I'm less comfortable granting people a bid based on general knowledge and intelligence though, I think the uninterested citizenry is a far larger problem than the uneducated citizenry.
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.
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.
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).
Or we could strive not to implement good policies in a bad way.
> 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.
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.
Elites don't promote racism because they're racists, they promote racism because it's a mechanism of control.
Racism as a theory is pseudoscience bullshit. There is no scientific basis for race even existing. We're all humans. The only people who believe otherwise are the victims of propaganda.
See also: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/
> I fail to see how the citizenship test would lead to the rich getting richer.
It could benefit them if the subset of people it prevents from voting would vote for things they wouldn't like.
Also, some policies are nothing but collateral damage. Elites get the proles fighting each other and each coalition starts demanding aversarial policies that harm the outgroup and neither hurt nor help the elites, but keep everyone distracted and fighting each other. The elites don't care which policy like that is implemented as long as it keeps people too busy fighting each other over it to pay attention to certain other things.
It benefits the rich because the proponent-victims spend their political capital to implement the policy and then the opponent-victims spend their political capital to repeal it instead of either of them spending that political capital to do anything that benefits the poor at the expense of the rich.
That may be true, but the policy we were discussing (property tax funding education as an example of 'every policy being racist') affects large portions of both whites and minorities, and thus does not make it a racist.
"Elites get the proles fighting each other and each coalition starts demanding aversarial policies that harm the outgroup and neither hurt nor help the elites, but keep everyone distracted and fighting each other."
If that's your premise, then your position is moot. This is happening already.
Affecting large portions of both whites and minorities hasn't generally prevented anything from being labeled racist, if they affect minorities differently than white people (as a whole, not a specific subset).
And voter literacy requirements continue to be of the same kind. You can argue that neither is bad because neither is really racist, but then you can have voter literacy requirements. You can argue that both are bad because both are racist, but then you can't have public schools funded by property tax, or even public schools at all, because after all we're talking about avoiding things over their historical implementations even if other implementations are possible.
What I haven't seen is a consistent case that you can have one and can't have the other.
> If that's your premise, then your position is moot. This is happening already.
Are you implying that it happening has had nothing to do with the inflammation of racial tensions by elites and media organizations?
Well that's not at all what has been discussed. If that's what you think this thread is about, then you are very off-topic. If we are truly doing that, then we need to avoid all institutions and policies since they all have some bigoted background, and there's no path forward because everyone can just unsupportively call anything racist.
"Are you implying that it happening has had nothing to do with the inflammation of racial tensions by elites and media organizations?"
You have been stating that subjecting everyone to the citizen test is racist and said that we shouldn't do it because the racist policy will lead to parties fighting each other so the elites are left alone.
I'm saying that's already happening, so you don't have any premise for why not to do this. And quite frankly, you have derailed the actual topic of thread and failed to provide any logical reasoning for your stances (paraphrased, because all past policies have been racist this one must be racist and shouldn't be implemented).
I believe this was my original point. Go back and read it again.
Would you rather herd sheep with a pug or a border collie? They’re both dogs.
The west might have swallowed the kool-aid after a century of self, China sure hasn’t [1].
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/04/china-super-so...
We are animals, it may not be politically correct but animal husbandry (science) applies.
It seems like that'd fix absolutely nothing but create further class distinctions between people who are represented and people who aren't.
In fact, I'd prefer to see things go radically in the opposite direction. I think it's unjust to prevent non-citizens from voting. If you live in place x, you should have a say in how place x is run.
The point of citizenship distinction is part of organizing a democratic government and maintaining cohesion. It tests a person on the basic form and laws of the government and their allegiance to the tribe. The point here is that you have a group off like-minded people allowing other like-minded people into the group. This creates a cohesive group that agrees on basic principles and can function well. Think about trying to conduct a system architecture design meeting with the non-technical users weighing in through a democratic vote on each suggestion - are you excited to do your job in that scenario? Do you end up with lemmings following the best salesman without understanding what is going on? (Different opinions are fine as long as they are legitimate and don't violate the common principles)
Letting anyone in makes the knowledgeable people feel disenfranchised by mob rule, not to mention making the organization susceptible to subversion. There's anecdotal evidence (probably statistical evidence if we look around) to support that citizenship that is earned results in a population that is more involved (look at voter turnout in places that never before had free elections).
So while I agree that people in a given location should have say over their government, I also believe that in being a part of that democratic government they have the responsibility to learn the basics by which the government functions. This minimum requirement at least shows a good faith effort on the part of the individual to be a diligent member of society.
In the very layered federal system we have in the US, it might be possible for us to have it both ways. Non-U.S.-citizens could be given a vote in local/municipal/county matters, but still not for national representation. (And some states might want to try out different levels of statewide enfranchisement.)
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]
You might or might not have noticed, but the politically and economically disenfranchised are not well-known for their access to legal recourse.
Lawyers would love to take a clear cut case on a contingent basis.
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-...
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?
In any case, I would consider a policy that removes the right to vote from a class of people to be taking away a right, whether or not you grandfather people in. In the long term, it's a regressive policy.
It's not a regressive policy. That would mean we go back to the method of only land owners voting or excluding classes of minorities. This is simply validating that citizens meet the minimum requirements to be good citizens, something we already do for immigrants. This also does not discriminate against any class of people - the requirements would be the same for all and are easily achievable. This would actual make the granting of citizenship more equitable by making the process the same for everyone instead of the current process that differentiates between those born here and those not.
I'm also still waiting for your answers to my previous two questions.