To completely discount Jim Crow laws, and intentionally segregating tests, and all such insanity, try this on for size:
The test isn’t graded on the accuracy of your information, but the passion with which you discuss it. If you don’t really give a shit, you don’t get to vote.
That’s somewhere along the lines of what you’re thinking, mayberrydan, right?
[sub]Please note that I’m not endorsing or condoning the practice, I’m just looking to understand your position on this a little better.[/sub]
Skeezix -
actually, yeah that’s pretty much exactly my thinking. I don’t think that’s a bad idea. I would be fine with anyone voting if they even showed up to write the test (no matter how badly they did). When it comes down to it, all I really care is that the person legitimately cares for the decision that they make.
Lately, I guess, I’ve just been feeling like most don’t which is the reason behind my original statement.
How the hell are you supposed to judge a person’s “passion?”
If a woman can fake an orgasm, any dumbass can fake like he gives a shit.
I think the best test we have is the one we use right now: If you can haul your lazy ass down to the poll (or the mailbox,) you’re set.
I absolutely agree with you (after all, look who we have for a U.S President.:D); I just disagree with your solution. In fact, I don’t think there is a solution, which is what inspired the saying: “Democracy is the worst system devised by the wit of man, except for all the others.”
[sidetrack]: Did Winston Churchill say that, or is that just another of the many quotes mis-attributed to him?
That’s a paraphrase of an H. L. Mencken quote.
eh, it’s a solid system we have I suppose , but there is always a better one. I’ve just gotta find it.
I’ve gotta Latin midterm next week so the solution’s gonna have to wait until then. 