Bring back the poll test?

Since you don't seem to be responding, and I won't be able to respond for the next several days, then I'll just say "Supreme Court Precedent" along with "Disingenuous." Take care...

I had to go to sleep. You're still wrong though, unless you want to provide some sort of resource aside from "Seriously mistaken."

I'm patient.

So the current state of affairs works for you?

Ok, so the current state of affairs doesn't work for you. Someone proposed better education a few pages back. Great! What will actually accomplish that noble goal? I know that this sounds even more conspiracy-minded that anything I've said so far, but... Doesn't the current system of poor education benefit the entrenched hierarchy?

The best way to implement this would be to end the practice of citizenship at birth, and then require testing after the age of 18 to become a full fledged citizen. That's the easiest way to get around the constitutional blockages.

That wouldn't get around Constitutional blockages at all. The Constitution is pretty clear about citizenship.

No-one advocating this has in any way demonstrated that it would be worth the trouble, expense, intellectual contortions, and moral bankruptcy necesary for its implementation.

Well lemme try to list pros and cons.

Pro: People are more responsible with their vote, Candidates come to realize that with more informed voters means they are forced to be more direct and honest, how many times they show up on TV has less effect, talk radio has less sway over voter base.

Cons: High cost for test supplies, test resources, testers; disenfranchisement of voters who may be able to pass test but unwilling to make time, disenfranchisement of voters who worry over the test.

If we ended up producing better candidates, people able to win on policy and character alone, I would say it would be worth it--of course there's no guarantee that it would, but as an experiment I could see it having merit. I don't see how any of this would be morally bankrupt.

You don't see how taking away people's rights on what must unavoidably be an arbitrary basis, is morally bankrupt? Especially when your "pros" are purely hypothetical?

Voting for president is an entitlement, not a right. And having this based arbitrarily is not necessarily a bad thing so long as everyone has equal accessibility to source material and the tests are given in such a way as to be non-discriminant.

And of course the pros are hypothetical, we've never had something like this before but those are possible benefits I think we could see.

You'd fail the Constitutional competency exam right there.

What? First of all, arbitrarily depriving anyone of their rights is "necessarily a bad thing," pretty much by definition.

Secondly, your reasoning makes no sense at all. If everyone has equal access to source material and the test is "non-discriminant" [sic], then nobody would fail, and there'd be no point to a test at all. Only if a test were designed so as to weed out "undesirables" (as defined by you, apparently) would a test have any meaning.

That's discrimination, pretty much by definition.

Right. The "possible benefits" being the restriction of both the electorate itself and the candidacies to people you like better.

I'll still take a pass on that, thanks.

Blah: Sleepy, by discriminant I mean discriminatory.

There is no constitutional right that says people can vote for president, it just says states get to choose the electors for president by whatever means they wish. State constitutions then entitle the populace to vote for the electors themselves.

Quit playing word games. By non-discriminatory I mean that the test would be available for blind, deaf, mute, handicapped etc. people. People would also be provided translators and readers if they were not literate.

It is only "discriminatory" in that it would discriminate against people unwilling to take the time to learn how their government works before voting. So those people would be the "undesirables" to "weed out."

Quit making shit up, I know we could have a reasonable discussion but you want to pick a fight apparently. I do want to restrict the electorate, sure, but I said nothing about restricting candidacies people I like better. I'm talking about restricting candidacies based purely on media momentum and flair.

Edit: fucked up quotes.
Edit the second: I did it again.

If you're not bright enough to comprehend how restricting the electorate arbitrarily to people you like better might be reasonably be construed as a bad thing for the rest of us on principle, then no, we can't have a reasonable discussion on this.

It has nothing to do with "want[ing] to pick a fight" and everything to do with the fact that you're amazingly, profoundly, and spectacularly wrong on this issue, and either won't admit it or genuinely don't realize it.

You're half correct. Yes, the Electoral college exists, but In the text of the constitution and the amendments, there is a "Right" to vote. Not a Privilige. State constitutions agree in the sense it is an inalienable right- citizens have sufferage by default.

I know you feel insulted by Zarth's implications, but frankly, it's guilt by association and that's why Jim Crow Laws came up. Racists and elitists approve(d) of similar bars to voting, therefore people will accuse you of being racist or elitist.

Edited for crappiness- I'm running on 3 1/2 hours of sleeeeeep.

Oh please.

If you're not bright enough to comprehend how restricting the electorate arbitrarily to people you like better might be reasonably be construed as a good thing for the rest of us on principle, then no, we can't have a reasonable discussion on this.

It has nothing to do with "want[ing] to pick a fight" and everything to do with the fact that you're amazingly, profoundly, and spectacularly wrong on this issue, and either won't admit it or genuinely don't realize it.

It's called an opinion. Get over yourself already.

If you'd like to say why you think that people that are blissfully unaware of any workings of the government and are voting for joe schmo because he has the nicest haircut should vote, feel free to. Honestly though, I do understand why people would have an aversion to restricting anyone's ability to vote; it's quelling somebody's voice, and we live in a country where we are free to speak. I'm not so dense that I don't have a feeling for why someone would be opposed to this, I just disagree that it is morally bankrupt.

PS - What the fuck is this: "restricting the electorate arbitrarily to people you like better." Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about. I think you meant to say "restricting the electorate arbitrarily to people who actually give a fuck about the governing of their nation." What is this "like better" shit you keep repeating.

It's called a wrong opinion, genius.

And unless you can set objective standards for "voter competency," which you can't, it's an arbitrary judgment - based on what you - or whoever's doing the deciding - prefer. Or in other words, what you like better.

Wow. Get over yourself already. (I said that twice lol)

This country does a whole lot of things arbitrarily. If we had a committee get together and settle on what the minimum standards for voter competency were, it would be no different from any other program with an arbitrary cutoff.

While there is a right to vote, the vote doesn't apply to all offices, such as the way that senators were originally picked by the states, and how judges are appointed.

And it was a stupid thing to say the first time, too. You have an absolute right to your opinion, and anyone has an absolute right to disagree with it.

So what?

No, never mind. I'm not interested in anything you have to say anymore, actually. Your argumentation is meaningless, and your positions are reactionary (in the proper sense of illiberal). I'll just put the bag back over your head. It was obviously a mistake to take it off.

Good bye.

Then disagree with it, don't decree that it is absolutely wrong.

Fine with me, maybe someone with ears and not just a mouth will post instead now that you've taken your ball and gone home.

...and how electors are selected by the legislatures and how the electors vote for the president. I get that. But your assertion was that voting is an entitlement, and it's not. It's a right. We don't vote on every office and post, but we could vote for any, maybe all, of them, if there was a change in the electoral procedure. The reason we don't do that is because it's impractical, and we're forced to trust the officials we do elect to make good decisions in appointments of civil servants. But in elections, first priortiy is to make polling as accessable as possible. That is required by law.

I'm talking about state constitutions, and how people are entitled by them to vote for the electors. There is a right to vote so long as the position is up for a popular vote, it just happens that the states have decided that the choosing of the electors is. They can choose to abridge that "right" in any way they like so long that it is constitutional. Like how different states have different laws relating to convicted felons voting.

I see. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 abolished literacy tests (specifically), and presumably other tests as well. Yes, you can repeal or challenge the VRA, and that might work... but I'm going to disagree with your basic premise that access to the ballot requires any sort of test- as the threat of discriminatory practice is too great- The facts you've presented and the opinions you've shared haven't convinced me otherwise... Also, I forgot that the voter is allowed to bring an assistant if they're confused or unable to understand the poll- at least in NY, so it's a start.

I have to get ready for work now, I won't be able to respond until some time tomorrow. Take it easy everyone.

evidently I've got enough time to double-post...

heathen dave's poll test:

more beaurocracy!
YAY!
less voters!
YAY!
more ways to disenfranchise voters!
YAY!
more uses of murphys law, less of occoms razor!
YAY!

i can see nothing bad about heathen daves plan. i would like to welcome our new victorian overlords.

Fortunately, the government doesn't need to forcefully revoke rights. People are capable of giving them up on their own.

See? That's your Invisible Hand at work, right there. Even less reason for state intrusion in the matter.