Democracy and Ignorance

Post Reply New Topic

So you like to use someone else's terms as though they have meaning for you.
And you never think to check what this means to Britons, yet you base an argument
on it, and it's meaning......What kind of rational thinking is this?

You say:
"The "leave" voters have been equated to the Donald Trump voters in the so-called "rust belt" states which have lost so many manufacturing votes." Yes, and we've lost jobs in the U.S. to many 3rd world countries through trade agreements as well....just the kind of thing "Leave" voters were trying to avoid. And this drives up unemployment. Do you dispute this?

You mention "Leave" voters have less formal education. But you can't equate this with intelligence. Would you suggest voting rights based on intelligence? How crude.

AND then you say: "Frankly, I agree with people who think we should have protected these people and protected our manufacturing base."
How would you do this with another group of countries/legislators, in charge, thinking differently?

AND go on to say: "Unfortunately, less educated people are less educated. They can recognize that they've been screwed, but they can't quite figure out how or why. Mention Gerrymandering to these people, and they'd go "whua?". They are more easily susceptible to demagoguery, to people who exploit their anger and xenophobia."

Ahhhh..so the more fortunate (perhaps more wealthy?) who have a fine education, will protect these other poor people (kind of like sheep when you think about it..right?) from themselves by partially nullifying part of their vote..is that what you suggest?

You say: ""Voted their heart?" Seriously? Do you really think that is a rational thing to say, cause I can't recall ever hearing a less rational term applied to the voting process. Please refer to the above.

And you say: "I'm not suggesting that the subjective has no place in voting, but it's only one of many evaluating factors which must be included in the thinking behind the voting process, if voting is to be more than merely throwing darts at a board."
And so you would have us erroneously assume (as you do) that less formal education means these people will not think about or discuss a topic before making up their minds?????

How absurd....can you show your research that show this true? Or do you just like to make this kind of statement?

You ask: ""Voted their heart?" Seriously?" Yes ""Voted their heart Seriously." You see, in The United States of America we consider things slightly differently (if we're lucid at the time) because nowhere in the Constitution does it say people with less education should be treated less than equals (except the shame of the slavery issue which we are still trying to correct)...you see that's pretty much the whole point, whether you're from "Noo Yawk City" or elsewhere you are allowed to vote any way you wish and none shall take away this right (that's the theory)....don't they teach these things where you live?

So the idea of discrimination through "intelligence" testing or similar was found to be un-American

Let that be America's epitaph.

Sure enough I identified the connection behind people wanting to make it harder for the "under educated" to vote...I knew the source of such discriminatory ideas would be easily found:

In yet another shot in the war on voting rights, Fox News and Ann Coulter suggested bringing back literacy tests to make voting more difficult in 2016.

Ann Coulter joined Fox and Friends on another trip down the vote suppression rabbit hole. This time Fox and Friends joined Coulter in her long crusade to bring back literacy tests to disenfranchise voters.

The idea came up for discussion after a Fox reporter interviewed several New Yorkers who couldn’t identify, Marco Rubio.

Brian Kilmeade, host of Fox and Friends, opened up the discussion by observing, “studies show that Americas are poorly informed on government and politics.” Of course, this claim opened things up for Kilmeade to ask ever so innocently, “So, is it time to revisit a test for people to be able to vote?”

Ironically while making the case for literacy tests Coulter proved she was is the sort of person that Kilmeade was talking about when she said, ”I think it should be, well for one thing, a little more difficult to vote. There’s nothing unconstitutional about literacy tests.”

While that claim corresponds with the Republican Party’s fantasy of an America where only Republican votes would count, it also shows us that Ann Coulter “doesn’t know what’s going on.”

In fact, there is something unconstitutional about literacy tests as a device to disenfranchise voters. Literacy tests were outlawed in the Voting Rights Act. This was after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that using literacy tests to disenfranchise eligible voters is unconstitutional.

Coulter may wish to familiarize herself with Guinn v. United States – a case decided in 1915.

In that case, Oklahoma tried to apply the Coulter philosophy on voting rights by amending its constitution to disenfranchise people who couldn’t pass that state’s version of a literacy test.

The Supreme Court ruled that amendment along with similar ones in the constitutions of Maryland, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Virginia were “repugnant to the 15th Amendment.”

WOULDN'T YOU JUST KNOW THAT FOX NEWS AND JIM CROW WOULD BE TRAVELING HAND IN HAND WITH THEIR DISCRIMINATORY POLICY AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE LEADING THE CHARGE?

I believe it's easy for most people to see the complainers in Britain, who complain about "uneducated voters," are really on track to disenfranchise those they don't agree with.....using the excuse of less education.

And we all know, from history, how this discrimination failed here (after being successful for some time) and it was shown to be as un-American as slavery. Perhaps in Britain they didn't have the same history and Supreme Court decisions to fall back on??? That's no excuse for people in this country who would disenfranchise citizens here.