Heard this interesting piece on NPR today.

They were talking about an earlier piece where one of the guest proclaimed that encouraging voter turnout is bad. His point is that ignorant voters don't know what they are voting for thus diluting the voting of informed voters.

The under current is that Trump voters are poorly educated and they are voting for Trump out of stupidity, ignorance and white solidarity.

So some kind of tests for ignorance on those voters is needed. When was last time you heard that?

Voter suppression coming full circle, 50 years later.

We are living in some interesting times.

 

Interesting? Why?

Claims that people who vote for the "other guy" do so out of stupidity, ignorance, selfish interest, mental illness, or affinity toward some undesirable group have been a staple of American politics for as long as I can remember, with the underlying message being, of course, "You don't want to be like those stupid people, do you? Be like smart people and vote for our guy!"

Yawn.

 

We are living in some interesting times.

Old Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times.

So, is this your first time voting?

 

I wanted to hear that story but only heard the promo beforehand. It really made me chuckle to hear some twenty-something breathlessly noting that if you discourage stupid voters it might also – horrors! – discourage people that vote the way you do.

Maybe this would be a good year to actually have a discussion about testing and challenging voter competency.

You could argue that anyone that wants to vote for one of the major candidates is incompetent by definition.

 

You could argue that anyone that wants to vote for one of the major candidates is incompetent by definition.

Yup. When watching the election news makes you think, "God help us if any of these people win," that's generally not a good sign.

 

The under current is that Trump voters are poorly educated and they are voting for Trump out of stupidity, ignorance and white solidarity.

Similar things said about voters in our (UK) referendum on exiting the European Union. Much bigger turnout for this than usual for our elections, so the stupid and uninformed were voting and messed up the result.

I am neither stupid nor uninformed

 

Heard this interesting piece on NPR today.

They were talking about an earlier piece where one of the guest proclaimed that encouraging voter turnout is bad. His point is that ignorant voters don't know what they are voting for thus diluting the voting of informed voters.

The under current is that Trump voters are poorly educated and they are voting for Trump out of stupidity, ignorance and white solidarity.

So some kind of tests for ignorance on those voters is needed. When was last time you heard that?

Voter suppression coming full circle, 50 years later.

We are living in some interesting times.

I think the more honorable approach would be to point out in detail why voting for your choice is the better one.

The overall trend I have found in life it those who say someone else is stupid yet give zero rational credible logical backing to that statement tend to be the less intelligent ones and often by far and often times dangerous levels.

If you can present a logical factual rational argument I am willing to listen but if it's something baseson little more than you own ignorance, self serving wants or jealous hatred for some other people or class of people who have something you don't forget it.

 

Lenin and Stalin used a term that the topic of this thread is about .... "useful idiots". There will be some who believe in who they vote for, there will be some who vote to make history, there will be some who vote for .... because their daddy and his daddy and his daddy voted for a particular party. Others will choose their candidate by the candidate's personal appearance. Then there are those who will choose their candidate based on who is ahead in the polls.

Florida is in two time zones. How many times has a network "called" the winner when the polls closed in the eastern time zone, discouraging those who live in the central time zone from voting? It's happened a few times that I recall.

Of course some will claim it doesn't matter ... but it can in a close race.

What is rare in this day and age of the internet, is people going out and comparing their views with the views of the candidates. I'm not saying you have to be in lock-step with the candidate of your choice. It's still your right to vote for whoever you choose. We will be treated with "voting for xxxx (third party), is throwing your vote away. Hell, it's your right to vote or not vote.

Voting tests were frowned upon and illegal.

Remember when 18 became the "age of majority" when they received all the rights accouterments of those 21 and older? I remember the battle cry in the late 60s about being old enough to die for your country but not old enough to have a beer. Of course, back then, the military didn't follow the state laws and allowed all members to enjoy the beverage of their choice. Well, that's been changed when the Federal Government threatened to withhold highway funds if the states didn't raise the drinking age back to 21. Cross that right or accouterments off the list for all. One that remained was the right to vote. The party that was the recipient of the majority of those voters will never allow that right to be taken away. In some way's I see Lenin and Stalin's phrase has reached it's full potential on the internet via social media.

 

Voting tests were frowned upon and illegal.

That's a relatively recent opinion based on such tests being used to disproportionately prevent voting by one group of people – poor (and therefore illiterate) African Americans.

What if a test could be devised that didn't produce disparate racial results? It might be impossible, but what if?

We deny voting rights to teenagers with no evidence of their incompetence. We deny rights to felons. Why not deny voting rights to, say, the mentally ill? It's quite fashionable to deny them their gun rights, why not their voting rights? Why should the drooling Alzheimer patients in nursing homes get to vote while a bright 17-yr old cannot?

 

one group of people – poor (and therefore illiterate) African Americans.

I didn't know African Americans were the sole source of poor and therefore illiterate. I also didn't realize that poor and illiterate were synonymous.

It is not a recent opinion. Throughout the ages people have discriminated against others based on economics and literacy.

The problem with denying the right to vote is a political one as it is a political design giving the right to vote. Teenagers, at the age of majority, have the right to vote. The amendment to the constitution granting that right was passed in 1971. This was a direct result of the protests in the late 1960s. When we start sending four year olds and twelve year olds to war, they too, after a citizens protest, will get the right to vote.

How does an illiterate voter know how to vote? I don't know. Are they guided by the poll workers?

Remember the 2000 election and the butterfly ballot? Some claim they voted for the wrong person (Buchanan) because his spot was second listed on the ballot. see http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/butterfly.pdf

Was that an "honest mistake" or one done by illiterate voters? Some have mentioned they wanted to vote for the second person listed (Gore). I guess those arrows are there for decorations.

 

I didn't know African Americans were the sole source of poor and therefore illiterate. I also didn't realize that poor and illiterate were synonymous.

They were (and are) not. Testing was ruled illegal because it was unevenly applied, had nothing to do with actual voting competence, and caused (by design) disenfranchisement of the particular voting group it was applied to.

My point is that testing all prospective voters for genuine voting competence has never been tried and never been ruled illegal. What was ruled illegal was the practice of the time that was simply absurd.

 

You will never get a political animal to sign off on a test. How many natural born citizens can pass the test required of immigrants?

Who would write such an unbiased test? People would be fighting over every question. Tests are not politically viable.

http://www.crmvet.org/info/lithome.htm has a few of the literacy tests used in the days of testing.

Look at the LA literacy test.

 

Why not deny voting rights to, say, the mentally il

It is actually a very interesting discussion.

Why should democracy mean one person one vote? If you think us as shareholders in a corporation called the government, it is natural to think we should have different influence, based on some kind of criteria.

I tend to think that 1. Everyone should have the right to vote. And 2. Everyones vote should be weighed differently, by for example taxes paid, as a measurement of our contribution to the society. That is in line with the spirit of no taxation without representation.

This would greatly improve the influence of the middle class for example.

 

Why should democracy mean one person one vote? If you think us as shareholders in a corporation called the government, it is natural to think we should have different influence, based on some kind of criteria.

Because of that equal rights clause.

We are a nation founded on the concept of everyone being equal regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, intelligence, wealth, age or anything else that could define anyone differntly than any other once they reach the legal age.

The only major exception to that I see as being valid would be to exclude people who have been convicted of anything higher than a basic misdemeanor level crime.

You spend time in prison you lose all voting rights plus a few others as well.

As for the mentally unfit or cognitively undeveloped I do not see them as a major voting demographic. Potential government employees and possible politicians maybe but not a meaningful key voting demographic.

 

2012 voter id law -

 

You could argue that anyone that wants to vote for one of the major candidates is incompetent by definition.

Assuming that 'one of the major candidates' may be read as 'either of the major candidates'

+1000

 

When Regan was installed as president, I realized that our government was only hiring an actor to play the part of a president. Now, they aren't even trying to hire people with acting skills.

 

Assuming that 'one of the major candidates' may be read as 'either of the major candidates'

That is indeed what I meant.

 

You could argue that anyone that wants to vote for one of the major candidates is incompetent by definition.

That's right! A lying crook with a permanent hack vs a vacillating clown illuminated with Cheetos Stay Matte Sounds like politics as usual to me Now I'd like to say something abt the US political scene but considering our (my country's) last election I can't So since Nov 8 will end just one way (BAD) no matter who wins I say best thing to do is make plans and just ignore it!

 

I'm afraid not. We're all in for rough times, no matter who wins.