4 ms·
It's definitely not reasonable. You shouldn't lose your right to vote because you don't know which office of government pays USPS mail carriers or the term leng
by VariousPrograms 2y ago
It's definitely not reasonable. You shouldn't lose your right to vote because you don't know which office of government pays USPS mail carriers or the term length of US judges. There are lots of likely-disqualifiers mixed in with the gimmes like "Who is the first president?".
- whaaaaat 2y agoAgreed. This test is not reasonable. Even "who is the first president" knowledge shouldn't be a bar to voting. Do you think they offered this literacy test in the native languages of all taking it? Do you think all people in the US had the opportunity to learn, in their language, the history of the country? At the time there were systemic barriers to education that meant that many folk were probably not even taught who the first president was. Let alone how old you have to be to be president.
- butlike 2y agoThere's also a few typographical issues I noticed that might have been an issue for uneducated folk. For instance, in one question, government is written as "governm ent" What's a government ENT?
- w0de0 2y agoFew people know that the first president was Peyton Randolph.
- cafard 2y agoNot John Hanson?
- roenxi 2y ago> You shouldn't lose your right to vote because you don't know which office of government pays USPS mail carriers or the term length of US judges. That isn't actually all that clear cut. I'd agree that it is probably a bad idea, but there is potential that the results would be better if voters understood the system that they were delivering instructions into.