DescentBB

I genuinely want an IQ test as a prerequisite to voting. I don't give a ★■◆● if it's a poll tax. Stupid inbred ★■◆● should have absolutely no say over the future of this planet.

vision wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:27 pm

Vander wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:35 pmQuite simply, they probably don't even know.

It's true, they have no idea. I'm friends with a few Trump supporters. I was with one yesterday and he said, genuinely, "I wonder what happened to the caravan?" I flew into a rage. "Why the ★■◆● do you care about a handful of poor people trying to escape problems we helped create when we have absolute corruption at the highest levels in this country?!" I can't ★■◆●ing take the stupidity and ignorance anymore. Last weekend I went out with another Trump supporter friend. It was her birthday. She also seems oblivious. She's a hardcore Libertarian who has been on some form of public assistance for a significant chunk of her adult life, and I'm sure there some cognitive dissonance squaring that up somehow. If I haven't mentioned before, both of these friends are immigrants who came here in their adult life. One of them is on Social Security because he's 78 years old, yet still votes Republican every time. Idiot.

I almost fell out of my chair from that titanic lack of self-awareness.

More news. It's turning into a runaway freight train at this point.
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-concerne ... nt-1251304

Top Gun: An IQ test won't do ★■◆●. All it'll show is how good you are at IQ tests. What is really needed is a test on how many sitting supreme court justices there are (5 will be acceptable), what roles they play in an election (hint: a big one), who do they know is running at state levels, their knowledge on the constitution including the important clauses (EG: emolument clause), functions of the three branches, a section on judicial procedure including prosecutorial discretion and a section on critical thinking.

Yes, I'm asking a lot. A whole lot. But I think the times demand it.

Ferno wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 11:33 pm Top Gun: An IQ test won't do ★■◆●. All it'll show is how good you are at IQ tests. What is really needed is a test on how many sitting supreme court justices there are (5 will be acceptable), what roles they play in an election (hint: a big one), who do they know is running at state levels, their knowledge on the constitution including the important clauses (EG: emolument clause), functions of the three branches, a section on judicial procedure including prosecutorial discretion and a section on critical thinking.

Yes, I'm asking a lot. A whole lot. But I think the times demand it.

Yeah, my phrasing was poor, but you have it right. If you can't acknowledge basic unassailable facts, you have no place anywhere near a polling booth.

Looks like its not just Republicans yearning to suppress votes.

I know you're just playing, Vander...

But I'll bite.

Democracy is only effective with an informed public. Not being informed of the issues and the persons involved only serves to hurt the process.

I'm not playing at all. While I certainly agree with wanting a more informed electorate, I think the suggested prerequisite testing is both wrong on principle, and wrong politically.

Shrink ignorance, not franchise.

Vander wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 2:18 pm
Shrink ignorance, not franchise.

That's the idea, and the point. A person can state they know... but they have to show they understand. Where it happens is another question entirely.

"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."

Vander wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 2:18 pm I'm not playing at all. While I certainly agree with wanting a more informed electorate, I think the suggested prerequisite testing is both wrong on principle, and wrong politically.

Shrink ignorance, not franchise.

I have literally zero faith left in my fellow common man as a whole, so at this point I'm just looking to stop the bleeding.

Vander wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 2:18 pm I'm not playing at all. While I certainly agree with wanting a more informed electorate, I think the suggested prerequisite testing is both wrong on principle, and wrong politically.

I share that sentiment, but I wonder what can be done to cap the ignorance? We set a minimum age before a person can vote. Am I wrong to think this exists because a person isn't mentally capable of making informed decisions until the reach legal adulthood? Maybe the age should be raised? Should there be some kind of baseline a person must meet before getting the right to vote? Why not let a four year old vote? We spend all this time talking about how important the right to vote is, but we let anyone do it. Seems negligent.

Here's a question for you Vander.

Why do you think a test based in understanding civics and current events is analogous to voter suppression?

vision wrote:We spend all this time talking about how important the right to vote is, but we let anyone do it. Seems negligent.

We let anyone do it because it's important.

Ferno wrote:Why do you think a test based in understanding civics and current events is analogous to voter suppression?

Because the clearly stated and intentional goal is preventing people from voting? If you think it's a good idea, that's fine. There isn't necessarily a right answer, and I'll agree to disagree. I know "voter suppression" has a negative connotation and you think what you're envisioning is good because it prevents the wrong people from voting so it shouldn't be painted in such a bad light, but it pretty much fits the exact definition of voter suppression. Just be honest about it, that's all I would ask.

Then you would be incorrect in yourr supposition. The goal is to make people mindful of how their vote affects their neighborhood, city, state and country.

For example: If you knew who was sitting on the supreme court, you would have an idea of how they made their decisions and how it would potentially affect more than just the election.

Thing is, Vander.. I can completely see what you mean and I acknowledge its validity - you see it as voter supression via lack of knowledge. We also have to look at it, partly, as what can benefit the country better -- the needs of the many who have civics knowledge vs the want of a few who don't care to know civics.

Years ago I ran an online game tournament. It was completely democratic. I was shocked that over time engagement waned and the remaining voters basically voted themselves out of democracy and thought a council of authorities would be the best way to solve problems (which of course is ridiculous because that just shifts the disagreement to who is on the council.

Democracy is the best thing we have, but it is still flawed. You can vote yourself out of a democracy, and once you do, good luck getting it back. I think what this thread is expressing is suppressing anti-democratic votes. It's one thing to participate in a democracy, but it's a completely different matter when people try to dismantle it from the inside. This isn't about suppressing votes to consolidate power or keep the status quo, but rather as a protective measure -- suppressing those who would suppress. At least that how I interpret it.

EDIT: My nearly 80 year old Trump supporter friend I see every weekend, he's completely into authoritarianism (grew up in fascist Italy I kid you not). He thinks Trump can do no wrong and every one should follow his order because "he's the leader". It's frighting.

Ferno wrote:The goal is to make people mindful of how their vote affects their neighborhood, city, state and country.

If that's the goal, then there are certainly many more practical and viable options than a disenfranchising poll test.

vision wrote:Democracy is the best thing we have, but it is still flawed. You can vote yourself out of a democracy, and once you do, good luck getting it back.

I agree with this. I'm not unconditionally against using undemocratic methods to preserve democracy. There are plenty of things I think should be beyond democratic control. But I'm pretty unyielding in my belief that everyone should have an equal vote. Even stupid people.

I feel like bad voters fall into two camps: Type A - So stupid it seems negligent for them to participate in a democracy, and Type B - bad actors who would willingly vote themselves out of a democracy. Type A is super frustrating, but I guess it's a byproduct of democracy we have to deal with. I'm more concerned with Type B. I feel like keeping them out of the system isn't a problem because they aren't participants. I think it's a categorical error to say that someone who is against democracy is voting in good faith. Just like someone cannot paradoxically be intolerant of intolerance.

I really don't know where I'm going with this. I haven't thought about it enough to have a good opinion. I wish I had time to ponder it and/or do research.

I don't really classify "bad" voters. I tend to think most people have qualities within them that lead to what I might consider "bad" voting. Having and knowing how to use the tools available to make someone I would consider a "good" voter takes time, responsibility, experience, and wisdom. I try, but I doubt I fall into that category. I just know that most people are suckers for something that will steer them from what they truly believe. For me, it's soaring rhetoric. Obama did that for me, making me proud to support things my more analytical side might disagree with. For some, it might be xenophobic red meat. We're all susceptible to that emotional propaganda, which probably guides voting more than anything.

I mostly think we all see the same problems, but we're pandered at for who is to blame and how to fix it. And discerning that objectively instead of emotionally is something I think only a very small minority can actually do in our society. Even people who think they're being successful at it are likely just deluding themselves.

But even with all of that, I think believing is democracy is important simply as a tool to be able to agreeably reorganize ourselves without violence, especially at a time when war can be existential. The things we place beyond democratic control can be catastrophic, and attempts to curtail democratic control attempts to place everything beyond. That's why I've been somewhat stubborn on this poll test notion. It's an erosion of belief in democracy by the opponents of people already trying to delegitimize democracy, and I don't like seeing it.

Vander wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:32 pm

If that's the goal, then there are certainly many more practical and viable options than a disenfranchising poll test.

Alright, ball's in your court. What's your idea?

Ferno wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:39 pm
For example: If you knew who was sitting on the supreme court, you would have an idea of how they made their decisions and how it would potentially affect more than just the election.

Your supposition is not always valid:
logo

Abortion opponents are starting to worry Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh isn't the ally they were expecting

Abortion opponents are starting to worry that Justice Brett Kavanaugh may not be the ally on the high court that they expected.

Also while we're at the testing requirements I don't suppose you would have any problem with having a valid picture ID in order to register to vote? And please Vander do not broach the tired canard that it is too hard to get and is another way to "suppress" the vote.

Not gonna bite on that bait. Go fishing elsewhere.

Vander wrote: ↑Wed Dec 12, 2018 11:02 am I don't really classify "bad" voters. I tend to think most people have qualities within them that lead to what I might consider "bad" voting.

Ok, I'll buy that.

I've been thinking that the only good solution is to practice democracy at an early age. Let people get exposed to the process and it's benefits, and learn how to react properly when things don't go as expected. Maybe early rooted faith in democracy can lead to fewer bad actors and more people who are able to recognize harmful rhetoric?

Also, I think some of the frustration of democracy is that, at least in the US government, there are no ways to mitigate corruption. I mean, we voted for people who pass laws against our interest and in the face of multi-party support. So maybe democracy isn't the problem, but the failure of our specific take on democracy and the inherent structure of our system of government? People complain about Trump, but he's the by-product of dozens of previous failures.

vision wrote: ↑Wed Dec 12, 2018 9:19 pm

Vander wrote: ↑Wed Dec 12, 2018 11:02 am I don't really classify "bad" voters. I tend to think most people have qualities within them that lead to what I might consider "bad" voting.

Ok, I'll buy that.

I've been thinking that the only good solution is to practice democracy at an early age. Let people get exposed to the process and it's benefits, and learn how to react properly when things don't go as expected. Maybe early rooted faith in democracy can lead to fewer bad actors and more people who are able to recognize harmful rhetoric?

Also, I think some of the frustration of democracy is that, at least in the US government, there are no ways to mitigate corruption. I mean, we voted for people who pass laws against our interest and in the face of multi-party support. So maybe democracy isn't the problem, but the failure of our specific take on democracy and the inherent structure of our system of government? People complain about Trump, but he's the by-product of dozens of previous failures.

I'd be up for that aswell. Teaching lessons in democracy during elementary school would be a great place to start.

woodchip wrote: ↑Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:20 pm
Also while we're at the testing requirements I don't suppose you would have any problem with having a valid picture ID in order to register to vote? And please Vander do not broach the tired canard that it is too hard to get and is another way to "suppress" the vote.

Mod. here. Stick to the topic woody. If you want to discuss requiring voter ID, start a new thread. I've already split this one from another and this discussion is at least civil, for now.

vision wrote: ↑Wed Dec 12, 2018 9:19 pm

Vander wrote: ↑Wed Dec 12, 2018 11:02 am I don't really classify "bad" voters. I tend to think most people have qualities within them that lead to what I might consider "bad" voting.

Ok, I'll buy that.

I've been thinking that the only good solution is to practice democracy at an early age. Let people get exposed to the process and it's benefits, and learn how to react properly when things don't go as expected. Maybe early rooted faith in democracy can lead to fewer bad actors and more people who are able to recognize harmful rhetoric?

Also, I think some of the frustration of democracy is that, at least in the US government, there are no ways to mitigate corruption. I mean, we voted for people who pass laws against our interest and in the face of multi-party support. So maybe democracy isn't the problem, but the failure of our specific take on democracy and the inherent structure of our system of government? People complain about Trump, but he's the by-product of dozens of previous failures.

Sounds great in theory, but what about in practice? I'd say that the average grade school kid would get bored with the whole process pretty early on. They did something like this in my sixth grade class during a civics lesson and most of the students were never really engaged in the process. I could tell that it bored most of them and they didn't take it seriously. I don't think the importance of what the teacher was trying to impress upon everyone, including me, barely made a dent in our wandering young brains. Maybe if the lessons had some sort of real world implications that was on the level for kids that age, it might make a lasting impression. It would take some pretty creative teaching.

woodchip wrote:Also while we're at the testing requirements I don't suppose you would have any problem with having a valid picture ID in order to register to vote? And please Vander do not broach the tired canard that it is too hard to get and is another way to "suppress" the vote.

This is why it's bad politics.

vision wrote:Also, I think some of the frustration of democracy is that, at least in the US government, there are no ways to mitigate corruption.

I think government is an easy target for frustration, but that's ultimately misdirected. For me, it all boils down to the incentive structures of our society being tilted too far toward individuals to the detriment of groups. Individual reward is more immediately apparent and glamorized, but it's like a sugar high. Group reward takes longer to come to fruition, but healthier in the long run. It's not like we can only have one or the other, but the balance is out of whack, and mostly intentionally so.

What if at some point during education, we did class grading instead of individual grading? Like, one semester would be individual grading, and the next semester class grading. (or vice versa) Something that would incentivize good faith group effort, or at least produce some muscle memory of group solidarity. I don't know the viability of such a scheme, and we likely wouldn't see results for generations, but it seems like the type of structural change we'll need.

Vander wrote: ↑Thu Dec 13, 2018 9:43 amI think government is an easy target for frustration, but that's ultimately misdirected. For me, it all boils down to the incentive structures of our society being tilted too far toward individuals to the detriment of groups.

Totally agree, good point.

Also, my point about teaching kids democracy isn't about a civics class, but more about learning how to recognize and apply the principals of democracy in everyday life, whether at home or school. Parents and teachers should be less authoritarian where practical and provide opportunities for group decision-making, especially when the stakes of the decision are low.

EDIT: woodchip, don't you think this is a nice discussion? Do you have any suggestions on how to fix our democracy?

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Wed Dec 12, 2018 11:43 pm Sounds great in theory, but what about in practice? I'd say that the average grade school kid would get bored with the whole process pretty early on. They did something like this in my sixth grade class during a civics lesson and most of the students were never really engaged in the process. I could tell that it bored most of them and they didn't take it seriously. I don't think the importance of what the teacher was trying to impress upon everyone, including me, barely made a dent in our wandering young brains. Maybe if the lessons had some sort of real world implications that was on the level for kids that age, it might make a lasting impression. It would take some pretty creative teaching.

One thing I learned while teaching is you have to tune the lesson to fit the student. Find out what engages and motivates them and build from there.

I have a feeling that in today's world, creating any kind of lesson that involved using a smart phone and social media would immediately engage most kids today.

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Fri Dec 14, 2018 11:46 am I have a feeling that in today's world, creating any kind of lesson that involved using a smart phone and social media would immediately engage most kids today.

I learned a surprising amount about democracy from online game tournaments. A lot of team dynamics are heavily democratic. It would be neat if major game platforms designed their team/tournament tools with and implicitly democratic bias (maybe they already do? I've haven't played online games for years). It would also be a benefit to all-ages. Even a website like Reddit can be a teaching tool for democracy with slight changes to the way posts are sorted and displayed. If you internalize democracy you'll see it everywhere and it will inform and motivate your decision process.

What about the voters who don't vote because they don't like any of the choices?

Then write in who you want, or vote for the one you hate the least and/or who comes the closest to your ideals. If you don't vote, you contribute nothing but apathy to the system. Apathy and hatred for Hillary gave us Trump.

I'm not apathetic, but I don't agree with what Hillary really stands for, and I didn't want to vote for Donald Trump

Top Gun wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:57 pm I genuinely want an IQ test as a prerequisite to voting. I don't give a ★■◆● if it's a poll tax. Stupid inbred ★■◆● should have absolutely no say over the future of this planet.

Is there actual evidence that an IQ requirement would even change the outcome of elections? I mean, maybe you would be in favor of this even if it wouldn't change the outcome of elections based solely on first principles, but I'd suspect that the suppression would cancel itself out across at least votes for the two big parties.

Careful what you wish for.

Maybe an IQ test for voters? People would say it's discrimination. Lol