Printable View
I think this would be a fair assumption. :) [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Biggles+29 July 2004 - 17:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles @ 29 July 2004 - 17:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@29 July 2004 - 21:53
So a "Diddy" is similar to a "chesticle", yes? :D
Ah-good, then.
My daily breakthrough. :D
It's called "means testing", and it's a good idea; problem is implementation.Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4+29 July 2004 - 20:35--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 29 July 2004 - 20:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MagicNakor@28 July 2004 - 22:52
There should be basic knowledge tests you have to pass before you can vote. Even something as simple as "What are the top three issues for each party, and what are their stances?"
Sure. That'll happen.
:ninja:
Who writes the test?
In any case, MN, I treasure our agreements, however rare they may be. :D [/b][/quote]
Who indeed would write the test.
What a terrible idea. I see democracy isn't as appealing as it once was.
What administration the world over would have the arrogance to tell any adult born in that country that they have no right to choose who they would like to see run their country. An administration in control of a dictatorship, that's who.
it's been done before. http://kpearson.project.tcnj.edu/interacti...files/test.htmlQuote:
Originally posted by MagicNakor@28 July 2004 - 19:52
There should be basic knowledge tests you have to pass before you can vote.
but the feds somehow decided that it had something to do with racism and nixed it.
it's been done before. http://kpearson.project.tcnj.edu/interacti...files/test.htmlQuote:
Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+30 July 2004 - 01:22--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 30 July 2004 - 01:22)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MagicNakor@28 July 2004 - 19:52
There should be basic knowledge tests you have to pass before you can vote.
but the feds somehow decided that it had something to do with racism and nixed it. [/b][/quote]
Only black folk needed to take that test.
It was implemented because the white man did not want the black man to have too much of a say in the running of 'his' country.
Kinda proves my point. 'Means Testing' - sorry to keep coining your phrase J2, I simply have no idea what else to call it - is a way of oppression.
Actually, I meant it to prove my point.Quote:
Originally posted by manker@29 July 2004 - 19:34
Kinda proves my point. 'Means Testing' - sorry to keep coining your phrase J2, I simply have no idea what else to call it - is a way of oppression.
Once upon a time, it would not have occurred to a potential voter to exercise such an important right in a less-than-rigorously-responsible manner.
These days the simple exercise of the right supercedes any felt need to exercise it conscientiously.
Believe it or not, people used to have a bit more personal discipline, and one wouldn't have had to worry quite so much about whether the person pulling the lever had the slightest inclination to make him/herself aware of the possible consequences of doing so.
I really don't think such an attitude warrants being termed "oppression".
For those who are tempted to jump to conclusions, I am in no way advocating means testing in the voting booth.
EDIT:missing word no longer missing+ending caveat.
'Oppression - People of being kept down by unjust use of force or authority'
The 1965 example of means testing is certainly oppression.
Why? because it is depriving a section of the populus the basic right to vote.
Now consider applying the same situation today, where everyone had to take a means test. What about the single mother who is bringing up a disabled child, she won't have any time to pore over manifestos. No, she will look for each party's policy on disability and choose the party which gives her child the best deal because that is the most important thing to her, she cares little of economic policy or military posturing.
And who is to say her method of choosing a political party to support is worse than yours?
Yet your proposed means testing will preclude her from voting because of her lack of knowledge in other areas. She has been oppressed.
There are literally hundreds of examples I could give similar to that one.
By the way, I think you look at the past with rose-tinted spectacles. Back in the day the average voter would have been less informed than those today because of the blanket media coverage we get nowadays.
But let us not detract from the point. The mere notion of means testing a voter is absurd. It would propagate elitism and engender resentment of those oppressed.
Manker, you have missed j2's point entirely.
By definition, anyone who didn't want to vote for Bush would be presumed to be a sloppy thinker and not worthy of enfranchisement.
:lol:Quote:
Originally posted by Sprocket@30 July 2004 - 06:25
Manker, you have missed j2's point entirely.
By definition, anyone who didn't want to vote for Bush would be presumed to be a sloppy thinker and not worthy of enfranchisement.
Excellent post!! The best I've seen in awhile. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by manker@29 July 2004 - 22:39
'Oppression - People of being kept down by unjust use of force or authority'
The 1965 example of means testing is certainly oppression.
Why? because it is depriving a section of the populus the basic right to vote.
Now consider applying the same situation today, where everyone had to take a means test. What about the single mother who is bringing up a disabled child, she won't have any time to pore over manifestos. No, she will look for each party's policy on disability and choose the party which gives her child the best deal because that is the most important thing to her, she cares little of economic policy or military posturing.
And who is to say her method of choosing a political party to support is worse than yours?
Yet your proposed means testing will preclude her from voting because of her lack of knowledge in other areas. She has been oppressed.
There are literally hundreds of examples I could give similar to that one.
By the way, I think you look at the past with rose-tinted spectacles. Back in the day the average voter would have been less informed than those today because of the blanket media coverage we get nowadays.
But let us not detract from the point. The mere notion of means testing a voter is absurd. It would propagate elitism and engender resentment of those oppressed.
There was a thread about this awhile back.
You've ALL missed my point, which was contained very neatly in my last post.
Buncha Libs :D