Do you support intelligence tests designed to keep some citizens away from the ballot box?

[cynatnite]

Last edited Sun May 27, 2012, 11:23 PM - Edit history (1)

There are some here who are advocating using intelligence tests to keep "undesirables" from voting. There is no consideration of quality of education or possible physical or mental issues which may affect intelligence.

I wonder if this is more about keeping those who don't vote the way we believe they should. They're voting for conservatives and anyone else considered unacceptable. I also think they're not taking in consideration the impact this might have on the U.S.

So, what do you think?

27 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, there should be intelligent tests
	2 (7%)
	No intelligent tests.
	25 (93%)
	I don't know.
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[annabanana]

1. All Citizens deserve to be represented

even the bone ignorant and dim witted.

[L0oniX]

23. My parrots agree.

[pinboy3niner]

30. They're only in it for the crackers

They're waaaaay too easy to bribe for their votes.

[ZombieHorde]

29. Including children? nt

[CreekDog]

58. Tests were used to stop blacks from voting.

they could never be administered fairly and without bias.

every citizen of agreed-upon-age of majority, or old enough to get sent into a war, should be eligible to vote.

not only that, they should be automatically registered and be allowed to vote wherever they are living.

[ZombieHorde]

64. Planned Parenthood has extremely racist roots, but it is much better now.

I think changing the way we currently oppress voters can also be implemented in a non-racist way.

every citizen of agreed-upon-age of majority, or old enough to get sent into a war, should be eligible to vote.

Why do you think people agreed to a voting age? I think the reason is most children lack the intellectual ability to understand politics well.

[CreekDog]

65. Can you decide who is intelligent enough to vote? There is no way you, or I are fit to do that.

It's a solution that's worse than the problem.

[ZombieHorde]

69. I would have the tests be designed by esteemed psychologists and sociologists.

They may feel different tests are required for different sub-cultures.

[CreekDog]

72. will the disenfranchised by wards of the state then? free of taxes and provided care?

exempt from military service? etc.

because you will then have excluded them from having a say in their government --will you then allow them to be free of its obligations?

it's such a horrid idea and i think you have not thought it out.

i usually agree with you on things, but this is just an awful idea.

(so you don't trust yourself to judge people's voting rights, but you would hand it off to experts? psychologists, really?)

so the test is for sanity or intelligence?

yikes.

[ZombieHorde]

81. "will you then allow them to be free of its obligations?"

Yes for taxes, except for corporations. Yes for the draft. Yes for health care.

Since they would not be truly represented, they should not have to pay taxes.

so you don't trust yourself to judge people's voting rights, but you would hand it off to experts? psychologists, really?

This is a matter of education for me. I believe I lack the education to judge intelligence in a scientific way. Psychologists have a better understanding of the mind than most, and sociologists have a better understanding of sub-cultures than most.

We already don't allow children to vote because they lack the intellectual ability to understand politics well. I just want to expand on that.

[cali]

90. Many, many experts believe that there is no way to truly judge intelligence in a scientific way

you must be horrified by the fact that people with Down Syndrome can- and often do- vote.

[ZombieHorde]

92. I actually started to developed this point of view while working with that community.

The manager would have them all vote Republican in the elections. They had no concept of what their vote meant, but they were obviously voting agaisnt their own interests.

[cali]

94. well it's a shockingly shortsighted, ill thought out pov

your "solution" is so much more destructive and unjust than the problem. And btw, I've also worked with DS folks and some of them were excellent judges of character. How about those with severe and persistent mental illnesses? How about those with Asperger's- folks who may be extremely bright but may be fixated on some pov that makes no sense to you?

It's a fucking slippery slope. Also it would be expensive and rely on frail human perceptions. Put bluntly, there is no sound scientific way to go about this.

Dangerous, stupid shit is what YOU are proposing.

[ZombieHorde]

95. You still have not answered my question about children voting. nt

[cali]

101. yeah, I did.

you didn't like the answer. tough.

[ZombieHorde]

107. Children can't vote because children can't vote.

You're right, I don't like that "answer."

It is like saying the Christian Holy Bible is true because the Christian Holy Bible says so.

[cali]

116. not what I said, but oh well.

I explained in simple enough terms so that even those you don't want to have the vote should be able to grasp it. One more time: Children are not considered as fully autonomous under our Constitution, thus they don't have full Constitutional rights until they reach the age of majority. You seem to want me to answer why this is so. One reason is that they are viewed as needing protection. Another is they haven't developed yet into... adults. That does not mean that they aren't intelligent. You seem to be conflating intelligence with maturity.

[cali]

73. this will come as a shock to you, I'm sure

but "esteemed psychologists and sociologists" 1) can hold diametrically opposed theories and 2) can be wrong. There was just an article about a very esteemed psychiatrist apologizing for a study he did claiming that "therapy" to make gays straight.

[ZombieHorde]

76. Yes, this is why I would have more than one person to design the test. nt

[UnrepentantLiberal]

91. You do know that once you open that door these

"intelligence tests" can be used by conservative states to suppress voting. I can't imagine where you're coming from with this or what you think the benefit would be. I know many reasonably intelligent people with what I consider ridiculous political views.

[ZombieHorde]

93. I agree Republicans would try to use this to their advantage.

However, I think they will try to suppress the vote in their favor even without it.

The implication of the plan would have to be careful.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

96. "The implication of the plan would have to be careful."

Do you know how many "carefully planned" programs have had unintended consiquences? I say again, you can't make people vote intelligently.

[ZombieHorde]

97. I completely agree we cannot make people vote intelligently,

but we can guide our current voter suppression laws into our favor.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

99. With this congress?

[ZombieHorde]

105. OK, you got me there. nt

[cali]

70. don't spread disgusting right wing lying dog shit.

The whole lying crap about Sanger has NO fucking place here at all. ever.

[ZombieHorde]

75. She wrote about her views in her book.

It's there for all to see.

[cali]

79. you aren't providing any evidence. Here's some for you:

Sanger believed that lighter-skinned races were superior to darker-skinned races, but would not tolerate bigotry among her staff, nor any refusal to work within interracial projects.[83] Her contemporaries in the African-American community supported her efforts. In 1929, James H. Hubert, a black social worker and leader of New York's Urban League, asked Sanger to open a clinic in Harlem.[84] Sanger secured funding from the Julius Rosenwald Fund and opened the clinic, staffed with African-American doctors, in 1930. The clinic was directed by a 15-member advisory board consisting of African-American doctors, nurses, clergy, journalists, and social workers. The clinic was publicized in the African-American press and African-American churches, and received the approval of W. E. B. Du Bois, founder of the NAACP.[85] Sanger's work with minorities earned praise from Martin Luther King, Jr., in his 1966 acceptance speech for the Margaret Sanger award.[86]

From 1939 to 1942 Sanger was an honorary delegate of the Birth Control Federation of America, which included a supervisory role — alongside Mary Lasker and Clarence Gamble — in the Negro Project, an effort to deliver birth control to poor African Americans.[87] Sanger wanted the Negro Project to include black ministers in leadership roles, but other supervisors did not. To emphasize the benefits of involving black community leaders, she wrote to Gamble "we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." This quote has been used by numerous Sanger detractors, including Angela Davis and opponents of the legalization of abortion, to support their claims that Sanger was racist.[88] However, according to New York University's Margaret Sanger Papers Project, Sanger, in writing that letter, "recognized that elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the Jim Crow South, unless clergy and other community leaders spread the word that the Project had a humanitarian aim."[89]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

Yes, she believed that lighter skinned people were superior- and that was definitely the prevailing view held by whites at that time, but she was far less racist than most people of her time and age.

You are spreading right wing crap. Lies.

[ZombieHorde]

82. OK, we both agree she was a racist, just not an extreme racist. Here is another bit from the link...

As part of her efforts to promote birth control, Sanger found common cause with proponents of eugenics, believing that they both sought to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit."[72] Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing reproduction by those considered unfit. Sanger's eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded.[73][74] In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" from procreating.[75] Although Sanger supported negative eugenics, she asserted that eugenics alone was not sufficient, and that birth control was essential to achieve her goals.[76][77][78]

In contrast with eugenicists who advocated euthanasia for the unfit,[note 9] Sanger wrote, "we [do not] believe that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding."[79] Similarly, Sanger denounced the aggressive and lethal Nazi eugenics program.[74] In addition, Sanger believed the responsibility for birth control should remain in the hands of able-minded individual parents rather than the state, and that self-determining motherhood was the only unshakable foundation for racial betterment.[76][80]

Complementing her eugenics policies, Sanger also supported restrictive immigration policies. In "A Plan for Peace", a 1932 essay, she proposed a congressional department to address population problems. She also recommended that immigration exclude those "whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race," and that sterilization and segregation be applied to those with incurable, hereditary disabilities.

She was agaisnt the Nazi death camps. That is definitely a plus.

[cali]

86. bzzzt. Here's your FALSE claim: . Planned Parenthood has extremely racist roots

It did not. Sanger was far less racist than most of her white contemporaries of any class. Yes, she bought into eugenics but that was not out of racism. She was not trying in any way shape or form to wipe out black people or other minorities. Sadly, the same cannot be said of her when it came to the "feeble minded".

Planned Parenthood most decidedly did NOT have "extremely racist roots". Sanger worked with black people and her impetus for birth control had nothing to do with racism and relatively little to do with eugenics. It stemmed from seeing her mother suffer with umpteen pregnancies and die at a young age.

[Hermes Daughter]

132. Racism Beyond Color

The "racism" of the eugenicists had nothing to do with black people, or any skin color really. It was aimed at people deemed inferior due to defective traits such as feeble mindedness, insanity, emotional problems and other character traits ascribed to what they would call "tribes" such as Jews and Gypsies.

I agree with you, cali, on your aversion to testing for the right to vote. I would rather my president be elected by a person with Downs Syndrome than a Republican If we could test for compassion, would we? And if we could, wouldn't it be more viable than intelligence (which can be so cruel).

Still, Sanger was part of a group in the early part of the last century that believed, like Hitler, that the human race could be improved through selective or careful breeding. After WWII, these people disappeared as if they'd never been here. But they live on in the selective rationing of life to the fittest -- health care, food, seeds... and eventually water.

Access to the voting booth is just the first in a long line of programs the GOP Elite have in store for "lesser humans" -- of all races.

[ZombieHorde]

189. I started a thread on this to see how posters in the AA group feel about her.

The results are mixed. You may wish to offer your own input.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11871740

[exboyfil]

2. I voted no. On the other hand I think you did to present

a government issue ID to vote (not popular on this board). I also think we should have optical scan balllots that represent a physical record of each vote. I also think a judge should have final approval before removing someone from the voter rolls. In all cases a conditional ballot should be made available that can be sealed with identification information (not tied to actual vote) to be opened and verified in the event of a recount.

[frazzled]

7. Optical scan ballots do, by definition, represent a physical record of each vote

You have to fill in bubbles or connect arrows next to names on a paper ballot, which is fed into a machine to be electronically scanned counted. Those hand-marked ballots remain the physical record, however. Optical scan ballots remain the best option at present. In a recall situation, there is paper to be counted.

[Mairead]

32. But currently they are anonymous records

and thus subject to being replaced by fraudulent ones.

[frazzled]

42. Voting must be anonymous

There is no way I (or millions of other people) want their names attached to a ballot. A number is assigned to your opti-scan ballot.

What good would a name do anyway? You think you're going to come check to see if your personal vote was properly registered? Not going to happen. Every single system of voting, from x's on paper to pull lever machines to electronic systems can be manipulated by people intent on fraud. Every precinct has a representative from each party overseeing the counting of ballots and submission of numbers. In suspect districts, teams of lawyers are sent to watch. (On election night 5 years ago in my ward, in the city elections for alderman, I talked to a group of volunteer lawyers who had been to several precincts.)

The biggest danger to the vote is voter disenfranchisement.

[Mairead]

149. No, it shouldn't be anonymous

And there's no reason it needs to be.

Assign every voter a randomly-generated "mask" for that election.

Put that masked identity on the ballot.

Provide the voter a receipt so that the voter can prove that they are the one behind the mask.

Then, if the vote totals come out funny, everyone can look up her/his vote and confirm or disconfirm it. If that weren't sufficient to allay suspicion, everyone could come forward and a full recount made, which would completely expose the source of any chicanery.

Public counting is the next-best idea, but any time ballots are completely anonymous, they can be replaced by fraudulent ones before the count.

Those who want to subvert democracy use all means in their power, so those of us who want democracy need to stop up all the ratholes.

[Egalitarian Thug]

103. What is wrong with a hand written, hand counted paper ballot?

Optical scanners are easy to rig and why bother? ID might be OK, but the potential for abuse makes it pretty risky as well. I really don't think voter fraud is a significant problem here. Election fraud OTOH is a huge issue and we won't even talk about it.

[exboyfil]

140. I can go with hand counted ballots as well

How about a mandatory random audit of a certain percentage of the optical ballots to ensure conformity in the vote count? We both agree a written record is essential it just becomes a question of efficiency in counting votes. Most races do not need to be hand counted. I think any study would show that optical scanning would be more accurate than hand counting (remember most ballots are two pages long with possibly 20 races on them). If you have a separate ballot for each race, then it might make more sense to hand count.

I keep hearing potential for abuse and no evidence of voter fraud, but the system should be established such that voting is secure not whether fraud currently exists. The combination of day of voter registration along with no requirement to show where you live? That appears to be a huge hole in security in my opinion. Remember they dyed the fingers of voters in the Middle East to ensure one person one vote. That is why I would be in favor of sealed provisional ballots for those who cannot prove who they are on election day. The parties need to work towards ensuring everyone gets some form of government id. The id should be free. Right now we require more id to buy a pack of cigarettes, get a library card, or get on board a passenger airplane. Also when you check into a Social Security office, you have to present an id. When you register your child for public school you have to present a birth certificate and evidence of residency.

[etherealtruth]

3. I support nothing designed to keep citizens from the ballot box

[ZombieHorde]

35. Should the voting age be lowered to zero? nt

[etherealtruth]

45. Yes

(simply meeting sarcasm with sarcasm)

I do not believe in disenfranchising adult citizens

[ZombieHorde]

48. Why shouldn't children be allowed to vote?

I think children should not be allowed to vote because they lack the intellectual ability to make sound decisions for something as complex as politics.

[etherealtruth]

57. Children lack maturity, experience and knowledge

... they do not lack intelligence.

Children are a class of citizen that do not enjoy all the privileges of adult citizenship nor do they have the burden of all of the responsibility of adult citizenship. Voting is a responsibility of adult citizenship.

[ZombieHorde]

85. Perhaps we should have a test based on maturity, experience, and knowledge?

I don't know if maturity can be measured. Experience may be really tough to measure as well. Knowledge, however, is pretty easy to test for.

[etherealtruth]

88. If your goal is to create a society where only the "elite" ...

... are able to vote, you have an excellent idea.

[CreekDog]

78. do people realize that you're advocating for people to be tested for mental illness?

in order to vote?

i think the idea in the OP was tests for basic intelligence or knowledge in order to vote, but by having psychologists do it, the point is not that at all.

it's to measure whether people are thinking right.

yikes again.

but your position is theoretical and won't happen with any democratic support --look at the poll results.

to enact your position, it's clear that you would have to get together with Republicans and conservatives because there is likely almost no support from liberals for the idea.

(okay, and so what if you don't want it to be a psychological test and you don't like me suggesting that --well then why have it developed by psychologists? because that's what it will be...like i said, this is just carrying your idea forward and that's where it likely would lead)

[etherealtruth]

83. Additionally, it almost sounds as if s/he is advocating

... for the disenfranchisement of the learning disabled, those with cognitive impairments, some of the elderly, those with certain diseases and injuries.

Many growing up in the inner cities and very poor rural areas (where school performances are poor) would be at an extreme disadvantage.

I would liken intelligence testing, in this case, to testing the characters in the show "The Big Bang Theory" ... the character's intelligence is extraordinarily high, yet their ability to apply it to general (day to day) life experiences/ interactions is almost nil.

[ZombieHorde]

84. Psychologists do more than determine mental illness.

They study other aspects of the mind too.

but your position is theoretical and won't happen with any democratic support --look at the poll results.

I know I am in the extreme minority (again), but I am very comfortable with that. I started to get used to that as a kid.

[CreekDog]

108. yes, and what would a psychologist offer in terms of evaluating one's suitability for voting?

[ZombieHorde]

109. They would help design an intelligence test, with the help of sociologists.

I would want sociologists to help because they would understand different sub-cultures in the US. Without them, the test may be too biased against or for people in various regions of the US.

[CreekDog]

112. an IQ test for voting? what on earth would be the threshold?

oh my.

[ZombieHorde]

113. Yes, that is what I have been arguing for this whole time.

The threshold? I would probably argue for 100 at first, but I would really want at least 110 for voting and 130 to run for any office.

I actually support having a an intelligence test for those running for any office more than for voting.

[CreekDog]

119. holy shit

that's horrible. seriously.

[ZombieHorde]

122. In my opinion, the results would include less war, better social safety nets,

better education, less crime, etc.

[CreekDog]

126. Yeah but that's not borne out by studies or evidence

lots of intelligent people have run countries and started wars, killed people and done horrible things --and many of them didn't lack any intelligence.

they lacked restraint and morals.

and voters, even those of sub-100 iq intelligence, might have been the one thing to stop them had they been given a chance.

and the House of Lords? eek. your theory put into action. inbred and irrelevant.

[coalition_unwilling]

141. not to mention profoundly anti-democratic (note lower-case 'd'). - n/t

[JonLP24]

172. Why a round number?

One of many reasons why I oppose intelligence tests because I'm sure the cutoff would be some silly round number because humans love round numbers. Is 99, 98, or 97 such a huge difference to be denied voting rights? Or 129, 128, or 127 to run for office?

[ZombieHorde]

181. If 111.23 made you feel better, then I would probably be willing to bend. nt

[cali]

118. I think only people in blue states should be allowed to vote

[ZombieHorde]

120. That would probably result in less wars, better social safety nets,

increased education, decreased crime rates, and people telling you that you have crazy, ugly ideas.

[cali]

121. because it is a crazy, ugly idea.

you can't use unjust means and expect just results. duh. duh. duh.

[ZombieHorde]

123. I don't believe in justice. I don't think it exists. nt

[cali]

127. it may not exist but think of it as a Platonic Ideal

and something to strive for. If MLK and other hadn't "believed" in justice they wouldn't have accomplished civil rights- which haven't attained some platonic ideal of justice but come a lot closer to it than that which it replaced?

[ZombieHorde]

183. I completely agree that the abstract concept of justice can motivate people to act.

MLK used the concept in a way I highly admire. I wish I could have met him and learned from him.

[Puzzledtraveller]

177. Then why are you here, a DU member?

If you don't believe justice exists, justice is at the heart of our beliefs.

[ZombieHorde]

184. I post on DU because I am a liberal and I love liberals.

I don't believe justice is a real thing. I also don't believe human life has any inherent value or meaning. I don't believe human rights, or any of those concepts we all use everyday, are actually real things. However, they can still be useful imaginary tools, like a line in mathematics.

I do believe in happiness. I don't know how to define it, or how to convince others it exists, but I strongly believe it is real. I personally value happiness very much.

I believe liberal abstract concepts and liberal policies, such as health care, human rights, education, friendlier foreign relations, clean environment, and so forth, help to create significantly more happiness than conservative policies.

Liberals have the happiest ideas around, in my opinion, and the Democratic Party has the best chance of enacting those ideas in the US, which is where I live.

[LeftishBrit]

142. No responsible psychologist or sociologist would agree to that

There is no IQ test that won't discriminate to some extent against those who have not had a high level of formal education; no IQ test where training and practice cannot to some extent improve performance. Some tests are better than others from that point of view, but none are perfect - and people have been trying to come up with a 'culture-fair test' for decades. So even if there is no intentional corruption of the system, such a system is likely to favour the better-off, who are likely to have more access to education, and to opportunities for practicing testing.

And intentional corruption is very likely, once powerful groups have access to a means of excluding voters. Look at the history of how literacy tests were used to exclude black people from voting in many Southern states.

As a psychologist myself, I would like to believe that no member of that profession would ever collaborate with right-wingers to misuse results of IQ tests to keep poor people and minorities in their place. But - well - just read 'The Bell Curve'.

[Mairead]

155. Since you're a credentialed person, I wonder why you're focussing on IQ tests

As you point out, there are no IQ tests that aren't culture-bound, and there is no agreement on whether G as such even exists except as a taxonomic artifact.

But there are certainly usable ways to test for the ability to vote intelligently.

[cali]

159. really? and the hell do YOU know that?

It's a disgusting, sick, fascist, elitist, proposition.

[Mairead]

163. Yes, really.

And I know it in part because I trained at the doc level in psychology.

I hope this won't hurt your feelings, Cali, but I can't imagine ever seeking your advice on whether something is "disgusting", "sick", "fascist", or "elitist".

[cali]

174. so don't take my advice, dear. take the the advice

of the scores of other people in this thread saying the same thing. Take the advice of Leftish Brit. And if you actually trained at the doc level in psychology you should know that there is no fucking way to do this.

I certainly do hope you aren't practicing.

[LeftishBrit]

168. 'certainly usable ways to test for the ability to vote intelligently'

And what are these?

I was focusing on IQ tests because these are the tests usually proposed as the means of testing intelligence. As you point out, there are plenty of limitations to them. But what way of testing 'ability to vote intelligently' would NOT have major limitations, and would not be susceptible to misuse by those in power?

Surely the best way to reduce misinformed voting is by trying to improve education in the long-term and reduce the media distortions in the short-term, rather than by testing voters?

[Mairead]

171. You're conflating two things

But what way of testing 'ability to vote intelligently' would NOT have major limitations, and would not be susceptible to misuse by those in power?

There's very little we can do about misuse except to prevent those who would do the misusing from gaining the power to do it. Democracy depends on a sufficient percentage of people being determined to have democracy come hell or high water. Absent that support, there's no democracy.

As to how to test, I'm surprised that you ask. Weren't you required to take Methodology? Or was your training focused on rat-bothering?

To vote intelligently, people probably need to know, or at a minimum would vote more intelligently if they do know

- why people live in community rather than all alone,

- the two possible ways to make community rules

- the basis for preferring democracy over guardianship

- summary introductions to Kohlberg's stages of ethical development, the concept of "natural rights", and Rawls's theory of justice

- the implications of de Tocqueville's "tyranny of the majority"

- an introduction to logic, the structure of propaganda, and techniques of critical thinking.

These can all be taught, and tested for, at a 10yo level and even at a 7yo level in a limited way. They can be taught using socratic methods, cartoons, role-play, games, case studies, and more conventional modalities.


Surely the best way to reduce misinformed voting is by trying to improve education in the long-term and reduce the media distortions in the short-term, rather than by testing voters?

Perhaps (I don't think so), but that wasn't the question.

[cali]

175. what absolute bullshit.

so laughable, Mairead, it's difficult to know where to start:

summary introductions to Kohlberg's stages of ethical development, the concept of "natural rights", and Rawls's theory of justice

So prior to Kohlberg and Rawls, no one voted intelligently?

more and more ridiculous.

I think you should consider taking a course in critical thinking, my friend.

[Mairead]

176. Cali, it's because you laugh at what you don't understand

that I cannot imagine ever asking your opinion about anything. And, strange though you might think it, my opinion of you is not improved by your empty attempts to insult me.

[cali]

179. do tell, what don't I (and just about everyone else on this thread)

understand? And strange as you might think it, I don't give a shit what you "think" of me, dear.

[Prophet 451]

4. I go back and forth on this

On the one hand, all citizens should be represented. On the other, the stupidity frequently displayed by the general public makes me think they would be a damn sight better off if we barred the truly dense from voting. There's a fairly strong part of the American (and British) public which is actively resentful of people who really do know better than them.

I'm not much of a believer in democracy, primarily because the public is just so damn stupid a lot of the time and another way of saying "the will of the people" is "the whim of the mob".

It's getting to the point where I'm thinking a benevolent dictatorship would be the best option. No having to answer to the ignorant masses, just the ability to get things done for the betterment of all without having to deal with the daily whims of the plebs. I make the occasional post on my FB page as a flight of fancy where I appoint myself benevolent dictator for life and solve all the USA's (and Britain's) problems.

[cynatnite]

5. Can a dictatorship be benevolent without the right to have oneself represented?

IMO, even the best of dicatorships are subject to corruption since they are not answerable to the people. The dictator dies and what comes after will likely be worse.

In fantasy, I see nothing wrong with you appointing yourself dictator and solving all of our problems.

[Prophet 451]

6. Good question

In theory, I would imagine that, if he was advised by a representative body, you'd get the good (knowing and responding to the people's problems) without the bad (the inane demands of the people). Of course, that's only theory. In theory, communism is a reasonable ideology but we all saw how it worked in practice.

[Mairead]

18. "Benevolent dictatorship" was Plato's idea

He called them "philosopher kings".

The only problem is that, while there's no shortage of people who think they or their kind are best qualified to rule other people, there's a complete shortage of agreement about that among said other people.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

31. "there's no shortage of people who think they or their kind are best qualified to rule"

A wise man said:

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." - Daniel Webster

[Hermes Daughter]

133. Leo Strauss

The Platonic ideal underlies the teachings of Leo Strauss, founder of the Neocons at the University of Chicago. These ideals are at the root of everything the leaders and thinkers of the far Right believe and do. They only want what is best for us.

[Mairead]

169. What would make a really fascinating doctoral dissertation

would be a study of such people as Strauss's "offspring" at U/Chi. Certainly they imply, if not always say out loud, that they "only want what is best for us". But do they themselves actually believe (on any level) their own press releases?

[FrodosPet]

130. No such thing as a "Benevolent Dictator"

Whether an individual or the proletariat, "Benevolent Dictator" is an oxymoron.

[coalition_unwilling]

143. I'm all for it, as long as I get to be the benevolent despot - n/t

[Hatchling]

8. Hell no.

The Gop would use that to keep the more intelligent ( i.e. the undesirables) from voting.

[Posteritatis]

14. *Anyone* using those tests would game them to exclude their opponents

That's the entire point of the things, including a lot of the advocates' discussion of it on DU in the last day or so.

Fuck poll tests and those who support 'em.

[ZombieHorde]

54. They will most likely try, but their efforts can be foiled.

I think the benefits outweigh the potential risks.

[cali]

62. It's not constitutional.

I can't believe you think this is a good idea or viable or wouldn't be used to disenfranchise people. I'm horrified by your posts in this thread.

[cthulu2016]

9. ...

Last edited Sun May 27, 2012, 05:37 PM - Edit history (1)

[cynatnite]

24. Done.

My bad. I knew better, but wasn't paying attention.

[Electric Monk]

111. Not quite. You missed three. nt

[DLevine]

10. Of course not. n/t

[MineralMan]

11. Well, I'd rather have intelligent tests than stupid tests, for sure.

I hate stupid tests.

[Politicalboi]

12. I voted don't know

Only because the stupid runs wild on the Repuke side. It shouldn't be too hard to know who is the sitting President, or VP or Senators, or Congressperson is. But the Repukes questions would be what is Sarah Palin's middle name, or how many raccoons are born to one mother in her lifetime, or how many crawdad's make a stew, or who would Jesus vote for and why?

To prevent the voting block from being stupid, they should REQUIRE true commercials about candidates. That is where the connection gets lost for most.

[Posteritatis]

13. No one who advocates for stuff like that ever thinks they'd be affected by it

Funny how that sort of thing works.

It always translates as "I don't have a problem with voting, it's those people who aren't me who should be prevented from it."

[lunatica]

15. Nope

[Mairead]

16. I do think there should be a test and, yes, it should be an intelligent one

The idea that everyone should be represented is a species of delusion, since most people aren't represented right now.

According to Dr Robert Dahl, generally regarded as the most important scholar of democracy in the world, for the US to be what it claims to be (a representative democracy), 5 criteria would need to be met:
- every substantive adult member of the demos has the vote
- every voter has an equal opportunity to understand the situation and the issues
- every voter has an equal opportunity to determine the agenda
- every voter has an equal opportunity to cast their vote
- everyone's vote is counted, and counted equally

Good, sensible basic criteria, right?

How many of those are being met?

None of them.

Which means, Dr Dahl says, the US is not a democracy and only rhetorically has the form of one.

The facts that (a) everyone nominally has the vote and (b) there's never been any limitation on the amount of propaganda the rich can buy (Citizens United just made it worse) are the source of the problem.

People who received a crappy education and now have to work their arses off just to barely keep their heads above water have neither the background nor the time to filter out the crap we're all bombarded with day in and day out by the leisure-class psychopaths and their henchcreatures. Oh yeah, we do finally filter it out (e.g. war opposition)...but by then it's too late.

And so they routinely vote against their own interests because they suffer from a kind of manufactured psychosis: the psychopathocracy has made it virtually impossible for them to distinguish reality from fantasy.



So yes, I think there should be a test. And it should cover really basic information such as how government actually works and what that means.

To prep for the test they should have all sorts of materials available to them, from books to cartoons to tutoring. And, to get rid of any Jim-Crow bias, people should have the right to choose the form of administration (verbal, paper and pencil, etc), and even their own examiners from those who have passed the test.

And those who can't pass the test should get a different ballot in menu format that lets them vote for the elements of the life they want rather than for individuals.

[cherokeeprogressive]

26. You say "People who recieved a crappy education... have neither the background or the time"

and then go on to make a statement about how they should "prep for the test".

Who decides what a "crappy" education is? You? Me? Who gets the crappiest of educations? Whites? Nnnnnope. Blacks? Hispanics? Native Americans? There's a racial aspect to your thinking that I find appalling.

Who gets weeded out in the process?

[Mairead]

27. Do you think working-class people receive a *good* education???

Do you think people vote against their own interests because they're well-educated but stupid??

If anyone has racist ideas, it ain't me.

Anyone who thinks that working-class kids in an inner-city school get the same quality of education as some leisure-class kid at Fatrat Academy is delusional.

[cherokeeprogressive]

68. Weeding out adults who were "working-class kids in an inner-city school" sounds racist in the

context of who you want to take poll-tests before they're allowed to vote.

Get that? Thanks for proving my point BTW.

[Mairead]

145. If it really "sounds racist", that's a problem inside you

You presume people are stupid. I presume people are badly educated and therefore ignorant, but not stupid.

Don't keep trying to put me in the wrong with your strawmen.

[HiPointDem]

137. so since we're not a democracy & the rich game the system, let them game it more by excluding

even more people based on some test that *they* will inevitably be the ones to design?

bad idea. "stupid" people are also citizens, and excluding them from voting based on some test also makes it more difficult for them to unite with others to use the electoral process for their own purposes.

[Mairead]

152. You're assuming stuff not in evidence

The question I answered didn't specify who would create the test.

"stupid" people are also citizens, and excluding them from voting based on some test also makes it more difficult for them to unite with others to use the electoral process for their own purposes

In the case of stupid people, it should. People don't enter into community to be sacrificed.

Choices are few: prevent people from voting against their interest; prevent the psychopaths from lying to people about what their interest is; or continue to watch the US and world race full-speed toward The End Of Everything.

I personally believe we need to go back to sequestering or killing the psychopaths before they can gain power, and providing a high-quality, equal-outcome life for everyone. But the question wasn't "how would you solve the problem".

[HiPointDem]

153. your proposal wouldn't prevent people from voting against their interests (as perceived by you),

it would just prevent them from voting, period.

if you're blue-skying ways to prevent people from being propagandized, why don't you go to the source instead of taking away people's rights.

[Mairead]

154. Not so.

How many people will drink from a poisoned cup if they know it's poisoned?

People vote against their interest because they're bamboozled, not because they're perverse.

why don't you go to the source instead of taking away people's rights.

Had you actually read what I wrote, you wouldn't be asking that question.

[HiPointDem]

157. Here's what you wrote. I read it & I stand by my statement.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=734302

[WillyT]

17. No... That Would Be Totally Unfair To Republicans...

Wait... what am I SAYING !?!?!

[cherokeeprogressive]

19. Per your second paragraph, this is ABSOLUTELY about engineering election results.

The question may as well be "Should those whose vote cancels mine be subject to intelligence tests?"

For that question to be asked here, there must be the underlying belief that such tests would only prevent republicans from voting because well, democrats are smarter. That kind of hyperbolic rhetoric is stupid on its face.

[LeftyMom]

20. Intelligence tests. Not intelligent tests.

I'm starting to think we need one for posting.

[cynatnite]

25. Me, too. I fixed it. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

37. No need to be mean here. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. Absolutely not

[L0oniX]

22. Intelligence tests would eliminate most repukes.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

77. no. they would not. nt

[LeftishBrit]

28. Definitely not!

Firstly, every adult should have the right to vote. Secondly, intelligence tests would almost certainly be used by the powers-that-be to get only the 'right' people to vote. Thirdly, even if the tests themselves were administered fairly, they would almost certainly favour the better-off - not because the rich are more basically intelligent, but because they would have better access to training at taking the tests. (After over 100 years of trying, no one has come close to finding any sort of IQ test that cannot be affected by training and experience.)

Note e.g. how literacy tests were used in the American South to prevent black people from voting.

[ZombieHorde]

33. Yes, of course.

We already discriminate on who can and cannot vote. The vast majority of us agree that not everyone should vote. What we disagree on is who should be discriminated against.

Government is an extremely powerful abstract concept. It can be used for war and destruction of our habitat, and it can be used for the health and prosperity of most of its country's residents.

Placing such a powerful tool in the hands of the stupid is very dangerous. We have seen the results. We have seen the deaths. We have seen the destruction.

Since I find war and the destruction of our habitat undesirable, I think we need to change something. By not allowing stupid people to vote, we can avoid another GWB from gaining control again. The whole Republican platform would have to change.

[cali]

36. your're kidding, right?

[ZombieHorde]

39. Do think small children should be allowed to vote?

If not, why not?

[cali]

40. no. although I'm not against lowering the age to 16

children are under the care of their parents or guardians. They can't enter into contracts or vote or do most paid work. Minors can't do lots of things.

[ZombieHorde]

44. Yes, but why should they not be allowed to vote?

I believe small children should not be allowed to vote because they lack the intellectual ability to make sound choices in complex systems.

[cali]

47. because they are minors. Some children (probably quite a few)

do have the intellectual abilities to make a choice. And no one says you need to make a sound choice. That's not part of the deal. But as I said, minors are still under parental control.

[ZombieHorde]

52. You are describing children, but you are not saying why they should not be allowed to vote.

What benefit do we gain by forbidding children to vote? Why do we do it?

[cali]

53. oh for pity's sake. Children are under parental control

they don't have full constitutional rights. that's our system. adults have, under the constitution, certain rights including the right to vote. It's that simple. YOU are the one, dear, that wants to change the system in an ugly bigoted way.

[ZombieHorde]

61. They're not allowed to vote because they're not allowed to vote.

That is the "answer" you're giving me.

You cannot give me a real answer because the real answer is most children lack the intellectual ability to understand politics well.

[cali]

63. No. I'm telling you that under the constitution children are not granted

the same rights as adults. duh.

[ZombieHorde]

67. Yes, we all know that. But why did people restrict voting by age in the Constitution?

For fun? To be mean to kids? To keep cooties out of the voting booths? Because they lack the intellectual ability to understand politics well?

Why?

[CreekDog]

135. 3 more questions:

1) what is your IQ, and is your IQ level included in the level you suggested in voting?

2) if you think that voters should have one IQ minimum, and elected officials a higher IQ and some officials, an even higher IQ than that, then why have voters at all? i mean, dumber people would just be voting for smarter people --won't that just kind of undermine everything you're trying to accomplish?

3) is your IQ high enough to make your idea reliable? just because you have people of superior intelligence implementing an idea thought up by someone who isn't as intelligent, that doesn't make the idea any more reliable --in fact, smarter people might implement a bad idea even more effectively.

these are serious questions.

[Mairead]

156. IQ tests and intelligence tests aren't the same thing

There's no agreement about whether "intelligence" as a global, atomic concept even exists. Minsky, for example, believes that it doesn't, and that intelligence is situational, a measure of how well particular specialised functions of the brain work.

IQ tests, as others have noted, are class- and culture-bound. They're inappropriate for deciding whether someone should vote.

But that doesn't mean tests that are appropriate can't be devised and administered.

[CreekDog]

162. keep in mind whom I was asking the questions of:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=734940

[Mairead]

164. Yes.

I suppose I was giving ZH the benefit of the doubt, since probably most people believe (thanks to journos and even some psychologists) that IQ is at least broadly a measure of intelligence. So I took his "I'd set it at 100" to be a muddled way of saying he'd allow people to vote if they were of average or better intelligence, which would actually start at IQ 85 if IQ measured intelligence.

[ZombieHorde]

180. I am not sure why my personal information is important to this debate.

If you provide a seemingly good reason, I will provide the info. I just don't see my info persuading anyone one way or another.

dumber people would just be voting for smarter people

What I would be trying to accomplish is a happier life for humans. The smarter, more educated a person is, the more likely he or she will vote for liberals. 99% of the population would benefit greatly.

is your IQ high enough to make your idea reliable?

I am will to try the plan out on a temporary basis to see if our situation actual does become more desirable.

just because you have people of superior intelligence implementing an idea thought up by someone who isn't as intelligent, that doesn't make the idea any more reliable --in fact, smarter people might implement a bad idea even more effectively.

Both funny, and a really good point. Smart people sometimes do really undesirable things, such as brutal dictators. The US Constitution is supposed help prevent major "follies," but there is still no guarantee. So far, no system of government is perfect.

[CreekDog]

185. when you suggest a test which would preserve your voting rights and take away others'...

then your info is relevant.

you know, i think you are very progressive and a proponent of civil rights in general --but this specific idea would take away the voting and constitutional rights of most people in this country (IQ requirement of 110 for voting).

you would turn this country into a bit of a dictatorship, you would turn most people into this country into non taxpayers.

and the reason i say all this is not just because the idea is blatantly unfair and unconstitutional, but because it's frankly a really dumb idea.

seriously. voting IQ of 110 when average intelligence is 90 to 110, excludes average people. upthread, you said you would not require them to pay taxes and would provide whatever support they needed.

it doesn't make any sense.

i think your IQ is relevant because since you are stating that IQ is so important, even though i think IQ is BS in this discussion...if I follow your logic, I should confirm your IQ before taking your idea seriously.

because you would deny participation to people based on their IQ before you even heard a word from their mouths or judged the quality of their ideas or thoughts.

so, by asking you, i'm treating you in the way you are advocating for others to be treated.

i'm sorry, but that is the logical conclusion of your idea.

if you were a conservative, i wouldn't be surprised, but you aren't, and so I am genuinely surprised that you can support and advocate such a horrible idea --but I guess we all break the mold in some way or another.

[ZombieHorde]

187. I probably shouldn't admit this, since it will probably be a debate stopper,

but last night I dreamed that my plan was a human rights violation. I think a lot in my dreams.

[CreekDog]

188. Thanks for considering what I said

[coalition_unwilling]

144. Let's be perfectly clear here: you are essentially renouncing the principle of

"one man, one vote"?

The vast majority of us agree that every adult should be able to cast a vote. (There is some disagreement over whether convicted felons should lose the franchise. I happen to think they should not.)

I find it really offensive that you've mounted this attack on universal manhood suffrage on Memorial Day weekend.

[ZombieHorde]

151. We don't have one man, one vote now.

In 2010, Wisconsin had a population of 5,686,986, and 10 electoral votes. That is 568,698.6 people per electoral vote.
California had a population of 37,253,956, and 55 electoral votes. That is 677,344.7 people per electoral vote.

Wisconsin residents have more weight behind their votes than California residents.

Additionally, a Presidential candidate can win the electoral vote, but lose the popular vote, and still become President.

We already do the basic concepts that I am suggesting, I am just taking it one step further.

I find it really offensive that you've mounted this attack on universal manhood suffrage on Memorial Day weekend.

There is not much I can do about that.

[coalition_unwilling]

173. That is why I asked whether you were renouncing the 'principle' of 'one man,

one vote'.

I note by your non-answer answer that you indeed seem to renouncing said principle.

Pease don't confuse the issue with the anti-democratic nature of the U.S. Senate, an antebellum throwback sop to the slave colonies\states. While that issue is important, it is separate from the principle of universal manhood suffrage.

[ZombieHorde]

182. Universal suffrage is an interesting idea, but I have never experienced it.

As far as I know, no country has ever tried it.

I don't know anyone who supports universal suffrage. There is always an asterisk: children, prisoners, women, and foreigners seem to be the most common exception from the "universal" part of universal suffrage.

I am against universal suffrage because I don't want non-citizens voting in our elections. The world has a terrible track record on women's rights and gay rights, and I would hate to see what little progress we have made be reversed.

[coalition_unwilling]

186. Um, small point, but 'universal manhood suffrage,' i.e., not children. - n/t

[cali]

34. fuck no. only a freeper or someone too stupid to understand

how profoundly unjust that is, would suggest any such thing.

[Logical]

60. LOL....then quit whining about voters electing the wrong person!

[cali]

66. uh, first of all I don't whine about it.

but it is too bad that most of the country's electorate isn't as well informed and smart as my fellow Vermonters.

[johnd83]

38. Who writes the questions on the test?

If you think the GOP has fun corrupting our current system, just wait until they get their hands on something like this...

[cali]

41. no kidding. there are threads like this regularly over in freeperville

[loyalsister]

55. Whoever has the power

During the eugenics movement standardized tests were designed to identify who should be sterilized because of their moral deficiency. They were biased against immigrants, people who had less education (usually, people who were disabled, and people of color). There were people with good intentions thought it was better for the people who were identified.

I'm not sure I would even want people I agree with most of the time writing such tests.

[ZombieHorde]

115. I would have a team of esteemed psychologists and sociologists write the questions. nt

[RZM]

43. This is a good example of how dangerous it can be to believe your own propaganda

Trying this would go down as the most egregious attempt to violate civil rights since Jim Crow. It wouldn't be treated any better in the history books either. The people and ideas behind this would be discredited and despised for decades to come.

[cali]

49. amen. I am disgusted and shocked that anyone here believes this to be a good thing.

[0rganism]

46. and who will WRITE the test? will it be someone trustworthy?

Even if we got very lucky and received a decent, non-partisan, objective test designed by qualified reasonable people this year, who's to say four years later the test won't be re-written by someone with a far different agenda?

Horrible idea. I can't believe it's even coming up for discussion.

[cali]

50. and who will administer it and "grade" it?

and on and on. there are hundreds of reasons why this is a disgusting idea.

[retread]

51. Is this the first question?

[ZombieHorde]

114. That is actually pretty funny. nt

[GarroHorus]

56. Lteracy tests were historically racists

A throwback to Jim Crow.

[Egalitarian Thug]

59. Of course not and that other thread was a joke. n/t

[99Forever]

71. That is one of the most offensive ideas I have ever seen on this site. n/t

[cali]

80. Indeed. And some of the comments are as ugly as any I've seen here.

[coalition_unwilling]

146. +1,000,000,000 x 1,000,000,000 - n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

74. No. there is a mean sub-group difference of one standard deviation on intelligence test

between blacks and whites. so no, i don't support this.

additionally intelligent people can be super cruel too.

[ibegurpard]

87. just think about how that could be used against someone YOU support

bad, bad idea

[johnd83]

89. There is a more fundemental question

The only thing that money buys you in elections are TV ad time. I guess it is a little more complicated, but in general that is the case. So the real question is, why is TV advertising so effective? Why are Americans so susceptible to what they see on TV, and what can be done to make people THINK a bit more?

[IphengeniaBlumgarten]

98. Neither intelligence nor education necessarily makes a good voter

I think it is some other quality: native shrewdness or common sense or interpersonal intuition or maybe some combination of these.

I know a well-educated, literate, good citizen who is very susceptible to statements from people who are a little higher on the social scale. He thinks Romney "looks Presidential" and will vote for him.

I also know a minimally literate, slightly dyslectic man, also a good citizen, who is sometimes confused or troubled by what he hears on TV, but he is very aware of flim-flam. And he will vote for Obama.

Maybe it a willingness to question authority more than education.

[former9thward]

100. What is the definition of "undesirable"?

[Kaleva]

102. Somebody who votes the opposite the way you would like them to vote.

[former9thward]

106. Then I'm all for it!!

[grantcart]

104. Only if it is a single question

Do you believe all of the ridiculous lies the Republican Leaders have been using over the last 6 months.

If they say yes, they are out.

[marmar]

110. I find it sickening that even three people would vote yes for such a twisted idea.

nt

[cali]

117. there are indeed some sicko posts in this thread. It's pretty horrifying.

[struggle4progress]

124. A person who is legally competent has the right to vote:

if a court finds such diminished capacity, that a person requires a guardian and is incompetent to exercise legal discretion on his or her own behalf, then it is reasonable to remove the right to vote; otherwise, the person is entitled to vote

[cali]

129. nope. After all, people with Down Syndrome can vote

even if they have a guardian.

[struggle4progress]

131. Thanks! I just looked at some NC law, and you are right, at least in regard

to the laws of my state! Voting rights here exist unless removed by legal action

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

125. No. But, I'd like candidates to be attached to lie-detectors when giving speeches.

“Now, the man on the stand he wants my vote,
He's a-runnin' for office on the ballot note.
He's out there preachin' in front of the steeple,
Tellin' me he loves all kinds-a people.
(He's eatin' bagels
He's eatin' pizza
He's eatin' chitlins
He's eatin' bullshit!)”

Bob Dylan

It would also cut down on noise pollution and make the spin-doctors look for real work.

[coalition_unwilling]

147. Lie detectors with high-voltage-dispensing wands when lies are detected. (Nothing

like a little operant conditioning to compel honesty

[FrodosPet]

166. And if they pass the lie detector test

That means they are a pathological liar and should be disqualified.

[FrodosPet]

128. Let's disenfranchise EVEN MORE Democratic voters

I'm sure some have the opinion that the people who would fail are RWers, but the fact is, my brother is developmentally disabled, unlikely to pass one of those tests, but he knows he supports the working man over the rich.

He's (well over) 18, has at least some knowledge and opinion of the issues, and his life is affected by the actions of those who are elected, yet some elitists here would remove his right to vote?

BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hermes Daughter]

134. Well said!

Do you think compassion tests would be a more viable way to go? Hmmmm....

[HiPointDem]

138. Lots of democrats apparently want only "smart" dems to vote. No wonder the party's in trouble.

Maybe the party should work on better educating citizens rather than trying to figure out ways to disenfranchise them.

[Mairead]

165. Your brother would pass any test *I*'d write

If he supports working people over the rich, then he understands at a practical level the basic concepts behind democracy and self-government.

And if he thinks about the issues and takes a position whenever he can, then he's engaged and intelligent regardless of his developmental level, and is therefore a proper member of the demos.

[HiPointDem]

136. any such test is designed to keep citizens from voting. that's the only purpose. and as such,

all such tests are illegitimate.

[coalition_unwilling]

148. Bravo! Well put! - n/t

[WillowTree]

139. I don't support any measure that's intended to prevent any otherwise-eligible citizen from voting.

OTOH, unlike many here, I fully support the requirement of presenting a government ID. If done properly, such a requirement need not disenfranchise any eligible voter. Just my opinion.

[cali]

150. how do you do it? Why is it necessary?

Seriously, how do you do it "properly"?

[dinopipie]

158. Yes - Because the uninformed are wrecking this country and impacting the rest of the world

Last edited Mon May 28, 2012, 07:10 AM - Edit history (1)

[cali]

160. wow. yet another

I think that if you can't master basic spelling- like the word because- you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[dinopipie]

161. BFD a typo, I would call you a tool for such a post but that would be against the rules

However you seem to think that stupid people voting and breeding is a-ok and is not causing any problems what so ever with our nation.

Guess I need to get a pair of rose colored glasses like you.

[cali]

167. ooh. aren't you clever.

I think what you're advocating, honey, is as despicable as it gets. It has nothing to do with rose colored glasses. It has to do with human rights- something you appear not to support. You're in wretched slimy company.

[HiPointDem]

178. the uninformed are? gee, i thought it was the ruling class.

[Iggo]

170. Of course not.

[WriteWrong]

190. Perhaps a good idea, but unimplementable with real humans

If the people administering the tests were smart and moral enough to be trusted, we wouldn't need the tests, because such a moral, trustworthy political system would have educated everyone so that they wouldn't need the test in the first place.

In the real world, it's going to be the evillest, stupidest people controlling the tests and interpretations. Would you trust the job to Scott Walker?

The only test I'd support is the requirement that you know the names, offices, and political affiliations of the people you're going to vote for. How about write-in-only elections? (unfortunately America isn't literate enough for this, although we could be if we valued it.)

[cali]

191. do you always know the name of everyone running for every office?

I don't. There's often a side judge running who I'm not familiar with or someone else running for some local office who I don't know. I know who's running for the legislature, governor, lt guv, U.S. Senate, etc, but for some of the minor offices, nope I sometimes don't know. And I'm an involved and well informed voter.