They did a really good job on ads. Don’t look up how much they spent just on fooling the population.
Welcome to /c/California, an online haven that brings to life the unrivaled diversity and vibrancy of California! This engaging community offers a virtual exploration of the Golden State, taking you from the stunning Pacific coastline to the rugged Sierra Nevada, and every town, city, and landmark in between. Discover California's world-class wineries, stunning national parks, innovative tech scene, robust agricultural heartland, and culturally diverse metropolises.
Discussions span a wide range of topics—from travel tips and restaurant recommendations to local politics and environmental issues. Whether you're a lifelong resident, a recent transplant, or planning your dream visit, /c/California is your one-stop place to share experiences, ask questions, and celebrate all the things that make California truly unique.
Related Communities:
Nearby Communities:
Perhaps I've been too harsh on the idea of re-education camps. We need to not just improve K-12 schooling, we need to expand adult schooling.
Reeducation camps are the humanitarian alternative.
I thought that was soylent
I think everyone should need to pass a basic intelligence quiz to be eligible to vote. Very strict guidelines on what questions are allowed to appear because I mean super basic info.
Like
1+3*3=? And circling the correct diagram of the water cycle. Very easy questions anybody with a 5th grade intelligence level could answer.
I think you should study your American history a little more before saying stuff like this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test
I'm aware of history, that's not what I suggested.
How is what you suggested different?
I'm not suggesting it be administered by individuals who can discriminate for one. Also would want strict guidelines for what can be asked, I'm imagining a set of around 100 questions and you just get a random one on your ballot and there's no leeway for states to edit the list. There are a plethora of other aspects that would need to be hammered out because there is absolutely room for fuckery, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. Some states actually ran successful voter test programs prior to the idea being twisted by the South. Just because something's been misused in the past doesn't necessarily mean that's the only potential outcome.
I would also prefer just educating people better so no test would even be necessary, but conservatives won't fund education so we're left with a bunch of dummies just voting for anything that says their political affiliation next to it.
Really? Which ones?
I couldn’t find any with my internet sleuthing skills. Just a bunch of stuff about voter suppression.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=have+there+ever+been+studies+about+voting+tests&ia=web
I believe that any test, even if done in good faith initially, will inevitably lead to voter suppression against some minority group.
"Literacy tests did not begin as a racist tool. Connecticut adopted the first literacy requirement for voting in 1855 as part of its new state constitution, with the stated goal of preventing voter fraud and ensuring voters could understand ballot questions. Massachusetts, Maine, and several other Northern states followed with similar requirements in the decades that followed."
https://www.cuip.org/what-were-literacy-tests-for-voting/
A test will inherently disenfranchise a group, that's the point though; disenfranchise the least intelligent and easiest to manipulate across the population. Like I said, I'd rather we just educated people better and they weren't so easily manipulated but how do you deal with existing adults who will never be able to meaningfully detect bias and propaganda? I don't think there's a correct answer.
Did you include that quote / link as an example of states that have run successful voting test programs?
That’s really great that they “[allegedly] did not begin as a racial tool.” How did it go for those states?
If you think there wasn’t a shitload of racism and voter suppression in the North, then I guess maybe you shouldn’t be able to vote. Or am I misunderstanding your argument?
As I said repeatedly, in not envisioning a copy of the extremely flawed system that was used previously. I was simply sharing my thoughts that a test would probably be a better alternative to the reeducation camps the poster I was originally responding to suggested, I'm not campaigning or even seriously suggesting we implement a test.
And apparently you are misunderstanding my argument in that I said a specific set of very easy questions a fifth grader could answer.
I would've been happy to continue this discussion, but your attitude is argumentative and off-putting so I'll spend my time elsewhere.
Hope you have a lovely day anyways though!
I think I understand your argument completely. I just think you’re wrong.
You claimed that states have had success with voting tests too, but that doesn’t appear to be true from my own research. It’s not even supported by the link you gave.
What have I said that leads you to believe I do t understand this?
🙄
You seem to be under the misconception that the purpose of democracy is to select the objectively best governmental policy, as if such a thing could ever exist. That is not the purpose of democracy. If you want that kind of system, you want technocracy, not democracy.
The purpose of democracy is to keep us from killing each other. THAT is the purpose of democracy. It's too give enough people enough of a voice in government that very few people think starting a civil war is a necessary and proper course of action. It has nothing to do with selecting the "best" governmental policy, as that's entirely subjective.
The reason you don't want filter voters based on intelligence is that stupid people can use firearms just fine.
"stupid people can use firearms just fine." that's why you don't want them aligned with power (see ICE). If they are not aligned with power, they are just domestic terrorists. And they are not that numerous. J6 showed how many of them is actually willing to show up for a fight. Not an unmanageable number. Definitely not enough to start a civil war back then. Now, with government backing, yes.
You say this as if people wanting to kill each other is normal, and not mostly a result of class dynamics stemming from modes of production.
Shit, I must have missed the memo about world peace happening.
We have archaeological evidence of mass violence and war back when human beings were all living as classless egalitarian hunter gatherers. We've found mass graves that old.
Marxists lose the plot when they insist on analyzing everything through the lens of class struggle.
| stupid people can use firearms just fine
🙋🏼♂️