Maybe earning the right to vote by passing an examination like the bar exam. — praxis

That would raise the bar! I was aiming lower mainly for general ease and accessibility, proof of both having been given and received a basic education. But the bar exam asks questions technical in nature and difficult - maybe a few of those in order.

I meant similar to the bar. A show of basic competency that relates specifically to voting, whatever that may be. For example, one question might be: what is socialism?

Seriously though, advocating for so-called voting competency tests is an all round terrible idea. One could hardly think of a better way to entrench economic and social inequality in so direct a manner right at the level of political expression. Like, maybe think about building a robust and accessible education system first before resorting to punitive measures? This is why liberals are always enablers of fascism.

A little refresher on a couple of words and their meaning.

Advocate
To speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly.

Consider
To think carefully about, especially in order to make a decision; contemplate; reflect on.

I, too, like to consider social and political punishment for underclasses who express views I do not like.

There is even the slightest possibility that this is a good idea.

I am very intelligent.

I am very intelligent. — StreetlightX

And funny.

I don’t know what you mean. — praxis

Postmodernism (and epistemology generally) distinguishes between subjective truths and objective truths. The former are statements about one’s individual experience of the world, while the latter comprise propositions supported either inductively or deductively. - postmodernism stresses the distinction between objectivity of facts, versus objectivity of knowledge or people. It accepts the possible existence of facts outside human context, but argues that all knowledge is mediated by an individual and that the experiences, biases, beliefs, and identity of that individual necessarily influence how they mediate any knowledge.

Finally, postmodernism criticizes individuals’ claims of objectivity via a critique of power. Specifically, it argues that the degree to which society accepts an individual’s claim of objectivity is directly proportional to that individual’s structural power.

That's the diplomatic way to say it. The other way to say this is that there aren't objective truths and it's all subjective truths and so I can make my own truths...because that's power.

It's all just a power game.

That kind of postmodern thought.

Seriously though, advocating for so-called voting competency tests is an all round terrible idea. — StreetlightX

I think it should start from things like felons would never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated.

Citizenship should be enough for to have the right to vote.

Citizenship should be enough for to have the right to vote. — ssu

Yep.

Among the worst effects of Trump is that he turns even his so-called opponents into fascists.

Dumb fascist that I am, I still don’t get it. You’re saying that you can’t tell truth from lies?

Seriously though, advocating for so-called voting competency tests is an all round terrible idea. — StreetlightX

Well, you haven't defined the term, so it's a guess as to what you oppose - the advocating? The reality is that there are already lots of tests, some explicit, some not. Obviously a voter has to be qualified to vote, and then able to vote. Or maybe you distinguish between qualification and test.

In any case, in any country that has both elections and a working public education system (snark in neutral, please), why not a "qualification" of having received a basic education and being basically educated? And I have no problem with reasonable alternatives.

I suppose the real problem is that in a democracy of, for, and by the people, if the people want to drive the car off the edge of a cliff, they can and arguably should be allowed to - who will prevent them? But as has been long recognized, this just one of many flaws of a democracy. So it needs tweaks; nothing is perfect. Why not then tests for voter competency?

If you're a citizen and of age, you vote. It's as simple as that. The US regime however neither has real elections nor a working public education system - nor a democracy for that matter - so it would probably be worth fixing those up first before trying to punish people you don't like - all the better ensure more Trump for years to come.

If you're a citizen and of age, you vote. It's as simple as that. — StreetlightX

Yes, that part of it is almost that simple. But the election itself is not. And if and when an electorate shows itself afflicted, are there to be no remedies?

The US however neither has real elections — StreetlightX

Yes, it does. But with just a few of them, it's not a direct process and was never intended to be.

nor a working public education system — StreetlightX

It works. The product isn't always admirable and some other countries in some ways do a much better job.

nor a democracy for that matter — StreetlightX

Who ever that knew the meaning of the word, except informally calls it a democracy?

before trying to punish people you don't like. — StreetlightX

Also useful if you could learn to tell the difference between yourself and others not you. I take your remark to be projection, a conclusion imo well-grounded in many posts of yours.

Yes, that part of it is almost that simple. But the election itself is not. — tim wood

American "elections" maybe.

The rest of your waffle are just excuses for more American fascism.

before trying to punish people you don't like.
— StreetlightX

Also useful if you could learn to tell the difference between yourself and others not you. I take your remark to be projection, a conclusion imo well-grounded in many posts of yours. — tim wood

You can’t blame him, my ego would definitely want to disown that irrational hostility.

You’re saying that you can’t tell truth from lies? — praxis

No.

I'll try to explain. So someone said this:

whatever they believe gains them some kind of advantage, regardless of what's said is true, so the basic strategy is not to silence opposition but to control the truth or reality. — praxis

To control the truth, or just force others the subjective truth is what Postmodernism views this thing. A power play.

Yes, that part of it is almost that simple. But the election itself is not. And if and when an electorate shows itself afflicted, are there to be no remedies? — tim wood

For a democracy to function sets demands for the citizens. Voters have to have some knowledge and especially interest in the collective decision making. The basis is that the majority of people do have common sense. That's all. And it works. Somehow. Not a perfect system, but still far more better than authoritarianism.

Yes, constitutions, minority rights and other issues are OK as "safety valves", yet if the electorate wants to imprison all red haired women as being dangerous witches, there go the redheads to prison. We assume that the majority of people do think that imprisoning women based on their hair color is a lunatic idea and hence nobody will come up with the idea and get majority support for it. We should see the real motivation when there are limitations to voting: usually they aren't from the fear that the voters would vote recklessly and "put female redheads to prison" or something similarly ludicrous.

Usually someone in power fears that by going to the simple "citizenship is 1 vote" idea would politically give them a political disadvantage. Hence for this reason, just to give one example, Puerto Ricans aren't given the right as US citizens to vote in Presidential elections as Puerto Rico isn't a state or part of any state, but a territory (and their representatives in the House don't have a vote). And this of course was very typical with other colonies...when European States had more of them as now.

For a democracy to function sets demands for the citizens. Voters have to have some knowledge and especially interest in the collective decision making. The basis is that the majority of people do have common sense. That's all. — ssu

Amen! And in the US of 2016, 2020, and god help us likely 2022 and 2024, the assumption that we collectively have common sense is open to question. 2020 we got by, but not by enough. How, short of trauma, is common sense restored?

You’re saying that silencing opposition and controlling the truth may both be strategic power plays?

Like, maybe think about building a robust and accessible education system first before resorting to punitive measures? — StreetlightX

What would need to change is the perception of the value of education.

There has been a general worldwide trend to view education as a means to an end -- education as a means to be better able to get a well paying job.

It is not popular to view education as a mode of cultivation with the aim of being cultured, in the old-fashioned European sense of what it means to be cultivated, cultured.

Modern education systems basically aim to produce plebeians with advanced degrees.

The rest of your waffle are just excuses for more American fascism. — StreetlightX

It simply seems to be part of American culture to view things in white and black terms, in terms of competitive oppositions, us vs. them mentality, the Wild West, the relentless struggle for survival, for wealth.
American culture is, at its heart, plebeian culture.

Why not then tests for voter competency? — tim wood

It's a move in the wrong direction. The issue which you are looking at is not a matter of uneducated people voting, it is a matter of apathy, which results in a significant portion of the population not voting.
The block of non-voters plays a much more significant role in any American election than the group of uneducated voters, who do not vote as a block. Any move to increase such a block, like your proposal, is anti-democratic and will not be well received. But a move to decrease the block can get oneself elected. The role of the non-voting block is an unobserved role, so it tends to go unnoticed.

:up: Compulsory voting - not taking away more votes - would be a move in the right direction, although hardly a panacea.

American culture is, at its heart, plebeian culture. — baker

I'm always one to defend the plebs, who, after all, are all of us anyway, despite what we like to think. But really, I don't like culturalist 'explanations' for anything - culture is explanandum - that which is to be explained - not explanans. Americans - like most other people, to be fair - are victims of liberal politics which is incapable at dealing with any issues at a systemic level. Social and political problems are always displaced into individual ones, which is why the go-to reaction is punishment. American liberals are just the other face of American conservatives. They just happen to like to mete out punishment to different demographics. Where conservatives like punishing women (cf. Texas), liberals like punishing the uneducated. Both delight in punishing the poor. Trump is the result in either case.

White terror: Millions of Americans say they'd support violence to restore Trump to power (Oct 1, 2021)

Weird.

Incidentally scrolled by the other day:

Where conservatives like punishing women (cf. Texas), liberals like punishing the uneducated. — StreetlightX

You gave an example for conservatives but neglected to give one for liberals.

Oh my mistake, I didn't realize that you were incapable of tracking what the discussion is about and making the most basic of inferences. I will probably make this mistake again.

So help me out. It shouldn’t be that much trouble.

OK, what inspired this conversation hmm?

If you’re referring to Tim Wood’s comments about preventing Trump supporters from voting, that’s punishing Trump supporters, and it’s not actual policy.