Republican Congressman wants to restore literacy tests to keep people from voting.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Feb 9, 2010.

  1. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    For those that do not know American history, literacy tests were used to keep blacks from voting in the south after the Civil War. Slaves as a general rule could not read and write. Now, Tea Party speaker and former Republican Congressman Tancredo wants to bring the literacy test back.

    Your thoughts, what does this say about the Tea Party? What does this say about the Republican Party? Will the Republican Party embrace a return to literacy test before one can vote?

    I think a test on current events and the issues that face the nation would be more appropriate as far as testing goes. So should literacy tests be brought back? And if so, who creates these tests?

    http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201002060018
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. CutsieMarie89 Zen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,485
    If its a basic reading and writing test, then that wouldn't do anything but waste time at the voting booth. Most people in the US including the real dumb bums can read and write. But I though having a literacy test as a requirement for voting is unconstitutional, the 14th amendment or something.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    About one out of seven adult Americans would flunk an honestly administered literacy test.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    They hate it when people vote, anything to make that number as small as possible.
     
  8. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    That's certainly going to depend on how the test is structured. If it's at the beginning of secondary-school level, the number would be *considerably* better than what you suggest.
     
  9. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,383
    I would like to add history, geography and economics tests. I wonder how many tea baggers could pass my tests.
     
  10. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,383
    Acorn was trying to get people who could barely read to vote. These poor people need to vote more than any segment of the population because no segment of the population has been more hurt by sending manufacturing to China and hiring illegal immigrants for the domestic jobs that don't require literacy. The Tea party people won't look after the interests of the illiterate Acorn constituents even though most of the Tea Party people strike me as being only a notch or two above the Acorn voters intellectually. The Tea part voters can't even look after their own interests because they don't get it that Rush Limbaugh is not on their side and will not lead them in a way that looks after their economic interests.

    It is very hard to get the underclass out to the polls but when they do vote they vote for the Democrats which is why the Republican Party does whatever it can to create barriers to underclass voting.
     
  11. Ganymede Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,322
    Ditto.
     
  12. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    the questions though are "is it nessary?" and "will it unessarly disinfranchiese those who are most at risk of political decisions?"

    There was a change made to the Australian electrol act years ago by the liberal party which required all people to show photo ID to a Justice of the peace to get there aplications certifided before they could vote. now the electrol commission (who i trust ALOT more than parliment concidering its one of the best in the world and called on to run elections in disputed counties for this very reason) consitantly found no evidence of fraud to any sort of scale which would influence elections (the chances of an election hanging on one vote in one seat are tiny after all). Insted the effect of the changes were to disinfranchiese remote Aborigional groups (because they have very limited access to JP's) and the homeless (who tend not to HAVE photo ID) both of whom traditionally vote Labor.

    Always look at the motives behind these sorts of changes. For instance im guessing that the majority of the poor in the US probably vote for the democrats who are more infavor of things like unemployment benifits and other social programs.
     
  13. otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    Well... that is not what Tancredo said. He complained that many people who voted for Obama couldn't even pass a literacy test. That's not the same as proposing to reinstate it.

    Anyway, there are no slaves today. Blacks go to school just like whites, and some even become presidents, chiefs of staff of the military, foreign secretaries, national security advisers, CEOs.......... etc.

    I think it's a great idea to see if a person can fucking READ first before he votes. In principle, of course. There are all sorts of problems with this idea.
     
  14. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    This is a great idea. Morons shouldn't be voting.
     
  15. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    I am not opposed to testing, provided it is properly constructed. And that is where you get into trouble. And I think the test should include more than just literacy if such tests were to be administered.

    Actually, I think this test would hurt the right more than the left. If you believe the polling numbers, the more educated an individual his the more likely he/she is to vote Democratic. The less educated, the more likely one is to vote Republican.

    Perhaps instead of a test they should include a voting package with material on all of the issues and candidates similar to what they do in California.
     
  16. Pinwheel Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,424

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Who has a long History of Disfranchisement for Voters?


    http://wapedia.mobi/en/Disfranchisement_after_Reconstruction_era#3.

    From 1890 to 1908, starting with Mississippi, Southern Democratic legislators created new constitutions with provisions for voter registration that effectively completed disfranchisement of most African Americans and many poor whites. They created a variety of barriers, including requirements for poll taxes, residency requirements, rule variations, literacy and understanding tests, that achieved power through selective application against minorities, or were particularly hard for the poor to fulfill. [3]

    3. Black and white disfranchisement
    3. 1. Poll taxes
    In Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, and in some northern and western states, proof of having paid taxes or poll taxes was made a prerequisite to voting. The poll tax was sometimes used alone or together with a literacy qualification. Virginia used this policy until 1882 and resumed it again in 1902. Texas added a requirement for a poll tax by state law in 1901. [17] Such taxes excluded poor whites as well at the turn of the century. Many states required payment of the poll tax at a time separate from the election, and then required voters to bring receipts with them to the polls. If they could not locate such receipts, they could not vote. Many states surrounded registration and voting with complex record-keeping requirements. [7] These were particularly difficult for sharecropper and tenant farmers to comply with, as they moved frequently.

    3. 2. Educational and character requirements
    Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and South Carolina established an educational requirement, with review by a local registrar of a voter's qualifications. In 1898 Georgia rejected such a device.

    Alabama delegates at first hesitated, concerned should illiterate whites lose their votes. But under the stipulation that the new constitution would not disfranchise any white voters and also that it would be submitted to the people for ratification, Alabama was able to pass an educational requirement. It was ratified at the polls November 1901. Its distinctive feature was the "good character clause" (also known as the "grandfather clause"). An appointment board in each county could register "all voters under the present [previous] law" who were veterans or the lawful descendants of such, and "all who are of good character and understand the duties and obligations of citizenship." This gave the board authority essentially to approve voters on a case-by-case basis. They acted to enfranchise whites over blacks. [7]

    South Carolina, Louisiana, and later, Virginia incorporated educational requirements as part of their new constitutions. In 1902 Virginia adopted a constitution with the "understanding" clause as a literacy requirement to use until 1904. After that date, Virginia used a poll tax to control suffrage. In addition, application for registration had to be in the applicant's handwriting and written in the presence of the registrar. Thus, someone who could not write, could not vote. [7]

    3. 3. Eight box law
    By 1882, the Democrats in South Carolina were firmly in power. Republicans were contained in the heavily black counties of Beaufort and Georgetown. Because the state had a large black majority, white Democrats still feared a possible resurgence of black voters at the polls.

    To remove the black threat, the General Assembly created an indirect literacy test, called the "Eight Box Law". The law stipulated that there must be separate boxes for each office, and that the voter had to insert the ballot into the corresponding box or it would not count. The ballots could not have party symbols on them. They had to be of a correct size and type of paper. Many ballots were arbitrarily thrown out because they slightly deviated from the proposed requirements. Ballots would also randomly be thrown out if there were more ballots in a box than registered voters. [18]

    The multiple ballot box requirements were challenged in court. On May 8, 1895, Judge Goff of the United States Circuit Court declared the provision unconstitutional and enjoined the state from taking further action under it. But in June 1895 the US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge Goff and dissolved the injunction, leaving the way open for a convention.

    The convention met on September 10 and adjourned on December 4, 1895. By the new constitution, South Carolina adopted the Mississippi Plan until January 1, 1898. Any male citizen could be registered who was able to read a section of the constitution or to satisfy the election officer that he understood it when read to him. Those thus registered were to remain voters for life.

    After passage of its new constitution, South Carolina white legislators were encouraged by the drop in black voters: by 1896, in a state where African Americans comprised a majority of the population, only 5,500 black voters had succeeded in registering. [19]
     
  18. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,380
    I personally agree with literacy tests. (And it has nothing to do with race). I don't care how it was used in the past, the truth is that it could come in handy. My thoughts are this: If you can't pass a basic, high school level literacy test (tests for minors), then you should not have the right to vote as an adult. If you are ignorant enough NOT to attend or pay attention in school, then you are obviously ignorant enough not to pay attention to our politics, current events, or anything else.
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Rights are inherent, not earned

    So rights are privileges? Why even bother with the word "right", then?
     
  20. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    We have a right to free speech, however, one cannot ``scream fire in a crowded movie theater''.

    I don't know where, exactly, I stand on this issue. But there is a precedent for the common good trumping personal liberties. The above example is the most oft-cited, of course, but you don't have to look far to find other examples. Freedom of the press is guaranteed, however, there are times when this right is revoked: for example, the press is prohibited from reporting the names of minors involved in crimes.

    If one is not able to be informed about an issue, how can he make a conscious decision? Is an uninformed voter not a dangerous thing?
     
  21. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Is that why they favor relaxed rules on media ownership? So that we are better educated voters? Ni**er please.
     
  22. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Ben it has little to do with rights and everything to do with nessacity. If you disinfranchise ANY group then you open the way for that group to be exploited. For instance lets look back at the old system where you could only vote if you owned land, this gives a massive insentive for elected officals to look after only those who own land at the exclusion of those who dont, this doesnt just mean people who chose to rent but rather excludeds those most effected by goverment decisions (the homeless and poor) from the political prossess. To take another example, can you honestly say goverments were intrested in issues specific to women before women got the right to vote? Or aborigional rights in Australia, before they became voting citizans of the very country they had lived in WAY before the white colonials arived they were hunted as animals in tasmainia, they couldnt give evidence in a court of law in SA ect. Its a VERY dangerious road to walk to concider disinfranchisment of ANY group no matter what the reason is. Rember we dont vote to get the best goverment, thats an ideal situation which doesnt stack up to reality. Voting is about keeping the worst group OUT of goverment
     
  23. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    I guess the point is that being a woman or being black or not owning property doesn't affect your ability to make a rational choice about what is in your own best interests. However, being illiterate clearly does have some effect on your ability to educate yourself regarding the issues that are important to you.

    I remember the Texas gubernatorial race in 2000. The Democrat candidate was Tony Sanchez, and the Republican candidate was Rick Perry. I remember driving past a billboard in the part of town that I lived in every day, that said (in Spanish) ``Good things happen when Hispanics vote'', over a picture of Tony Sanchez. The message was clear: Sanchez deserves your vote based on race.

    It seems to me that someone who can't read is more likely to make decisions based on things other than what's in their best interest. Of course, it works both ways. I'm sure that Bush got lots of votes in Alabama from crazy Evangelicals.
     

Share This Page