Do you think citizenship / suffrage should be more restrictive? (Poll)

[Infohawk]

There is no practical way to enforce restrictions on citizenship the way the OP is talking about. Any test is going to be biased, because the intent is to restrict (ie, make sure people fail the test if they don't know what you think they should know). The problem is that what makes a good citizen isn't something that's carved into stone...it's all up to interpretation. So, for example, you'll have liberals wanting a test that requires you to acknowledge civic duty, while conservatives will have a test where you have to agree with traditional values. Who decides what group has the "right" idea about citizenship?

I don't think you read the entire thread. How is literacy or basic math test biased? It's only biased against people who can't read or do basic math. It's not political.

 

[shortylickens]

I was more than likely reading him before you were born. 'Newb'. If I misremember that detal, it doesn't change your idiocy. And Heinlein was a spreader of right-wing (basically libertarian) ideology.

You're so cute, I can barely stand it.

 

[jTanked]

I so love HP. :heart:

 

[Rainsford]

I don't think you read the entire thread. How is literacy or basic math test biased? It's only biased against people who can't read or do basic math. It's not political.

Yes, you're right. How could ANYONE turn what on the surface sounds unbiased into a biased measuring stick? That would be totally impossible...

But let me spell out what I'm talking about. Who decides what "basic literacy and math" are? What do you think the chances are that the people MAKING the tests went to good schools (probably private) and attended decent universities? Do you think the tests they'd make would disenfranchise someone who went to an inner city school and attended a trade school to become an auto mechanic? I'd bet dollars to donuts that the test would.

Politics isn't just left vs right...it's "us" vs "them". And the entire purpose of poll tests is to make sure the "us" can vote, and the "them" can't. And it's not just a matter of such testing not having been done right yet...the entire premise is flawed. It's all about making sure people YOU don't think should be given political power don't have any. How is that NOT political?

 

[Carmen813]

I don't think you read the entire thread. How is literacy or basic math test biased? It's only biased against people who can't read or do basic math. It's not political.

What language is the reading test in? What level of literacy knowledge is required? What constitutes "basic" math? Who grades and validates the test? How are you going to pay the individuals who administer and certify the results of the test?

More importantly, you need to draw a line from how being able to pass a literacy and "basic" math test dictate whatever quality it is you are seeking in an individual in order for them to be able to vote.

*Edit* Guy above beat me to it.

 

[Rainsford]

Absolutely.

Would you like to expand on that?

The argument is that if you go back far enough, and not all that far for most of us, your ancestors were in the exact same position as more recent immigrants are now. Why is it OK for us to slam the door on everyone else once WE'VE made it in?

 

[Rainsford]

What language is the reading test in? What level of literacy knowledge is required? What constitutes "basic" math? Who grades and validates the test? How are you going to pay the individuals who administer and certify the results of the test?

More importantly, you need to draw a line from how being able to pass a literacy and "basic" math test dictate whatever quality it is you are seeking in an individual in order for them to be able to vote.

*Edit* Guy above beat me to it.

Heh, I may have beat you to it, but your post made me think of another problem with this kind of testing. Obviously we're going to be disenfranchising someone, otherwise what's the point? If the test is education based, it's probably going to be inner-city folks and/or recent immigrant groups. And once they don't have political power any more, what do you think the chances are going to be that they'll EVER get it back? You think schools in poor areas are underfunded NOW, just wait till the people who control the money all live in the suburbs.

 

[Throckmorton]

Too all those advocating a literacy requirement: Are you insane? What is wrong with you that you actually think the government has the right to restrict the rights of citizens simply because they lack a certain ability? And what is your rationale for disenfranchising 1% of Americans? Why don't you want them to vote?

 

[Infohawk]

Yes, you're right. How could ANYONE turn what on the surface sounds unbiased into a biased measuring stick? That would be totally impossible...

But let me spell out what I'm talking about. Who decides what "basic literacy and math" are? What do you think the chances are that the people MAKING the tests went to good schools (probably private) and attended decent universities? Do you think the tests they'd make would disenfranchise someone who went to an inner city school and attended a trade school to become an auto mechanic? I'd bet dollars to donuts that the test would.

Politics isn't just left vs right...it's "us" vs "them". And the entire purpose of poll tests is to make sure the "us" can vote, and the "them" can't. And it's not just a matter of such testing not having been done right yet...the entire premise is flawed. It's all about making sure people YOU don't think should be given political power don't have any. How is that NOT political?

You think it's obvious that any test can be biased. But you really don't explain your position. An algebra test is not biased. It's pure reason. Such a test weeds out people who can't apply pure reason on a simple level. If you think math leaves room for bias I'm afraid you're cultural relativism is in terminal stages.

And OF COURSE my hypothetical proposal is political. This is politics and news. I make it very obvious that such a system would remove potential voters from the population. The real question is, is it a good thing to have ignorant and illiterate people in the electorate? Other people have made cogent arguments why it is in fact good or right to have them in the electorate and I have recognized and responded to those. You haven't done anything except make a weak ad hominem ("you're self-interested") and pointed out the obvious ("the goal is to stop certain people from voting.") Thank you captain obvious.

 

[Craig234]

You think it's obvious that any test can be biased. But you really don't explain your position. An algebra test is not biased. It's pure reason. Such a test weeds out people who can't apply pure reason on a simple level. If you think math leaves room for bias I'm afraid you're cultural relativism is in terminal stages.

Some would say the same applies to 'you're' basic grammar. You won't be voting this election, I see.

 

[Throckmorton]

You think it's obvious that any test can be biased. But you really don't explain your position. An algebra test is not biased. It's pure reason. Such a test weeds out people who can't apply pure reason on a simple level. If you think math leaves room for bias I'm afraid you're cultural relativism is in terminal stages.

And OF COURSE my hypothetical proposal is political. This is politics and news. I make it very obvious that such a system would remove potential voters from the population. The real question is, is it a good thing to have ignorant and illiterate people in the electorate? Other people have made cogent arguments why it is in fact good or right to have them in the electorate and I have recognized and responded to those. You haven't done anything except make a weak ad hominem ("you're self-interested") and pointed out the obvious ("the goal is to stop certain people from voting.") Thank you captain obvious.

The only test you need to be concerned about is the Constitution. It's right there in black and white. Citizens have the right to vote.

 

[Craig234]

Too all those advocating a literacy requirement: Are you insane? What is wrong with you that you actually think the government has the right to restrict the rights of citizens simply because they lack a certain ability? And what is your rationale for disenfranchising 1% of Americans? Why don't you want them to vote?

I've never met anyone who has a standard for voting that excludes themself.

TO be fair, I think there are different motives - some lack the point I mentioned before that voting is about the civil right, not making 'the best choices'; for some others, it is about things like masked racism.

The former group tends to resent the idea that 'some idiot' can nullify their very worthwhile vote, and so they are supportive measures to weed out 'those other people', for the most noble of reasons.

 

[Rainsford]

You think it's obvious that any test can be biased. But you really don't explain your position. An algebra test is not biased. It's pure reason. Such a test weeds out people who can't apply pure reason on a simple level. If you think math leaves room for bias I'm afraid you're cultural relativism is in terminal stages.

And OF COURSE my hypothetical proposal is political. This is politics and news. I make it very obvious that such a system would remove potential voters from the population. The real question is, is it a good thing to have ignorant and illiterate people in the electorate? Other people have made cogent arguments why it is in fact good or right to have them in the electorate and I have recognized and responded to those. You haven't done anything except make a weak ad hominem ("you're self-interested") and pointed out the obvious ("the goal is to stop certain people from voting.") Thank you captain obvious.

An algebra test isn't biased on its own, the bias comes from using it to judge the democratic value of an individual. You're arguing that being good at algebra means you'd use your vote more wisely...which is not something that I've ever heard of being scientifically proven.

Normally I stay away from the "captain obvious" style comments, but in this case I feel that it must NOT be obvious for people to be advocating it. The problem with your plan isn't how it's implemented, it's that you want to do it at all. "The real question" isn't whether it's a good thing to have ignorant voters in the electorate, the question is whether we should trust you, or another else, to decide what "ignorant" means. I imagine that if you and I were to come up with the standards of who was allowed to vote, we'd have somewhat different groups. You'd remove all the people who don't know algebra, and I might, for example, remove all the people confused about what the 1st and 4th amendment mean. We both might be acting in a belief that we're improving the general quality of the voting population, and I don't think we'd ever be able to decide who's right and who's wrong...so what do we do?

 

[blackangst1]

Would you like to expand on that?

The argument is that if you go back far enough, and not all that far for most of us, your ancestors were in the exact same position as more recent immigrants are now. Why is it OK for us to slam the door on everyone else once WE'VE made it in?

Because that was then and this was now. Our founding fathers said fuck you to the Brits, grabbed some slaves, sailed over, steamrolled some natives, and set up camp. Beyond that, the past is the past. We now live in what is supposed to be a soveregn country, with opportunity, and laws. I happen to like that.

Do you leave your house wide open and not care who happens to come in or out? And if they take something, like a loaf of bread, youre OK with that because afterall, you have and they dont, and they need it?

 

[piasabird]

Even dead people vote.

People challenged the Citizenship of O'Bamma and it did them no good. Not even a cursory investigation was called for according to the Supreme Court. I guess they never heard of the possibility of someone lying and getting an invalid copy of a birth certificate. So after all of this, I say anyone should be able to get a fake birth certificate. All you probably need is a scanner and a printer, and some Image editing software.

Just look at chicago and even dead people vote, so probably all kinds of illegals are voting.

 

[Rainsford]

Because that was then and this was now. Our founding fathers said fuck you to the Brits, grabbed some slaves, sailed over, steamrolled some natives, and set up camp. Beyond that, the past is the past. We now live in what is supposed to be a soveregn country, with opportunity, and laws. I happen to like that.

Do you leave your house wide open and not care who happens to come in or out? And if they take something, like a loaf of bread, youre OK with that because afterall, you have and they dont, and they need it?

I don't know about you, but my ancestors didn't come over with the founding fathers. And I'm betting that's true for the majority of Americans. It would be incredibly hypocritical of us to say that immigration was fine when OUR families made it over, but it really should be more restrictive now.

 

[blackangst1]

I don't know about you, but my ancestors didn't come over with the founding fathers. And I'm betting that's true for the majority of Americans. It would be incredibly hypocritical of us to say that immigration was fine when OUR families made it over, but it really should be more restrictive now.

Perhaps you are under the impression that until, say, the Immigration Act of (I believe) 1924, you could just come here willy nilly. Which of course is false. In 1795 we adopted out first immigration laws that restricted citizens to white persons, who have lived in the USA for at least 5 years, and required persons to renounce their allegiance to another country. In 1870 congress passed the Naturalization Act, which prohibited American citizenship to whites and those of african decent. In 1917 we adopted a literacy test, and prohibited immigration from all asian countries except the Philippines and Japan. In 1921 we adopted quotas. (If youre interested there is lots more info here: http://www.npsne.org/ms/staff/bgear/immigration.html)

So there have always been rules in place. It has never been a country where you can show up and youre given full rights. As time passed and travel became easier, we had to enact tougher laws, as travel was easier for many people.

Im curious what restrictions you put on whom, and why?

 

[Jaskalas]

For Rainsford, who I would have just assumed is as American as I am, to come out and proclaim that we are all immigrants as if to say that none of us are native, none of us are American, really disturbs me.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

For Rainsford, who I would have just assumed is as American as I am, to come out and proclaim that we are all immigrants as if to say that none of us are native, none of us are American, really disturbs me.

It depends on how you define "native" and "American". I feel you two are on different pages here. Maybe it's a good idea to at least get onto the same page before the shit starts flying?

An algebra test isn't biased on its own, the bias comes from using it to judge the democratic value of an individual. You're arguing that being good at algebra means you'd use your vote more wisely...which is not something that I've ever heard of being scientifically proven.

I think he's onto a good thing, though. It is important for voters to be able to think logically and critically, and while an Algebra test may not be the very best way to determine such attributes, I think the general gist of the concept is sound.

 

[CitizenKain]

Even dead people vote.

People challenged the Citizenship of O'Bamma and it did them no good. Not even a cursory investigation was called for according to the Supreme Court. I guess they never heard of the possibility of someone lying and getting an invalid copy of a birth certificate. So after all of this, I say anyone should be able to get a fake birth certificate. All you probably need is a scanner and a printer, and some Image editing software.

Just look at chicago and even dead people vote, so probably all kinds of illegals are voting.

I think we can all agree that birthers shouldn't be able to vote.

 

[werepossum]

Perhaps you are under the impression that until, say, the Immigration Act of (I believe) 1924, you could just come here willy nilly. Which of course is false. In 1795 we adopted out first immigration laws that restricted citizens to white persons, who have lived in the USA for at least 5 years, and required persons to renounce their allegiance to another country. In 1870 congress passed the Naturalization Act, which prohibited American citizenship to whites and those of african decent. In 1917 we adopted a literacy test, and prohibited immigration from all asian countries except the Philippines and Japan. In 1921 we adopted quotas. (If youre interested there is lots more info here: http://www.npsne.org/ms/staff/bgear/immigration.html)

So there have always been rules in place. It has never been a country where you can show up and youre given full rights. As time passed and travel became easier, we had to enact tougher laws, as travel was easier for many people.

Im curious what restrictions you put on whom, and why?

North Korea (McCraigwen paradise LOL.) Just show up and you have exactly the same rights as everyone else. Of course, that would be none . . .

I think I read a few years ago that the USA now had more foreign-born citizens than at any time since our country's inception. It might have included all people here, including legal and illegal aliens - I don't really remember.

 

[Rainsford]

For Rainsford, who I would have just assumed is as American as I am, to come out and proclaim that we are all immigrants as if to say that none of us are native, none of us are American, really disturbs me.

If you think of "immigrant" and "American" as mutually exclusive, that's your baggage, not mine. I meant to say nothing of the sort.

My point was that while *I* may have been born here, I don't have to go back very far in my family tree to find people who weren't. So while I think of myself as an American, trying to claim that more recent immigrants AREN'T real Americans seems hypocritical and, quite frankly, moronic.

Edit: And to follow Mr. Pedantic's advice, I want to make it clear that I'm talking about "American" as a political distinction, not a demographic one. Obviously being born here is different than not being born here from a factual standpoint, I just don't think that distinction should carry any political weight to it.

 

[Carmen813]

See, when I some of these posts I believe that many still believe America is a melting pot. The idea that after a generation or two anyone who immigrates here will conform to the "majority" culture.

The problem is that is a myth and far from the truth. The U.S. is about as diverse as you can get. Furthermore, even families that have been here for numerous generations retain many of their cultural backgrounds tendencies. Take my family, we're mostly of Italian and Polish decent. I'm fourth or fifth generation but we still follow family values that were here in the 1st generation. Most of my family members are Catholic, we still have huge family gatherings, and meals/food is one of the things that ties our family together.

While White European Americans might share some common traits we are hardly uniform in our culture. The same applies for individuals of other races and ethnicity. There just seems to be this attempt to label "American" with some broad stroke of the brush when it's not really an accurate portrayal.

A test of any kind merely serves to limit the eligible voting population. While we talk about American being a Democracy all the time, it's really not. We are a Republic, and a healthy Republic requires MORE people to be voting, not less.

What the OP really wants is a more informed electorate. There is no guarantee that an electorate that can do something like algebra is more informed. Do you think all the founding fathers knew algebra or American citizens who voted in the 1800s? To that end I think your beef should be with the media (cover only what fits our bias) and the way elections in this country are held.

 

[blackangst1]

See, when I some of these posts I believe that many still believe America is a melting pot. The idea that after a generation or two anyone who immigrates here will conform to the "majority" culture.

The problem is that is a myth and far from the truth. The U.S. is about as diverse as you can get. Furthermore, even families that have been here for numerous generations retain many of their cultural backgrounds tendencies. Take my family, we're mostly of Italian and Polish decent. I'm fourth or fifth generation but we still follow family values that were here in the 1st generation. Most of my family members are Catholic, we still have huge family gatherings, and meals/food is one of the things that ties our family together.

While White European Americans might share some common traits we are hardly uniform in our culture. The same applies for individuals of other races and ethnicity. There just seems to be this attempt to label "American" with some broad stroke of the brush when it's not really an accurate portrayal.

A test of any kind merely serves to limit the eligible voting population. While we talk about American being a Democracy all the time, it's really not. We are a Republic, and a healthy Republic requires MORE people to be voting, not less.

What the OP really wants is a more informed electorate. There is no guarantee that an electorate that can do something like algebra is more informed. Do you think all the founding fathers knew algebra or American citizens who voted in the 1800s? To that end I think your beef should be with the media (cover only what fits our bias) and the way elections in this country are held.

And on a side note, I think families like yours are what make this country awesome

 

[BigDH01]

What the OP really wants is a more informed electorate. There is no guarantee that an electorate that can do something like algebra is more informed. Do you think all the founding fathers knew algebra or American citizens who voted in the 1800s? To that end I think your beef should be with the media (cover only what fits our bias) and the way elections in this country are held.

I can't answer your question specifically, but Garfield did create a novel proof of the Pythagorean Theorem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem#Garfield.27s_proof