This message was self-deleted by its author

[LuckyCharms]

This message was self-deleted by its author (LuckyCharms) on Mon Jul 23, 2018, 01:39 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[eShirl]

1. no.

[TheBlackAdder]

59. It sure sounds like a poll tax, exp. in Red States, where they don't want civics-minded people.

[ancianita]

100. It kinda does. And what about red or blue state non-readers who otherwise qualify as voters?

[katmondoo]

2. Should be required in High School in order to graduate

[LuckyCharms]

21. Agreed. n/t

[fierywoman]

71. I second that.

[Glamrock]

130. I second your second.

[pandr32]

134. And I'm right behind you

[mrmpa]

78. It is in Maryland..............

there is a State High School Exam for US Government, that is needed to be passed in order to graduate.

http://marylandpublicschools.org/about/pages/dcaa/social-studies/aghsh.aspx

[struggle4progress]

80. +

[beachbum bob]

3. One person one vote, unimpeded.

Anything else smacks of suppression.

[LuckyCharms]

4. Per what source please?

[beachbum bob]

104. source of what THAT WAS THE US POLICY FOR setting up democracies

don't need a source, I answered the OP opinion with mine, we don't need no tests or any other impediment for free people to cast a vote. Remove all restrictions and impediments BUT THAT THREATENS THOSE IN POWER, right now the people of america are not in power

[demmiblue]

5. No. n/t

[madaboutharry]

6. That amounts to a literacy test like that forced upon Black people in the south.

It would be a disgrace. It would result in disenfranchising Americans with reading and learning disabilities that have absolutely nothing to do with their forming a political opinion and participating in the political process.

[LuckyCharms]

9. No it wouldn't.

[madaboutharry]

13. Yes it would.

[LuckyCharms]

16. Theoretically, accommodations could be made for people with disabilities

As they are theoretically made in the workplace.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

65. Oh FFS.. Repigs are getting their jollies making people get driver's licenses and state ids to vote.

You want people to jump through hoops to get themselves declared disabled to vote?

[LuckyCharms]

68. No...I'm not sure where you got that. n/t

[Hekate]

90. That is exactly what the GOP is doing.Where there is a "state ID" option at the DMV, GOP closes...

...DMV offices and moves them to suburbs far from city bus lines. The GOP absolutely does not want "motor voter" availabilities -- that is, the option of registering to vote at DMV offices.

The GOP has no interest in making it easier to vote. They have gone out of their way to remove polling stations on college campuses, or to reduce the number of booths to one, while making sure suburban precincts have a superabundance of voting booths.

You asked a question in your OP, and have had many answers based on not just on history but current events.

I am not sure why you are unable to see this reality.

[SWBTATTReg]

107. I don't think any municipality can be totally prepared for all disabilities nor should it be a ...

consideration, ever, in determining voting rights. However, they should make a very reasonable effort to accumulate votes, e.g., go out to where the elderly are, gather their votes, do the same for other classes of folks, in effect, move the goalpost to increase the % of votes gathered per election to 100%.

Don't suppress the vote, but instead, enhance it. Do the opposite of what the repugs are doing.

[JI7]

20. yes it would. even if it's not your intent that's how it would be used

by certain states .

[EffieBlack]

112. YES, it would

[Lithos]

133. it is a literacy test

And has been historically abused in the past.

Would you *trust* a hostile GOP government from going back to the same type of focused, antagonistic system which disenfranchised blacks?

L-

[peekaloo]

7. Points for the use of "bugfuck" but no.

How about "can you find your ass with both hands" test. Sure to fool many a TrumPet.

[qazplm135]

8. why?

you propose something without giving it any support or reasoning.

[LuckyCharms]

10. I'm not proposing it at all.

I'm asking what people think of it.

[dixiegrrrrl]

106. When someone asks what people think and then disagrees with their answers

Sounds a lot more like a set-up for an argument than an open ended question.

[qazplm135]

128. you are proposing an action

but you don't list any reason for said action.

It would be like me asking should we change the color of baseballs from white to magenta but then giving no reason for it.

[NightWatcher]

11. No. Plus who designs the tests?

It could easily be manipulated to prevent certain groups from voting.

[LuckyCharms]

12. I don't know who designs the tests.

I'm just throwing this out for discussion.

[NightWatcher]

82. I know, your intentions are good, but when bad people start making the tests...

I get where you're coming from. I wish dumbasses wouldn't vote for some schmuck who was on a reality show either.

I'm not being critical of your OP. I too wish voting could be fixed, secured, and based in common sense, but this is Murica and we're all along for the wild ride.

[justhanginon]

93. I'm sure Attorney General Sessions would be more than happy to

design it or perhaps Secretary DeVos or someone of that ilk plus it is just another literacy test.
I see a problem?

[JI7]

14. it would be targeted unfairly towards certain minority groups

something we already have had.

we need more people to vote. not less.

[Qutzupalotl]

15. Strengthen public schools instead.

We should make mastery of basic civics a requirement to graduate. I realize that it already is, but it doesn’t seem to be sticking.

[LuckyCharms]

19. This is the answer I'm looking for.

[CrispyQ]

67. I'm not sure civics is taught anymore. At least not everywhere.

I could swear I read here on DU that civics isn't taught in many high schools these days. ??? It would be tragic if that were the case. My 5th grade social studies teacher, Mrs. Goethe, told us over & over again throughout the year, "Government impacts every aspect of your life. Every one. Remember that when you're old enough to vote."

[dawg]

17. Bad idea.

It'd be used against us.

[asiliveandbreathe]

18. Well then, I'll try diplomacy - your words...

"So the few that are going to go bugfuck on me and ream me out...don't".

Speaking for myself..I wouldn't do that....

So, if someone flunks the test, they can't vote? Why not a poll tax? - Then the poorest among us couldn't vote....voter suppression is already rampant...

n't - just playing...notice all the negativity in our day and age....double negativity....

[Tommy_Carcetti]

22. Bad idea.

Prime for abuse and disenfranchisement

[MadDAsHell]

23. We have always been against basically ANY qualifiers to vote.

Why all the sudden would we start supporting them now?

Stick with the constitutional requirements, adding anything else is racist.

[LuckyCharms]

27. Racist?

[cynatnite]

24. Absolutely not...

It was a lousy idea when the South did it to squash voting rights for minorities and it's still a lousy idea even now.

I'd call it offensive even.

[LuckyCharms]

37. So what you are saying is...

that we could not manage a system like that, or it would be used for nefarious purposes. What if in a perfect world, these valid concerns could be abated?

[cynatnite]

47. For one...it's outright voter suppression...

For another, I could never trust anyone that saw fit to question Americans about their knowledge of civics in order for them to be granted the privilege to vote.

You're trying to make voting a privilege and not a right here.

Finally, it's against the constitution of the United States.

[kimbutgar]

25. I think there should be a 10 question test everyone should take to vote and must pass at least 70%

Naturalized citizens know more about our government than native born. The potus probably couldnt pass this test and citizenship knowledge is important to continued our democracy. One is provided with material to study like you do with a drivers license.

Of course there should be exceptions. If you have been a citizen with an active voting record say for 10 years than you are exempt. I would bet all those new twitler voters would have flunked that test big time in 2016. Voting is a right but one should also take it as a privilege to live in this democracy.

[LuckyCharms]

30. Your first paragraph is what made me generate the OP. n/t

[Brother Buzz]

26. What do you think of requiring passing a basic parenting exam to be able to have a child?

[LuckyCharms]

29. I would not be in favor of that. n/t

[USALiberal]

33. So a child's life is less important than one vote? nt

[LuckyCharms]

42. I don't think I said that. n/t

[USALiberal]

46. You didn't say anything. nt

[rzemanfl]

48. +1. Hi Buzz!

[Downtown Hound]

28. No.

[ecstatic]

31. NO. Make voting registration automatic AND require non-penalizing civics tests, right there in

the driver's license center. The results won't be held against anyone. Just show the correct answers after the fact and force people to go through each wrong answer.

[Siwsan]

32. I think you should have to pass on before registering as a candidate for any gov. office

City, township, county, state or federal. No exceptions. And with a grade of 95% or better. Anything less is a disqualification.

[Hekate]

34. Smacks too much of Jim Crow requirements designed to exclude nonwhites.Make it a required subject...

...in all high schools again.

I'm not talking about same level of difficulty for all kids, any more than required History and English classes are. But basic knowledge of Civics should be seen as desirable and should be pushed back into the curriculum.

[Skidmore]

35. In the 50s,

we were required to take civics in eighth grade for both federal and state systems. We learned about the government and powers, state and federal constitutions, rights, how laws are made, offices, and voting. We were required to pass written tests, one each on state and one federal civics, before being allowed to pass on to high school. Those tests were a big deal for us...a right of passage. We studied for them. That year was the year we were introduced to American History as a stand alone subject.

[LuckyCharms]

45. +1

[llmart]

121. You stole my post.

I had to take civics in the 8th grade. Everyone did. I can still remember what the little red book looked like and how tedious it all seemed, but I also still remember so much of what I learned. It should still be required of every single student.

[hlthe2b]

36. Required to graduate HS and a more detailed test for all running for state or Federal public office

[underpants]

38. HELL no

[dameatball]

39. Absolutely not.

[luvallpeeps]

40. nah

Are we trying to encourage people to participate, or prevent them from it? Democracy is always better served when the populace is educated. However, this sounds like a roadblock. Wealthy people are always better educated. This would be about as useful as the poll tax.

[cynatnite]

41. It's voter suppression, folks!

Plain and simple.

It's never right. Period.

[AlexSFCA]

43. r u kidding, another voter suppression tactic

voter registration must be available same day, everyone should be automatically registered to vote and by mail. The goal should be always 100% eligible voter participation rate. As long as it remains below that, there is room for more work.

[GemDigger]

44. Our lawmakers should before running for office but

I don't think it should be a requirement for voting.

[stonecutter357]

49. hell no !

[LuckyCharms]

50. Just for the record, I don't think it is a good idea.

But what I do think is a good idea is the strengthening of high school requirements in regard to civics, as well as public campaigns to educate on this subject.

[cynatnite]

58. Either you were trolling

or realized the stupidity of the idea and backtracked.

If you say you did it to generate conversation, that I'd call trolling.

[LuckyCharms]

63. So I'm a troll?

I don't know, I've never called anyone a name here, nor have I had a post deleted, so...

[cynatnite]

72. Maybe not...

Maybe you thought it was a good idea when you wrote it. When you read the responses you backtracked and tried to cover it. I think that's more likely.

Otherwise, it was to gin up discussion that you knew would cause a backlash. That is what I would call trolling. Like I said, I think you thought it was a good idea when you wrote it.

FYI, I've been here off and on for a while and I can tell you I've made some idiotic posts that I got called out on and rightly so. Some of them were stupid by a mile. I learned from it. If I post something stupid again I trust most here at DU to let me know it.

[LuckyCharms]

75. I don't think the post is idiotic.

If I had posted "Do you think people should be better educated about the workings of Government" I would have received about 7 replies and the post would have dropped. Listen, I've lost friends and family permanently over politics since the GW Bush days. Permanently. I have a big mouth and I blast Trump supporters in public putting myself at risk. I waste my breath trying to educate Trump supporters. I have a headache every night when I go to bed over the bullshit that is taking place in this country. Those family member I've lost? I miss them...but how am I to reconcile the fact that they are racist hateful fucks?

Here are my beliefs:

1) GOTV bumper stickers and sayings are not enough. People cannot be compelled to vote. People will vote when their minds are challenged and/or they are educated by whatever means possible as to what they are voting for.

2) I am in favor of every adult voting, and I would desire that in a perfect world.

3) I am in favor of heavy civics educational requirements in high school.

[cynatnite]

84. And none of that was in your post at all...

You still could've asked the same question in the subject line...

Then on top of the questions offered your own opinion regarding your three beliefs.

Without that context, it struck me as a way to gin up conversation about something that most here at DU would be outright against. I'm just not sure if you were honestly aware of that when you first posted it.

Family is too precious to me to lose them over politics. My sister and some of her family are avid tRump supporters. I have to prioritize and family will always win out over politics no matter how I feel about the state of the country.

There's not a lot of us left in our family so I'm just not willing to take that step when it comes to disagreements like this. We have enough love for one another and that helps bind us together.

[LuckyCharms]

95. Racism is not politics. It is racism.

I am dealing with statements that can be interpreted in no other way other than pure racism. Stuff is coming out from family members that I had no idea about. What is there to talk about when you find that out? What is there left that you have in common?

[handmade34]

69. more and better public schools

more civics classes (many schools don't even teach it anymore )

better yet... require everyone to vote




"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
said by my good friend T Jefferson

[LuckyCharms]

70. +1 n/t

[WePurrsevere]

51. While I get where you're coming from, I disagree w/one for voters. OTOH...

a test for candidates who want to run for any office higher than Mayor I might consider but only because most Americans and too many in the press aren't doing their homework/job.

[TreasonousBastard]

111. Wouldn't work either, but I gotta say I love the idea anyway.

[milestogo]

52. How about this instead:

Offer lots more free community classes for people wanting a refresher course in civics or wanting to learn how to make their vote matter.

[LuckyCharms]

54. Good. See post 50. n/t

[hughee99]

116. The kind of people who would voluntarily go to those classes aren't the problem.

If you're looking to "weed out" any voters, you should be looking to those who understand and care so little about it that their vote is based on a facebook meme. I'm not sure there's any way to only just "poll test" those people out.

[DrDan]

53. no no no - this would be susceptible to being hacked and certain demographics being targeted

[oberliner]

55. This post is meant as parody/satire, right?

[dameatball]

56. I do think that Civics should be taught in schools again, and not how Jesus lived with dinosaurs.

Convicted felons can have their voting rights restored. Why prohibit the right of an ordinary citizen to vote just because they fell below a certain standard on a test? Makes no sense to me

[mia]

57. NO!

[LuckyCharms]

60. Also for the record on my opinion...

The way to GOTV is to get people interested and knowledgeable in the workings of government. Asking people to vote is only a portion of what needs to be done.

See post 50 also.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

61. No.

[octoberlib]

62. No. I would be in favor of everybody having to pass the U.S citizenship test in order

to get their HS degree, though.

[GoCubsGo]

64. No, but I do think it should be a requirement to run for public office.

If we had it, we certainly wouldn't have an imbecile in the White House, right now. He would never pass it.

As for the rest of us, we need to go back to the days when you couldn't graduate high school without passing a civics exam. Not that it necessarily would make much difference. I know a lot of older people who had to pass a civics exam, but then promptly forgot everything they learned the minute they were handed their diplomas.

[LuckyCharms]

66. +1

[Faux pas]

73. +10000000000000000000000000000000000000

[shanny]

81. Re: thinking it would have prevented twitler from becoming preznit

He has cheated on everything else in his life and I'm sure he would have on this too (but the best answers, bigly!)

I do think it should be a requirement for graduating high school.

[mythology]

74. I think it's a horrible idea.

The obvious racist history because that is so apparent it should have been enough to stop this thought.

But beyond tha, we are the party of inclusive voting. It would undermine a fundamental party principle, it would also undermine our voters. We're the party that has many minorities who have lower rated schools, who have kids growing up with only one parent who might not have the chance to get a quality education because school funding has been decreased. We're the party of giving people the opportunity to move up from where you were born.

I'm not "bugfucking" on you, but this is a silly idea without much thought behind it because you are convinced that all Republicans are idiots.

[Squinch]

76. No. But I wouldn't have a problem with requiring it to pass seventh grade, as we used to.

[Hoyt]

77. Nope. Been used before to suppress certain voters. Even deplorables derserve to vote,

although I wish they’d just spend Election Day shooting their guns and waving confederate flags.

[LiberalBrooke]

79. No

[dawg day]

83. I actually think an UPPER age limit would be better.

And I'm 63.

After all, if you're 80, you won't worry too much about the consequences of your vote... and no surprise, it looks like at that age, a whole lot voted for Trump.

But the 15-year-old whose whole life is going to be affected by this election can't vote-- and can't count on her grandparents thinking of her when they vote, unfortunately.
What's the sense in that?

But I'm against literacy tests for voting. The problem with Trump voters isn't that they are illiterate. It's that they are angry (or whatever their problem is... I think it's simmering and unfocused anger, that Trump exploits, and so did the Tea Party).

In fact, if everyone who is over 18 now and a citizen were allowed to vote and every vote counted (millions and millions in California and NY don't, actually, certainly not as much as a few thousand in a few counties in Michigan), the Democrats would win every national election. There's so much voter suppression, starting with former felons who have served their sentence and should be restored to full rights, and elderly people without the right ID, and those in inner city precincts where access to the voting machines is quite limited so it's hard for them to get to vote and work.

While we're at it, the electoral college has to go. It "elected" the two worst presidents since the civil war, and that's a sign, if we need one, that it's undemocratic and ineffective.

[Ms. Toad]

85. Sounds like something that someone interested in voter suppression would suggest.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/06/28/voting_rights_and_the_supreme_court_the_impossible_literacy_test_louisiana.html

[ancianita]

102. Great example. It definitely cuts out all non-readers who are otherwise deserving of a voice.

[Takket]

123. holy effing shit is this for REAL???????????????????

I can't believe stuff like this went on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not to mention that several of those questions are CLEARLY traps designed to make someone fail. Like 16.... left corner? what if my triangle looks like this..........

|>

what is the left corner???????

and 21......... what is the correct order? Is the correct order what it would look like if i flipped the page upside down to read it, or the correct order is still reading right-side up and left to right, but just with the letters upside down?

[Ms. Toad]

125. Yes, it is for real.

The amazing thing is that there were some blacks who managed to make it through the test.

But - that test (and others like it) is why those of us who are old enough to remember this horrror show react so strongly against suggestions of a civic literacy test (and voter ID laws, and other means of suppressing black votes).

This is not ancient history - it happened in my lifetime. It is infuriating to see Democrats not screaming bloody murder at the suggestion that both voter ID and literacy tests might be good ideas (and even, at times, advocating them).

[Takket]

127. I'm 40.

I was born in 1978 so this is obviously beyond my memory. certainly familiar with the civil rights movement from history but you don't get the details of every little racist thing out there to hold down black persons.

I showed some of these to my wife and she just scoffed. She asked what it was. I said a "literacy test" from 1964 they gave blacks. She was disgusted. I said you had to get every question right in 10 minutes but lets face it, even if you did get them all right, you "got one wrong" somewhere because the white judge is going to say, for example, you got the one about writing "vote" upside down wrong no matter what because there is more than one correct answer..........

[Cicada]

86. No. Voting serves purposes other than getting the " right" results

Voting makes us feel the government is legitimate. Even ignorant people need to feel they have a say in who governs us.

That may be more important than electing the best candidate.

[snowybirdie]

87. Are you kidding!!!!

That's how the South repressed Black voters during Jim Crow times. The questions became more and more weird and impossible as the years went by.

[Capperdan]

88. No, but should be required to run for President

For sure

[Progressive dog]

89. No. never again

It's been done before, it was used to keep the freed slaves and their descendants from being able to vote.
Of course there should be a citizenship, age and residence requirements for voting and they shouldn't need to be explained.
I'm certain Trump and the GOP yearn for the days before the voting rights act, which banned most of the "literacy tests".

[Turbineguy]

91. Republicans will never go for it.

The less voters know, the better for them.

[juxtaposed]

92. Your thought is on the rightwing wish list.

[Flaleftist]

94. It sounds like another chance for the GOP to disenfranchise voters.

It may be a good idea in theory, but there is no way some people won't try to manipulate the system, like scoring correct answers as false for Democrats or giving them more difficult questions. We can't trust the machines to count the votes accurately as it is. We don't need to complicate the process.

[Lunabell]

96. Nope

It isn't constitutional.

[3catwoman3]

97. How about making this a requirement to run...

...for office, rather than to vote.

And, maybe CAT scans to make sure no brain atrophy has taken place.

[MichMan]

98. I would oppose a "test" , but not sure it would hurt us more than them

I don't support impediments to voting of any kind

Since the consensus is that our voters are better educated and smarter than the RW, seems like having to answer a question like the OP proposed would impact their voters much more than ours, wouldn't it though?

[Golden Raisin]

99. It should not be required to vote. However

it should be required in all high schools. I'm pushing 70 and am sad to read how few schools today have "Civics" courses in their curriculums. Its absence explains a lot and probably thrills Republicans and right-wingers who prefer an uneducated and disinterested electorate. We had a general "Civics" course in Junior High School and then a Senior year course entitled, "American Government". And I went to school in a very small town.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

101. No

No poll taxes. No tests. Voting in this country is a right endowed by the Creator. Granted, it was endowed at different times for different people.

[riverbendviewgal]

103. No

I believe it should be mandatory to vote if you are a citizen..

[greymattermom]

105. No, but it should be required for a high school degree.

[CozyMystery]

108. I agree -- factual civics

When my kids covered 2 weeks of civics in high school. Part of the time the teacher showed videos of his adult daughter while she was entertaining on a cruise ship (singing and sitting in "old dude's laps&quot . They were taught that Canada is a socialist state, and socialism infects every country except the US.

My kids didn't drink the Kool-Aid.

When I was in high school we had a factual civics class. No singing daughters involved.

[Afromania]

109. I hear ya, but no. It's a republican twofer of voter surpression and rule by a select few.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

110. It's a wonderful idea. It would keep the lines at the polls from moving so damn fast.

[EffieBlack]

113. Just as IQ tests don't accurately measure intelligence, "civics exams" can't

accurately measure one's "fitness" to vote.

Both measure education and exposure to specific types of information and little else.

My grandmother probably couldn't have correctly answered questions about the three branches of government and the limitations thereon, but I always got her advice on whom to vote for because she understood issues and people better than anyone else I ever knew.

Civics exams - a modern day "literacy test," which were found years ago to be unconstitutional as qualification for voting - smack of bigotry and elitism and need to remain on the trash heap of history where they belong.

[samir.g]

114. Sounds like Jim Crow

[JCanete]

115. no. The much better option is to make voting a protected right and a requirement. Make voter purges

a thing of the past by doing this. Any litmus test to voting seems rife with the potential to purge voters based upon the design of the test. I wouldn't trust states to handle any such test responsibly, nor the education leading up to taking it, since students are already tracked and in ways, segregated.


Also, randomly generated questions mean that you may fail because your test was harder than another person's...the knowledge slightly less common...etc. Voting being a right, I'm not sure that any sort of test is even constitutional. More questionable is whether we should be allowed to strip prisoners of their right to vote, given that they should have a say in the laws that ultimately incarcerate them.

As to the importance of civics...I think it should be a staple in education rather than just a semester's worth of cursory information. It should be among the core disciplines, being core to our democracy and all.

[Ilsa]

117. No thank you.

The racists used to make some questions subjective, like Who was the better president, Lincoln or Washington?

[nolabear]

118. Absolutely not.

[yallerdawg]

119. "Are you a Republican?" would be my first question.

Shoot - it'd be my ONLY civics question.

[Niagara]

120. Hey, Lucky

No, I don't believe voters should have to pass a basic civics exam, but I do believe that it's time we update the requirements of candidates running for President.


I actually sent Hillary Clinton an email in October of 2016 since I thought she had the Presidency in the bag. I told her that it was imperative that our lawmakers update the requirements of running for President. One of my suggestions was a requirement for a candidate to be able to pass a basic civics exam. I told her that this would have eliminated Trump and incompetent people exactly like Trump.

I don't know if she ever received my email, not that it matters now without Hillary Clinton as President and obviously without a congress that actually cares about America and it's citizens.

[Takket]

126. something i've wanted similar...............

I have wanted.... and this is absolutely no joke, i'm deadly serious.............

Presidential candidates should have to compete on Jeopardy against each other.

The categories don't have to be complicated. Just topics a president should know. I don't care if they know about French Art or Astronomy. But I want to know if they understand US history, the law making process, SCOTUS rulings, basic economics, world affairs.......

I think the public should get to see their knowledge in action and how composed they are under pressure.

as for the money, winner gets to add the $ to their campaign war chest lol

[Niagara]

129. I can already imagine the scene unfolding on Presidential Jeopardy

Trump would react just as Eric Gordon when receiving the category "Business Ethics"

|

[McCamy Taylor]

122. Is this for real? Read a history book. Literacy test. Poll tax.

Can I have my two minutes back?

[Meowmee]

124. This is a very ignorant and stupid population

Which is why we are here in part. But I think it would be misused so no.

[Bettie]

131. To vote, NO

To run for office: YES.

[RandomAccess]

132. No, but I sure think Presidential candidates should be able

to pass one.

[Heidi]

135. No. How would that help? It would certainly be abused.

What I would get behind is educating every child equally, repealing legislation impeding felons' right to vote, lowering the number of signatures it takes to get an initiative on a state ballot, and--in fact--making it *easier* for any US citizen to vote. But I think all of the these could move the US too close to being a direct democracy; the US clearly is not set up to accommodate such direct citizen involvement.

[LuckyCharms]

136. Below is a copy of my original post.

There is an age requirement.

There is a residency requirement.

There is a citizenship requirement.

What about a requirement such as this?

Questions would be randomly generated for each voter. Questions would cover branches of government, separation of powers, roles of each branch of government, limitations of each branch, etc. A minimal proficiency in these areas would be required in order to be able to vote.

Now, I'm not saying I support this. However, it is a thought I had. So the few that are going to go bugfuck on me and ream me out...don't.

***End of OP***

I have not been here that long, but I am a fairly prolific poster. This is exactly my second highly controversial OP, and to be honest, I am getting tired of re-visiting it. I expressed my views on the subject clearly throughout the thread, but apparently I am not trusted enough here not to garner some snark. I'm certainly guilty of that myself on occasion, but some of the responses here tend to push me into to wanting to type something that I would regret. I don't have any deleted posts, and I would like to keep it that way. In my view, disagreement is fine, even harsh disagreement is fine...but there is a way of talking to people, and a way of not talking to people. Thank you to all who responded reasonably.

I hope that those of you who are able can work outside today and sweat your ass off like I will be doing. It seems to be the only thing left that keeps me somewhat young...and somewhat sane.