4 ms·

My concern with gating for votes in America is that America specifically has a very long history of gating voting in order to disenfranchise minorities from vot

My concern with gating for votes in America is that America specifically has a very long history of gating voting in order to disenfranchise minorities from voting. We cannot trust our institutions not to use any restrictions to vote in a racist way. Without this, I can easily imagine a world where our existing disenfranchisement of minorities makes them uniquely vulnerable to being unable to acquire the education necessary to pass to citizenship test- and that this vulnerability is taken advantage of to cut them out of democracy altogether.

giantg2 6y ago
If we can't trust our institutions, then what is the solution? There doesn't have to be much education to pass this test. A small book with the material could be mailed to each person on request with no charge. Crafting a strong ammendment with protections like this could address those concerns.
- KittenInABox 6y ago
  This I don't particularly mind if a small book with the material is provided to each person on request with no charge, potentially even at the point of voting. The point after all is to ensure that maximum numbers of people participating are aware of the systems, not as a gating mechanism. I'm merely protesting the use of a gating mechanism in isolation. If the gating mechanism came with an educational booklet then my concerns evaporate.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    Yeah, I think any law creating restrictions should also provide protections so it's not abused. For an example on another topic, gun rights groups want a punishment in the new red flag laws for people who file false red flag claims against others so that it can't be "weaponized", as restraining orders have increasingly been used as a "standard" part of divorce proceedings by some lawyers (in cases without any abuse). Seems to make sense, but like most laws it doesn't seem to get any legitimate debate because both sides are just passing laws on mostly partisan lines instead of investigating possible tweaks that would make both sides accepting (no empathy or devil's advocate).
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
The problem with this argument is that racists historically used every system in order to be racist. Should we eliminate public schools, because we still to this day provide less funding for schools in black neighborhoods? What about the Post Office, which was still segregated as recently as the 20th century? If we can't trust politicians not to implement policies in a racist fashion, don't we then have to eliminate the entire government? Or we could strive not to implement good policies in a bad way.
- giantg2 6y ago
  The property tax system of funding schools is not a good system, but it's also not truly racist. Yes, there are urban schools which are underfunded and disproportionately affect minorities, but there are also rural schools in predominately white areas that are also underfunded. Look to much of Appalachia and some of the south as examples. So in my opinion, property tax funding of schools would fit more with the "rich get richer" paradigm.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    You could say the same thing about literacy requirements. That's kind of the point. > Yes, there are urban schools which are underfunded and disproportionately affect minorities, but there are also rural schools in predominately white areas that are also underfunded. You could presumably also find some instances of so-called "white trash" being disenfranchised by aggressive voter eligibility requirements. > So in my opinion, property tax funding of schools would fit more with the "rich get richer" paradigm. All of racism fits into that paradigm. Racism is a system for causing poor black folks and poor white folks to fight against each other instead of fighting with each other against the systems oppressing both of them.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      "All of racism fits into that paradigm. Racism is a system for causing poor black folks and poor white folks to fight against each other instead of fighting with each other against the systems oppressing both of them." Your statement contradicts itself. If in fact the oppressors are targeting both white and black people to maintain power, then they are by definition not targeting only one race and would instead be classist/elitist. Also, not all racism is about people getting richer. Some of it was done on their (misguided) principles without financial benefit, or even to their detriment as the civil rights movement grew. I fail to see how the citizenship test would lead to the rich getting richer.

giantg2 6y ago

If we can't trust our institutions, then what is the solution? There doesn't have to be much education to pass this test. A small book with the material could be mailed to each person on request with no charge. Crafting a strong ammendment with protections like this could address those concerns.

KittenInABox 6y ago
This I don't particularly mind if a small book with the material is provided to each person on request with no charge, potentially even at the point of voting. The point after all is to ensure that maximum numbers of people participating are aware of the systems, not as a gating mechanism. I'm merely protesting the use of a gating mechanism in isolation. If the gating mechanism came with an educational booklet then my concerns evaporate.
- giantg2 6y ago
  Yeah, I think any law creating restrictions should also provide protections so it's not abused. For an example on another topic, gun rights groups want a punishment in the new red flag laws for people who file false red flag claims against others so that it can't be "weaponized", as restraining orders have increasingly been used as a "standard" part of divorce proceedings by some lawyers (in cases without any abuse). Seems to make sense, but like most laws it doesn't seem to get any legitimate debate because both sides are just passing laws on mostly partisan lines instead of investigating possible tweaks that would make both sides accepting (no empathy or devil's advocate).

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

The problem with this argument is that racists historically used every system in order to be racist. Should we eliminate public schools, because we still to this day provide less funding for schools in black neighborhoods? What about the Post Office, which was still segregated as recently as the 20th century? If we can't trust politicians not to implement policies in a racist fashion, don't we then have to eliminate the entire government? Or we could strive not to implement good policies in a bad way.

giantg2 6y ago
The property tax system of funding schools is not a good system, but it's also not truly racist. Yes, there are urban schools which are underfunded and disproportionately affect minorities, but there are also rural schools in predominately white areas that are also underfunded. Look to much of Appalachia and some of the south as examples. So in my opinion, property tax funding of schools would fit more with the "rich get richer" paradigm.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  You could say the same thing about literacy requirements. That's kind of the point. > Yes, there are urban schools which are underfunded and disproportionately affect minorities, but there are also rural schools in predominately white areas that are also underfunded. You could presumably also find some instances of so-called "white trash" being disenfranchised by aggressive voter eligibility requirements. > So in my opinion, property tax funding of schools would fit more with the "rich get richer" paradigm. All of racism fits into that paradigm. Racism is a system for causing poor black folks and poor white folks to fight against each other instead of fighting with each other against the systems oppressing both of them.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    "All of racism fits into that paradigm. Racism is a system for causing poor black folks and poor white folks to fight against each other instead of fighting with each other against the systems oppressing both of them." Your statement contradicts itself. If in fact the oppressors are targeting both white and black people to maintain power, then they are by definition not targeting only one race and would instead be classist/elitist. Also, not all racism is about people getting richer. Some of it was done on their (misguided) principles without financial benefit, or even to their detriment as the civil rights movement grew. I fail to see how the citizenship test would lead to the rich getting richer.