Systematic Disenfranchisment, Good or Bad?

[Wiglaf]

In what way is Obama better for black people than Clinton? Face facts, it is better to have voters who know about the issues rather than voters who just identify with their candidates' race or age or whatever and assume the candidate is the best choice. A lot of voters don't even know if Iraq was behind 9/11.

I saw Little Man in theaters, the audience was ~95% black, and it found most, if not all, of the retarded humor, which centered around drinking human breast milk accidentally, completely hilarious.

Enfranchising people that stupid is pointless and dangerous. THE MAN IS SO LITTLE LAWDY LAWDY.

[Caligastia]

I agree that there needs to be a limit of who can vote, but requiring anything more than a basic civics test will be a hard sell. It wouldn't take much to weed out the vast majority of morons.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
In what way is Obama better for black people than Clinton? Face facts, it is better to have voters who know about the issues rather than voters who just identify with their candidates' race or age or whatever and assume the candidate is the best choice. A lot of voters don't even know if Iraq was behind 9/11.

YOU'RE ASSUMING THAT BLACK PEOPLE DUN' KNOW WHERE OBOAMA STANDS. MAYBE THEY KNOW WHERE HE STANDS AND THEY KNOW HIS BACKGROUND AND TOGETHER THAT MAKES HIM THE MOST ATTRACTIVE CANERDATE.

PLUS, CANIDATE KNOWLEDGE DOESN'T NEED TO BE PERFECT TO BE AN INFORMED CHOICE. IF I FIND A FEW OF THE ISSUES A CANIDATE STANDS ON COMPLETELY DISGUSTING, WHY SHOULD I BOTHER LEARNING ALL HIS OTHER STANCES? SHOULD I SUDDENLY BE UNWORTHY OF VOTING?

WHO GETS TO CHOOSE WHAT CANIDATE INFORMATION IS MOST IMPORTANT?

[Elok]

I move that Wiglaf be disenfranchised for being stupid enough to think Little Man might be a movie worth watching. If he can't be informed enough about his movie choices to watch the previews (or if he watched the previews and somehow thought it good), how can we trust him to decide who's best for our country?

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Perfection
YOU'RE ASSUMING THAT BLACK PEOPLE DUN' KNOW WHERE OBOAMA STANDS. MAYBE THEY KNOW WHERE HE STANDS AND THEY KNOW HIS BACKGROUND AND TOGETHER THAT MAKES HIM THE MOST ATTRACTIVE CANERDATE.

Statistically, this is extremely unlikely. In many areas he is beating Clinton by extreme margins, among only black voters (something like 80-20 among blacks, close to 50-50 among whites).

PLUS, CANIDATE KNOWLEDGE DOESN'T NEED TO BE PERFECT TO BE AN INFORMED CHOICE. IF I FIND A FEW OF THE ISSUES A CANIDATE STANDS ON COMPLETELY DISGUSTING, WHY SHOULD I BOTHER LEARNING ALL HIS OTHER STANCES? SHOULD I SUDDENLY BE UNWORTHY OF VOTING?

WHO GETS TO CHOOSE WHAT CANIDATE INFORMATION IS MOST IMPORTANT?

I think a better system is to give a brief test primarily on the candidate who you are voting for. You should also know basic facts about the world (e.g. Has Iraq been linked to 9/11).

As far as who decides this, maybe some committee in Congress. Who cares. It will never happen because of whiney losers who value every moron's opinion more than the future of this country.

I move that Wiglaf be disenfranchised for being stupid enough to think Little Man might be a movie worth watching. If he can't be informed enough about his movie choices to watch the previews (or if he watched the previews and somehow thought it good), how can we trust him to decide who's best for our country?

I watched it to see if it was as bad as I'd heard.

OH THAT MIDGET LOOK DARRRRRK Y'HEARD BEYOTCH? BUT HE NO MIDGET...HE JUST A LITTLE MAN DRESSED AS A BABBBY!

[Elok]

Really. Have you ever tried licking a flagpole in winter? Or huffing paint thinner? And how are you fit to vote after paying to watch a movie you knew would be crap, whereas people who enjoy stupid crap and watched it for that purpose are not? They paid for a movie they liked. You paid for a movie you knew you'd hate. Which one shows better judgment?

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Statistically, this is extremely unlikely. In many areas he is beating Clinton by extreme margins, among only black voters (something like 80-20 among blacks, close to 50-50 among whites).

Not quite correct:

In Utah, which is 83% white and 1% Black, Obama won 57%-39%.
Idaho: 86% white 0% Black Obama won 80-17
Colorado: 72%- 4%, Obama 67-32
Minnesota: 86-4, Obama 67-32
North Dakota 90-1, Obama 61-37
Alaska 66-3, Obama 74-25

4 of 5states with the highest percentage of blacks AR,NY,NJ and Tenn all voted for Clinton. The sole state that voted for Obama was Ill, his home state.

So either A) Only the few black people in that state voted or B)You are wrong.

ACK!

[Wiglaf]

That's what, 4 states? I was speaking nationally.
(http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...boost_clinton/)

Really. Have you ever tried licking a flagpole in winter? Or huffing paint thinner? And how are you fit to vote after paying to watch a movie you knew would be crap, whereas people who enjoy stupid crap and watched it for that purpose are not? They paid for a movie they liked. You paid for a movie you knew you'd hate. Which one shows better judgment?

I got great enjoyment from laughing at the stupidity of the audience

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wiglaf

It will never happen because of whiney losers who value every moron's opinion more than the future of this country.

I agree it will not happen but if you want to propse something, the details can be important

Originally posted by Wiglaf

As far as who decides this, maybe some committee in Congress. Who cares.

While it is very possible to design a fair and basic test of voter knowledge, who designs the test COULD be crucial. It would be very easy to slant a test to make it more likely to disenfranchise urban versus rural voters for instance.

[ZEE]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
AAHZ.

'sup homeboy...?

[Wiglaf]

While it is very possible to design a fair and basic test of voter knowledge, who designs the test COULD be crucial. It would be very easy to slant a test to make it more likely to disenfranchise urban versus rural voters for instance.

Maybe the candidates themselves could make the tests (which only come into play when people want to vote for them in the first place)

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Maybe the candidates themselves could make the tests (which only come into play when people want to vote for them in the first place)

So your proposal would be for a test to be designed by the person who would benefit if the voter would pass the test?

Ya that would be a hard test . . . Might as well not bother

[Wiglaf]

Obviously it'd have to be subject to some sort of approval process.

If we're debating how to practically enact this measure then I'm glad, it indicates we agree it's a good idea, at least in theory.

[Perfection]

Okay, people who aren't trolls seem to be partially buying this. I must therefore demolish the idea of a knowledge test.

Let's at the outset presume that it's okay to exclude people who vote for very superficial reasons but we shouldn't exclude anyone else.

First off, civics knowledge seems like a definite no go. We want to assess the voter having a legitimate reason not knowledge of the exact procedures that the canidate must follow.

Issue knowledge also isn't the only legitimate reason for a vote. I have often voted not on issues but on character. For example, I found the nature of Mark Kennedy's US Representative (and later Senatorial) campaign so repulsive that I decided to vote for his rival. I do believe that not letting a complete scumbag to get a position certainly is a legitimate reason for a vote that doesn't involve issues.

Another problem is issue selection. There are many issues that I don't care that much about and if pressed couldn't tell you what the canidates support. Having a test that differentiates between someone who knows about a few issues and bases his decision off of that versus one who knows no issues would be extremely difficult. Even if we could do it for some elections (which I'd be quite skeptical about) with many many canidates and many many elections there are bound to be a large number of people excluded not because they had no issue knowledge but the fact that they cared about stuff that the writers of the test didn't forsee.

And it only gets worse from there! On election night, we vote in many elections. A person who doesn't care much about say the presidential race may be very vested and very knowledgable about the mayoral race. You'd have to have multiple tests on election night and a ballot for each race. Such a system would be a logistical nightmare and would eat up a very large amount of voter time.

And lastly this might not be at all effective! After all, one could simply print out the answers and memorize them or bring them there!

So even if it's okay to exclude people with no legitimate reason to vote, it's completely impracticle for a testing system tow work.

[Wiglaf]

Look at the big man who's finally decided not to type in all caps

Issue knowledge also isn't the only legitimate reason for a vote. I have often voted not on issues but on character. For example, I found the nature of Mark Kennedy's US Representative (and later Senatorial) campaign so repulsive that I decided to vote for his rival. I do believe that not letting a complete scumbag to get a position certainly is a legitimate reason for a vote that doesn't involve issues.

Not only did you not vote for Kennedy, you voted for his rival. Are you telling me you're justified in voting for a candidate you know nothing about just to spite someone? Why not just abstain? Isn't there a big risk of electing someone who doesn't represent your interests or the best interests of the country/state/whatever, when you vote blind? THE ANSWER IS YES.

Another problem is issue selection. There are many issues that I don't care that much about and if pressed couldn't tell you what the canidates support. Having a test that differentiates between someone who knows about a few issues and bases his decision off of that versus one who knows no issues would be extremely difficult. Even if we could do it for some elections (which I'd be quite skeptical about) with many many canidates and many many elections there are bound to be a large number of people excluded not because they had no issue knowledge but the fact that they cared about stuff that the writers of the test didn't forsee.

This is another technical problem. Assuming you have competent and unbiased people designing the tests, it should be fairly easy to determine whether voters have a basic idea of who they are voting for. Perfect knowledge is unnecessary of course...

And it only gets worse from there!

Golly gee!

On election night, we vote in many elections. A person who doesn't care much about say the presidential race may be very vested and very knowledgable about the mayoral race. You'd have to have multiple tests on election night and a ballot for each race. Such a system would be a logistical nightmare and would eat up a very large amount of voter time.

The tests can be short. Maybe a minute a candidate if you know what the hell you're doing. Also, you do not have to vote in multiple elections.

And lastly this might not be at all effective! After all, one could simply print out the answers and memorize them or bring them there

Presumably questions could be randomized from a large bank, or somehing.