We accept a limitation on access to voting based on age. This has a hard, numerical boundary, and we can argue over what the boundary should be, but while a given age is in law it is simple and basically fair across all genders, races, cultures, languages, etc.
When you introduce a barrier like a literacy or knowledge test, you inherently restrict people from some or another culture, race, language, or whatever more than others. There is an inherent bias to how the test is written, presented, and judged. With all that wiggle room, people in power who want a certain outcome can see that the parameters of the test are arranged to fit their desires. There isn't a version of this free from the potential for significant interference.
That, in a nutshell, is why there is always a strong argument against ANY such test as a requirement for voting. Some people may know better than others what policies will help people more, or at least think they do, but that doesn't actually give them any more right than others in an equal democracy to make those choices.
I agree it is certainly easy for it to be manipulated in that way.
But.
This has to fucking stop. These morons will literally MURDER US ALL FOR PROFIT because they can convince the uneducated it would be funny. That's not conducive to a functional society. If you let every single person vote no matter how braindead and out of touch with reality, this is what we get. Decades of manipulation and voting for the worst people imaginable to undermine every single institution that was built up through blood sweat and tears.
It was not as dangerous before the mass manipulation capabilities of big tech. Now it's a cancer.
If it was impartially administered, the idea might have some merit (with massive caveats). But the US is a country where gerrymandering and voter suppression are considered fair game, so you know it’s going to be an absolute travesty.
Beyond how other people are pointing out this is usually racist and a voter suppression taxtic, this also misses the point of voting.
The point of democracy is as an alternative to violence. The idea that we talk to, and listen to, each other instead of making demands with spears of guns or whatever. Cut people out of the process and they turn back to spears or guns or whatever else, literate or not.
That sounds like voter suppression. I'd suggest going the other way and making felons being able to vote.
Real issue is the playing field needs to be levelled. Overturn Citizens United will be a great start and limiting campaign donations to be only limited individual contributions and state sponsorship if a party gets over 2.5%. Any gifts, including whole airplanes and 250B ballrooms would be illegal.
Also stock trading while in office is an obvious conflict of interest. Ideally people in government shouldn't be allowed to hold stock as that would be a clear conflict of interest. Such as owning stock in Lockheed Martin would be an incentive for going to war.
Just pay reps 200k a year instead. It comes out as around 100M yearly.
:::spoiler Needs text alternative.
Images of text break much that text alternatives do not.
Losses due to image of text lacking alternative such as link:
usability
we can't quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR
some users can't read this due to lack of alt text
users can't adapt the text for dyslexia or vision impairments
systems can't read the text to them or send it to braille devices
web connectivity
we have to do failure-prone bullshit to find the original source
we can't explore wider context of the original message
authenticity: we don't know the image hasn't been tampered
searchability: the "text" isn't indexable by search engine in a meaningful way
fault tolerance: no text fallback if
image breaks
image host is geoblocked due to insane regulations.
Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.
:::
The loss of web connectivity is an acute problem for the commenters on here who seem oblivious to Nick Fuentes.
33 Comments
Inucune@lemmy.world · 71 pts · 307d
Republicans: "The literacy test is easy" The test: solve the following with proof of work The goat graising problem
This is the 'reading literacy test' for black people to go to school all over again, which for those unaware, had no answer key.
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -1 pts · 306d
Just because a bunch of racists did it for racism doesnt mean no one else can try similar things for different reasons
neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 305d
I think that's exactly what it means though. People are going to use it to put their thumbs on the scale for whatever reasons they want.
MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 305d
We accept a limitation on access to voting based on age. This has a hard, numerical boundary, and we can argue over what the boundary should be, but while a given age is in law it is simple and basically fair across all genders, races, cultures, languages, etc.
When you introduce a barrier like a literacy or knowledge test, you inherently restrict people from some or another culture, race, language, or whatever more than others. There is an inherent bias to how the test is written, presented, and judged. With all that wiggle room, people in power who want a certain outcome can see that the parameters of the test are arranged to fit their desires. There isn't a version of this free from the potential for significant interference.
That, in a nutshell, is why there is always a strong argument against ANY such test as a requirement for voting. Some people may know better than others what policies will help people more, or at least think they do, but that doesn't actually give them any more right than others in an equal democracy to make those choices.
HasturInYellow@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 306d
I agree it is certainly easy for it to be manipulated in that way.
But.
This has to fucking stop. These morons will literally MURDER US ALL FOR PROFIT because they can convince the uneducated it would be funny. That's not conducive to a functional society. If you let every single person vote no matter how braindead and out of touch with reality, this is what we get. Decades of manipulation and voting for the worst people imaginable to undermine every single institution that was built up through blood sweat and tears.
It was not as dangerous before the mass manipulation capabilities of big tech. Now it's a cancer.
rumschlumpel@feddit.org · 53 pts · 307d
Issue is that it's too easy too abuse. There's tons of precedent for it.
finitebanjo@piefed.world · 23 pts · 307d
NaibofTabr@infosec.pub · 15 pts · 307d
Oh, I know the answer to this one!
We'll just have AI grade the tests!
Surely putting Microsoft, Meta and/or Google in charge of deciding who gets to vote could not possibly go wrong.
finitebanjo@piefed.world · 6 pts · 307d
NaibofTabr@infosec.pub · 3 pts · 307d
Sorry, best I can do is an over-marketed stochastic parrot.
PlexSheep@infosec.pub · 2 pts · 305d
Besides it being fundamentally undemocratic by restricting who has a voice in their own governance.
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 306d
Another example of how the right abuses a tool that is not itself bad but the left will refuse to ever use the tool again.
Guess who won't though?
AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space · 29 pts · 307d
If it was impartially administered, the idea might have some merit (with massive caveats). But the US is a country where gerrymandering and voter suppression are considered fair game, so you know it’s going to be an absolute travesty.
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml · 25 pts · 307d
The gang does voter suppression
paultimate14@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 306d
Beyond how other people are pointing out this is usually racist and a voter suppression taxtic, this also misses the point of voting.
The point of democracy is as an alternative to violence. The idea that we talk to, and listen to, each other instead of making demands with spears of guns or whatever. Cut people out of the process and they turn back to spears or guns or whatever else, literate or not.
CaptnNMorgan@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 306d
I needed to see this
satanmat@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 307d
As others in this thread are pointing out…
It sounds great; but would be more like :: Are you likely to vote for Dems, oh you failed… so sorry
jordanlund@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 307d
All 5 first amendment freedoms...
I'd imagine most people would do poorly there.
Spoiler tag if you want to test yourself. I'm gonna admit upfront, I totally forgot #5 was in the 1st Amendment.
::: spoiler spoiler Speech
Press
Religion
Assembly
Petition the Government :::
Echolynx@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 307d
Ugh, had them all but the last one. That's a sneaky one. And increasingly irrelevant...
Madison420@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 307d
RAPPS.
Religion, assemble, protest, press, speech.
Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 307d
Quite the opposite. That's what lobbyists use to promote corporate/AIPAC/NRA interests among legislators.
Echolynx@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 307d
For power lobbying groups, sure. Not so for the average person.
Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 306d
Yeah that's true. That's why politicians hold $5,000 dollar a plate fundraiser dinners to keep out the "riff-raff."
Echolynx@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 306d
The plate is just an excuse, it's just money laundering.
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 306d
I’ll be honest, I’m blanking on the third amendment.
thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 306d
It’s because it’s largely moot in modern times - it basically prohibits soldiers from being quartered in private homes.
So basically to stop an army from overrunning a property, evicting owners/tenants and declaring it a barracks.
Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 306d
Its actually being tested right now as businesses refuse to allow ICE to use their restrooms or serve them.
bountygiver@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 307d
Not every election, people would eventually figure out to get more than 2 parties to compete too!
SlartyBartFast@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 305d
Why did Telemachus send $21?
olafurp@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 305d
That sounds like voter suppression. I'd suggest going the other way and making felons being able to vote.
Real issue is the playing field needs to be levelled. Overturn Citizens United will be a great start and limiting campaign donations to be only limited individual contributions and state sponsorship if a party gets over 2.5%. Any gifts, including whole airplanes and 250B ballrooms would be illegal.
Also stock trading while in office is an obvious conflict of interest. Ideally people in government shouldn't be allowed to hold stock as that would be a clear conflict of interest. Such as owning stock in Lockheed Martin would be an incentive for going to war.
Just pay reps 200k a year instead. It comes out as around 100M yearly.
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com · 0 pts · 306d
:::spoiler Needs text alternative. Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative such as link:
Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images. ::: The loss of web connectivity is an acute problem for the commenters on here who seem oblivious to Nick Fuentes.
Also, Voter suppression in the United States.
plyth@feddit.org · 0 pts · 306d
This wouldn't be needed if people had somebody to turn to who would explain to them what would be their best option.
JamesBoeing737MAX@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 306d
Like a priest?
plyth@feddit.org · 1 pts · 306d
How could that work? I was thinking more of something like unions or red cross volunteers.
JamesBoeing737MAX@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 306d
It was cynical.