That Bitch Condi Faces Some Truths

Nahh. It's a promise!

Whatever, I still like you anyway!

I see that you show your true colors at last, you are an elitist! Who else would you block from voting? Would this apply to your home country only? How would you force your view on other nations?

Actually, they've tried your system in the United States before, with literacy tests at the polls. They were an attempt in the American South to circumvent the 15th Amendment and prevent blacks from voting. So you'll pardon those of us in the U.S. who may feel that your plan is rascist, because in this country it was used specifically with that motivation.

Your brilliant plan would overwhelmingly have the same effect; those who would be most affected by it - and prevented from voting - would be the extremely poor, many of whom would be ethnic minorities.

You know, in the past we've attempted to block people from voting based on race, gender, religion, whether they owned land. It seems to me that any plan to limit voting rights is just as opressive as any of these. Any limit of voting rights makes those rights of vastly less value overall.

Feel what you want. If you want to think the wrong thing, that's no skin off my back.

You will find the "racist" card means jack-all to me. It's become as meaningless as homophobe, bigot, and a number of other words that used to have a perfectly good meaning.

I'm not actually interested in testing literacy, precisely. I suppose we could have an oral exam for those that refuse to learn to read, although I go back to my basic premise that a certain amount of, well... involvement... should be required to vote, race be damned.



Is that your impression of the poor? I've known a lot of poor people in my life, most of them easily educated enough to write a middle-school level essay of a page's length.



That's your opinion. Not mine. Put it another way, would you support the right of five year olds to vote? We already determine when a person is "competent" to vote, often unfairly. Many 12 year olds could probably vote at a perfectly adult level, for example, while many fifty year olds cant.

Nope. I don't want only the elite to vote. Nor am I a scientoligist by a different name, which the Raelians are I just want a person to have to actually know what they are voting for. How is that elitism?

To put it another way, why should people be allows to make random choice to determine the outcome of the government? We might as well reduce elections to the roll of a D20. My idea would force anyone who cared about how the government was run to *gasp* read a newspaper now and then. Watch the news a night a month. Something. Asking for three issues a canidate stands for is hardly titanic hurdle for determining the next leader of a country of 300 million.

I'm not an elitist. By my plan, anyone who was of even moderatly less than average inteligence could vote if they wanted - anyone who could pass the third grade legitmatly could *easily* vote in my system, regardless of political view, race, economic status, upbringing, anything.



I'm a jacksonian, I've said that before. Why would I care to force my view on another country?

Why are all of you attacking Reitsuki so much? He's just stating an opinion and a dream of his. I kind of agree with him. But we all know it will never happen. I'm sure there are a lot of other folks who think people should be able to articulate why they voted for a specific candidate, many voters can't even do that.

Can I say "der, hippie" now? I've always wondered when that was appropriate.

I find myself agreeing with Reitsuki to some extent. I wonder if the U.S. would have a better political system if you we had requirements other than a pulse, over 18, no felonies, citizen to vote.

How about having to perform a term of public service before you could vote. That's one way of proving that you at least value voting enough to invest your valuable time and effort. And that you can grasp the concept of public service before voting someone into it.

How about having to take and pass classes on how government works at the federal, state, and local level. Maybe throw in a couple of ethics classes too. Oh, and a Logic class. Is it right to let people influence what they don't understand?

All the above could be gamed of course. Wealthy sons avoided the draft by serving cushy terms in the Coast Guard or National Guard (hmmm... wonder who that is). I'm sure no child of wealth would find themselves spending a year cleaning up trash or working in homeless shelters.

Anyway... throwing out a couple of thoughts for the thoughtful to ponder and the trolls to flamefest.

I suppose it's pretty meaningless if one wishes to impose some elitist definition of citizen on the rest of us, taking away the rights of people one doesn't like.


You never said "involvement" before this, you said "intelligence". But limiting the rights of adult citizens to vote for any reason is arrogant, elitist, demeaning, and undemocratic. What about someone who's both illiterate and deaf? How would they pass your little essay test?


Wow! You managed to totally misunderstand and misinterprate everything I said there. Excellent job! The question is whether it was on purpose.

What I wrote was that voting based only on education and knowledge would have the side effect of preventing voting of many of the most underprivileged segments of society from being involved in the process, and that would inevitably hurt ethnic minorities. Go look at some demographics for the civilized world, including statistics on education and illiteracy, and get back to me.


Yes, that's obviously my opinion. You can tell because I wrote it and everything.

It's not unfair to limit voting to adult citizens. That's reasonable. What's unfair is to then divide that segment further in some way that would - gasp, shock and surprise - leave your segment of society more dominant. How about we exclude voting from those with elitist attitudes?

Actually I can answer that one. I was an interpreter for the deaf in TX a few years back and most states provide interpreters free of charge for legal matters. Just as they provide language interpreters.

Nah. It's meaningless if it's used in a bizzare form of shaming ritual where no racist intent was actually present. You misuse the word, you pay the price when it doesn't have any meaning.



Sign language? I dunno, how do they communicate normally?




No, I just returned the favor you gave me.



Don't need to. Nothing about what you've said has any bearing on my basic premise - that one should know what one is voting for. You're getting caught up in the means, which I've said, I think three times now, could be adjusted in extreme cases, even if I think it's the height of sadness that it has to be.




Contrast with, factually accurate.



Why is it fair? I was involved with politics as far back as middle school. I was unfairly marginalized based on my age, as far as I can tell. Nobody actually cared if I could vote rationally, it was a basic assumption that I could not, so I didn't deserve the chance. By contrast, I want to give EVERYONE the chance. It's there for the taking. Just prove you care enough to actually take it.

Simply because *you* don't understand their logic or reasoning it's "random"? Or is it that if someone disagrees with you it's "random"? That's pretty elitist.



Well, we're not attacking him, we're attacking his unfair, elitist, undemocratic idea. It won't ever happen because many countries have experienced limiting the right to vote, and have realized that disenfranchising people is NOT DEMOCRATIC. I'm not quite sure why this concept is so difficult to grasp. If it were up to me, I'd let ex-cons vote, too. They shouldn't be disenfranchised, they've suffered enough for their mistakes.


Wow, criticizing the President, that's original. And yet, these proposals to limit the franchise are more tyrannical and undemocratic than anything he's done, by a million light years.


Funny, I did. Speak for yourself.

You said "most" states and not all. This can be very important. Unless a service is 100% then it really dosnt count. Also what langauge will it be in?

Actually that charge has been leveled at several high-profile public figures, which is why I included both services. You can jump to the conclusion you favor, of course

OK, do you want a pat on the back? If you truely believe that the children of privledge can't buy/leverage their way out of any requirement, then we simply aren't living in the same reality.

On a final note, I don't think democracy is the be all and end all. We have plenty of examples in our own short history where democracy has been a cloak for injustice and oppression.

I think satisfaction with a political system has a lot to do with where you are placed in it. Give me a fascist state so long as I'm in charge.

Well I can only speak for the states I was licensed in. I believe it is a Federal law actually. If it's for the deaf, that would be American Sign Language (ASL) first, although interpreters are trained usually in several modes of communication since there is a range of early language acquisition in the deaf community. Those who interpreted in medical or legal settings were also required to have additional training and a higher level of licensing.

I have a friend in Michigan who does language interpretation for the courts. So far he has personally done Russian, Polish, and Spanish. Whatever your language, the courts will provide an interpreter - who also have to be licensed.

Welll, that pretty much summarizes the view of most people who think voting isn't a right. Couldn't have said it better myself.

No thank you! I want no part of any "fascist" state no matter who is in charge! I will take the Henjin and his party over your dream!!

Whether your intent is rascist or not, the effect - and therefore the policy - is.


There's a difference between misunderstanding and pointing out fallacies. Nice try, though. Personally, I'm not sure people who don't understand how to logically argue should be able to vote.


EVERYTHING I said has bearing on your basic premise. Apparently you haven't read any of it.

So if we imposed this system and the majority still disagreed with *you*, how should we further limit the franchise to ensure that your policies are enacted? After all, that's really what any limiting of the franchise is all about - getting your side in power. Whether your realize it or not.


No, you don't want to give EVERYONE the chance. You want to give those who meet certain criteria the chance, just like the South before the 1960's. What about the mentally challenged?

Heck, why don't we take your idea another logical step and give people more votes based on degree of education. Therefore, because I have a Ph.D., I'd get say 8 votes, people with a Master's would get 5, those with a B.A. 3, those with a high school diploma get 2, and everyone else one. If you read the paper every day and watch the evening news, you get more votes. If you attend public hearings, you get votes. If you have a blog, you lose votes.....

It's not my dream. It's a statement that most people prefer their self-interest over community interest, and that they think they know how to "fix" whatever they think is wrong.

Unfortunately, the world is much more complex than that.

I don't think it should be a right. I think it should be an earned privledge.

Yes, I'm aware that whoever is in control of a government will structure any such process to favor retaining their control. That's been going on since the cave. But, if we could determine a fair way to do it, that would be my desire.

Do you think the current process isn't screwed up? The last presidential election had a record number of complaints of interference with voting. Late openings, harassment, etc.

Also, considering a computer is only as good as it's programming. How do you feel about electronic voting machines, which is where we're headed?

I think the current system is better than not having democratic elections, which is what restricting the franchise to those who "earn" it would end in. There is no "fair" way to limit the franchise. That's why it shouldn't happen.

Limiting voting rights eliminates democracy.

"A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. " -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

Good point, I take that back.