You’re ignoring the context and missing the point, my friend. The linked “test” was a typical example of a mechanism intended to screen out black voters, and was eventually struck down as unconstitutional. It represented a discriminatory purpose, rather than an effective way of screening potential voters.
My proposed test is nothing of the sort. It is exactly what it seems to be: an intelligence threshold that will determine whether or not a person is qualified to vote in an intelligent manner. Nothing more, nothing less.
The bottom 75% don’t need to be “convinced” of anything - just go ahead and make the change via constitutional amendment. The people will go along with it. After all, how do you currently convince under-18s and felons that they cannot vote? You don’t; you simply don’t give them the opportunity to do so. Those are arbitrary rules; I’m simply offering another, much better arbitrary rule.
Wait, are you saying that you expect some races to perform more poorly on an IQ test than others? I’m afraid I don’t share your assumption; a properly-structured test that ignores socio-economic differences should not result in any significant racial deviation among passing rates.
One technique I recommend is to invoke the OJ Simpson trial. Here’s a case where numerous, mutually-supporting facts painted an extremely clear picture of what happened, but where the facts lost due to identity politics.
Chances are your target sided with the facts in that case, so you can equate him with the yahoos who bought into all those ridiculous conspiracy theories to explain away the facts.
“I’m afraid I don’t share your assumption; a properly-structured test that ignores socio-economic differences should not result in any significant racial deviation among passing rates.”
Which unfortunately doesnt exist even after decades of trying. Proper IQ tests can take over an hour to complete , require oversight by professionals and are still subject to bias which is why cross cultural comparisons are made with great caution.
As far as ‘we’ll just do a constitutional amendment’ goes, the very fact noone is even really trying this kind of proposal let alone succeeding covers that as far as Im concerned. Ultimately you’d have a politician with >75% of the voter base competing against <25% of the voter base. Its pretty obvious who is more likely to win.
Not to mention nothing has shown intelligence is a protective factor against people being unwilling to change their mind anyway, as this very thread demonstrates.
The bulk of stock is in the hands of the few, the elite. The boards sit on the stock for generations. You gotta be pretty dumb to think you buying up stock and attending board meeting matters in the slightest. i am always fascinated when people like SA defends an emotionally held position and convinces himself it is logical. it requires mental agility on a great scale.
Bush came is power during a time of peace and prosperity. no wars ,no deficits. He left us a horrible mess. He gave us huge deficits, 2 wars (unpaid for). And instituted policies that took our rights away. Why the hell any one would want those idiots in power is beyond me.
Boy, that test is hard! I sure am glad I’m white (but not Hispanic).:dubious:
(I only missed one question. Seriously, I would have figured it as part of citizenship test, cause I suspect most Americans couldn’t muster a D+, much less non-Doper Alabamans :()
As long as the amendment is adopted speedily enough, the voter base is irrelevant. By the time the next election rolls around, those 75% are out of a vote, and have no say in whom to elect or reelect.
That’s not the point though, is it? IQ screening will keep the idiots out, whatever their particular views and positions. The intelligent voters may not be any more flexible in their views, but I think that it is safe to assume that those views will be wiser and more informed in the first place.
That’s a good point, gonzomax. Western corporations, just like Western governments, love the charade of democracy - a system that is big on show but slim on substance. Sure, technically the shareholders can change the corporation… If not for the big institutional “shareholders” that just want to make the biggest profit possible and can kill most votes, and the fact that the voting system is undermined by the board’s proxy mechanisms, and the fact that most US corporations are headquartered in Delaware, which has effectively stripped shareholders of any actual legal power in recent years, and the fact that boards usually reserve the power to issue new stock in order to dilute your voting power… So on and so forth.
And I would wager that most of the people that voted for Little Bush would not even come close to reaching the coveted 25% under my proposal, if you catch my drift.
“IQ screening will keep the idiots out, whatever their particular views and positions.”
You seem to be assuming that High IQ = Not Idiot.
Literally speaking that is true if one uses the old meaning of the term. When it comes to making poor decisions however, it isnt. IQ just doesnt mean what you want it to mean.
‘Fighting Ignorance’ is easy, you’ve just been using the wrong tools.
Facts don’t work and never have. People care nothing for ‘facts’. If you are serious about fighting ignorance you need something more potent, like a fire-axe or an M16.
