a test testing basic math. (Middle School Level. Pre-Algebra stuff I'd guess.). They must also complete a basic Science test. (To make sure the people who don't know what a Molecule can't vote. Basic stuff. Middle school level) They must also complete a basic History test (You know, covering the basics. WWI, WWII, Civil War, all that stuff. Just basic stuff. Like who were the Romans, or the Egyptians. Just very basic. Primary School Stuff.) They must also take a basic political test (Just basic information, like who's running for Democrat, who's running for Republican, etc. etc.)

After they pass all these tests, then only then, and only then, may they vote. Anyone else who does not pass every single one of the those tests, with an 80% or higher, cannot vote.

I think it's a great idea.

What do you all think?


Over half of the US would fail...including President Bush.

My idea. Name five US vice presidents and you get to vote.

My idea. Name five US vice presidents and you get to vote.

Yay, something I think I can do :P

(Dick cheney, Al gore, harry truman, gerald ford, and andrew jackson(isnt that who was after lincoln?)

First of all.
The old poll tests were heavily biased against anyone who wasn't already well educated. However, anyone remember the term "grandfather clause"?
Well, if your grandfather was eligable to vote, you didn't have to take the test.
Since slaves couldn't vote, all those newly emancipated black people could be denied the vote.

The problem is, it can be made very biased. Throw in enough loaded questions that actually reveal your political stance instead of that you understand the issues, and you can limit anyone who doesn't agree with you from voting.

Here's one.
The second ammendment gives
A. The people the right to keep and bear arms,
B. The states the right to maintain militias.

The right answer is actually
C. Nothing. The bill of rights only preserves inherent rights from being stepped on by the federal government. All but 10, which allows the list to be appended in the future.

However, select A, and you're probably a Republican in additude. Select B and you're more likely Democrat.

And that's an EASY one. The risk is that a "poll test" could be made to look suspiciously like a psych evaluation test, with the intent to filter against certain beliefs.

Second.
Chellis. Claiming that Democrats have more college educated people is true. However, this is not necessarily because education teaches you to be a Democrat but rather because the colleges in our country are largely populated by liberals, who indoctrinate more liberals while they're there.
Personally, I feel the real issue is one of space. I feel that liberals are probably more prevalent in Urban areas, (a natural inclination to want to tell your neighbor what to do, or what not to do,) and conservatives are probably more pravalent in rural areas, (possibly conditioned against being messed with, and thus chooses to live where other people won't interfere.) In our modern political landscape, everyone can be informed about the issues that matter to them. You don't need to be a constitutional scholar to know that this bill will hurt your way of life, or that one will protect it. Or this other one will force your way of life on someone you think lives like a ,(fill in the blank, godless heathen, unwashed gunnut, incompetant moron, dangerous psychopath.)

First of all.
The old poll tests were heavily biased against anyone who wasn't already well educated. However, anyone remember the term "grandfather clause"?
Well, if your grandfather was eligable to vote, you didn't have to take the test.
Since slaves couldn't vote, all those newly emancipated black people could be denied the vote.

The problem is, it can be made very biased. Throw in enough loaded questions that actually reveal your political stance instead of that you understand the issues, and you can limit anyone who doesn't agree with you from voting.

Here's one.
The second ammendment gives
A. The people the right to keep and bear arms,
B. The states the right to maintain militias.

The right answer is actually
C. Nothing. The bill of rights only preserves inherent rights from being stepped on by the federal government. All but 10, which allows the list to be appended in the future.

However, select A, and you're probably a Republican in additude. Select B and you're more likely Democrat.

And that's an EASY one. The risk is that a "poll test" could be made to look suspiciously like a psych evaluation test, with the intent to filter against certain beliefs.

Second.
Chellis. Claiming that Democrats have more college educated people is true. However, this is not necessarily because education teaches you to be a Democrat but rather because the colleges in our country are largely populated by liberals, who indoctrinate more liberals while they're there.
Personally, I feel the real issue is one of space. I feel that liberals are probably more prevalent in Urban areas, (a natural inclination to want to tell your neighbor what to do, or what not to do,) and conservatives are probably more pravalent in rural areas, (possibly conditioned against being messed with, and thus chooses to live where other people won't interfere.) In our modern political landscape, everyone can be informed about the issues that matter to them. You don't need to be a constitutional scholar to know that this bill will hurt your way of life, or that one will protect it. Or this other one will force your way of life on someone you think lives like a ,(fill in the blank, godless heathen, unwashed gunnut, incompetant moron, dangerous psychopath.)

For starters, I was only making the point that you can extrapolate things in the way I did, and whom I quoted did. Though if college's are tought by liberals, that should say something(that the knowledgable are liberals, by your own words).

Anyways, I agree with what you are saying in the end of your statements... however, most people are told by party line, or vast misconceptions, what is good or bad. If everyone took the time to get basic knowledge about things political, it would greatly rise our efficiency. Its not like they would be hard tests, it would just be a way of pushing people to become informed.

For starters, I was only making the point that you can extrapolate things in the way I did, and whom I quoted did. Though if college's are tought by liberals, that should say something(that the knowledgable are liberals, by your own words).

Anyways, I agree with what you are saying in the end of your statements... however, most people are told by party line, or vast misconceptions, what is good or bad. If everyone took the time to get basic knowledge about things political, it would greatly rise our efficiency. Its not like they would be hard tests, it would just be a way of pushing people to become informed.

Sorry for the delay. I haven't had time to write anything else since you wrote this.

Okay. Concerning the concept that there is a connection between education and a liberal bias.

Imagine, for a moment, that you are interested in comic book art. Right now, it can be argued that the best comic book artists are Japaneese. Should you wish to learn from some of the most skilled people in the business, you're likely going to be learning from a japaneese. If you learn from a japaneese, you will pick up elements of japaneese culture. This is a given. You will pick up a smattering of japaneese ideas, and beliefs as well. Does, then, being a good Manga artist, mean you will believe and act as a japaneese? Does being Japaneese mean you have a talent for graphic design?

If you learn from someone more liberal than yourself, you are going to come away more liberal than you started, unless you are very firm in your beliefs. Likewise, if you learn from someone more conservative than yourself, you will come away more conservative than you started. As most professors are liberals, those who attend college leave more liberal than they entered. As presumably all professors attended college to attain their degrees, (and presumably knowledge,) they ended school, on a whole, more liberal than they began. Some, of course, were ultra-left wing liberals to start with, and no amount of indoctrination could increase that. Others entered college so right-wing that even six to seven years of college weren't going to mellow them beyond moderate, if that far, and others went in with their minds made up.

However. It is a fair point that most people don't actually know the issues, but only the soundbites they have been fed. Part of this can be laid at their own feet. Few actually care to research the issues, taking on faith what their celebraties tell them. I got a flier from the NRA not too long ago, with the following message on the outside

Own a gun?
lose your job.



This message was concerning a certain company that cracked down on gun possession in employees cars while they are parked at work. As much as I support the second ammendment, I personally feel a parking lot is the landowners property, (owned or leased by the business,) with the employees posession parked on it, and thus the landowner and leaseholder can keep and enforce whatever rules they wish. Of course, if my employer ever trys this, I'm parking on the street. All PAC's will spin the news to suit themselves. Few, if any, get an unvarnished version of circumstances and events. This goes for the left and right equally. Remember, it was the left that decided to declare all "evil" looking guns, assualt rifles, despite the fact that an assualt rifle is a fully-automatic weapon that hasn't been generally available to the public since about the 30's.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?ex=1125547200&en=631977063d726261&ei=5070

I took that from another NS thread (Kudos to man who posted it), and this is just embarrasing. This is just embarrasing.

In America, I believe we need Voting Competancy Tests. In order to vote for anything in America, they must complete a test testing basic math. (Middle School Level. Pre-Algebra stuff I'd guess.). They must also complete a basic Science test. (To make sure the people who don't know what a Molecule can't vote. Basic stuff. Middle school level) They must also complete a basic History test (You know, covering the basics. WWI, WWII, Civil War, all that stuff. Just basic stuff. Like who were the Romans, or the Egyptians. Just very basic. Primary School Stuff.) They must also take a basic political test (Just basic information, like who's running for Democrat, who's running for Republican, etc. etc.)

After they pass all these tests, then only then, and only then, may they vote. Anyone else who does not pass every single one of the those tests, with an 80% or higher, cannot vote.

I think it's a great idea.

What do you all think?

It's a scary day when the liberals and the Ku Klux Klan have something in common...

In short, no, "voting competency" tests are contrary and insulting to the fundamentals of American democracy.

Sorry for the delay. I haven't had time to write anything else since you wrote this.

Okay. Concerning the concept that there is a connection between education and a liberal bias.

Imagine, for a moment, that you are interested in comic book art. Right now, it can be argued that the best comic book artists are Japaneese. Should you wish to learn from some of the most skilled people in the business, you're likely going to be learning from a japaneese. If you learn from a japaneese, you will pick up elements of japaneese culture. This is a given. You will pick up a smattering of japaneese ideas, and beliefs as well. Does, then, being a good Manga artist, mean you will believe and act as a japaneese? Does being Japaneese mean you have a talent for graphic design?

If you learn from someone more liberal than yourself, you are going to come away more liberal than you started, unless you are very firm in your beliefs. Likewise, if you learn from someone more conservative than yourself, you will come away more conservative than you started. As most professors are liberals, those who attend college leave more liberal than they entered. As presumably all professors attended college to attain their degrees, (and presumably knowledge,) they ended school, on a whole, more liberal than they began. Some, of course, were ultra-left wing liberals to start with, and no amount of indoctrination could increase that. Others entered college so right-wing that even six to seven years of college weren't going to mellow them beyond moderate, if that far, and others went in with their minds made up.

However. It is a fair point that most people don't actually know the issues, but only the soundbites they have been fed. Part of this can be laid at their own feet. Few actually care to research the issues, taking on faith what their celebraties tell them. I got a flier from the NRA not too long ago, with the following message on the outside

Own a gun?
lose your job.



This message was concerning a certain company that cracked down on gun possession in employees cars while they are parked at work. As much as I support the second ammendment, I personally feel a parking lot is the landowners property, (owned or leased by the business,) with the employees posession parked on it, and thus the landowner and leaseholder can keep and enforce whatever rules they wish. Of course, if my employer ever trys this, I'm parking on the street. All PAC's will spin the news to suit themselves. Few, if any, get an unvarnished version of circumstances and events. This goes for the left and right equally. Remember, it was the left that decided to declare all "evil" looking guns, assualt rifles, despite the fact that an assualt rifle is a fully-automatic weapon that hasn't been generally available to the public since about the 30's.

Don't preach to me, Im against gun control.

But about the first part, the liberality had to start somewhere, and all I am saying is, there might be causality. Im not making the claim, just looked at it.