That sounds like voter suppression. I’d suggest going the other way and making felons being able to vote.
Real issue is the playing field needs to be levelled. Overturn Citizens United will be a great start and limiting campaign donations to be only limited individual contributions and state sponsorship if a party gets over 2.5%. Any gifts, including whole airplanes and 250B ballrooms would be illegal.
Also stock trading while in office is an obvious conflict of interest. Ideally people in government shouldn’t be allowed to hold stock as that would be a clear conflict of interest. Such as owning stock in Lockheed Martin would be an incentive for going to war.
Just pay reps 200k a year instead. It comes out as around 100M yearly.
Beyond how other people are pointing out this is usually racist and a voter suppression taxtic, this also misses the point of voting.
The point of democracy is as an alternative to violence. The idea that we talk to, and listen to, each other instead of making demands with spears of guns or whatever. Cut people out of the process and they turn back to spears or guns or whatever else, literate or not.
I needed to see this
Why did Telemachus send $21?
I’ll be honest, I’m blanking on the third amendment.
It’s because it’s largely moot in modern times - it basically prohibits soldiers from being quartered in private homes.
So basically to stop an army from overrunning a property, evicting owners/tenants and declaring it a barracks.
Its actually being tested right now as businesses refuse to allow ICE to use their restrooms or serve them.
Republicans: “The literacy test is easy” The test: solve the following with proof of work The goat graising problem
This is the ‘reading literacy test’ for black people to go to school all over again, which for those unaware, had no answer key.
Just because a bunch of racists did it for racism doesnt mean no one else can try similar things for different reasons
I think that’s exactly what it means though. People are going to use it to put their thumbs on the scale for whatever reasons they want.
We accept a limitation on access to voting based on age. This has a hard, numerical boundary, and we can argue over what the boundary should be, but while a given age is in law it is simple and basically fair across all genders, races, cultures, languages, etc.
When you introduce a barrier like a literacy or knowledge test, you inherently restrict people from some or another culture, race, language, or whatever more than others. There is an inherent bias to how the test is written, presented, and judged. With all that wiggle room, people in power who want a certain outcome can see that the parameters of the test are arranged to fit their desires. There isn’t a version of this free from the potential for significant interference.
That, in a nutshell, is why there is always a strong argument against ANY such test as a requirement for voting. Some people may know better than others what policies will help people more, or at least think they do, but that doesn’t actually give them any more right than others in an equal democracy to make those choices.
I agree it is certainly easy for it to be manipulated in that way.
But.
This has to fucking stop. These morons will literally MURDER US ALL FOR PROFIT because they can convince the uneducated it would be funny. That’s not conducive to a functional society. If you let every single person vote no matter how braindead and out of touch with reality, this is what we get. Decades of manipulation and voting for the worst people imaginable to undermine every single institution that was built up through blood sweat and tears.
It was not as dangerous before the mass manipulation capabilities of big tech. Now it’s a cancer.
Issue is that it’s too easy too abuse. There’s tons of precedent for it.
Besides it being fundamentally undemocratic by restricting who has a voice in their own governance.
Yeah, the people who choose the questions and answers and grade the results would need to be infallible themselves or whoever is currently in power could just filter out whoever they don’t like.
Oh, I know the answer to this one!
We’ll just have AI grade the tests!
Surely putting Microsoft, Meta and/or Google in charge of deciding who gets to vote could not possibly go wrong.
I said Infallible not Make-Believe-Impartial.
Sorry, best I can do is an over-marketed stochastic parrot.
Another example of how the right abuses a tool that is not itself bad but the left will refuse to ever use the tool again.
Guess who won’t though?
The gang does voter suppression
As others in this thread are pointing out…
It sounds great; but would be more like :: Are you likely to vote for Dems, oh you failed… so sorry
If it was impartially administered, the idea might have some merit (with massive caveats). But the US is a country where gerrymandering and voter suppression are considered fair game, so you know it’s going to be an absolute travesty.
All 5 first amendment freedoms…
I’d imagine most people would do poorly there.
Spoiler tag if you want to test yourself. I’m gonna admit upfront, I totally forgot #5 was in the 1st Amendment.
spoiler
Speech
Press
Religion
Assembly
Petition the GovernmentUgh, had them all but the last one. That’s a sneaky one. And increasingly irrelevant…
RAPPS.
Religion, assemble, protest, press, speech.
Quite the opposite. That’s what lobbyists use to promote corporate/AIPAC/NRA interests among legislators.
For power lobbying groups, sure. Not so for the average person.
Yeah that’s true. That’s why politicians hold $5,000 dollar a plate fundraiser dinners to keep out the “riff-raff.”
The plate is just an excuse, it’s just money laundering.
This wouldn’t be needed if people had somebody to turn to who would explain to them what would be their best option.
Like a priest?
How could that work? I was thinking more of something like unions or red cross volunteers.
It was cynical.
Not every election, people would eventually figure out to get more than 2 parties to compete too!
