Tancredo: We need another literacy test to prevent a repeat of 2008 43 replies

Please wait...

Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#1 8 years ago

Tea Party opening speaker suggests law that kept blacks be kept from voting be reinstated | Raw Story

Tom Tancredo, failed GOP candidate for the 2008 elections, opened for the TEA bagger convention in Tennessee where he had a point or two to say about the political landscape which bordered at reactionary at one point.

Among some of the points of the rant passed off as a speech, Tacredo took aim at Obama and said that "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country", going on to bash Obama supporters for being "illiterate" and "non-white" and as a result causing the election of a "committed socialist ideologue".

Aside from having a poor knowledge of how people become citizens and the process of registering to vote, Tancredo forgets that many of the sugar-coated initiatives in the past like "literacy" tests were used to disenfranchise voters, not to gauge a voter's competency.

Unsurprisingly as Tancredo was essentially preaching to the choir, no one in the crowd took notice to the comment. Or missed the "good ol' days". I don't know.

Edit: Could someone move this thread? I must have not looked when I made it.




Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,261 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#2 8 years ago

Too a point I have to agree, atleast in theory... some people are pretty damn stupid and form an opinion and possibly support for a certain party or candidate purely over emotional, unrational feelings. Though I'd also guess that many of those people don't bother to vote at all unless, on rare occasions, they can be rallied/encouraged into doing so.

So in theory it might be interesting to see how much people actually know, how rational they are... to sort out the IQ brick people who shout "Bush/Obama/... is Hitler!" people.

In practise you want elections to be open to all, including those that are pretty much frowned upon by all within the society, as a democracy is meant to be an accurate representation of the public (as to the extend such a thing is possible ofcourse), which includes unrational people aswell as people who may have theories (any theory, anywhere on the political scale) that won't work. It's one of the "flaws" of a democracy, as is how the majority can "opress" the minority groups aslong as it doesn't violate the constitution.

But it seems like she ain't that neutral with her intentions/view of improving elections:

we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country", going on to bash Obama supporters for being "illiterate" and "non-white" and as a result causing the election of a "committed socialist ideologue".

A guess a literate public would have a higher chanche of making forming more rational opinions, granted that the literature available should be objective. At the very least when it comes to basic literature on school. It's up to the people then to pick up a book by Ghandy, Marx, Hitler, the Bible, thora, Quaran, whoever/whatever to broaded their world view with whatever literature they see great value in.

The "non-white" part must be a joke.. or an extreme simplification and generalisation (so much for the "litterate" part).

The "committed socialist ideologue". I am going to asume this isn't meant as a compliment or observation? If this lady would be sincere she'd want the public, including those who may be lagging behind in some areas, to increase their knowledge and understanding and may then follow any ideology they feel most connected with. Be it communism, socialism, liberalism, enviromentalism, conservatism, progressivism etc. etc.

I'm inclined to shamelessly assume she meant to say "socialism bad, go read a book, liberalism good, must get people to join our liberal/libertarian party and fight for liberalism!". :o

Commissar MercZ;5233618 Edit: Could someone move this thread? I must have not looked when I made it.

The logs tell me you made this thread in the Pub, where would you want to have it moved? :confused:




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#3 8 years ago

If a literacy test had been required then Bush would have never become President himself. He certainly couldn't seem to read a teleprompter. And when he tried to ad lib or improvise it just went downhill from there.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#4 8 years ago

Admiral Donutz;5233724So in theory it might be interesting to see how much people actually know, how rational they are... to sort out the IQ brick people who shout "Bush/Obama/... is Hitler!" people. [/QUOTE]

If we were to do it in that regard, then it would probably disqualify a lot of TEA baggers too and I don't think they were meaning "literacy" test in that regards.

But I must point out that when one becomes a citizen you do have to take a test that gauges such skills- a working knowledge of the basics of the constitution, and you must be a citizen in order to vote.

And when you register to vote they usually require you fill out a form and present the form.

2009.jpg

The literacy test the US had in the past were typically used to disenfranchise black voters, in making them read parts of the constitution verbatim and holding it against them if they stuttered or rushed a word.

Such a test is here,

http://www.crmvet.org/info/litques.pdf

Some of those questions may be obvious, but there are a few there that an average voter could have cared little for, and usually a black voter was denied voting if he missed one. Most of that was written by hand so spelling errors were weighed against, and these two questions for instance,

""The power of granting patents, that is, of securing to inventors the exclusive right to their discoveries, is given to the Congress for the purpose of____" (promoting progress)

"In what year did congress gain the right to prohibit the migration of persons to the states?" (1808)

I'm inclined to shamelessly assume she meant to say "socialism bad, go read a book, liberalism good, must get people to join our liberal/libertarian party and fight for liberalism!". :o

Tancredo is a male and I've noticed you've said "she" a lot in the post, did you even take a look at the article?

But yeah, he's just preaching to the choir in that regard over using the dreaded "socialism" punching bag. Most of these guys can't define socialism beyond taxes and big government, which would make a lot of things "socialist" even though they're not... not to mention that's not the definition.

Though TEA baggers wouldn't call themselves liberal even if they were referring to classical liberalism... "liberal" as you probably already know tends to refer to social liberals in the USA. And even in that regard they only care for it as far as the "free" market goes, they're by and large right-wing nationalist/populists.

The logs tell me you made this thread in the Pub, where would you want to have it moved? :confused:

I originally made it by accident in the history and warfare subforum.

[QUOTE=Anlushac11;5233725]If a literacy test had been required then Bush would have never become President himself. He certainly couldn't seem to read a teleprompter. And when he tried to ad lib or improvise it just went downhill from there.

I've heard that there are rumors on the internets.




Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#5 8 years ago

Commissar MercZ;5233618Tea Party opening speaker suggests law that kept blacks be kept from voting be reinstated | Raw Story

Tom Tancredo, failed GOP candidate for the 2008 elections, opened for the TEA bagger convention in Tennessee where he had a point or two to say about the political landscape which bordered at reactionary at one point.

Among some of the points of the rant passed off as a speech, Tacredo took aim at Obama and said that "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country", going on to bash Obama supporters for being "illiterate" and "non-white" and as a result causing the election of a "committed socialist ideologue".

Aside from having a poor knowledge of how people become citizens and the process of registering to vote, Tancredo forgets that many of the sugar-coated initiatives in the past like "literacy" tests were used to disenfranchise voters, not to gauge a voter's competency.

Unsurprisingly as Tancredo was essentially preaching to the choir, no one in the crowd took notice to the comment. Or missed the "good ol' days". I don't know.

Edit: Could someone move this thread? I must have not looked when I made it.

Oh, I'm pretty sure he remembers what literacy tests do. Mentioning that many Obama supporters were "non-white" and then mentioning a system that was designed so that "non-white[s]" couldn't pass it (as in, the answers change depending on who's taking the test and who's grading the test*) strongly suggests that he knows what he's saying.

*So, For example, you might have a test titled "Alabama State Voting Test", and at the end, it asks you to count how many "a"s there are on the test. If you include "the "a"s from Alabama and State, then you could be marked for being wrong, as the title isn't really part of the test, and if you don't include the "a"s from Alabama and State, then you could be marked wrong, as the "test" was referring to the entire text.




Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,261 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#6 8 years ago
Commissar MercZ;5233959If we were to do it in that regard, then it would probably disqualify a lot of TEA baggers too and I don't think they were meaning "literacy" test in that regards.

I figured, after looking at the examples and PDF posted on the webpage with questions such as what kind of paper authorities need to have if they want to gain entry to your house (search warrant). Such questions don't really test a broad, basic political and social understanding.

But I must point out that when one becomes a citizen you do have to take a test that gauges such skills- a working knowledge of the basics of the constitution, and you must be a citizen in order to vote.

A basic understanding of the country (politics, culture, language, law) is quite reasonable. People atleast need to know the foundations of a country such as (which applies to all western nations) the right of freedom of speech, equality and so on. Such exams have been (and are) a requirement in more and more (western) nations.

And when you register to vote they usually require you fill out a form and present the form.

2009.jpg

I don't quite get the purpose of this form... but this might be because the print is too small to read. =p

The literacy test the US had in the past were typically used to disenfranchise black voters, in making them read parts of the constitution verbatim and holding it against them if they stuttered or rushed a word.

Such a test is here,

http://www.crmvet.org/info/litques.pdf

Some of those questions may be obvious, but there are a few there that an average voter could have cared little for, and usually a black voter was denied voting if he missed one. Most of that was written by hand so spelling errors were weighed against, and these two questions for instance,

""The power of granting patents, that is, of securing to inventors the exclusive right to their discoveries, is given to the Congress for the purpose of____" (promoting progress)

"In what year did congress gain the right to prohibit the migration of persons to the states?" (1808)

Those sort of questions don't really verify if you have a basic understanding of political views and so on. And I'd also agree that plenty of people really wouldn't give a damn in which exact year a certain branche of goverment got certani rights or other such details. Those sort of questions are obviously to filter out those who did not pass highschool (I'm just going to have to assume that people are thought such details in highschool? Seems quite pointless to me... and more fitting for advanced politcs/history classes).

The webpage also mentioned the flawed setup of having to get a pass from a 3 people jury... rather then having to answer x% of the questions correctly.

Speaking of this... even with a more fair test it would still be flawed since people from the middle and upper class might have more options to educate themselves outside of school or even go to a better school/class/course. Lower class citizens would be at a disatvantage, and thus have less of a chanche to vote on a party/person who represents their concerns and thus in turn do something for them to improve their situation (saying, passing laws that make education more accessable and affordable). Hence why in practise such a test wouldn't work even if was done with the best of intentions (filtering out complete nutjobs).

Tancredo is a male and I've noticed you've said "she" a lot in the post, did you even take a look at the article?

Heh, I thoguth it said "she". Damn it. And err.. yes, ofcourse I read the article and your post... :banghead:

But yeah, he's just preaching to the choir in that regard over using the dreaded "socialism" punching bag. Most of these guys can't define socialism beyond taxes and big government, which would make a lot of things "socialist" even though they're not... not to mention that's not the definition.

The type of people you'd wish to filter out if you were concerned that people with insufficient general understanding of politics, cutlure, law and thus spoil the election results. =p

Though TEA baggers wouldn't call themselves liberal even if they were referring to classical liberalism... "liberal" as you probably already know tends to refer to social liberals in the USA. And even in that regard they only care for it as far as the "free" market goes, they're by and large right-wing nationalist/populists.

Well I guess in the spirit of liberalism it would make sense if these liberals/liberalists/libertarians (or whatever you want to name these supporters of liberalism) it would make sense if they were against such goverment intervention (restriction) as a test as it would mean more goverment involvement.

I don't care what they call themselves, I got the impression that these TEA baggers have a good amount of people in it that may not even support liberalism beyond the point of "keep guvement out, no taxes" and might even be outright against other views you would expect from liberalism based organisations such as pro abortion, pro homo marriage, pro euthanasia and similar concerns.

I originally made it by accident in the history and warfare subforum.

Really? How odd, the logs attached to this thread is empty. It doesn't list any thread/post deletion, editting, move or any other action. Meh, it doesn't matter.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#7 8 years ago
Admiral Donutz;5234006 A basic understanding of the country (politics, culture, language, law) is quite reasonable. People atleast need to know the foundations of a country such as (which applies to all western nations) the right of freedom of speech, equality and so on. Such exams have been (and are) a requirement in more and more (western) nations.

Yes, in citizenship exams.

But not to cast a ballot.

I don't quite get the purpose of this form... but this might be because the print is too small to read. =p
The webpage also mentioned the flawed setup of having to get a pass from a 3 people jury... rather then having to answer x% of the questions correctly.

Said jury would often judge by that though. Other times they might make the person read the constitution as well and disqualify them if they jumbled up a word.

I don't care what they call themselves, I got the impression that these TEA baggers have a good amount of people in it that may not even support liberalism beyond the point of "keep guvement out, no taxes" and might even be outright against other views you would expect from liberalism based organisations such as pro abortion, pro homo marriage, pro euthanasia and similar concerns.

Yeah, but you know very well that right-wing populist groups in your country tend to be the same collection of hypocritical types.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#8 8 years ago

I agree there should be a test or something of the like, IMO there should be instead of a "check this box to vote for the candidate" they should change it to a form which shows you the policies you want a president to have, then it goes to the closest candidate to that form, including candidates which aren't talked about much and are just on the ballot, so there is no need for campaigns and the American people get the president who they need, rather then the president they want because "His speeches sound good"

Although the guy in the article seems to act like if you voted for Obama your an idiot, which is just another Conservative who will bash Liberal leaders for what they do wrong always ignoring what they do right and take the slightest thing they can hate them for (like how many "I"'s are in Obama's speech) and then twist around into "he's focusing on himself then what he will do"




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

216,579 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

19,982 Posts

6 Threads

#9 8 years ago

It would be nice to have only highly educated voters, but if you limit who is allowed to vote you dismantle democracy, which is great for the educated people who get to vote but not so great for the uneducated people who suddenly don't have a representation anymore. It might be a better idea to try to educate all voters to the degree where they can make somewhat informed decisions.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#10 8 years ago
MrFancypants;5234055It would be nice to have only highly educated voters, but if you limit who is allowed to vote you dismantle democracy, which is great for the educated people who get to vote but not so great for the uneducated people who suddenly don't have a representation anymore. It might be a better idea to try to educate all voters to the degree where they can make somewhat informed decisions.

I think to that end though, it would require more than what Tancredo is suggesting, particularly the American electorate. Though if that problem was fixed, someone like Tancredo wouldn't have an easy time getting elected.

The original literacy tests were not in place in most societies assumed that the education processes educated people to read and write, so they would have been redundant.