Conditional Suffrage?

[Warik]

Disclaimer: Just recently started visiting this particular forum, so my apologies in advance if this has already been discussed.

------------

Is conditional suffrage a good idea?

I'm not talking about racial or sexual discrimination here (i.e. "your grandfather's grandfather" recursive discrimination or no women voting), but rather, objective, competence-based restrictions that ensure that the unacceptable ignorance of the masses doesn't elect an unqualified individual into an important position. (Republicans & Democrats, please try to behave - GWB is not necessarily the topic of this conversation).

Right now, to the best of my knowledge, the only requirements to register to vote and do so are:

1) 18 years of age or older.
2) Be a US citizen.
3) Not be a convicted felon.

Should that be all?

Example:

Warik: "Who are you voting for in the presidential election?"
Person: "There's an election this year?"
Warik: "Yes. Are you registered to vote?"
Person: "I don't know. Who's running?"
Warik: "George W. Bush is running against John Kerry. Who are you voting for?"
Person: "I don't know... who should I vote for?"
Warik: "I am going to vote for __________. He is a member of the _____________ party. Don't vote for ____________. He's a member of the _____________ party and they are all assholes."
Person: "Ok I will!"

Is allowing "Person" to have the right to vote really in the best interests of this country... or... given the potential effects an individual can have in a particular position of power........... the world?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

On the whole, I think the ignorant and easily manipulated should cancel each other out.

On the other hand, I don't believe in voting online or in having more than one day to vote

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
On the whole, I think the ignorant and easily manipulated should cancel each other out.

[/ QUOTE ]

The two terms are not mutually exclusive.

In fact, they are often partners in crime.

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, I don't believe in voting online

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe in voting online, and I believe that technology already exists to make it as legitimate as ballot voting.

[ QUOTE ]
or in having more than one day to vote

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor do I.

However, I don't believe in that day being Tuesday. Worst idea ever.

Unless all employers could universally be forced to allow employees to go vote during business hours and pay them for the time they are out..... which would replace the idea of voting on Tuesdays to being the worst idea ever.

[jj_frap]

I support this:

Ban anybody who is a member of a religious organisation that was created for the purpose of maintaining human slavery from voting.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Unless all employers could universally be forced to allow employees to go vote during business hours and pay them for the time they are out..

First of all, it's against the law in all States to take any disciplinary action against employees who take time off from work to vote.

Second, polls are open in most states from 7 AM - 8 PM. I would suggest that only a miniscule percentage of the electorate needs to miss more than an hour or two of work to vote.

I don't agree with forcing employers to pay for the missed time.

[peritonlogon]

Didn't they used to do this in the south? I don't think this is a good idea because of how easily it is to misuse.

Also, being a convict does not prohibit you from voting in many states.

A short quiz on where the presidential candidates stand on major issues would be a good prerequisite. It will keep out the people who voted for bush because they want to have a beer with him.

[DougShrapnel]

My plan would allow for longer time periods of actual voting. It would also create 2 categories of sufferage. There would be some sort of basic competency test. And those people would no longer require representation and would be allowed to vote directly on issues. Other who could not pass the competency test would still have sufferage to vote for representatives.

[DVaut1]

I wonder how many people proposing a civics knowledge test as a voting requirement could actually pass the test they advocate.

[peritonlogon]

Well, maybe, but Kerry supporters will fail their's since even the candidates don't really know where they stand.

BTW, if people are annoyed with the way politics work today (which everyone should be) they should probably not focus on disenfrancising people of which they think less and start focusing on the real problems such as the role of lobbyists, the close connection between the congress and their families, the military, the private sector and the lobby firms or the hijacking of elections using new and improved computer vote rigging machines or the power of a consolidated media.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
A short quiz on where the presidential candidates stand on major issues would be a good prerequisite.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, since "where the presidential candidates stand on major issues" can be difficult to frame objectively.

A much better prerequisite test, if there is to be one, would examine two objectively measurable skills of great importance: 1) logic, and 2) reading comprehension.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder how many people proposing a civic's knowledge test as a voting requirement could actually pass the test they advocate.

[/ QUOTE ] Well the test can be fashioned in a manner to get any % you would like. Because of the way that polititians work, It is a bad idea to have these tests. But I would venture a guess that between 10% and 35% of the population would be qualified to have a direct vote on issues. I have no way of actually knowing what the political powers would chose to test, so I can't give an accurate answer. The rest would still require representation. I think the test should be fahioned not on candidates but on The Consitution, ethics, and government knowledge. I also wonder how many polititians would be able to pass it? There needs to be a migration from representative democracy toward direct democracy.

Maybe the politicians should have to fill out a standardized questionaire. Instead, they are marketed by the same PR folks who make toothpaste commercials.

Nice to see the John Kerry smear campaign was effective. When the facts change, I change my opinion, what do you do?

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A short quiz on where the presidential candidates stand on major issues would be a good prerequisite.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, since "where the presidential candidates stand on major issues" can be difficult to frame objectively.

A much better prerequisite test, if there is to be one, would examine two objectively measurable skills of great importance: 1) logic, and 2) reading comprehension.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is how things were in the south until the 60's/70's... do you really think it's a good idea?

[elwoodblues]

My father-in-law who went to college but never graduated (relevant for later in the story) came up to me to discuss this at Christmas one year (he's the type of guy who doesn't have a good sense of timing for conversations.) Anyway, he says that only property owners should be entitled to vote.

"Why is that?" I ask.
He gives some line about how you should have to pay taxes to vote and property ownership ensures that.
"Really, is there a federal property tax?"
"Okay, maybe not property ownership, but they should be educated."
"There's an idea. I think you should have to have a high school diploma. If having a high school diploma makes for better voters, surely a college degree would be better. Don't you agree?"
Silence...
"And if a college degree is good, surely a graduate degree would be better. I propose only people with phd's or the equivalent in their field of study should be able to vote. Agree?"
Silence...broken a few minutes later by "I just don't think all the idiots should be able to vote."
"me either" I mumble to myself and offer him another beer.

The problem with conditional suffrage is that it will ALWAYS be used to ensure those who favor your political positions will vote and those who disfavor them will not. In short, it will always be abused.

"The problem with conditional suffrage is that it will ALWAYS be used to ensure those who favor your political positions will vote and those who disfavor them will not."

Mis-allocation of voting machines and rigged software work much better.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
My father-in-law who went to college but never graduated (relevant for later in the story) came up to me to discuss this at Christmas one year (he's the type of guy who doesn't have a good sense of timing for conversations.) Anyway, he says that only property owners should be entitled to vote.

"Why is that?" I ask.
He gives some line about how you should have to pay taxes to vote and property ownership ensures that.
"Really, is there a federal property tax?"
"Okay, maybe not property ownership, but they should be educated."
"There's an idea. I think you should have to have a high school diploma. If having a high school diploma makes for better voters, surely a college degree would be better. Don't you agree?"
Silence...
"And if a college degree is good, surely a graduate degree would be better. I propose only people with phd's or the equivalent in their field of study should be able to vote. Agree?"
Silence...broken a few minutes later by "I just don't think all the idiots should be able to vote."
"me either" I mumble to myself and offer him another beer.

The problem with conditional suffrage is that it will ALWAYS be used to ensure those who favor your political positions will vote and those who disfavor them will not. In short, it will always be abused.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, the rationality for such ‘knowledge tests’ inexorably leads to advocating some form of an intellectual oligarchy (when taken to its eventual conclusion, as you noted).

Which is why I’m genuinely wondering how many people here advocating such tests could legitimately pass it, and why they believe they’ll find themselves among the privileged few in power? I suspect it’s not a very high number.

I also suspect the same people who propose such tests, when they find themselves disenfranchised for not being able to answer what are rather simple questions posed by our intellectual overlords, would accuse said overlords of terrible elitism and ivory-tower subjugation.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the politicians should have to fill out a standardized questionaire. Instead, they are marketed by the same PR folks who make toothpaste commercials.

Nice to see the John Kerry smear campaign was effective. When the facts change, I change my opinion, what do you do?

[/ QUOTE ]Jimmy Carter summed up the results of the 2004 election pretty well. 10% of the population votes for the sitting president during times of war.

If a test was introduced how do you think each party would suffragemander it, so that only people who vote for them would be able to vote.

[Borodog]

Suffrage is a bad idea, in general.

[BluffTHIS!]

No matter how stupid and ill-equiped to vote some people might be, you can either let them have their say in the voting booth or staring down from the business end of a gun. Lots of poor illiterate farmers who were excellent shots proved that in the American Revolution.

[bobman0330]

The real problem in my mind is not that voters are stupid, but that people who choose to vote (an unreasonable act if you consider objective benefits) are either: a) irrational, or b) derive some sort of self-satisfaction from voting. This seems very undesirable to me. Instead, I propose the following system for federal elections:

1. Every election cycle, 10% of the population will be chosen to vote. It will go sequentially by the last digit of your SSN. 2000 will be the 1s, 2002 the 2s, etc.
2. Voters will be required to attend a half-day or so presentation. Candidates will write their own presentation material. (possibly with some sort of limitations, e.g., no more than 20 minutes of the presentation can contain material about an opposition candidate.) Voters may take as many notes as they like.
3. A non-partisan government committee will compose a test consisting of a number of factual multiple choice questions about the material presented. Voters may refer to any notes they have taken. Voters who fail will be fined ~$500.
4. Voters who pass vote.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I also suspect the same people who propose such tests, when they find themselves disenfranchised for not being able to answer what are rather simple questions posed by our intellectual overlords, would accuse said overlords of terrible elitism and ivory-tower subjugation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't they tacitly consent to such subjugation just by "being here"? Hey, they should probably move somewhere else.

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, it's against the law in all States to take any disciplinary action against employees who take time off from work to vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disciplinary, no, but those who need to punch a time clock won't be paid for the time they missed.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, polls are open in most states from 7 AM - 8 PM. I would suggest that only a miniscule percentage of the electorate needs to miss more than an hour or two of work to vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you're living paycheck to paycheck, an hour or two of work is significant.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with forcing employers to pay for the missed time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor do I... that's the only way having election day be on a day when 99% of the working population works would make sense, though.

Better to just change the day.

But let's not get off topic.... we're talking about restricting the right to vote of otherwise eligible voters.

[OtisTheMarsupial]

Your idea is horrible.

Educated people already vote much more often than uneducated.

In 2004, 23% of people who hadn't finished 10th grade voted, whereas 77% of people with advanced degrees voted. 52% of high school grads who didn't go to college voted and 72% of bachelor degree holders voted.

http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/cps2004/tab05-1.xls

Where'd you even get this idea? From your subjective view that voters are uneducated? Take a look at the statistics. The people you want to restrict from voting already don't vote.

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't they used to do this in the south? I don't think this is a good idea because of how easily it is to misuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

They did it based on race. That wasn't what I was proposing. Read my post.

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, if people are annoyed with the way politics work today (which everyone should be) they should probably not focus on disenfrancising people of which they think less

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that I don't think highly of someone doesn't automatically mean I don't want them to vote, nor does the fact that I do think highly of someone mean that I DO want them to vote.

Example: I don't think highly of overpaid NY transit workers who went on strike to get more money; however, a lot of them are competent enough to vote.

Other example: I think highly of my friends, but a few of them are too stupid to vote for president.

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the test should be fahioned not on candidates but on The Consitution, ethics, and government knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
I also wonder how many polititians would be able to pass it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The left would claim the test is racist.

[ QUOTE ]
There needs to be a migration from representative democracy toward mob rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, it's against the law in all States to take any disciplinary action against employees who take time off from work to vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see a cite on that. My understanding is that only about 20 states actually have such laws, and that the time allowed is not necessarily sufficient to cover the actual time needed to stand in line and cast a vote (ie: Ohio 2004).


q/q

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with conditional suffrage is that it will ALWAYS be used to ensure those who favor your political positions will vote and those who disfavor them will not. In short, it will always be abused.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see the point you're trying to make describing the discussion with your father in-law, but I don't agree that conditional suffrage will necessarily always be used to one party's advantage. In fact, it doesn't have to be.

Having a high school diploma or owning property are all arbitrary criteria that says nothing about one individual's ability to cast a competent vote. How many unintelligent people do you encounter on a daily basis who have high school diplomas? How many intelligent people with significant accomplishments dropped out of high school or college? Plenty on both counts.

The fact is that no one here can make a compelling argument in favor of EVERYONE who is currently eligible to vote is competent enough to make an informed decision (I challenge you to try, though). Knowing this, there should definitely be some sort of system in place to weed out many of those individuals.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First of all, it's against the law in all States to take any disciplinary action against employees who take time off from work to vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see a cite on that. My understanding is that only about 20 states actually have such laws, and that the time allowed is not necessarily sufficient to cover the actual time needed to stand in line and cast a vote (ie: Ohio 2004).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct. There is no uniform federal law regarding this. I believe the number of states that have laws requiring employers to give time off is closer to 30, but as you point out, some of them don't require very much.

Part of the reason that there is no uniform federal law about this is that there is no uniform federal election.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
The left would claim the test is racist.

[/ QUOTE ] And the right would secretly harbor feelings of racial superiority?

[ QUOTE ]
There needs to be a migration from representative democracy toward mob rule.

[/ QUOTE ] I never said anything about getting rid of the courts.

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the test should be fahioned not on candidates but on The Consitution, ethics, and government knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool, then let's start testing you immediately.

I'll start by testing your personal financial ethics, then move on to your knowledge of the Bill of Rights and the limited power of the executive branch, along with your true understanding (or lack thereof) of fundamental American civil rights and the 14th Amendment.

I'll happily email you your score, once I've decided whether or not you're intelligent and informed enough to be allowed to vote.

And if I just happen to discover that a large number of Republicans are just too misinformed and/or ignorant to be allowed to vote, well, I'm sure you'll have no problem with that.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also wonder how many polititians would be able to pass it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The left would claim the test is racist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. The fact that, under my test, white Republican Party members will be disenfranchised at 4x the rate of other demographic groups is just a statistical anomaly, and I'm sure you'll have no problem with that either.



q/q

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
Educated people already vote much more often than uneducated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point? Does the fact that you have a college degree or a PHD mean you know anything about politics or what is good for this country?

[ QUOTE ]
From your subjective view that voters are uneducated?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you mean "from your objective view that less than 100% of the people who are registered voters are competent enough to exercise the privilege?"

[ QUOTE ]
Take a look at the statistics. The people you want to restrict from voting already don't vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take this to mean that you are assuming that I believe that 100% of uneducated people are not qualified to vote and therefore should have their right to vote taken away. Even though that is completely wrong and not even close to what I said (you know, since I didn't even mention education at all), I'll humor you.

Assume that 100% of the uneducated vote for the wrong guy (according to me). If we define "uneducated" to mean "didn't finish high school," then according to the link you provided, over ten million people voted for the "wrong guy" in the last election. Even if half the people voted for the right guy, that's still five million who voted for the wrong guy in a race that was decided by less than 4 million votes.

I'm fairly confident that you're assuming I'm a Republican or Libertarian, since conditional suffrage is not something typically promoted by the Democratic party (if at all)... meaning that you believe I want to somehow rig the system so that the Republican candidate has an unfair advantage. If that is the case, does your "the people you want to restrict from voting already don't vote" comment mean that you are saying that people who are uneducated vote Democrat? I don't think that's the case at all. The fact that a friend of mine, who is an HS dropout, voted Republican seems like a good enough counterexample to me.

I have a better idea: Why don't we stop talking about education and start talking about voter competence, which is what this thread is supposed to be about anyway.

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
And the right would secretly harbor feelings of racial superiority?

[/ QUOTE ]

NAACP says requiring photo ID at the polls is racist (http://www.naacpldf.org/content.aspx?article=684)
[ QUOTE ]
Violates the 1965 Voting Rights Act because it results in the denial of voting rights to African-American and Latino voters.

[/ QUOTE ]

A racial fuss is made over photo ID and you don't think someone's going to form the same kind of fuss over requiring people to know who the current president is in order to vote for the next one?

[ QUOTE ]
I never said anything about getting rid of the courts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say you did.

A representative democracy exists to prevent the ignorant masses from taking advantage of the minority. By what stretch of logic are we permitting the same ignorant masses, from whom our representative democracy was created to protect our country, to vote for said representatives?

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll start by testing your personal financial ethics, then move on to your knowledge of the Bill of Rights and the limited power of the executive branch, along with your true understanding (or lack thereof) of fundamental American civil rights and the 14th Amendment.

I'll happily email you your score, once I've decided whether or not you're intelligent and informed enough to be allowed to vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh gee, that's not fair! I was planning on being exempt from the test and being the only person in the country eligible to vote for anything. Darn.

Post your multiple choice / true or false / matching test (since those are the only two types of tests that can be objective). I'm confident that most people on this forum, both Republican and Democrat, will pass.

[ QUOTE ]
And if I just happen to discover that a large number of Republicans are just too misinformed and/or ignorant to be allowed to vote, well, I'm sure you'll have no problem with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you will have no problem with the potentially equally large number of misinformed Democrats being found incompetent to vote... actually, the number may be larger, due to OtisTheMarsupial's claim that uneducated people typically vote Democrat.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course not. The fact that, under my test, white Republican Party members will be disenfranchised at 4x the rate of other demographic groups is just a statistical anomaly, and I'm sure you'll have no problem with that either.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, your test will be opinion-based rather than fact-based, then? I mean, it would have to be, since white Republican Party members have the same facts as every other demographic, but surely have different opinions.

Discriminating people based on their opinions now are we???

[QuadsOverQuads]

****whoosh****

(that sound you just heard was the point going right over the top of your head)


q/q

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]

****whoosh****

(that sound you just heard was the point going right over the top of your head)

[/ QUOTE ]

*** cricket *** ***cricket ***

(that sound you just heard was a representation of how impressed I am with your wittiness)

If the point clearly went over my head, why don't you explain it less cryptically...? Or better yet, just plain explain it.

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
Right now, to the best of my knowledge, the only requirements to register to vote and do so are:

1) 18 years of age or older.
2) Be a US citizen.
3) Not be a convicted felon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think "conditional suffrage" is a bad idea. But I also think condition #3 on voting (I know, it's state by state, not federal) is outrageous.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right now, to the best of my knowledge, the only requirements to register to vote and do so are:

1) 18 years of age or older.
2) Be a US citizen.
3) Not be a convicted felon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think "conditional suffrage" is a bad idea. But I also think condition #3 on voting (I know, it's state by state, not federal) is outrageous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I really don't see what condition #3 has to do with it at all.

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right now, to the best of my knowledge, the only requirements to register to vote and do so are:

1) 18 years of age or older.
2) Be a US citizen.
3) Not be a convicted felon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think "conditional suffrage" is a bad idea. But I also think condition #3 on voting (I know, it's state by state, not federal) is outrageous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I really don't see what condition #3 has to do with it at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's worse than that. Convict political enemies of some vague "undermining national interests" felony and they can't vote you out of office.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
It's worse than that. Convict political enemies of some vague "undermining national interests" felony and they can't vote you out of office.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although in dire worst case scenarios that potential might be true though highly improbable, I would estimate that the number of such convicted felons is now close to zero. Whereas the class of convicted felons who are murderers, rapists, pedophiles and armed robbers without voting rights runs into the hundreds of thousands. And of course those persons would all vote democratic since they know who is the weakest on crime and punishment and places the rights of criminal perpetrators higher than that of victims.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's worse than that. Convict political enemies of some vague "undermining national interests" felony and they can't vote you out of office.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although in dire worst case scenarios that potential might be true though highly improbable, I would estimate that the number of such convicted felons is now close to zero . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the number must easily be in the hundreds of thousands, if not the millions. A large fraction of our prison population is made up of political prisoners who have never stolen a dollar or doughnut nor harmed anyone, but who upon their release cannot vote out the despicable [censored] who ruined their lives.

Great system.

[BluffTHIS!]

Oh, so now drug dealers are political prisoners? Call Amnesty International!

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, so now drug dealers are political prisoners? Call Amnesty International!

[/ QUOTE ]

In what way are they not?

Thanks for making my point, by the way.

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
It's worse than that. Convict political enemies of some vague "undermining national interests" felony and they can't vote you out of office.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize you have to actually commit a real crime before you can be considered a convicted felon, right? Last time I checked, "vaguely undermining national interests" wasn't a crime.

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
In what way are they not?

Thanks for making my point, by the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the way where dealing drugs is illegal.

Should we escort them to the polls with armed guards or should they get absentee ballots like the military?

If they get absentee ballots, can we try to disqualify them like we do to the military?

[BluffTHIS!]

Although I don't use drugs, I personally believe that pot and some other drugs should be legalized. Nonetheless, even low level dealers who never participate in violence are part of a network/class that uses violence against rival dealers and against members of law enforcement and witnesses. They thus share culpability in perpetuating that violence because they chose to commit those illegal acts rather than get a job.

[Borodog]

Ah. So even though person A does not commit a violent crime, he should be imprisoned, and lose his franchise (since that's the point of the thread), because someone else does? This is justice?

Not to mention the fact that the "network/class" uses violence precisely because of the prohibition.

None of your post does anything to show that non-violent drug offenders are not political prisoners (which of course they are), nor that denying them their franchise upon their release plainly affects whether pro-drug war incumbants can be voted from office, and hence, whether the laws can be changed. Which was my point.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention the fact that the "network/class" uses violence precisely because of the prohibition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely pathetic justification of the murder of police officers, judges/prosecutors and witnesses.

And yes those as yet non-violent drug dealers should bear some of the responsibility because they are in fact implicit conspirators in the crimes of the violence of the drug network.

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah. So because person A commits a crime, he should be imprisoned

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

[ QUOTE ]
This is justice?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is.

[ QUOTE ]
None of your post does anything to show that non-violent drug offenders are not political prisoners

[/ QUOTE ]

And none of your posts do anything to show that they are.

[ QUOTE ]
(which of course they are)

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "of course they are" you mean "I believe they are, but I haven't proven so," then yes - I agree completely.

[ QUOTE ]
nor that denying them their franchise upon their release plainly affects whether pro-drug war incumbants can be voted from office, and hence, whether the laws can be changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Candidate A says drugs should be legal, but that everything else should be completely opposite to what you, Borodog, believe it should be.

Candidate B says drugs should stay illegal, but everything else should be exactly as you, Borodog, believe it should be.

Do you really think this person, who is ignorantly voting for someone for one reason alone, particularly the fact that he likes breaking the law, and ignoring everything else that is far more important, is making an informed decision?

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention the fact that the "network/class" uses violence precisely because of the prohibition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely pathetic justification of the murder of police officers, judges/prosecutors and witnesses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

While we're on that topic, I think rapists should have their voting rights restored as well. After all, the only reason they raped their victims is because the government said women can deny sexual consent.

Let's also restore armed bank robbers' voting rights as well. The only reason they took that money by force is becase the government said they couldn't just walk in and ask for it.

I get a tear in my eye every time I think about all these political prisoners.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention the fact that the "network/class" uses violence precisely because of the prohibition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely pathetic justification of the murder of police officers, judges/prosecutors and witnesses.

[/ QUOTE ]

A tiny fraction of violent drug offences are made up of the murder of police officers, judges, prosecutors, or witnesses. This is a strawman. The bulk of drug trade related violence is associated with settling contract and territorial disputes, which is what happens when you are denied access to the courts and any peaceable means of settling those disputes. This, by the way, is why criminal organizations often develop private arbitration mechanisms to avoid unneccesary bloodshed over contract and territorial disputes.

[ QUOTE ]
And yes those as yet non-violent drug dealers should bear some of the responsibility because they are in fact implicit conspirators in the crimes of the violence of the drug network.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, the police officers, judges, prosecutors, and most importantly the politicians should bear the brunt of the blame, since the violence wouldn't exist without their politically motivated war on citizens. Those same politicians that are less likely to be voted out of office because they continue to disenfranchise voters who would likely vote against them. As I've said.

And for the record, any politician, police officer, prosecutor, or judge who has participated in imprisoning American citizens and ruining their lives for the "crime" of commerce deserves to eat a bullet anyway.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention the fact that the "network/class" uses violence precisely because of the prohibition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely pathetic justification of the murder of police officers, judges/prosecutors and witnesses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

While we're on that topic, I think rapists should have their voting rights restored as well. After all, the only reason they raped their victims is because the government said women can deny sexual consent.

Let's also restore armed bank robbers' voting rights as well. The only reason they took that money by force is becase the government said they couldn't just walk in and ask for it.

I get a tear in my eye every time I think about all these political prisoners.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rapists and bank robbers have victims, brainiac.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that no one here can make a compelling argument in favor of EVERYONE who is currently eligible to vote is competent enough to make an informed decision

[/ QUOTE ]

People make bad decisions all the time. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't have the right to make the decision.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ah. So because person A commits a crime, he should be imprisoned

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

[/ QUOTE ]

Drug dealers commit illegal acts, which is not the same as committing crimes. Do you see the difference?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
None of your post does anything to show that non-violent drug offenders are not political prisoners

[/ QUOTE ]

And none of your posts do anything to show that they are.

[ QUOTE ]
(which of course they are)

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "of course they are" you mean "I believe they are, but I haven't proven so," then yes - I agree completely.

[/ QUOTE ]

The act they are imprisoned for - trading some chemicals or some plants for some money - is a voluntary exchange of private property between two consenting adults. What could possibly be criminal about that? The only reason it's illegal is because imprisoning these people achieves some political goal.


[ QUOTE ]
Candidate A says drugs should be legal, but that everything else should be completely opposite to what you, Borodog, believe it should be.

Candidate B says drugs should stay illegal, but everything else should be exactly as you, Borodog, believe it should be.

Do you really think this person, who is ignorantly voting for someone for one reason alone, particularly the fact that he likes breaking the law, and ignoring everything else that is far more important, is making an informed decision?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for pointing out one of the big problems in our particular implementation of representative democracy. You can replace drug legalization for any "swing issue" and see why this system produces consistently crappy results.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
While we're on that topic, I think rapists should have their voting rights restored as well. After all, the only reason they raped their victims is because the government said women can deny sexual consent.

Let's also restore armed bank robbers' voting rights as well. The only reason they took that money by force is becase the government said they couldn't just walk in and ask for it.

I get a tear in my eye every time I think about all these political prisoners.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think that activities are "good" or "bad" based merely on what some elected group of monkeys decree?

Would you argue that drug dealing is a legitimate activity if it were legalized? Is the authorization all that you're impressed with?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Drug dealers commit illegal acts, which is not the same as committing crimes. Do you see the difference?


[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Drug dealers commit illegal acts, which is not the same as committing crimes. Do you see the difference?


[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think slavery is not a crime if some random person in a far away city says it's legal?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention the fact that the "network/class" uses violence precisely because of the prohibition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely pathetic justification of the murder of police officers, judges/prosecutors and witnesses.

And yes those as yet non-violent drug dealers should bear some of the responsibility because they are in fact implicit conspirators in the crimes of the violence of the drug network.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't happen with beer.

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
People make bad decisions all the time. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't have the right to make the decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

So 8 year-olds should be allowed to vote, too? When I was in elementary school and Bush Sr. was running against Clinton, the students were given an assignment to choose a side and create political ads. How did the students choose their sides?

"Well, my mommy and daddy are voting for Bush so I am too" or likewise for Clinton.

If these 8 year-olds used the same critical thinking skills as many 18+ voters do today to choose their candidate, why shouldn't they be allowed to vote too?

In fact, allowing children, who would choose their candidate based on what mommy and daddy say, to vote would be to the advantage of the Democratic party.

Can you see why?

[elwoodblues]

In that city it is, definitionally, not a crime.

[elwoodblues]

Age is different than testing --- though, I agree that 18 is a somewhat arbitrary number. Nonetheless, some number must be chosen.

[ QUOTE ]
"Well, my mommy and daddy are voting for Bush so I am too" or likewise for Clinton.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think this changes when people get older? The number 1 predictor of how a person will vote is how their parents vote.

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
Drug dealers commit illegal acts, which is not the same as committing crimes. Do you see the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Neither does Webster: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law

What's the difference?

[ QUOTE ]
The act they are imprisoned for - trading some chemicals or some plants for some money - is a voluntary exchange of private property between two consenting adults. What could possibly be criminal about that? The only reason it's illegal is because imprisoning these people achieves some political goal.

[/ QUOTE ]

So is a terrorist buying a privately owned nuclear bomb from an insane dictator.

Or a 19 year-old kid buying some grenades and an assault rifle from some dude in a dark alley.

"What could possibly be criminal about that? The only reason it's illegal is because imprisoning these people achieves some political goal." It's not like they're hurting anybody.

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for pointing out one of the big problems in our particular implementation of representative democracy. You can replace drug legalization for any "swing issue" and see why this system produces consistently crappy results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps if our representatives were selected by more competent individuals, we could take a big step towards improving our system of representative democracy.

Taking the sheep out of the equation would also take the dominance of the two party system out of the equation and give us better choices for representatives, governors, presidents, etc...

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the politicians should have to fill out a standardized questionaire. Instead, they are marketed by the same PR folks who make toothpaste commercials.

Nice to see the John Kerry smear campaign was effective. When the facts change, I change my opinion, what do you do?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm George Bush, I change the facts to support my opinion.

[Warik]

Well since my thread has already irreversibly turned into a partisan mudslinging fest, I will put the final nail in the coffin.

[ QUOTE ]
If I'm George Bush, I change the facts to support my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm John Kerry, I change my opinion... period!

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
Taking the sheep out of the equation would also take the dominance of the two party system out of the equation and give us better choices for representatives, governors, presidents, etc...

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't have a two party system because stupid people vote. We have a two party system because of the winner-take-all mechanism by which we elect our officials.

EDIT: This idea is known as Duverger's law.

[BluffTHIS!]

Obviously since we extol winner-take-all in poker (other than those hi/lo heathens), then it can't be bad for elections. Proportional representation systems just insure gridlock and instability. A look at the number of times the Italian governing coalition has fallen since WWII illustrates this point nicely. And what happens in those situations is that the effective power of unelected bureaucrats is magnified.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
And for the record, any politician, police officer, prosecutor, or judge who has participated in imprisoning American citizens and ruining their lives for the "crime" of commerce deserves to eat a bullet anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again with this? They can't selectively enforce only the laws they agree with. But you think they still deserve to die?
Why do you and PVN still live in the US?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously since we extol winner-take-all in poker

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in (most) tournaments. And in cash games, the next game is only minutes (not years) away, and the "winner" doesn't win "all", he only wins all of the pot. Big difference.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Again with this? They can't selectively enforce only the laws they agree with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? You think this doesn't happen?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Drug dealers commit illegal acts, which is not the same as committing crimes. Do you see the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Neither does Webster: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law

What's the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep reading your dictionary. Definition number 2:

[ QUOTE ]
2 : a grave offense especially against morality

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing to do with legality.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The act they are imprisoned for - trading some chemicals or some plants for some money - is a voluntary exchange of private property between two consenting adults. What could possibly be criminal about that? The only reason it's illegal is because imprisoning these people achieves some political goal.

[/ QUOTE ]

So is a terrorist buying a privately owned nuclear bomb from an insane dictator.

[/ QUOTE ]

Possession of nuclear weapons *is* criminal. Weapons of mass destruction cannot be directed at individual aggressors, and therefore are not legitimate "arms".

[ QUOTE ]
Or a 19 year-old kid buying some grenades and an assault rifle from some dude in a dark alley.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have any problem with this.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for pointing out one of the big problems in our particular implementation of representative democracy. You can replace drug legalization for any "swing issue" and see why this system produces consistently crappy results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps if our representatives were selected by more competent individuals, we could take a big step towards improving our system of representative democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your definition of "competent" is what, "people that agree with me"?

[CORed]

Actually, if I'm John Kerry, I change my opinion to suit whatever I think my current audience wants to hear. This is not unusual among politicians. Kerry just did it very badly and very obviously. I only voted for the idiot becuase I though he was a slightly less dangerous idiot than the one he wanted to replace. And it was close.

[CORed]

In theory, I don't think some kind of qualification to vote is a terrible idea, whether it's some sort of test of intelligence, general knowledge, or even what Heinlein suggested in Starship Troopers, limitng the vote to people who had served in the military (under which I would not be qualified, btw). In practice, I think such a system could be easily manipulated, as the "literacy tests" in the southen states were to exclude black people from voting. Also, I think there is nearly zero chance of it ever happening in this country, because democracy and universal adult suffrage have become such sacred cows, even though the Founding Fathers considered it something to be feared.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And for the record, any politician, police officer, prosecutor, or judge who has participated in imprisoning American citizens and ruining their lives for the "crime" of commerce deserves to eat a bullet anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again with this? They can't selectively enforce only the laws they agree with.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Of course they can and they do. The vast majority of laws go unenforced.

Part of the benefit of having a byzantine morass of uncountable thousands of laws is so that most citizens can be found to be violating some law or another most of the time, which can be enforced whenever this government officer or that bureaucrat finds it convenient or lucrative.

[ QUOTE ]
But you think they still deserve to die?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps "deserve" was too strong a word. But then again, perhaps it wasn't. Let's put it this way: they destroy tens of thousands of lives and families and get thousands of people needlessly killed each year. Why don't they deserve to die? Because they're "just doing their job?" Where have I heard that before?

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you and PVN still live in the US?

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe me, if there were anywhere better on Earth, I'd be there already. In the meantime, am I supposed to be happy that I only have a ball and chain on one ankle, and only one gun pointed at the back of my head, when I could easily have two?

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
Keep reading your dictionary. Definition number 2:

[ QUOTE ]
2 : a grave offense especially against morality

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing to do with legality.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are talking about law and therefore must use the LEGAL definition of crime. A crime is an illegal act. Get over it.

Surely you have something more compelling than "boo hoo the 5th definition of the 3rd synonym in this obscure dictionary I found says I'm right!!!"


[ QUOTE ]
Possession of nuclear weapons *is* criminal.

[/ QUOTE ]

So is possession of drugs.

I win.

[ QUOTE ]
Weapons of mass destruction cannot be directed at individual aggressors, and therefore are not legitimate "arms".

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. I only plan to use it for decoration. That actually makes it safer than drugs.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or a 19 year-old kid buying some grenades and an assault rifle from some dude in a dark alley.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have any problem with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

i.e., you have no problem with people breaking 4 of 5 laws simultaneously.... well... at least that's out in the open now.

[ QUOTE ]
So your definition of "competent" is what, "people that agree with me"?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

My definition of "competent" is "people who have the ability to look at both sides of the major issues and make an informed decision about their candidate" as opposed to "everyone I know says to vote for <X>, so I'm going to vote for <X>" or "<X> says abortion is OK and we need to leave welfare alone, and since I already have 3 kids from 3 different fathers, none of whom I'm still with, and living off welfare, I'm going to selfishly vote for this guy.... even though I have not bothered to find out what the hell else he stands for which might not at all be good for this country."

If my candidate is the right candidate and more voters know what's going on, then more people will vote for him. Right now it's just a matter of who can pander to more demographics.... i.e., Republicans pandering to the wealthy and the religious + Democrats pandering to minorities and people looking for free rides (disclaimer: who are not necessarily one in the same, but I'll be awaiting your accusations of racism anyway).

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry just did it very badly and very obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]

My favorite Bush mudslinging quote from the debates: "The only consistent thing about my opponent is the fact that he's inconsistent."

[ QUOTE ]
I only voted for the idiot becuase I though he was a slightly less dangerous idiot than the one he wanted to replace. And it was close.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm fairly confident he would have won if he had shown the same attitude DURING the campaign that he showed during his concession speech. He was a different John Kerry.

Fortunately, he was a condescending waffle-factory until it was too late and we were spared. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
limitng the vote to people who had served in the military (under which I would not be qualified, btw).

[/ QUOTE ]

This part I don't agree with. There are plenty of people who have not served in the military who are qualified to vote, and many who have who are not.

[ QUOTE ]
In practice, I think such a system could be easily manipulated, as the "literacy tests" in the southen states were to exclude black people from voting.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because "literacy tests" in the South were designed to exclude and there was nobody around to prevent that from happening. With all the of civil liberties groups out there for any demographic, the likelihood of an unfairly discriminatory test coming to pass is small.

I'm not talking about a lengthy, complicated, SAT-like procedure. Even a BASIC, FACT-BASED multiple choice & true or false test will significantly improve the voting pool.

You'll kill off hundreds of thousands of voters with a "Does the Constitution guarantee your right to an abortion [true/false]" question.

You'll probably kill off a million voters with this question:

"The Bill of Rights guarantees you the right to which of the following:
a) free education
b) free healthcare
c) a job
d) all of the above
e) none of the above"

Are people who don't even know what their rights are really qualified to choose who is going to help decide what everyone else's rights are for years to come?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I think there is nearly zero chance of it ever happening in this country, because democracy and universal adult suffrage have become such sacred cows, even though the Founding Fathers considered it something to be feared.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh I definitely agree.... none of this will ever happen unfortunately... but we can dream, can't we?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Taking the sheep out of the equation would also take the dominance of the two party system out of the equation and give us better choices for representatives, governors, presidents, etc...

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't have a two party system because stupid people vote. We have a two party system because of the winner-take-all mechanism by which we elect our officials.

EDIT: This idea is known as Duverger's law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Takes me back to my poli sci classes and the discussion of SMDP (single member district plurality) vs. MMPR (multi-member proportional representations) systems. I am astonished it's not better known, as it's not really all that hard to explain.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[Here's] Webster: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Surely you have something more compelling than "boo hoo the 5th definition of the 3rd synonym in this obscure dictionary I found says I'm right!!!" Get over it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both quotes are from the same poster.

1 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=4310372) 2 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=4316857)

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[Here's] Webster: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Surely you have something more compelling than "boo hoo the 5th definition of the 3rd synonym in this obscure dictionary I found says I'm right!!!" Get over it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both quotes are from the same poster.

1 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=4310372) 2 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=4316857)

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh please.

He said that "crimes" and "illegal acts" were not the same thing. I looked up the definition of "crime" and the first definition clearly said that a crime was an illegal act.

He retorts by saying "oh, look at the OTHER definition - it mentions morality! That means illegal acts are not crimes!"

I'm clearly right here. Stop grasping at straws.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously since we extol winner-take-all in poker (other than those hi/lo heathens), then it can't be bad for elections.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's good for poker, it must be good for elections??? Brilliant.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh please.

He said that "crimes" and "illegal acts" were not the same thing. I looked up the definition of "crime" and the first definition clearly said that a crime was an illegal act.

He retorts by saying "oh, look at the OTHER definition - it mentions morality! That means illegal acts are not crimes!"

I'm clearly right here. Stop grasping at straws.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of you is using a definition of "crime" and "criminal" that makes Jews hiding from Nazis criminals and the Nazis gassing them to death not criminals, and the other is not.

I know which definition I prefer.

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
One of you is using a definition of "crime" and "criminal" that makes Jews hiding from Nazis criminals and the Nazis gassing them to death not criminals, and the other is not.

I know which definition I prefer.

[/ QUOTE ]

So a thread about imposing a realistic, fair system to ensure that most people who are incompetent to vote for a candidate for public office are eliminated, gets hijacked into a "drugs should be legal" thread, turns into a nit-picking of words, and now we have someone whining about Nazis and changing the definitions of words to whatever is most convenient for him.

Wow.

Thread: RIP

[Borodog]

Are you really that bad at following your own thread?

Oh, and by the way, this is priceless:

[ QUOTE ]
So a thread about imposing a realistic, fair system to ensure that most people who are incompetent to vote . . . are eliminated . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and by the way, this is priceless:

[ QUOTE ]
So a thread about imposing a realistic, fair system to ensure that most people who are incompetent to vote . . . are eliminated . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, since I was obviously talking about killing them en masse.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In practice, I think such a system could be easily manipulated, as the "literacy tests" in the southen states were to exclude black people from voting.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because "literacy tests" in the South were designed to exclude and there was nobody around to prevent that from happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, your proposed "competence test" is NOT designed to exclude people from voting???

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
He said that "crimes" and "illegal acts" were not the same thing. I looked up the definition of "crime" and the first definition clearly said that a crime was an illegal act.

He retorts by saying "oh, look at the OTHER definition - it mentions morality! That means illegal acts are not crimes!"

I'm clearly right here. Stop grasping at straws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because the only "correct" definition of a word is the one that fits your personal desire.

Do you believe that legislators, no matter how they come into power, are infallible?

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In practice, I think such a system could be easily manipulated, as the "literacy tests" in the southen states were to exclude black people from voting.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because "literacy tests" in the South were designed to exclude and there was nobody around to prevent that from happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, your proposed "competence test" is NOT designed to exclude people from voting???

[/ QUOTE ]

My competence test is not designed to unfairly exclude people on the basis of race, like the southern "literacy tests" were.

Please refrain from taking what I say out of context.

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, because the only "correct" definition of a word is the one that fits your personal desire.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not all things that are crimes should be crimes; however, by definition, they are.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe that legislators, no matter how they come into power, are infallible?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. What's that got to do with the basic, most commonly used definition of a word?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In practice, I think such a system could be easily manipulated, as the "literacy tests" in the southen states were to exclude black people from voting.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because "literacy tests" in the South were designed to exclude and there was nobody around to prevent that from happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, your proposed "competence test" is NOT designed to exclude people from voting???

[/ QUOTE ]

My competence test is not designed to unfairly exclude people on the basis of race, like the southern "literacy tests" were.

Please refrain from taking what I say out of context.

[/ QUOTE ]

What was out of context? The old tests were designed to exclude people that were disfavored by those in power. Your proposed test is designed to exclude people that you personally don't favor. The people they sought to exclude and the people that you seek to exclude were defined by different criteria, to be sure, but the goal is effectively the same.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, because the only "correct" definition of a word is the one that fits your personal desire.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not all things that are crimes should be crimes; however, by definition, they are.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe that legislators, no matter how they come into power, are infallible?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. What's that got to do with the basic, most commonly used definition of a word?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you're saying something is a crime if and only if it's illegal, and something is illegal if and only if it's a crime. That isomorphism would require legislation that is *always* "correct".