World War Three
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Monday, June 15, 2026 15:50
VIEWED: 11824
PAGE 7 of 10
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:Quote:Let's try this again. In theory, your four questions are very simple. But as soon as you talk about changing our current system of government to integrate these questions, you can't ignore our current system of government!
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
Again, how could four simple questions written in a number of languages be used by one party or another to their benefit? It at least puts in place a minimal standard. If you want to vote find out the answers. In doing so the populace may learn a thing or two about the political atmosphere and system of their country. An informed populace is a lot better than what we now have. Have you ever watched a talk show where they send someone to interview "people on the street"? Who's the vice president? Name one article in the Bill of Rights? How ridiculous are the answers?
If you were king for a day and said, "All I'm here to do is institute this four question test to establish who gets to vote and who does not and then I promise to abdicate," you might be able to implement your test.
For a day.
'Cause, once you abdicated, folks would repeal the thing and we'd go back to doing things the way we do them.
So unless you are the "benevolent dictator" of the United States, you have to understand that any test we established to enfranchise people, would innevitably be used to disenfranchise. This kind of control over the electorate is a bad idea.
What about this crazy notion: improve education. But here's a guy who makes the point much more eloquently than I:
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree."
"The most effectual means of preventing the perversion of power into tyranny are to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes."
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
"Convinced that the people are the only safe depositories of their own liberty, and that they are not safe unless enlightened to a certain degree, I have looked on our present state of liberty as a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree."
"No nation is permitted to live in ignorance with impunity."
"And say, finally, whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government or information to the people. This last is the most certain and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. And it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." --Thomas Jefferson
Pretty wise words. You gotta wonder what it would be like if somebody started a country founded on these principles.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
Very wise words indeed. Problem is, most humans on the planet would read it and chalk it up as legalese. Our political leaders no longer talk with the eloquence of a Churchill or Eisenhower. We no long
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Continuing on with the role-playing of how things would look if voting was not a right but instead a reward...
So, going back to your post, something like this?
1. President of the United States of America: __________
2. Senator for your state (name one): ______________ [extra vote for naming two?]
3. Representative for your district: ______________
4. Are we at war in Iraq? (circle one) YES NO
5. The three branches of the federal government: ________________, _________________ and _________________
And if you answer all these questions correctly, then you have earned the right to vote? For the moment, I'll assume that spelling isn't too important. Unless we want to make this a spelling test as well. And the cool thing is this could also serve as a subtle literacy test. Score!
As an aside, knowing these seven bits of information is sufficient, in your mind, to turn someone from an uninformed voter to an informed one. Correct? Just making sure that we're alleviating the problem you've diagnosed. If someone knew the answers to the question and didn't know anything else you'd still be satisfied? Or we could even split it up into varying degrees of difficulty and have a cascading set of questions. Maybe even have qualified personnel interview every prospective voter. Or you could earn a voter license and have to get it recertified sometime before every election. Going back to the more lengthy set, if you know some of the issues and some of the positions then you could vote for some of the candidates. Maybe you don't get to vote for the whole enchilada unless you get 90% on the test. Might have to iron that out a bit more.
Okay. Next set of questions. Who administers the test? Where is the test administered (does it happen at the polling location)? Who grades the test? How is the person notified if they have passed or failed? What about if they are taking this test in a language other than English? What do you do with absentee ballots?
Maybe it might be a good idea to have people take the test while they are voting. Then you have two different vote totals, those who are too ignorant to vote and those who know seven bits of information. And we could publicize that on the news. Try to shame people into figuring out what the answers are.
Basically, how do we implement this new system?
* edited to add: I think there is a big difference between how we perceive the franchise. I see the franchise as the right of every American. It looks to me like you see the franchise as something that shouldn't be the right of every American, only a smaller subset. My intuition is that you have a solution looking for a problem. I won't accept your assumptions concerning the ignorance of voters without seeing hard numbers that show X percentage of voters do not know who the President is, for example.
[HKCavalier, very nice collection of quotes. As you can see, I'm taking the low ground on this one 
]
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Continuing on with the role-playing of how things would look if voting was not a right but instead a reward...
So, going back to your post, something like this?
1. President of the United States of America: __________
2. Senator for your state (name one): ______________ [extra vote for naming two?]
3. Representative for your district: ______________
4. Are we at war in Iraq? (circle one) YES NO
5. The three branches of the federal government: ________________, _________________ and _________________
And if you answer all these questions correctly, then you have earned the right to vote? For the moment, I'll assume that spelling isn't too important. Unless we want to make this a spelling test as well. And the cool thing is this could serve as a subtle literacy test as well. Score!
As an aside, knowing these seven bits of information is sufficient, in your mind, to turn someone from an uninformed voter to an informed one. Correct? Just making sure that we're alleviating the problem you've diagnosed. If someone knew the answers to the question and didn't know anything else you'd still be satisfied? Or we could even split it up into varying degrees of difficulty and have a cascading set of questions. Maybe even have qualified personnel interview every prospective voter. Or you could earn a voter license and have to get it recertified sometime before every election. Going back to the more lengthy set, if you know some of the issues and some of the positions then you could vote for some of the candidates. Maybe you don't get to vote for the whole enchilada unless you get 90% on the test. Might have to iron that out a bit more.
Okay. Next set of questions. Who administers the test? Where is the test administered (does it happen at the polling location)? Who grades the test? How is the person notified if they have passed or failed? What about if they are taking this test in a language other than English? What do you do with absentee ballots?
Maybe it might be a good idea to have people take the test while they are voting. Then you have two different vote totals, those who are too ignorant to vote and those who know seven bits of information. And we could publicize that on the news. Try to shame people into figuring out what the answers are.
Basically, how do we implement this new system?
[HKCavalier, very nice collection of quotes. As you can see, I'm taking the low ground on this one
Hey, let me answer for Fuckface..Shut the fuck up dickcatcher you pompous ass. Even I can read this thread and tell that USjack off didn't think it through that much. Hey dickcatcher he was making a point about how invalid polls are. I happen to like his or this bitches idea. And if you fucking fool read the thread even your stupid ass would have seen that fuck face already said it would be administered in any language. And it wouldn't prove anything but maybe people mite learn something in the process. what a fucking shit ROCK you have become dickcatcher! And this is why I am a troll. you are an ass hole attacking fuckface with a pompous attitude ..fuck you asshole. read your post do you smell the douche bag in ya? Hey fuck face get used to this. Enjoy!!!!! Join the revolution you are always welcome. I say fuck'em fuck'em all.
Chris eatsshitisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
kaneman,
Dealing with a position is one thing. I have no problem attacking a position, dissecting it, challenging it and even mocking it on occasion. And I expect no less from other posters on this forum. Dealing with individuals is another thing. I choose not to attack individuals (well, I try 
). Which means that I will not respond to your attacks in kind.
I will, however, make the observation that you seem to expend a lot of energy negatively. Whatever gets you through the day, I guess.
"Men hate each other because they fear each other. They fear each other because they don't know each other. They don't know each other because they don't communicate with each other. They don't communicate with each other because they are separated from each other." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Understatement of the year
Quote:
USB: Our political leaders no longer talk with the eloquence of a Churchill or Eisenhower.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Understatement of the yearQuote:
USB: Our political leaders no longer talk with the eloquence of a Churchill or Eisenhower.
Yeah. What's up with that? And it's not like they don't have the highest paid speech writers working on their material for them. Is it just that eloquence is not valued? Or is it a forgotten art form?
On a related note, I don't believe that some of our past great leaders would have a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected today. Lincoln? Too tall, lanky and just downright ugly.
The two most important criteria, in the television age, are to look presidential and be able to read a teleprompter effectively. Style over substance. The sound bite spoken in a well designed setting with compelling visual backdrops will get played on the nightly news. Each appearance is a tightly managed event. I've been very impressed with the designers of these visuals. It's not surprising that many of them were hired from Hollywood.
It's all about the entertainment, baby.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Soup... been away from this thread, got too much to do. But I just looked it over and ... you take the high road, and I'll take the low road... Kaneman, he prolly drinks a bottle of scotch and then starts typing away....
Sorry, just had to get that impression in.
And now back to our regularly scheduled discussion...
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've often wondered why this is myself. I would say it's because of the sound bite. They no longer have the time to write a speak with substance. First, the average US citizen is not going to sit through a long "winded" speech. Secondly, the networks will not air it, they want a 10 second sound bite. They need time to discuss American Idol and wther or not Angelina Jolie was in fact kissing her brother at the Oscars. Got to have priorities!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It's a consequence of Celebrity culture. Celebrity culture didn't exist for Churchill or Eisenhower, now it does. Politicians are celebrities now, which I imagine is why we get people who worship the ground they walk on.
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
I've often wondered why this is myself. I would say it's because of the sound bite. They no longer have the time to write a speak with substance. First, the average US citizen is not going to sit through a long "winded" speech. Secondly, the networks will not air it, they want a 10 second sound bite. They need time to discuss American Idol and wther or not Angelina Jolie was in fact kissing her brother at the Oscars. Got to have priorities!
Celebrities don't give speeches, they have their most plastic faces emblazoned on posters with a short quote ("Our enemies never stop thinking of ways to hurt us, and neither do we").
Corporatism destroys community, and then corporatism supplies us with artificial communities to fill the gap. Celebrities, Reality TV, proof that Big Brother is evil.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To extend this a bit. In my opinion, speeches are now written around "applause lines." Short one-liners that evoke an immediate positive reaction from the audience. The goal is to have a clip of the speaker saying something followed by visual and audible approval signals from the audience. The audience itself is not important as an audience but moreso as a prop as the primary target for the speech are the millions who will see the clips on television. It's marketing and, like most marketing, it is an appeal to the people. For the viewer at home the message is clear, "All those people agree with the speaker therefore what the speaker said must be true." It borrows a lot from the way television comedies use audience laughter (or even laugh tracks) to tell the viewer what is funny. Unfortunately for those trying to manage the public, we have not yet gotten to the point where political speeches have applause signs (although I could be wrong since I have yet to attend in person a speech by a President). So the "applause lines" themselves have to be pretty blatant. Which, in my opinion, automatically rules out eloquence.
In other words, the audience is already convinced. There is no need for the speaker to sway the crowd. It's not that we no longer have eloquent speech writers it's that we do not need them for the kind of things speech writers are hoping to accomplish.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME