Wednesday, November 19, 2008
A serious proposal: We must disenfranchise the ignorant
The above video isn't really a video; it's an audio selection from a Howard Stern broadcast. (Why isn't there a YouTube for audio snippets?) I present this clip as an addendum to this post. Before you state the obvious, let me make the following points:
1. I'm not a Howard Stern fan.
2. Yes, the selection of interview subjects is very small. However, I believe that this tiny handful of individuals represents a dangerously large proportion of the American electorate.
3. Yes, I concede that one could make an equally appalling audio documentary about McCain voters. At one time -- when I allowed party loyalty to trump reality -- I might have argued that the ignorance on display in these clips was a Republican "thing." Now I understand that it is an American thing.
To buttress points two and three, I ask you to witness the following:
The above video has appeared on Cannonfire before. I remain filled with awe at the cosmic vapidity of the blonde who insists that a triangle has "no sides." Even more awe-inspiring is this lady:
This next clip was made a few years back. The recent election gives it resonance. You'll soon see why.
You can find many similar amusements on YouTube.
My point is simple: These people should not be allowed to vote.
I am quite serious about this proposal.
Democracy will be strengthened, not weakened, if extremely ignorant citizens are disenfranchised.
Everyone who registers to vote should be required to pass a short and simple (very simple) test covering the major events of recent history, current events and civics. Sample questions:
1. True or false: Pearl Harbor was attacked on 9/11.
2. Woodrow Wilson was the President during which war: A) Revolutionary War. B) Vietnam War. C) World War I.
3. True or false: The President creates laws which Congress may or may not choose to enforce.
Ten such questions should suffice. If a respondent gets all ten correct, he need never again take the test for the rest of his life. If he or she gets (say) eight out of ten correct, the citizen must take the test again within the decade.
We administer tests before handing out driver's licenses. Why not administer similar tests to those who wish to participate in democracy? Indeed, the tests could be given in the same buildings.
Under our current system, citizens must re-register when they move, a requirement which never made much sense to me. The current registration system disenfranchises the homeless and creates difficulties for people who move frequently. It also discriminates against those who do not want their current address to be made available in a public database.
I propose issuing voter licenses, similar to drivers' licenses.
Under this system, your voting rights would not end if economic upheaval forces you to live in a van or a homeless shelter temporarily. As long as you carry your voting license in your pocket, you will be able to replace the politicians who created those economic problems.
Think about it. If you lose your job and your home, you may lose your right to vote -- yet that blonde who avers that a triangle has "no sides" will still be able to enter the election booth with her empty head held high.
Is that right? Is that fair?
Some will argue that any test of a voter's knowledge will return this country to the unhappy age of discrimination and Jim Crow. It is sadly true that, at one time, tests were used to keep black people from voting in various southern states. However, I am convinced that a bipartisan panel -- one composed of representatives from all ethnic groups -- can design a fair test. For that matter, I am convinced that a panel composed entirely of leading African Americans could come up with a perfectly fine list of questions.
Personally, I would rather give the vote to an ex-felon of normal-or-above intelligence instead of granting it to someone who thinks that Europe is a country, even if the latter person has never committed a crime.
People of normal intelligence who remain willfully ignorant have made the choice to give up their right to participate in democracy. Have no pity for anyone who chooses to renounce his or her birthright. People who, for biological reasons, demonstrate very limited intelligence (IQ 70 and below) cannot be granted full custody of their own destinies.
Do you honestly believe that someone who does not know the date of the 9/11 attacks should have a right to vote?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
Vote? We shouldn't let them reproduce!
Didja know eugenics was originally a "progressive" idea?
myiq: Forgive me. I should have thanked you for directing my attention to the Howard Stern clip.
Obviously, I find the very concept of eugenics to be appalling. Even so: Some would argue that cigarettes exist to weed out (so to speak) the stupid people from the gene pool. Unfortunately, cigs don't kill fast enough.
There was a SciFi writer - I believe it was Heinlein - who whote stories where only military veterans were allowed to vote and become citizens. Everybody else need not apply.
Unfortunately, he never imagined what today's military would consist of, so now that idea is a really, really bad one.
I support the test concept regardless of the howls of protest that would rise from the ignorant and uninformed.
It would even be fun to watch as they hit the streets, screaming, chanting, jumping around, demanding their right to ruin the nation.
CNN would be in a wonderful pickle since it would be their viewers out there, publicly protesting their mass stupidity.
Who's side would the make-up caked bimbos be on? Who would the macho-dudelet bobbleheads repeatedly quote?
What kind of advice would the "best political team on television" be giving to all those the folks who failed first grade?
Silly me... I'm dreaming of an impossbile future.
Unfortunately most Obots are intelligent and can pass basic tests but their social views are what's problematic. One young Obot actually believed African-Americans were too smart and righteous to belong to cults therefore whomever they endorse must be good. If only he knew about Jonestown before the election. He could tell you perfectly about separation of powers,the Pearl harbor attacks, Reynolds v Sims & Baker v.Carr, landmark cases of political representation but he has the unfortunate "magic Negro" syndrome.Even if we weeded out the ignorant we'd still have plenty of Obama voters.
Well, I did have to pass a test to become a citizen, so I think it would be fair to ask people to pass a one-time test before allowing them to vote.
Well, my proposal here is not about Obama or Bush or any other candidate. Although an educated voter should be familiar with the general outline of what occurred at Jonestown.
A guy asks if the "axis of evil" starts with us, and you would prohibit him from voting because his response doesn't match your answer sheet? Is he correct, though? A pyramid has sides; the jury is still out about triangles. Really, since no 2 points may occupy the same Euclidian space, a triangle's lines can't meet; we're required to accept an illusion, which is by definition hypothetical and contrary to the system's own axioms (couldn't you see in the blonde's countenance and hear in her voice her recognition of the paradox in the surveyor's quixotic mission?). Next time the question should be how many assholes in a menage a trois.
The Electoral College is intended to compensate for idiocy (Elector? I never even touched her!).
True or false: Chicago is east of Florida.
We know what 'Chicago' means, what 'east of' means, what 'Florida' means. It's the 'is' that the answer depends on.
So, you are arguing that when Blondie said "no sides" then quickly added "one side," she revealed herself to be an advanced thinker. Sort of like the people who aver that all numbers are equal to 47...
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Number-47
Or perhaps she was receiving messages from the same entity who told Crowley that "every number is infinite; there is no difference."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/engccxx.htm
Rationalization is FUN!
The blond rocket scientist with Jeff Foxworthy is Kellie Pickler, and she's doing pretty good these days.
Ironically, she's been touring the world.
I thought she looked familiar! I suspect she may even have been playing up the "barefoot holler-gal bimbo" angle because that charmed a lot of folks during her Idol stint.
The Founding Fathers only allowed white male land owners to vote. And we have expanded the vote ever since.
I am not sure that we could ever get the country to agree to such a limitation. I know what you mean, Joseph. And your examples clearly show what the problem in a democratic Republic is/are when people do not educate themselves on the issues, or even are just plain educated.
One part of me says, 'yes.' Another part of me says,'no,' as it is a limit on democracy itself.
I know what the problem is, but I certainly do not know the answer. This is certainly a problem that needs to be seriously addressed.
There is a great essay over at Truth Dig (not my fave site these days as an Obot wrote he would like to fill me with buckshot during the primary season) by Chris Hedges on this very subject. He does an excellent job on the problem, but offers no solutions.
As I think about this we do take a drivers test, and sometimes to get a job you must take a test. But I don't know about voting. I need to think on this a bit more.
It is good you brought the subject up. I hope you do do periodically so that we can think about it more.
bert in Ohio
It would probably require a Constitutional amendment to allow such a test.
Do you want the same people in those videos tinkering with the foundation of all we hold dear?
Look how well the Eighteenth Amendment worked out.
A Canadian comic, Rick Mercer, has been asking Americans questions - even George W. Have a laugh - or maybe a cry....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seYUbVa7L7w
For more, Google 'Talking to Americans'.
Does a triangle have 3 or 6 angles? Did you know that a number squared plus itself plus the next number equals the next number squared?
Does this not touch on one of the oldest arguments against democracy--that citizens are simply too stupid, ignorant, and emotional for the system to work? I believe our whole "constitutional republic" system was devised partly to lessen this inherent weakness of democracy.
I'm opposed to a knowledge test for voters, partly because I'm not convinced that a "stupid" person's vote is necessarily a bad one, and partly because any system we create would soon be rigged by the Republicans.
I usually love what you write, but I couldn't believe you wrote this. I remember after the 2000 election one of the neocon on Tv talking about the confusing ballet and he said if they can't figure it out, they shouldn't be allowed to vote. I my self found it confusing and I have a MSc. I am sure if I was in Florida I would have done the same thing they did. Remember all the cheating and fraud done by the republicans in the last 2 elections and the crying about it from the democrats and when they did it this year it is alright. My point is don't open doors. It will come back and bite in you know what
Ahem, um, Joseph... "the blonde"? How about "the woman", since you wouldn't refer to a man by his (stereotypically dumb) hair color?
This, from you, surprises me.
I think eugenics would be great, but of course we'd get the wrong people deciding who could breed and it would go awry.
Blonde American was clearly discussing a triangular plane ("one side"). The question was wrong.
Here we have an insightful comment by a Miss Teen America contestant regarding her 'personal beliefs' as to why Americans cannot find the U.S. on a map.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
Personal beliefs trump actual knowlege. It's hip & cool & stuff.
Here's a less radical proposal:
Better Education. With Civics as a subject again in EVERY AMERICAN SCHOOL.
We have to understand our government and our country.
Joseph, How could forget this classic Miss Teen South Carolina in 2007?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
I've seen so many videos like these. They are effortless to make. How many street interviews do you see from other countries? Could you link some interviews from GB or Australia? How about some translated ones? You could make them also but people do not. They do not fit the stereotype so they wouldn't be funny. Think about it. What are you laughing at...how stupid some people can be or how stupid US citizens are? Stupid Australians just aren't that funny.
"Who's(sic) side would the make-up caked bimbos be on?"
Whose, indeed. And what next? Grammar tests? Tests for misogyny?
Speaking of which, before any CLOWNS waddle in and inform me "who's" is how the kewl internet kids purposely misspell whose, let me assure you, I'm just teasing bob.
The make-up and wardrobe on the female news ....talent... annoy me, too. Especially when the dolled up tools question Palin's wardrobe.
joseph,
Actually if the blonde answered "one side" she probably was thinking dimensionally. How many sides does a pyramid have?
That's difficult to answer even if it's specified whether the pyramid was composed of three or four triangular sides. The answer would depend on whether you are counting the base as a "side" and also on whether you are thinking of its planes or its edges.
The original question might've been more amusing had he asked how many angles does a tri-angle have?
====
Oh, and gwen's remark about "Magic Negro" syndrome is so dead on.
oh!
And in answer to your Swiftian "serious proposal" how about "we must educate the ignorant."
I guess that would be a gargantuan proposal.
Zee: I was not, am not being Swiftian. I mean it.
I understand that concept behind the "magic Negro" thing, but I don't like that insulting way of putting it.
Everyone is taught in school that a triangle has three sides. The question is not complex.
"I'm opposed to a knowledge test for voters, partly because I'm not convinced that a "stupid" person's vote is necessarily a bad one, and partly because any system we create would soon be rigged by the Republicans."
A stupid person's vote is always bad, even when it goes to a candidate I admire. And the Republicans will try to game any system that exists. Does that mean we should do without a system altogether?
The effortlessness of these "Jaywalking" type videos is part of the very point that I am making. The stupidity of the man in the street in Australia or any other country is not my concern. America is my concern.
dg: I am convinced that the citizenry would become more serious about schooling if dolts were forbidden from participating in democracy.
And I've never met a woman who refrained from referring to other women as "that blonde" or "the redhead." Are we back in the realm of "WE can do it, but YOU can't"? (I.e., young black guys can use the word "nigger," but God help any young white guys who do likewise.)
"These people should not be allowed to vote."
That's passive voice, right?
@ Zee
How do you propose we educate them? It seems those being interviewed are old enough to have their high school diplomas.
In the 7th grade, I had to take the Constitution test to pass to the 8th grade and when I was a Senior, I had to pass Civics class or not graduate.
The question is... did they fail the system, or did the system fail them?
Ms. Vandal
"We must disenfranchise the ignorant."
Alternatively, "we" could hold exclusive rights to determining the candidates, and let them all vote.
I've given this some thought in the past and concluded that voter ignorance by itself isn't disastrous. Votes cast in ignorance should just cancel each other out. They're random guesses like most votes for school board and city council candidates. Voter suggestibility and those who take advantage of it are the true villains.
Who would grade the tests? I don't want to seem humorless, but considering the literacy tests that were used to prevent black people from exercising their right to vote in the South for so long, I think we have to be very careful about this kind of thing.
-- Boston Boomer
bb, you answer your own question. Make sure that black people, ALL people, play a large role in making the tests and running the system.
In the democratic future, everyone will be POTUS for 15 minutes.
Joseph,
a. I don't think it's useful to lose one's humor.
b. Why do you think Magic Negro syndrome, which is a dead-on way to term the mental disorder, is insulting, yet, as lillianjane was more vigilant than I chose to be in calling you out, "the blonde" is not?
I've never met a blonde (or either sex) who didn't like blonde jokes.
I've listened to some black commentators on the radio who seem to find the term "negro" even more insulting than the other N word.
That situation strikes me as a little odd, since "negro" was the term used by King when I was a boy. But like everyone else, I made the transition from using "negro" to "black" in -- what was the year? 1970? Somewhere around that time.
I think it was Reagan who started eliminating Civics classes in school--hmm? I wondered if it was intentional to keep the electorate ignorant, so we can just go along with whatever the oligarchs want.
Don't know if Obama would want to re-introduce Civics classes, as it seems that his supporters might have to really look at his lack of experience, his constant flip-flopping, etc. In other words, he would be called out on his BS.
I think your idea about a voter's license is a great idea---10 questions minimum.
Those YouTube videos of some of the voters not knowing who Pelosi, Reid or Franks were, made my blood pressure go up again.
Great post, and what was on my mind the past couple of days. Thank you!
In the early 1960s 'Negro American' replaced 'American Negro' in parlance and scholarship. 'Black(s)' was replacing 'Negro(es)' before 1970 (but not too much before); 'African-American' and 'Afro-American' were current around the same time. Publishers had style sheets for these things. (I can't document this: a newspaper preferred 'African-American' to 'Black'/'black', so in a finance article where a company went from being in the red to being in the black, the paper wrote "in the African-American" - should copy-editors be allowed to vote?).
Also, check out Dylan's new double-CD, "Blonde Off Blonde", especially the track "Whoa, The TImes They Are Y'know Like Changing Alot".
Not a bad idea but the fact is that blacks or African-Americans (what-have-you) would fail at a higher rate no matter how you fiddle with the tests.
That's the reason they had to use "race-norming" with civil service tests in NY State. These tests are not hard but blacks failed them at a way higher rate than whites. (We choose firefighters and cops from these tests.)
Can I use the word fireman instead of firefighter? I'm sick of saying such a long, hard word. And where I'm from they are all men because the job is too hard for women.
There, I said it and I feel so good.
There would be so much wrangling on what the minimum threshhold should be that this could never be put into place.
However, you could start with the sort of thing that prospective citizens must pass, that basic level of civic knowledge.
However, that would NOT prepare somebody to answer the question, who is John Boehner (especially if that is a verbal question, pronouncing it bay-nor). Yet Boehnor as the minority leader of the GOP House is a somewhat important member of Congress.
And how far back would you want to go? Who was Jake Garn or Ferdinand St. Germain? Describe their roles in the debacle (WHAT debacle?).
Not to mention the likely insistence on historical revisionist positions. (What country's foreign policy has sheparded the international trafficking in heroin for decades?)
XIslander
j: I don't think that "race-norming" would be necessary. And as I said, it's fine by me if African American leaders approve of or even compose the tests.
But if race-norming IS necessary -- well, so be it. I just want to toss out (say) the dumbest quarter of the voters, across the board. The bottom 25% of white voters go out; the bottom 25% of black voters go out; the bottom 25% of Hispanics go out -- and so on.
That'll do fine. Surely we will be rid of those citizens who can't name the date of the 9/11 attacks...?
Hey Bob,
"Unfortunately, he never imagined what today's military would consist of, so now that idea is a really, really bad one."
Go back and read Starship troopers.
Read the chapter that heinleim spends on the HISTORY of his story and the then current realities. He specifically addresses the problems with today's military.
He even goes into the reasons why military Veterans, and only veterans got to vote. Not because they were better, less corruptible etc. Simply on average they had already placed the whole of society ahead of themselves. Nothing to fancy about that. A concept I agree with.
Yup, that would just about correspond with the percentage of voters who think Dubya is doing a bang-up job, so it works out perfectly!
It's not so much what people know or don't know, or whether they're smart or stupid. It's what they believe. And beliefs in our society are formed primarily through mass psychotronic mind control, otherwise known as television. TVs are placed in public thoroughfares throughout this great land of ours - in airports, bus stations, and in virtually every and doctors' office and hospital waiting room. Even in bars, restaurants, and your local Midas Muffler, as you wait to pick up your ailing vehicle. And of course, they’re found in almost every home in this country (frequently in multiples). Whoever owns the airwaves controls the American version of reality.
I spend most of my time on a small island 2500 miles from the US mainland. While I have high-speed Internet, I am not hooked into the frequency grid. I did not see any television this past year (save for a few of the Democratic debates at a local friend’s house and the second half of the Super Bowl at the sushi bar). However, I traveled all across the mainland for 33 days just prior to the election and was bombarded with TV every place I passed through and everywhere I stayed. It washed through my consciousness like the ocean waves breaking on the sandy shore (not!). “Reality” was pretty impossible to miss (or to get wrong)…Obama was omnipresent and bathed in light. Such a good man! and so-o-o loved is he. And wise, and cool. McCain was the invisible man, but rumor had it that he was old and evil. Palin was a screeching overdressed whore, a great butt for jokes, and constant object of derision…David Letterman’s personal piñata. The easiest 15 minutes he ever had to fill up. Every. Single. Night. And Joe Biden was...who was he again?
When you control the airwaves you control the minds of the masses. This was not an election; it was simply an official rubber stamp of the message broadcast relentlessly to a nation of sheep, some of them bleating. Intelligence isn't really a good measure. Take the busiest and smartest people you know...surgeons, entrepreneurs, dentists; even fishermen (I know many)...very busy people. As bright as they may be, they’re frequently the lowest information voters because they simply haven't the time or desire to scour the Internet for truth. They catch snippets from the nightly news, hear things from others and merge seamlessly (and most importantly, effortlessly) with the gestalt of mass belief.
Money buys the airwaves, the airwaves create reality, and reality is what people believe. Because well, it’s “real.” Right? And belief buys the White House. Of the 66,760,924 people who voted for Obama, the one thing they all had in common was not intelligence or lack thereof (plenty of them had higher IQs than you or I), but the belief that an inexperienced, achievement-free, consummate entertainer (with stress on the "con") was actually best qualified to be the new host of “The President Show” for the next four years. Oh, and also… commander-in-chief of the world's most powerful military and nuclear arsenal, steward of the world's largest economy, holder of the key to the U.S. Treasury, and leader of the entire free world. I guarantee you, for 97% of them that belief was formed by psychotronic mind-controlling television; now coming to you in even more powerful, compelling and “believable” form - digital HD (in February 2009 - by Congressional mandate, in fact. My, what a surprise.).
Let's sing it altogether now to the tune of “The Star Spangled Remote”… Oh say can you see…The land of tee vee! and home of the slave!
Forget about your tests. They will change nothing. It’s got nothing to do with smarts. Turn off the TV. Free the people. Or, if you can’t do that (and you can’t) – then get control of the TV yourself. Obama did it for just $600 million (about $10 a vote - what a deal!). Let’s raise a billion in 2012 and take back the White House. (Better make that $1.5 B – just to play it safe :-)
Your suggestion is crap, Joseph. The "blonde", as you call her (would it be OK if she called you a skinhead?) didn't have the same opportunities as richer people.
Most minds are hugely influenced by propaganda. Voting doesn't change anything anyway; electoral democracy is a product of propaganda.
(Never mind its espousal by 18th century slave-owning freemasons or, among themselves, by Athenian slave-owners in ancient times. History isn't chronology).
I was hoping that once Obama (or whoever) was elected, this blog's focus would move (back) to exposing and undermining the established authorities, rather than rooting for one candidate rather than other. To a large extent, this has happened.
Saying stupid proletarians shouldn't be allowed to vote is right-wing crap.
The election is over. The big questions remain the same as if McCain had won. Which foreign countries might US forces attack? What openings are there for exposing the criminal ruling factions? What's really going on, here, there and everywhere? Will they reintroduce the draft? And so on.
Operating in the intersection of the electorate (however intelligent and informed) and the pro-a-better-society critical community is difficult or impossible.
b, you're being ridiculous.
First, I'd have no problem if blondie called me skinhead, chrome-dome, egghead or whatever.
(Egghead. Hmmm. Actually, I kind of like the sound of that.)
Second, you can't have it both ways. If you retreat to your vaguely Marxist pronouncements that elections don't mean a thing, you are no longer entitled to register shock at my humble suggestion to restrict voting to non-idiots. Either the vote matters or it doesn't.
I happen to think that it does.
Call me a romantic, or a bourgeois, or whatever pleases you. I happen to think that elections mean a lot.
Yeah, propaganda drives much or most of the debate in this country. And yeah, the televised propaganda in this country (to which you had limited access) was one-sidedly pro-O.
And what occurred? He got a mere 52%, in a year that had EVERYTHING going for the Democrats. The vast majority of the people consider W a disaster, we've entered what looks to be a wretched recession, the war is deeply unpopular, the media was COMPLETELY in Obama's favor, all sorts of lies were spread about Sarah Palin (no, I don't approve of her views, but neither do I approve of lying) -- and in spite of all THAT, O got a mere 52% of the popular vote.
He should have received 70% or more. The fact that he didn't shows that propaganda, though effective, has its limits.
And my suggestion was not framed in terms of class. It was framed in terms of intelligence.
More accurately, it was framed in terms of a voter's willingness to do a little reading now and again. There are plenty of rich kids in the U.S. who don't like reading -- let me assure you of THAT.
In fact, you could say that my proposal is directed less against Peter Prole and more against Paris Hilton.
Although if Peter insists on being just as ditsy as Paris -- then I say to hell with him. To hell with 'em both.
As for the direction of this blog -- I'll write about whatever catches my fancy on any given day. Often I will leave an important topic unaddressed simply because I do not have the time to do the research necessary to do justice to that topic. I am genuinely sorry about that situation, but it cannot be helped. Readers may show up or boycott as they wish; that is not my concern. I write to write, not to be read.
Post a Comment