uspol
Now, maybe I'm just being terribly elitist, but I do think that if you are in favor of either price controls or tariffs at this point in human history, you probably shouldn't be allowed to hold office or even vote on the grounds that you have demonstrated a complete and utter lack of capacity to learn a goddamn thing from the roll of history.
uspol
(Sadly, unlike many state constitutions, the US Constitution does not include a clause banning madmen and idiots from public office. Perhaps it was less clear at the time just how often that would come up.)
uspol
@zarpaulus
I wouldn't be entirely opposed to a literacy test, but I'd want to make sure it doesn't deny voting rights to our naturalized immigrants—they're often better Americans than our own citizens.
@cerebrate
uspol
In my experience - admittedly as a not-yet-naturalized-because-it's-fucking-expensive immigrant - that particular demographic would have a much better score on passing the "American ideals and civics" portion of the test than many of the native-born.
(This may be one of the roots of my end-birthright-citizenship-and-make-everyone-naturalize policy.)
uspol
Easily solved by putting me in charge of the testing procedure.
By the time I get done inventing a Western version of the Chinese Imperial examinations, I can _guarantee_ that there will be no identifiable demographic that will _not_ feel like I'm screwing them personally.
uspol
@cerebrate The problem is there’s no objective way to determine who’s insane (many would say we’re both quite mad).
And IQ tests before voting have a history of being used to deny “undesirables” the right to vote in the States. Especially in the South-east.