Dumbass Amendment

• email this story
• read comments (67)
• post a comment
• 
  
  

A special amendment needs to be added to the Constitution stating that all citizens have to pass a short general education and political literacy exam before being allowed to vote. Something analagous to the 25-question quiz that everyone is required to take at their local DMV in order to get a driver's license. Nobody squawks about this because driving carefully and responsibly is a life-or-death matter. But then so is voting. Much more so, if you ask me.

And so I'm asking myself a simple, fundamental question, to wit: why shouldn't voters have to prove they have at least a somewhat educated awareness of basic political and social issues before being granted the power to vote? This seems to me like a completely reasonable suggestion. Really. Tell me why it's not fair.

As Bill Maher mentioned two or three weeks ago, the shitkickers who voted for George Bush in '00 and '04 because he seemed more personable and prole-friendly than Al Gore or John Kerry (which he was...I'll give him that) screwed things up badly for the rest of us. Look at the mess we're in! We're in a bad recession, caught in a ghastly no-win war that's going keep draining us and lead our nation into even worse debt, the dollar is worth nothing overseas, gas is over $4 a gallon.

And -- face facts -- it's all the fault of the social conservatives who swallowed the Karl Rove bait -- the idea that Republicans are (a) better at looking out for the nation's safety and (b) care more about bedrock values than the Democrats -- hook, line and sinker. It was a bullshit line and they fell for it. And they screwed us all in the bargain.

Democracy can't work and in fact can bring great harm to a nation as long as people with demonstrably flawed judgment -- people who refuse to consider candidates and issues in a grown-up, semi-educated way, and who insist on voting for candidates as if they're contestants on the Dating Game, or as if they're running for church pastor or Boy Scout leader.

There's a sizable percentage of people out there -- 10% or 12% of respondents in a poll I read recently -- who apparently believe that Barack Obama is a muslim. In all sincerity, our nation would be much better off if somehow these people could be disenfranchised as voters. People like that woman who asked Obama during the Philadelphia debate why he hasn't worn a flag pin -- her voting rights need to be cancelled for life. There are millions like her out there, and they're a menace.

I'm not saying voters have to vote for Democrats or support liberal values, but there should be a rule that they have know their shit and not plan on voting based on emotional concerns about community values. Is it such a bad idea that prospective voters would be tested to see how dumb they are, and if they don't get 70 % of the questions correct, they don't get to vote? Seems pretty fair to me. I'm not trying to provoke people by doing one of my nutter rants. I'm completely serious.

Social conservatives who vote over bedrock moral values rather than political and economic realties (and some kind of shrewd assessment of the leadership abilities and allegiances of presidential candidates) are going to kill this country. They're the children in the room...the fools, the drunkards. Things have gotten too serious and we really can't mess around with these people any more. For the sake of our country, an effort needs to me made to thin our their ranks in terms of voting eligibility.

Here's a discussion from a discussion board that I found this morning. http://www.gupshupp.com/forums/sitemap/t-1532.html

"In our idea of democracy we have one person one vote. A professor of political science or economics has the same vote as a 18 year old apprentice. Say your vote depended on your level of education. 1 vote for all but an extra vote for an A-level education -- 2 for degree level -- 3 for postgratuate, etc." Another excellent idea!

"Would this change politics? Would we still have the same personality-based politics we now have? Would it change the balance of power to the right or to the left? Or would it not make a difference at all? Would it be acceptable and if not, why?"

comment #1

Spicer says ...

I think the best way we can eliminate personality-based voting is to shorten our damn elections. Our elections last two years! That's just patently insane.

comment #2

LYT says ...

Well hell, I'd also like to see a dumbass amendment that prevents stupid people from having kids.

But both breeding and voting are basic civil rights. Nobody's gonna take 'em away, and one should be vary wary of those who would. Because ultimately it'd be someone like our current president deciding who is and isn't a dumbass, and I don't trust his judgment on the matter at all.

comment #3

TheJeff says ...

"In our idea of democracy we have one person one vote. A professor of political science or economics has the same vote as a 18 year old apprentice. Say your vote depended on your level of education. 1 vote for all but an extra vote for an A-level education -- 2 for degree level -- 3 for postgratuate, etc." Another excellent idea!

Yes what a grand idea. We could say that the "one-voters" were only equivalent to say...two-thirds of a person?

comment #4

Indeed says ...

There are so many outlandishly rediculous ideas and statements in this post that I simply dont know where to begin.

comment #5

gruver1 says ...

Wells to The Jeff: That's an allusion to a racial statement made a long time ago about African Americans, and I'm not going to go there. But basically, yes -- if I could change things with a waveb of my hand I would give people with better education more power in the voting. Honestly, seriously -- how is that a bad idea, given what has happened to this country due to dumbass preferences in the presidential elections?

Wells to Indeed: So you think my piece had some "rediculous" ideas, eh?

comment #6

gruver1 says ...

Wells to LYT: You're right. Driving a car is a basic human right, and we should let just anyone and everyone drive any way they feel like. If they run a few red lights and kill a few innocent pedestrians...well, them's the breaks. Who thought up those dumb DMV written and driving tests anyway?

comment #7

alynch says ...

Seems pretty fair to me. I'm not trying to provoke people by doing one of my nutter rants.

Wow, so Jeff is admitting that a lot of what he writes is nutty bullshit designed solely to provoke comments.

And Jeff, you do realize that this type of thing has been tried before, right? A little thing called the Voting Rights Act put an end to them because it became apparent that whoever is in power would naturally use these tests to disenfranchise their opposition.

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

comment #8

Indeed says ...

Alright, I cant resist. Ill start with the easy stuff:

1) Were not in a recession, and even if we were it has nothing to do with Bush. Its a normal business cycle, however this was particular slowdown was triggered by way too many variables to list here. If you wanted to be simplistic and blame it on one person, that would be Alan Greenspan...but again, even that isnt fair.

2) Gas prices have nothing to do with Bush.

3) The whole idea of preventing people from voting based upon "flawed judgement" is an idea that would only make sense to someone like yourself. What would be the official definition of "flawed," by the way? I am a college graudate who works in finance, and I have more than one post-graduate degree in my field. If I were in charge of defining "flawed," Jeff would not be allowed to vote, as he obviously has no understanding of economics (which is kind of an important aspect of running a country) and he would apparently cast his vote based upon how he felt emotionally towards a candidate as opposed to more important stuff. I mean come on, you blog on an internet message board for a living. What makes you think your vote should count as the same as mine when I work in what some people would classify as a "high thread count" job? I manage investments and make people money, I pay more in taxes than you do, so I think its safe to say I'm more important than you are in the grand scheme of things.

And that, Jeff, is precisely where your little idea crumbles and shatters into a million little pieces.

Besides, if we prevented uneducated people from voting then statistically a lot of underprivelaged black citizens wouldnt be able to vote...which means that Democrats would have a lower likelihood of getting anywhere near enough votes to get elected.

The beauty of our current system is that everybody has a voice. I remember reading of a few guys named Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams who kinda thought this was important too...so I know its not just me.

I hated when Bush got elected in 2000. I wasnt happy in 2004. I'll hate it if Obama gets elected in 2008. You know what I'll do? Ill suck it up (like I did before) and continue to vote as often as an event that calls for my vote comes up.

comment #9

Indeed says ...

And yes, I accidently misspelled ridiculous.

comment #10

dangovich says ...

According to another poll, something like 40 percent of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. Forty percent! Apparently, many people choose to regurgitate GOP propaganda rather than learn the facts. And many of those people also choose to post here.

comment #11

gruver1 says ...

Wells to A. Lynch and Indeed: Neither of you have an argument to my simple-put analogy. If people accept that a written test needs to be passed in order to get a driver's license, why shouldn't people have to pass a similar test in order to be granted the right to vote? It's not a radical idea at all, and both of you guys know it. You think it's a good thing that people who believe Obama is a muslim are voting to determine who'll be elected this November? You really and truly believe that's a good thing?

comment #12

Indeed says ...

dangovich, that is indeed sad. But who on here has stated they believe Hussein was involved in 9/11?

Or are you just saying that as a veiled jab towards anyone who doesnt agree with you politically.

comment #13

Indeed says ...

griver to wells: If people believe Obama is a Muslim, thats not a good thing because its obviously not true.

Again, the retardedness of your argument comes into play when I want to create a test revolving around how our economy functions and you wouldnt be able to pass it. Believe me, the existence of such a test would be great in my eyes because then I'LL be less frustrated with our leadership on a day-to-day basis (since only people I would consider "smart" are now able to vote), but it wouldnt be good for someone like yourself who now wont have their voice heard.

comment #14

Indeed says ...

Shit, I meant "Indeed to Wells." My bad.

Maybe I do need one of those tests. Obviously I cant type for shit today.

comment #15

Indeed says ...

And Jeff, dont mistake my posts as me attacking your intelligence.

You believe in global warming, which I think is a crock.

I'm pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, anti-illegal immigration, and would like to see a major overhaul of our tax system and would like social security to go bye-bye for those who arent already getting checks. Im not sure where you stand on those issues, but your answers dont make you any less or more intelligent than me...nor do they make you more or less deserving to vote than I do.

Thats why its called a Democracy (even though it really isnt, but we dont have to get into that now).

comment #16

alynch says ...

Okay Jeff, let's play with this hypothetical. If such a test were to exist, what types of questions should be asked to judge one's right to vote?

comment #17

corey3rd says ...

remember when they had these tests? It was a really handy way to keep blacks from voting.

comment #18

jason4235 says ...

Maybe the test could be modified so that uneducated black Democratic voters were given a built-in boost while uneducated white Republican voters were not.

comment #19

Legowombat says ...

Lower voter turnouts favour those already in office. Under your plan, why then would it remain in the interest of the state to provide basic education?

The other danger with setting up a 'cognitive elite' is that intelligence isn't a predictive of having the best interests of a society at heart. The social theories of otherwise 'intelligent' people such as Sir Francis Galton, Ayn Rand and Karl Marx render the needs and wants of entire sections of their populations as being irrelevant to long-term societal goals.

It sounds like you're siding with Immanuel Kant to some degree, by resenting the power of majority rule as negatively impacting your personal liberty, by reading the 'majority' as stupid and ill-informed.

Government is an averaged reflection of who were are as a whole society, so I for one expect some degree of stupidity, corruption, incomptetnce and self-interest from them as being naturally human. I'm far more suspicious of those who hold themselves up as superior to the general populace, because they have far more nefarious personal justifications for their arseholism.

comment #20

Legowombat says ...

Ha! See - it's human that I misspelled
'incompetence'.

Remember pre-Suffrage when women were considered too 'feeble-minded' and 'hysterical' to vote?

comment #21

Josh Massey says ...

True or false: The President of the United States affects gas prices.

If you answered true, no votin' for you!

comment #22

Glenn Kenny says ...

Your argument is instantly rebuttal Jeff, because of one simple, irrefutable fact: your written test will be administered by Jonah Goldberg, not Michael Tomasky.

Seriously, dude. What you're proposing will game the system directly into the hands of the people you're so desperate to get out of office. Remember what Rehnquist did. Remember who the people behind the photo-IDs-to-get-to-vote laws are. They're not your kinda guys, Jeff.

comment #23

Edward says ...

Maybe if our public schools were more functional and didn't just move kids forward who don't have the proper skills, we'd be better off. We also need to get rid of the electoral college. How many billions are we wasting on the war on terror, the war on drugs, subsidies to pharmecutical companies, etc., etc.?

comment #24

corey3rd says ...

the thing with the test is that everyone should get one vote, but those that can answer all the questions should get bonus votes. Like Super Delegates!

comment #25

Mr. Muckle says ...

Actually, Jeff, this is one of your classic nutter rants (not saying that as an insult) -- it makes one think.

Just consider it for a second: Who's going to write the questions, and do you think it's the least bit possible that those questions will not reflect the prejudices of their writers? Assuming a democratic process I'd guess it will take 50 years to come up with 25 questions we can agree on, and they won't be worth spit. Not to mention they'd have to be revisited and renewed every year, or every election. And what do you suppose it would cost to administer and grade a test and defend the legal challenges and all the rest? More than the election itself!

Then what about qualifications? Academic? George Bush has a postgraduate degree!!! Dumb as a turnip. I have none, but have been a professional writer (technical) for a decade and a half. Do I think GWB is worth three votes to my one? No, I think he should be in prison. Not to mention that 90% of college is a money-making racket and pure bullshit. If you don't know that, you've never been married to a psycho with a Ph.D.

So, in general, a completely unworkable idea in toto. Not to say that it wouldn't be a great thing if "the people" were a hell of a lot smarter and more wise, but to make a real, significant difference in what's been going on for a very long time requires a much more radical turnabout in worldview than simple tests or meaningless "qualifications" would achieve.

I guess only myself and about a half-dozen other people are really qualified to vote. Ha! And therein lies the problem. Everyone sees his own image as the most supremely qualified. Na gan happen.

Your rant comes from a familiar place, which seems to me to be a paranoid, media-created fear of "the people." Isolated on the left and right coasts, too many saltwater-intoxicated elitists wrongly believe they're the absolut shiznit. Most of their ideas are as much a danger to the republic as any others.

I don't think you really know the people you fear, any more than Bush knows an Arab. Most so-called "knowing" consists merely of images imbibed from media (including films), and not from direct contact. Because you're someone saturated in imagery of that sort, I would, respectfully, not trust you to administer democracy any more than I'd trust an Okie shitkicker.

comment #26

The Hoyk says ...

I have a simpler solution that won't run the risk of giving more power to corrupted intellectuals.

Legalize public slapping.

Seriously: if people who continue to make dumb pronouncements like "Obama is a Muslim" or "The Phone Company killed JFK" were to receive a steady stream of palms to the face with a proper chastisement like "What were you thinking," they would be likely to indeed research and reasess their views so as to avoid walking around with crimson cheeks in the future.

comment #27

Legowombat says ...

Actually, thinking about this some more, doesn't the electoral system run a parallel to the Hollywood Star System? Moviegoers 'elect' the stars they want to see, based on looks, not talent or ability. and the fantasy of who they want them to be, rather than who they actually are.

Isn't Tom Cruise just Bush? A clueless cipher who was good at selling the illusion of what the majority wanted to believe in. Maybe Jumping The Couch is just 'Mission Accomplished' - the moment when the illusion shatters.

Using this analogy, your voting idea makes perfect sense, because critics already view themselves as the cognitive elite.

comment #28

Jay T. says ...

I like the idea, but yeah, as others have pointed out, the flaw is in who writes the questions...

But instead of that, we'd be better off getting rid of the electoral college. It's BS that a resident in one state has a vote that truly does count for more than residents in other states.

comment #29

Major Calloway says ...

I am reminded of what could have been a terrific moment in a movie that totally blew the possiblities of its premise:

"I'm the bad guy?" - William "D-FENS" Foster

When I hear deranged things like this dumbass amendment (I love that the posting title can be read two ways, and will be slightly less critical if that was intentional) I am reminded that the world is indeed round, and if someone disappears over the horizon in front of me I may someday soon find him coming toward me from the opposite direction.

comment #30

Doug Pratt says ...

They used to have such voting laws in the South until that darn Civil Rights movement got rid of them.

comment #31

Mgmax says ...

"Seriously: if people who continue to make dumb pronouncements like "Obama is a Muslim" or "The Phone Company killed JFK" were to receive a steady stream of palms to the face with a proper chastisement like "What were you thinking," they would be likely to indeed research and reasess their views so as to avoid walking around with crimson cheeks in the future."

How about "the government created the AIDS virus?" Would that qualify?

It's ironic that someone should bring up Jonah Goldberg as an example of the sort of oppressor who misuses power, in a thread about a perfectly liberal-fascist proposal...

comment #32

The Hoyk says ...

How about "the government created the AIDS virus?" Would that qualify?

Yes. That is acceptable.

Other statements that qualify for slapping:

"The Clintons had Vince Foster killed."

"Ralph Nader screwed Al Gore."

"Quentin Tarantino stole everything from [blank]"

comment #33

JHRussell says ...

Jeff, your fellow libs are apoplectic over the recent Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana's law requiring voters present a photo Id to vote - not too sure they would approve of this "intelligence test" idea of yours...cuts too deeply into the core constituency of the Dem party...

comment #34

siowafc says ...

Instead of broadly stereotyping millions of Americans, why do you not look at those charged with informed the masses? The media is much more at fault in the state of our political discourse than the general population. While certainly it's not a good sign that X% percent of the population believes a certain outlandish and provably untrue fact, isn't it the media's fault for focusing more on horse-race politics, verbal gaffes, and guilty-by-association mudslinging? If the media didn't report these as "stories", the general public wouldn't be so apt to believe them. You can blame those that actually rely on the media as a source of information for what they discern.

comment #35

D.Z. says ...

"As Bill Maher mentioned two or three weeks ago, the shitkickers who voted for George Bush in '00 and '04 because he seemed more personable and prole-friendly than Al Gore or John Kerry (which he was...I'll give him that)"

That's because you've never been punched in the crotch playing rugby.

"But basically, yes -- if I could change things with a waveb of my hand I would give people with better education more power in the voting. Honestly, seriously -- how is that a bad idea, given what has happened to this country due to dumbass preferences in the presidential elections?"

Hill's educated, and look where she got us. It's not a idiot-vs-intellectual problem, Jeff; it's a selfish-vs-altruistic problem. Americans only want what benefits them on a personal level. So if tax breaks lead to another Katrina, who cares? The only reason we're kicking out the Republicans now is because we're getting the short end of the stick from the war.

Indeed: "Were not in a recession, and even if we were it has nothing to do with Bush. Its a normal business cycle, however this was particular slowdown was triggered by way too many variables to list here. If you wanted to be simplistic and blame it on one person, that would be Alan Greenspan..."

Most economists say we're in a recession, and yes, it is because of Bush. A normal business cycle does not have huge drops like the ones we've been experiencing. And Alan Greenspan is out of office.

"Gas prices have nothing to do with Bush."

Except for him hoarding oil.

"I manage investments and make people money, I pay more in taxes than you do, so I think its safe to say I'm more important than you are in the grand scheme of things."

Judging by the current economic situation, I'd imagine Jeff still outranks you.

"The beauty of our current system is that everybody has a voice. I remember reading of a few guys named Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams who kinda thought this was important too..."

No, they didn't. They just thought white male landowners were the only ones entitled to a vote.

"I'll hate it if Obama gets elected in 2008."

Because he's black.

"anti-illegal immigration, and would like to see a major overhaul of our tax system and would like social security to go bye-bye for those who arent already getting checks."

I take it your major didn't go into the historic economic forces which make immigrants and social security necessary in this country.

Josh: "If you answered true, no votin' for you!"

And yet gas prices conveniently went down in the '04 and '06 elections...

Hoyk: The last statement is a fact.

comment #36

bb says ...

Why don't they have a law that you can't vote if you are prone to hissy fits?

I suggest NOT ENCOURAGING people to vote. If somebody doesn't have the motivation to actually understand the issues, I'd prefer they have a beer instead.

Too many people have already pointed out the obvious civil rights history related to such tactics (maybe they should have a civil rights test before you can vote) and of course we did have a whole bunch of really smart people that debated this at length a couple of hundred years ago and decided it was important to open voting up to even those that didn't think like they were supposed to.

Excuse any misspellings. I hope they don't disqualify me for anything.

comment #37

Indeed says ...

I'll play D.Z.'s game, just cause I like being right.

"Most economists say we're in a recession, and yes, it is because of Bush. A normal business cycle does not have huge drops like the ones we've been experiencing. And Alan Greenspan is out of office."

The actual GDP report...you know, the thing that tells us whether or not we are in a recession...says we arent. If you want someones opinion aside from my own, ask Warren Buffet. Or the economic analysts at UCLA. Although, its not really an opinion. As much as the world is round, it is a fact that we are not in a recession.

No, Bush was not responsible for the extremely artificially inflated housing prices, which led to this whole debacle anyway. Alan Greenspan is indeed out of office, but his decisions after 9/11 resulted in the economic climate of today.

"Judging by the current economic situation, I'd imagine Jeff still outranks you."

Between the stock market and the bond market, there are always ways to make money. Business is good...thanks for asking.

"No, they didn't. They just thought white male landowners were the only ones entitled to a vote."

Read the Constitution. That little document they wrote. Also, sneak a peek at the Bill of Rights while youre at it.

"Because he's black."

No, because he would be a horrible president.

"I take it your major didn't go into the historic economic forces which make immigrants and social security necessary in this country. "

Pretty much every part of that paragraph is either wrong or makes no sense, so I wont bother going into it.

comment #38

Major Calloway says ...

DZ: Because he's black.

Amazing irony that a comment like that would appear in this thread.

comment #39

MattyCurtis says ...

This, like most arguments borne of frustration, is incredibly stupid. But if it makes Jeff feel better to vent, then so be it.

Hey Jeff, do you think your incessant political ranting has converted a single soul to Obama? Consider the possibility that your arrogant, condescending and mean spirited postings might just be a turnoff and negative for anyone on the fence.

Not that it matters, as my state voted ages ago, but for what it's worth, I'm just about completely in Obama's camp now. Hillary's dismissal of "elitist economists" over the gas tax issue was one of the last straws. This would have happened far sooner but for the outsized and loud minority of obnoxious and slightly deranged pro-Obama supporters that Jeff typifies. Their presence makes it a club I'm hesitant to join.

comment #40

D.Z. says ...

Indeed: "The actual GDP report...you know, the thing that tells us whether or not we are in a recession...says we arent. If you want someones opinion aside from my own, ask Warren Buffet."

Um, I asked, and Warren Buffet said we're in a recession.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/hotStocksNews/idUKN0451154420080504

"No, Bush was not responsible for the extremely artificially inflated housing prices, "

He's responsible for basing our entire economy on over-priced housing...

"Alan Greenspan is indeed out of office, but his decisions after 9/11 resulted in the economic climate of today."

If that was the case, then why did he do fine during the Clinton years?

"Between the stock market and the bond market, there are always ways to make money."

And yet Wall Street's current solution is asking for hand-outs.

"Business is good...thanks for asking."

Good isn't great; and I know you finance people have high standards when it comes to these things.

"Read the Constitution. That little document they wrote."

That little document they wrote said black people were only 3/5 of human beings.

"No, because he would be a horrible president."

Because he's black.

"Pretty much every part of that paragraph is either wrong or makes no sense, so I wont bother going into it."

If it makes no sense, then I'm probably right.

comment #41

K. Bowen says ...

Identify the meaning of the third, ninth, tenth, and twenty-fourth amendments.

Identify the role of the Church of England in VIrginnia in the development of the first amendment Establishment Clause.

I mean, really, even Republicans are history majors. In fact, my guess is that such an idea would tend to disenfranchise more new immigrants and lower-income Democratic voters.

comment #42

Abbey Normal says ...

A quick thought, inserted edge-wise:

Before we go testing the students (voters), maybe we should do something to upgrade the teachers (the media). People believe dumb things because they're told dumb things. Step number one: Stop the reckless, out of control consolidation of media entities that has been going on for the last 20-odd years. Free, diverse media is essential to having an informed populace.

As you were.

comment #43

Mgmax says ...

Consolidated media=50 outlets including some conservative news channels

Free, diverse media=four liberal networks

"Um, I asked, and Warren Buffet said we're in a recession. "

Enough with this worship of the corporate rich, D.Z.! Try listening to the government instead.

comment #44

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "Consolidated media=50 outlets including some conservative news channels"

Fifty outlets owned by two-three conservatives or more.

"Free, diverse media=four liberal networks"

Four networks which gave equal time.

"Enough with this worship of the corporate rich, D.Z.! Try listening to the government instead."

Bush admits our economy sucks, too.

comment #45

Major Calloway says ...

According to a recent poll, over a quarter of Americans actually think that 40% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. And a whopping one third of Americans think that the only reason 52% of Americans won't vote for Obama is because he's black.

Some people believe dumb things because they're so narcissistic they can't imagine anyone disagreeing with them who isn't evil or stupid.

comment #46

The Hoyk says ...

Hoyk: The last statement is a fact.

Posted by D.Z. at May 4, 2008 07:21 PM

SMACK!!!

You just had to take the bait, didn't you? Prepare for a lifetime of feeling your face sting in the new Republic of Hoykistan.

comment #47

Bob Violence says ...

I thought this was a really masterful troll at first, but the fact Jeff has actually seen fit to answer his critics here (if you can call that "answering") suggests that he's either serious or really, really committed to the troll. I'll stick with the first possibility.

As others have mentioned, the key question here is "What questions would be used to determine eligibility?" I'm very keen to hear the answer to this one, since I'm having a hard time imagining a meaningful test along these lines that wouldn't immediately disqualify all the remaining candidates (Obama included), at least on the basis of their public statements.

comment #48

MovieBob says ...

So... is anyone going to say it? (Or did someone say it and I missed it?) Jeff, there's a VERY uncomfortable fact of reality and mathematics that makes this whole idea destined to deliver the exact OPPOSITE effect you probably intend it to.

There's no pleasant way to say it, so here it is plain: If you require ANY sort of basic skills/knowledge test to vote, there will never be another Democrat elected president. No, not because "liberals are stupid" or some such crap, because of basic social dynamics: The same people who would have difficulty "passing" such an exam would be the same people (in numerical generalization) who have difficulty passing SATs, advancement tests, etc: Lower-income blue-collar whites, inner-city blacks and recent-generation immigrants - in other words, the DEMOCRAT VOTING BASE. You'd end up with a voter turnout that's even more dominated by upper middle-class fiscally-conservative, socially-traditional whites than it already is.

comment #49

Bob Violence says ...

To be fair, though, the Democratic Party has done a fine job of losing its traditional voter base over the past few decades without the help of revived literacy tests.

comment #50

siamesecat says ...

"That little document they wrote said black people were only 3/5 of human beings."

D.Z., surely you're aware that that provision was enacted in order to dilute the political power of the slave owners, since it was they who "represented" their slaves in the government. Abolitionists of the time would have preferred that the slaves count for nothing at all.

Did you fall alseep in history class?

comment #51

D.Z. says ...

siamese: "D.Z., surely you're aware that that provision was enacted in order to dilute the political power of the slave owners, "

And it certainly worked...

comment #52

Mgmax says ...

"D.Z., surely you're aware that that provision was enacted in order to dilute the political power of the slave owners"

Sorry, that's COMPLETELY wrong. Counting the slaves (who were otherwise ignored in all matters of voting and representation) worked to give the South greater representation in the House of Representatives, and in turn in the Electoral College (which is based on Congressional representation), and was the very root of the Slave Power's dominance of politics, responsible for the fact that most presidents to that day were Southerners, for the fact that the South invariably got things the North considered anathema (eg the Fugitive Slave Act), etc.

If abolitionists would have preferred the slaves count for nothing, it was only because their "voting power" in that sense served only to put more power in the hands of those whose interests were completely opposed to them.

comment #53

Mgmax says ...

Oh, and you both failed, and don't get to vote/

comment #54

siamesecat says ...

Mgmax, that Constitutional provision was a COMPROMISE that gave the pro-slavery faction less than it was demanding, which was a full count of the slave population in determining political representation. Adding three-fifths of the slave population to the South's represented population obviously increases its political power, but not as much as counting the entire population. That's what I meant when I said it diluted the power of the slave owners. I think you and I are on the same page here.

comment #55

Mgmax says ...

But no one would ever have counted non-citizen populations at all before-- no one anywhere counted non-naturalized immigrants, for instance. Getting 3/5ths credit for each slave was a huge coup for the South, even if it was slightly less than what they originally wanted. There's no way, based on its practical effects, that it can be called a dilution of their power-- it was a bit of political sleight of hand that was the basis of their dominance during the entire period from the revolution to the Civil War.

comment #56

siamesecat says ...

I get your point and will concede that "diluted" was perhaps a poor choice of words. My original point was that when racial grievance activists use the three-fifths-of-a-person provision to demonstrate the inequality inherent in the Constitution as originally written, they do so without regard to historical context. It doesn't quite mean what they think it means.

comment #57

Mgmax says ...

True, and fair enough.

comment #58

SaveFarris says ...

"So if tax breaks lead to another Katrina, who cares?"

D.Z.: even for you, that sentence is retarded.

comment #59

gansibele says ...

I'm suprised no one has pointed out to Jeff that driving has always been undisputably a privilege (nobody has ever argued it's a right) and voting has been historically moving from privilege afforded to a few classes to fundamental right (only denied to felons, non-citizens and the mentally incapacitated). Right there Jeff loses his right to vote.

There hasn't been a candidate in recent years whose support has been based more on a pure emotional reaction that Obama. What are "inspiration" and "hope" but emotions? That shouldn't be held against him though, one of the most important things a president should be able to do is inspire and lead.

comment #60

admiralmpj says ...

I'm sorry, did anyone bring up the idea of the "Poll Test" that Southerners used to drop on Black voters back in the day. The Poll Test would be issued by the Poll worker as follows. For a White Voter is was good enough to sign your name. For a Black Voter, you had to recite all of the Bill of Rights verbatim. The idea of an Education test for voting, while well intentioned, carries a lot of bad memories.

comment #61

bb says ...

From what I've read on this blog, the indicator of intelligence, per Jeff's standards, could be determined by simply asking "Are you voting for Obama?"

Anybody that answered in the negative would obviously not be intelligent enough to vote. In future elections the question could be revised to "DID you vote for Obama?"

It does make for a simpler world.

comment #62

Mgmax says ...

How about a simple test evaluating your ability to avoid voting for Pat Buchanan?

If that'd been in place in 2000, no Supreme Court necessary...

comment #63

Major Calloway says ...

Fortunately those not competent to operate a voting machine only end up voiding their vote, not sending a steel spike into the fellow in the booth next to them. Otherwise I might actually be in favor of requiring a license to operate them.

Oh, wait....someone's going to reply with an argument that they did, in fact, do this, metaphorically speaking.

comment #64

Major Calloway says ...

Fortunately those not competent to operate a voting machine only end up voiding their vote, not sending a steel rod into the fellow in the booth next to them. Otherwise I might actually be in favor of requiring a government license to operate them.

Oh wait, someone's going to reply with an argument that they did, in fact, do this, metaphorically speaking. These are the people we should be worried about...or mock, whichever you prefer.

comment #65

Major Calloway says ...

Fortunately those not competent to operate an input field on a blogging site only end up looking stupid, not sending a steel rod into their fellow blogger...

comment #66

rocco_d says ...

I wrote Jeff off as an elitist kook about a month ago...haven't been back since...then a friend sends me a link to an article that someone else had sent him with the email entitled "What can we do about covert racists like this?"...I see the url contains hollywood-elsewhere and I think, uh oh, what has Jeffrey's big head and bigger mouth gotten him into now?

It starts off innocently enough...he merely makes a fool of himself for blaming those attracted to Bush's "charisma" while himself being seduced by Obama's softer skills.

But that Jeff can write so cavalierly, and as though proposing something novel, about a mechanism so ripe for abuse as a tool for racism shows how seriously he should be taken as a voter and pundit himself. That he does not realize laws like this were repealed by democrats he claims to idolize is an indictment of his own proclaimed populism. He is not a democrat, nor a liberal, I hope other people see this. He's an aristocrat the likes of which Jefferson and Madison despised.

Imagine a guy who fashions himself as an iconoclast and a peacenik promoting aristocracy. First it's basic questions about the candidates...then it becomes aligned to degree of education...then what, land ownership, net worth and pedigree??? Yeah, nothing that Europeans didn't rebel against for hundreds of years there.

Under Jeff's system these people shouldn;t have the right to vote, but they should have the right to free healthcare? They can exist, but they can have no say in the direction of their country. What a sad, confused, conflicted individual Jeff must be.

Jeff, ban me (again), please, so I'm never again tempted to read and respond to your abject hatred for mankind.

comment #67

Major Calloway says ...

They can exist, but they can have no say in the direction of their country.

True, but at thirty you get carousel!

Post a Comment