Reasoning/Logic Tests For Voters

ib1yysguy said:
There's an interesting idea. You pass a test to be able to put your name in for public representation, from which a lottery of individuals is chosen via random sortition to represent for a set term.

I wonder if a test of this process could be set up somewhere. The problem with a totally random lottery is getting idiots who are controlling/overbearing individuals like Dixie who come in and manipulate the other idiots. If you could weed out the idiots, and weed out the dangerous personality types as well I think it would have a chance.
Click to expand...

I was thinking we could test it out by forming a joint committee of congress composed only of random/meritorious individuals. Congressional committees can only propose laws, and don't have to be members of congress. I think it would be constitutional, although it's certainly a huge logical extension of the norm, because no committee has ever been formed before than had NO members of congress (or only enough to oversee the process).

They would be given protection in their old jobs, and a salary equivalent to what they previously held (subject to a reasonable cap). They would also have to perform above average on a logic test. The random selection/testing process would be repeated each year.

Also, I think it would be a good idea to put in randomly selected "experts" in various fields of psychology, economics, engineering etc.... who would be put through a simialar exam to make sure they're above average in their field, and who could argue, but they would be part time and only attend when the subject of debate involved their expertise.

It would be an interesting experiment in modern meritocracy. If it were a failure, we could just can it. If it were a success, we could consider replacing the house or senate with it.
 
is anyone really surprised that watermark and wiseass are basically stroking each other in this thread? good lord, i feel like i am reading gay porn....you two need to get a room
 
Yurt said:
is anyone really surprised that watermark and wiseass are basically stroking each other in this thread? good lord, i feel like i am reading gay porn....you two need to get a room
Click to expand...

gay-soccer.jpg


Me + IB1
 
ib1yysguy said:
List of voter requirements in my dictatorship:

1) IQ or standardized test scores must be average or above.

2) You must be able to pass a basic logic test when registering for voting.

3) If you think the earth is 6,000 years old or man was created in his present form, you are to be summarily executed by the old woman that checks you in when you go to vote.
Click to expand...

what an idiot. half of the population will be below average IQ by definition. You are so fucking stupid.
 
ib1yysguy said:
The only reason BAC and others think it's a bad idea is because they're assuming a perfect system couldn't be made. It would inevitably open doors to abuse, because that's what happened in the past. That, my friends, fails the logic test. There's no reason to assume we couldn't make a perfect system that couldn't be abused.

This is all hypothetical anyway, so just assume it. If the perfect, unabsuable system could be made what's the hold up? Seriously. If people are too dumb to be able to reason, they shouldn't have the same say in our democracy as someone like myself.
Click to expand...

bwahahahah this statement is so damn stupid

"There's no reason to assume we couldn't make a perfect system that couldn't be abused. "

hahhahaha good lord you are in fantasy land. no wonder you're a global warmer
 
how can you morons give a shit about equal protection and then call for this. pure trolling and pure stupidity from our seasoned libtards
 
ib1yysguy said:
The problem with your comparison to literacy tests is that they weren't applied equally. If both of our grandfathers had to guess the number of bubbles on a bar of soap, not many people would have been voting.

An equally applied litmus test for reasonable thinking just means reasonable people will decide on reasonable solutions for our problems.

If someone can't think reasonably, they they can't be trusted to be making important decisions... at least not as much as someone who has demonstrated they can think reasonably.
Click to expand...

The very thought that one has to pass a test to be fully American is ridiculous and goes against everything this country stands for.

This is straight out of some right-wing wet dream. How is it possible that you believe this is a good idea?

"Equally applied" .. you mean like the law?

Do you believe the law is equally applied?

Would it not make more sense to ensure we have the most secure and accurate election system in the world .. given that it doesn't make ANY difference how you cull the pool of eligible voters when the results can be manufactured regardless of how few people vote?

How about a requirement that you have to have served in the military before you can vote?

Just how deep does your rabbit hole go?

Bad idea.

REALLY bad idea.
 
blackascoal said:
The very thought that one has to pass a test to be fully American is ridiculous and goes against everything this country stands for.

This is straight out of some right-wing wet dream. How is it possible that you believe this is a good idea?

"Equally applied" .. you mean like the law?

Do you believe the law is equally applied?

Would it not make more sense to ensure we have the most secure and accurate election system in the world .. given that it doesn't make ANY difference how you cull the pool of eligible voters when the results can be manufactured regardless of how few people vote?

How about a requirement that you have to have served in the military before you can vote?

Just how deep does your rabbit hole go?

Bad idea.

REALLY bad idea.
Click to expand...

I'm proud of you for having this opinion. I'm always looking for good in you. You're so right sometimes, yet sometimes so wrong.

Like, your right when you agree with me, and wrong when you don/t.:):cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top