(November 7, 2023 at 2:13 pm)Jackalope Wrote: Historically in the USA, adding requirements to voting has been done for the purpose of disenfranchising minority voters.  Poll taxes, literacy tests, etc.  I'm extremely skeptical for that reason.

This is a fair objection. I would imagine that it would be easier to eliminate bias if the tests are administered and graded electronically, though. If the proctor never sees the test-taker, and if the tests are graded by computer, it'll be much harder to perpetrate bias.

(November 7, 2023 at 2:26 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(November 7, 2023 at 2:13 pm)Jackalope Wrote: Historically in the USA, adding requirements to voting has been done for the purpose of disenfranchising minority voters.  Poll taxes, literacy tests, etc.  I'm extremely skeptical for that reason.

This is a fair objection. I would imagine that it would be easier to eliminate bias if the tests are administered and graded electronically, though. If the proctor never sees the test-taker, and if the tests are graded by computer, it'll be much harder to perpetrate bias.

I would also point out that how test questions can be constructed to create bias against (for example) groups who have historically been denied adequate education - which can be a coarse proxy for race.

I'll also note that literacy tests have been used for the same purpose. I see no difference here, anonymous or not.

(November 7, 2023 at 1:09 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: For alot of us, any test would just be an extra barrier to prove we have the right to cast a vote that cannot matter.

People who are convinced that votes don't matter aren't likely to vote at all. So, not much of a barrier.  It's kind of like being convinced that skydiving is too dangerous, then bitching that parachutes are out of your price range.

Boru

Voting should a fundamental right of all citizens

(November 7, 2023 at 2:34 pm)Jackalope Wrote:

(November 7, 2023 at 2:26 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: This is a fair objection. I would imagine that it would be easier to eliminate bias if the tests are administered and graded electronically, though. If the proctor never sees the test-taker, and if the tests are graded by computer, it'll be much harder to perpetrate bias.

I would also point out that how test questions can be constructed to create bias against (for example) groups who have historically been denied adequate education - which can be a coarse proxy for race.

I'll also note that literacy tests have been used for the same purpose.  I see no difference here, anonymous or not.

Yeah, it wouldn't be easy, that's to be sure. Framing can play a big role in how folks of different races answer questions, I can't deny that. I just hate how Trump has manipulated poorly-informed voters by making clearly false claims about the legality or Constitutionality of this or that action.

(November 7, 2023 at 3:46 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(November 7, 2023 at 2:34 pm)Jackalope Wrote: I would also point out that how test questions can be constructed to create bias against (for example) groups who have historically been denied adequate education - which can be a coarse proxy for race.

I'll also note that literacy tests have been used for the same purpose.  I see no difference here, anonymous or not.

Yeah, it wouldn't be easy, that's to be sure. Framing can play a big role in how folks of different races answer questions, I can't deny that. I just hate how Trump has manipulated poorly-informed voters by making clearly false claims about the legality or Constitutionality of this or that action.

I definitely am concerned about that as well - that issue I am afraid is not going to be even remotely solved by gatekeeping the right to vote. You can educate people to answer a few simple civics questions, but that isn't going to make them think critically or not be flaming fucking bigots.

It's a tough nut.

In case it wasn’t clear, my earlier comments were not serious. I feel there should be fewer restrictions to voting, not more.

Boru

Simple.

Take away the vote from everyone, appoint me world Empress, and don't whine on your way to the re-education centres.

(November 7, 2023 at 5:06 pm)Jackalope Wrote:

(November 7, 2023 at 3:46 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Yeah, it wouldn't be easy, that's to be sure. Framing can play a big role in how folks of different races answer questions, I can't deny that. I just hate how Trump has manipulated poorly-informed voters by making clearly false claims about the legality or Constitutionality of this or that action.

I definitely am concerned about that as well - that issue I am afraid is not going to be even remotely solved by gatekeeping the right to vote.  You can educate people to answer a few simple civics questions, but that isn't going to make them think critically or not be flaming fucking bigots.

It's a tough nut.

Right, it's precisely why my feelings are so mixed on the matter.

I try my level best to avoid making decisions based on feelings anyway, which is why these sorts of conversations about thorny issues mean a lot to me.

(November 7, 2023 at 3:05 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(November 7, 2023 at 1:09 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: For alot of us, any test would just be an extra barrier to prove we have the right to cast a vote that cannot matter.

People who are convinced that votes don't matter aren't likely to vote at all. So, not much of a barrier.  It's kind of like being convinced that skydiving is too dangerous, then bitching that parachutes are out of your price range.

Boru

It's not really an issue of simply being convinced as it is being plain and simply true by design.  That's what we murricans are always bitching about when we talk about extreme gerrymandering.  About cracking and packing. That much is assuming that a party you would vote for even runs a candidate where you are, too... but often enough, they don't - because gerrymandering makes it a waste of funding.

It's weird over here, obvs. We seem to realize all these problems and then, mystifyingly, we insist that voting is the solution. Voting is a solution to all sorts of things....but only if you vote in a system where votes can matter. Even if we solved all of that, and even in a thread titled "earning the vote" precious little thought is given to politicians and parties earning the vote. Because that's not actually how it works here. They don't earn shit and don't have to, and will make sure that they don't have to, if they ever worry they might.

So, you know, it's our fault. There's something wrong with the citizens. They.....they...should have to earn the right to vote for someone they don't want to vote for in a contest where their vote can not matter, though that person need do nothing to earn that vote - and it's factual meaningless is irrelevant to the browbeaters. Brilliant, no notes.

So here's my suggestion. We can come up with as many tests and qualifications as we like. All of them, every one, will apply to parties and politicians, not voters. For example...politicians must demonstrate basic competence and understanding of issues. It's their job to communicate this shit to us, not our job to be experts. We can hook politicians up to a polygraph when they describe their policies and supposed benefits. We can demand that politicians have served - civil or military. We can demand that politicians take a quiz every time before they cast a vote. I bet that leads to real change, and more change...quicker...than any disenfranchisement scheme.

That we even find ourselves asking these questions today is because a con man and carnival barker lied on his resume....and then we met george santos.