The latest PPP poll (so new that there’s no link yet, but their rep announced the results on this evening’s Rachel Maddow show) shows that among Republicans, Ted Cruz is leading Barack Obama by double digits.
Not in favorability. Not in who would make the best President.
No, an August 28 survey of Republicans by a well respected polling organization shows that, even after all the proof provided, only 29% of Republicans believe that Barack Obama was born in America, while 40% believe that Ted Cruz was born in America. Cruz, as he freely admits, was actually born in Canada to an American mother and Cuban father, and only recently renounced his Canadian citizenship.
The same poll found that only 14% of Reps believe Obama is a Christian, while 54% believe he is a Muslim.
So, I repeat, why are these people allowed to vote?
Because they have the legal right to vote…?
If people are banned from voting on the basis of political beliefs, then that defeats the very purpose of voting.
So what? If you asked questions about Bush being behind 9-11 or GMOs or nuclear power you are sure to get similarly retarded answers from Democratic voters. Low-information voters form a large chunk of the electorate for both sides.
My fault for not making myself clear. I understand that there are idiots who are not Republicans. And I understand that there is no constitutional requirement saying voters actually have to know anything.
I’m asking why that is. We give people tests before we allow them to drive a car, or operate a tattoo parlor. Why don’t we demand a constitutional amendment that requires people to pass a minimal test of knowledge before they select the leader of the free world?
I’d be all for it. But it has to be an unbiased test. And the two parties will never agree on it. Either party has a substantial ignoramus base population, and every question will be objected to by one of the parties based on whether it is biased against that population.
Because it would be unjust to have people living under a political system which they do not get to participate in.
On a practical level, if people are disenfranchised for being ignorant then there is a motive for keeping people ignorant. But if those ignorant people have a voice in government then there’s a motive for educating them. And a society with a broadly educated population is better than a society with just an educated elite.
Only if the presumption is that the ignorant would vote against you.
Only if the presumption is that once educated they will switch the vote to you. And if that’s true, then the motive exists whether there is a disenfranchisement of the ignorant or not.
What you mean by we, Kemosabe? If the American people aren’t fit to govern the country, then what group of people is going to demand this constitutional amendment?
Realistically, literacy tests would not do anything much. The literacy level of the test would have to be minimal in order not to be too onerous, and utter ignoramuses probably already don’t vote. And that minuscule portion of them that does vote is probably split fairly evenly between D and R.
Well, except that those tests were either made up on the spot by biased poll workers who would keep making stuff up until they judged they had received a wrong answer, or were ridiculously hard and only given to black people.