http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Office%20of%20Citizenship/Citizenship%20Resource%20Center%20Site/Publications/100q.pdf

Would this be satisfactory for a test for both the voter and the office holder?

bbauska wrote:http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Office%20of%20Citizenship/Citizenship%20Resource%20Center%20Site/Publications/100q.pdf

Would this be satisfactory for a test for both the voter and the office holder?

It would be so much better than nothing! And, if you varied the order of the questions and answers so that no one could cheat, you'd have a winner all around.

Small problem with such 'tests'. Who would be deciding what these tests are, and checking that they maintain a suitable level of voter and candidate? Ultimately it would be the very people who are under the tests to be deemed acceptable.

There are two risks - either it is set at a level that current politicians can't fear losing their positions and most voters are satisfied, which I guess is not what you soi-disant elitists would want (and you ain't no elitist if you don't use the odd French phrase )

Or it could end up being hijacked by those who are in power to twist it and keep them there at the expense of others.

A salient short story that comes to mind is "James P Crow" by Philip K Dick. In that case it was intelligent robots who set the bar above the level that any human could achieve.

Of course your idea to exclude millions of registered voters and potentially many elected representatives could end up being completely benign and have no bad side-effects whatsoever.

danivon wrote:Of course your idea to exclude millions of registered voters and potentially many elected representatives could end up being completely benign and have no bad side-effects whatsoever.

Actually, they would self-exclude. If they chose to remain ignorant, then they would not be able to vote.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Of course your idea to exclude millions of registered voters and potentially many elected representatives could end up being completely benign and have no bad side-effects whatsoever.

Actually, they would self-exclude. If they chose to remain ignorant, then they would not be able to vote.

Umm, no. Currently they have the vote. You are proposing to remove the vote from people who you deem do not 'qualify'. You proudly call it elitist. If they are chosing to remove themselves, fair enough, but they are not - those who would impose a test are.

Yes, they could then educate themselves and retake a test. Or they could meekly accept that they are just too stupid to have a say.

But don't you think some people might not be so meek or inclined to submit to tests? They might decide that if they can't have representation, they need not submit to taxation. Or end up using non-democratic methods to get their voices heard in the corridors of power.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Actually, they would self-exclude. If they chose to remain ignorant, then they would not be able to vote.

Umm, no. Currently they have the vote. You are proposing to remove the vote from people who you deem do not 'qualify'. You proudly call it elitist. If they are chosing to remove themselves, fair enough, but they are not - those who would impose a test are.

It's not up to me to "deem." There is a test along the lines of the test to become a citizen. If they do not pass, they do not vote. If they care so little that they will not study as an immigrant must to gain citizenship, you can cry a river, but I won't.

Yes, they could then educate themselves and retake a test. Or they could meekly accept that they are just too stupid to have a say.

If you say so. I would say they are to lazy and indifferent to have a say.

But don't you think some people might not be so meek or inclined to submit to tests? They might decide that if they can't have representation, they need not submit to taxation. Or end up using non-democratic methods to get their voices heard in the corridors of power.

Great. "The Slacker Revolution!"

That should last, oh, about 3 minutes. When they can't be bothered to arm themselves, they'll lose.

Doctor Fate wrote:That should last, oh, about 3 minutes. When they can't be bothered to arm themselves, they'll lose.

You don't think there are any morons with guns in the USA?

Seriously?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:That should last, oh, about 3 minutes. When they can't be bothered to arm themselves, they'll lose.

You don't think there are any morons with guns in the USA?

Seriously?

To quote you, "Stop putting words in my mouth."

Don't play stupid.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:That should last, oh, about 3 minutes. When they can't be bothered to arm themselves, they'll lose.

You don't think there are any morons with guns in the USA?

Seriously?

To quote you, "Stop putting words in my mouth."

Don't play stupid.

I'm not playing. You have a lot of people with guns in the USA. You are proposing to take the vote away from the 'morons' (yes, you claim they lose it themselves, but that is the kind of patronising stuff I expect from elitists).

It's unlikely that none of these 'morons' will:
a) have guns
b) not react well to the government telling them they are too dumb to have a say
c) not have the patience to wait for a retest

If you think it's only the 'slackers' who would object to an elitist device to reduce democracy in the USA, then by all means disenfranchise large numbers of Americans and expect it to go well.

Luckily you have very little chance of getting your way, and there's a large ocean betwixt us.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:That should last, oh, about 3 minutes. When they can't be bothered to arm themselves, they'll lose.

You don't think there are any morons with guns in the USA?

Seriously?

To quote you, "Stop putting words in my mouth."

Don't play stupid.

I'm not playing. You have a lot of people with guns in the USA. You are proposing to take the vote away from the 'morons' (yes, you claim they lose it themselves, but that is the kind of patronising stuff I expect from elitists).

It's unlikely that none of these 'morons' will:
a) have guns
b) not react well to the government telling them they are too dumb to have a say
c) not have the patience to wait for a retest

If you think it's only the 'slackers' who would object to an elitist device to reduce democracy in the USA, then by all means disenfranchise large numbers of Americans and expect it to go well.

Luckily you have very little chance of getting your way, and there's a large ocean betwixt us.

Yes, you do love it when idiots elect Obama twice.

Doctor Fate wrote:Yes, you do love it when idiots elect Obama twice.

I believe in democracy deriving from the sovereignty of the people. What the people decide is what they get. Show me a country where people have to pass a knowledge test to be able to vote and it works well.

I can show you plenty where 'for the good of the people' large numbers are excluded from having a say by the elites. It's seldom a great place to be.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Yes, you do love it when idiots elect Obama twice.

I believe in democracy deriving from the sovereignty of the people. What the people decide is what they get. Show me a country where people have to pass a knowledge test to be able to vote and it works well.

I can show you plenty where 'for the good of the people' large numbers are excluded from having a say by the elites. It's seldom a great place to be.

It's a great place to be right now. A solid 20% of the electorate knows little about their country or the world, yet they put a uniquely under-qualified man in the Oval Office in 2008 and 2012.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Yes, you do love it when idiots elect Obama twice.

I believe in democracy deriving from the sovereignty of the people. What the people decide is what they get. Show me a country where people have to pass a knowledge test to be able to vote and it works well.

I can show you plenty where 'for the good of the people' large numbers are excluded from having a say by the elites. It's seldom a great place to be.

It's a great place to be right now. A solid 20% of the electorate knows little about their country or the world, yet they put a uniquely under-qualified man in the Oval Office in 2008 and 2012.

I agree with your statement 100%, Steve. On the other hand, it isn't the first time this has happened. When our Framers - lovers of Ancient Greece and Rome, all - put together our Constitution, it is too bad that they did not adopt the Roman Cursus Honorum and make candidates for the President pass through a series of offices in ascending responsibility and duty. Instead, we have more or less adopted the "New Man" approach where anybody can run for the President, regardless of prior qualifications (other than age and citizenship). So any jumped up, narcissistic power-sucker (which seems to be the common thread of many presidents) can find his or herself sitting in the Oval Office if they can razzle-dazzle the plebes and patricians.

On the other hand, our current Joker-in-Chief seems to get away with more than his immediate predecessor ever did, even when using similar military and foreign policy decisions! I'm surprised that none of the anti-war crowd has started calling him Hitler, or demanding his arrest. Personally, I'm not at all shocked that the Nobel Committee awarded him the Peace Prize for having done absolutely nothing to earn it, but I was dismayed that he had enough vanity to accept it. Of course, he then carried on most of the Bush military doctrines, unintentionally mocking the Nobel Committee's poor judgement and stupidity.

But I digress.

Doctor Fate wrote:It's a great place to be right now. A solid 20% of the electorate knows little about their country or the world, yet they put a uniquely under-qualified man in the Oval Office in 2008 and 2012.

1) Please show how many of these 20% actually voted in these elections (turnout overall was about 60% in each)
2) Please how those who did vote, voted in these elections. I suspect that some 'morons' may well have voted for McCain and/or Romney.

If you assume they all voted, and all voted Obama, that still leaves a more interesting question: So how did the other 80% let that happen?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:It's a great place to be right now. A solid 20% of the electorate knows little about their country or the world, yet they put a uniquely under-qualified man in the Oval Office in 2008 and 2012.

1) Please show how many of these 20% actually voted in these elections (turnout overall was about 60% in each)
2) Please how those who did vote, voted in these elections. I suspect that some 'morons' may well have voted for McCain and/or Romney.

If you assume they all voted, and all voted Obama, that still leaves a more interesting question: So how did the other 80% let that happen?

Some of the other 80% are ardent liberals. It is virtually impossible for a Democrat to get less than 30% of the vote. They could run Sen. Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, and still get 30%.

Plenty of people wanted to be part of "history" in voting for Obama. They are. They elected the worst President "in history."