3 ms·

The problem with this is that you find yourself in a position where you're adding educational access as a means to manipulate the voting base. Want to disenfra

The problem with this is that you find yourself in a position where you're adding educational access as a means to manipulate the voting base. Want to disenfranchise people (as an example) from rural areas in your state over the long run? Funnel education funding away from school buses and into schools that offer wide varieties of academic programs (that can only be offered in large schools). Before you say "that would never happen", the US has a long history of using literacy tests to disenfranchise voters, including many cases where those tests were applied unevenly or administered in ways that were openly discriminatory. [0] [0] https://www.crmvet.org/info/lithome.htm https://www.crmvet.org/info/lithome.htm

giantg2 6y ago
All you really to do to fix that is have the ammendment require the test study material (small book) be provided via mail upon request. Or some other means. If you have an ammendment that requires this, anyone targeted by manipulation can sue for their constitutional rights. Most of the past manipulations are attacks on older laws that were less specific and required judicial interpretation to determine applicability.
- InitialLastName 6y ago
  Getting the study material in the mail doesn't help if your education system isn't equipped to teach people how to read (much less study the government). You might or might not have noticed, but the politically and economically disenfranchised are not well-known for their access to legal recourse.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    If illiteracy is a widespread issue, then there are bigger issues at play. Not to mention, do we really want people like that voting? After all, that would make one ineligible to perform other duties which require basic english proficiency required of citizens (military drafts, jury). Rights come with responsibilities. Lawyers would love to take a clear cut case on a contingent basis.
    - InitialLastName 6y ago
      > If illiteracy is a widespread issue, then there are bigger issues at play. There are bigger issues at play [0]. Largely the echoing effects of white flight on second-tier cities, and politically motivated defunding of urban education. As with most of the other forms of systematic discrimination in our lives, there is always just enough plausible deniability to avoid judicial ramifications. I'm all for doing everything we can to ensure the people voting in our elections are educated enough to make informed decisions. I just don't think we should be doing that by depriving people of the fundamental right (in our system) to elect their representatives. edit: to add the citation I forgot [0] https://literacyrochester.org/new-york-state-has-a-literacy-problem/ https://literacyrochester.org/new-york-state-has-a-literacy-...
      - giantg2 6y ago
        That group is using a 5th grade reading level to indicate literacy. The citizenship test doesn't even require that level of literacy. Incorrect grammar and spelling are considered passing so long as the person can read and write well enough to communicate. A good gauge of that could be whether or not they can study from a book. I would be interested to see what percentage of illiterate people are voting now anyways. The part of your comment that is a bit twisted is saying that we would be taking away someone's fundamental right under the current system. I'm not suggesting we take away anyone's current rights, but institute a new policy for future children to require the test for them. Under our current system the right to vote is only a right for citizens. As we wouldn't be removing anyone's citizenship, we wouldn't be stripping anyone of that right. Not to mention that the current test is allows some immigrants to vote and others not, due to literacy constraints. So why not extend that paradigm to people who are born here. Finally, it seems the most important part of what I have said is consistently ignored - citizens have duties and to be a citizen one should be capable of performing those duties. That's a fundamental principle of democracy, as the people are the government. If being illiterate prevents one from being able to perform those duties, then they have have no reason to be afforded the privileges and specific rights from which they are derived (basic human rights would be intact). If one can have all the rights and privileges of being a citizen without the responsibilities, why would they even want to be a citizen? What would being a citizen even mean at that point?

giantg2 6y ago

All you really to do to fix that is have the ammendment require the test study material (small book) be provided via mail upon request. Or some other means. If you have an ammendment that requires this, anyone targeted by manipulation can sue for their constitutional rights. Most of the past manipulations are attacks on older laws that were less specific and required judicial interpretation to determine applicability.

InitialLastName 6y ago
Getting the study material in the mail doesn't help if your education system isn't equipped to teach people how to read (much less study the government). You might or might not have noticed, but the politically and economically disenfranchised are not well-known for their access to legal recourse.
- giantg2 6y ago
  If illiteracy is a widespread issue, then there are bigger issues at play. Not to mention, do we really want people like that voting? After all, that would make one ineligible to perform other duties which require basic english proficiency required of citizens (military drafts, jury). Rights come with responsibilities. Lawyers would love to take a clear cut case on a contingent basis.
  - InitialLastName 6y ago
    > If illiteracy is a widespread issue, then there are bigger issues at play. There are bigger issues at play [0]. Largely the echoing effects of white flight on second-tier cities, and politically motivated defunding of urban education. As with most of the other forms of systematic discrimination in our lives, there is always just enough plausible deniability to avoid judicial ramifications. I'm all for doing everything we can to ensure the people voting in our elections are educated enough to make informed decisions. I just don't think we should be doing that by depriving people of the fundamental right (in our system) to elect their representatives. edit: to add the citation I forgot [0] https://literacyrochester.org/new-york-state-has-a-literacy-problem/ https://literacyrochester.org/new-york-state-has-a-literacy-...
    - giantg2 6y ago
      That group is using a 5th grade reading level to indicate literacy. The citizenship test doesn't even require that level of literacy. Incorrect grammar and spelling are considered passing so long as the person can read and write well enough to communicate. A good gauge of that could be whether or not they can study from a book. I would be interested to see what percentage of illiterate people are voting now anyways. The part of your comment that is a bit twisted is saying that we would be taking away someone's fundamental right under the current system. I'm not suggesting we take away anyone's current rights, but institute a new policy for future children to require the test for them. Under our current system the right to vote is only a right for citizens. As we wouldn't be removing anyone's citizenship, we wouldn't be stripping anyone of that right. Not to mention that the current test is allows some immigrants to vote and others not, due to literacy constraints. So why not extend that paradigm to people who are born here. Finally, it seems the most important part of what I have said is consistently ignored - citizens have duties and to be a citizen one should be capable of performing those duties. That's a fundamental principle of democracy, as the people are the government. If being illiterate prevents one from being able to perform those duties, then they have have no reason to be afforded the privileges and specific rights from which they are derived (basic human rights would be intact). If one can have all the rights and privileges of being a citizen without the responsibilities, why would they even want to be a citizen? What would being a citizen even mean at that point?