That NYT forum was depressing. The more I hear from regular, undecided voters, the angrier I get at myself for being politically engaged. These people make me want to rip what little hair I have left right off my head. To paraphrase Logan Roy, these are not serious people.
Honestly, very depressing. I listened to a focus group PBS has been doing in various states for several months, and I’m not sure where they find these people. All “double negatives” (haters) supposedly independents. One woman claims reproductive rights are the most important issue to her, but then admits she will vote for Trump! I mean you can’t make this up. She said there were other positive factors but couldn’t name specifics. The low information voters…
Samantha Bee when on the Daily Show in 2004 met a woman in Philadelphia who said basically the same thing - my main concerns are reproductive rights and stem cell research; I’m leaning towards Bush. Bee asked her how the woman could get up, get dressed and go to work.
I really vacillate between wanting everyone to vote (mandatory voting) and making people pass a citizenship test before being granted the right to vote. Really, new citizens who weren't born here have a better knowledge of how our country works than the average born and bred American. I think we'd have a much higher quality voter if they had to prove they know what their vote means before casting it. But on the other hand, tests have been used in the past as a method of voter suppression. Might requiring such a test limit the number of possible voters who maybe didn't finish school or who hate tests so much the mention of one sends them screaming in the other direction (maybe not actually screaming, but I can certainly see people who wouldn't go to get registered to vote because there's a test)?
You could also argue that the US citizenship test hits the sour spot - too difficult for the least educated people, but not difficult enough to exclude the moderately educated people (who are disproportionately Trump voters). Democrats, in terms of education level, are a coalition of the very low and the high (didn't complete high school and college+). Republicans are a coalition of the moderately well-educated (high school to some college). Theoretically, if you structure a civics test that is so difficult that it requires extensive knowledge of economics, history, international relations, etc., all of which would require a college-level education (for example, if the questions were taken from AP exams), you'd tilt the electorate massively towards Democrats again and indeed it would result in a significantly more progressive-leaning Overton window. However, this would be extremely elitist and exclusionary and would result in widespread unrest. (This sort of thing may go over much better in east Asia, where the culture prizes strict academic meritocracy and society is far more elitist.)
No, and that was my entire point. The citizenship test is too easy for it to be reflective of actual knowledge of issues. In order to be a truly informed citizen, you would ideally have to pass an exam at the level of Advanced Placement courses in US history, economics, government, and perhaps some questions regarding international relations, etc. That test, though, would be seen as very elitist and exclusionary - perhaps a few % of people at most would pass, the majority of whom would most likely be college-educated, mostly white/Asian Democrats or non-MAGA Republicans. With that sort of test in place, the US can't really credibly claim to be a democracy though - it would be an epistocratic republic, which is something nobody in the world has tried in good faith, and would be seen as more of a hierarchical academic meritocracy more like Singapore (where the ruling party requires its prospective parliamentary representatives and ministers be of top academic/professional merit) than as an egalitarian country.
Interestingly, it would be much more like what the Founding Fathers envisoned - Thomas Jefferson famously spoke of a "natural aristocracy" which should govern a country. Lee Hsien Loong, the former PM of Singapore, cited Jefferson in a speech justifying the strict meritocratic practices in his country which led to massive backlash from the opposition, who accused him of elitism and arrogance.
An epistocratic republic! First I've seen that phrase. Isn't that what the Framers anticipated when they made "the People" soverign?
The citizenship test is not about issues. It's about US history and how our federal government is structured. Many say few American voters could pass that test. That's all I'm talking about.
The Framers were extremely skeptical of unrestricted democracy. The term "epistocracy" was popularized in the book "Against Democracy" by Jason Brennan, who is a libertarian who espoused the idea that having one-person-one-vote leads to worse outcomes than prioritizing or weighing the votes of the highly informed more heavily.
About 30-40% of Americans could pass the citizenship test. The percentage is likely higher among voters. A much more difficult test like the one I described would have maybe a few % at most who pass it (though that percentage will rise if it's known as a prerequisite to voting). It would probably be something that most of the Framers would approve of, actually, as a check on democracy. There are some who argue that the property requirements were sort of a proxy for that - typically, rich men were well-educated, and it was no accident that the first president elected after the franchise was expanded to all white males was Andrew Jackson. Like I said though, having such stringent requirements in place would completely neuter any claim that the US has to being a democracy (it would also require that the Voting Rights Act be amended to allow such a test). Whether that is for better or for worse is anyone's guess - it's never really been tried as a universal standard (literacy tests were never applied uniformly).
I'd like to see passing the citizenship test a requirement for voting. There are alternate testing protocols for voters who didn't finish school or who hate tests. Many students in American schools fit that profile and teachers are trying to find alternate testing protocols. For one, they can be interviewed. Or they can create an art project that shows their understanding of how our country works.
Of course, with any system, some will game and others will exploit. But this is no reason not to employ a system. In time, they can be caught. See the Atlanta Public Schools cheating scandal where teachers and administrators adjusted struggling students’ test scores in an effort to save their school from closure.
It can be used to benefit Republicans or Democrats depending on the difficulty of the exam. An exam at the difficulty of the US citizenship exam benefits Republicans (there have been surveys done where respondents were asked to take the exam and Republicans do slightly better than Democrats on them) because it would exclude the least-educated (mostly minorities) while letting moderately educated (mostly working-class whites) pass, while most likely a more difficult exam, say, at the level of APUSH/AP Gov/AP Micro/Macroecon would result in a heavily Democratic electorate because it would in effect require a college-equivalent education to pass.
Yep. But they want all of their concerns to be taken seriously even though they don't make any effort to understand what it would take to address their concerns and the realities of the world. And trying to inform them is often met with whataboutisms or just shrugs, not really grasping that their ability to live a life of blissful ignorance is in jeopardy if we lose liberal democracy.
Remember, "It's the economy, stupid"? Today it's, "It's the decadence, stupid." 75 years of the longest period of peace and prosperity and they're whining about people they don't like living in THEIR country. Yeah, tell that to the people who lived here before your ancestors, who were all immigrants, did.🤯
“But they want all of their concerns to be taken seriously even though they don't make any effort to understand what it would take to address their concerns and the realities of the world.”
THANK YOU, JEFF. So much of this since 2020, when people were whining about how corrupt elections are, and then I’d ask, are YOU volunteering as an poll watcher/election judge,” and they’d say no. They couldn’t be bothered to find out how elections were actually run, but they were POSITIVE elections were all corrupt. I just CAN’T with these idiots.
I actually did that a number of years ago. I was concerned about election integrity. I was a poll watcher then became an election judge. I was impressed how careful the people, of both parties, were to make sure elections were fair.
Any of these "swing voter" or "undecided" focus groups are just monuments to the ignorance, laziness, and selfishness of the average American. It's brutal to listen to these people spout lies and murder logic.
I want to give them the benefit of the doubt if they said “I don’t know anything about this.” But instead they will say things like “unemployment is very high right now” which is just wrong. So they aren’t even ignorant, they have chosen to listen to incorrect information and then parrot it back.
That's been the dilemma since the days the constitution was still being written. Democracy's major weakness is the ignorant voters. Of course, you also need safeguards against the majority repressing the minority parties. But, what else?
Agreed. I am still mystified that such a thing as "undecided voter" exists in this country right now. But, again, I am even more mystified that 35% of the country is ride-or-die for a piece of walking, talking, orange human excrement, so there's that...
That NYT forum was depressing. The more I hear from regular, undecided voters, the angrier I get at myself for being politically engaged. These people make me want to rip what little hair I have left right off my head. To paraphrase Logan Roy, these are not serious people.
Honestly, very depressing. I listened to a focus group PBS has been doing in various states for several months, and I’m not sure where they find these people. All “double negatives” (haters) supposedly independents. One woman claims reproductive rights are the most important issue to her, but then admits she will vote for Trump! I mean you can’t make this up. She said there were other positive factors but couldn’t name specifics. The low information voters…
Samantha Bee when on the Daily Show in 2004 met a woman in Philadelphia who said basically the same thing - my main concerns are reproductive rights and stem cell research; I’m leaning towards Bush. Bee asked her how the woman could get up, get dressed and go to work.
I really vacillate between wanting everyone to vote (mandatory voting) and making people pass a citizenship test before being granted the right to vote. Really, new citizens who weren't born here have a better knowledge of how our country works than the average born and bred American. I think we'd have a much higher quality voter if they had to prove they know what their vote means before casting it. But on the other hand, tests have been used in the past as a method of voter suppression. Might requiring such a test limit the number of possible voters who maybe didn't finish school or who hate tests so much the mention of one sends them screaming in the other direction (maybe not actually screaming, but I can certainly see people who wouldn't go to get registered to vote because there's a test)?
One problem: Republicans do a bit better on the US citizenship test than Democrats, actually (https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/crosstabs_Civics_Test.pdf , https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/30/poll-americans-citizenship-test/86559188/ , https://www.nationalreview.com/news/most-eligible-voters-would-fail-u-s-immigration-civics-test-survey-finds/). Most Democrats aren't highly educated mostly white liberals, but rather less-educated minorities.
Why is that a problem?
Because having it as a requirement, ironically, tilts the electorate more towards Republicans.
Well then, improve the civic literacy of the non-college Dems.
You could also argue that the US citizenship test hits the sour spot - too difficult for the least educated people, but not difficult enough to exclude the moderately educated people (who are disproportionately Trump voters). Democrats, in terms of education level, are a coalition of the very low and the high (didn't complete high school and college+). Republicans are a coalition of the moderately well-educated (high school to some college). Theoretically, if you structure a civics test that is so difficult that it requires extensive knowledge of economics, history, international relations, etc., all of which would require a college-level education (for example, if the questions were taken from AP exams), you'd tilt the electorate massively towards Democrats again and indeed it would result in a significantly more progressive-leaning Overton window. However, this would be extremely elitist and exclusionary and would result in widespread unrest. (This sort of thing may go over much better in east Asia, where the culture prizes strict academic meritocracy and society is far more elitist.)
The citizenship test does not require extensive knowledge of economics or international relations, It just requires US history and our government. See https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/questions-and-answers/100q.pdf. Is this too elitist and exclusionary?
No, and that was my entire point. The citizenship test is too easy for it to be reflective of actual knowledge of issues. In order to be a truly informed citizen, you would ideally have to pass an exam at the level of Advanced Placement courses in US history, economics, government, and perhaps some questions regarding international relations, etc. That test, though, would be seen as very elitist and exclusionary - perhaps a few % of people at most would pass, the majority of whom would most likely be college-educated, mostly white/Asian Democrats or non-MAGA Republicans. With that sort of test in place, the US can't really credibly claim to be a democracy though - it would be an epistocratic republic, which is something nobody in the world has tried in good faith, and would be seen as more of a hierarchical academic meritocracy more like Singapore (where the ruling party requires its prospective parliamentary representatives and ministers be of top academic/professional merit) than as an egalitarian country.
Interestingly, it would be much more like what the Founding Fathers envisoned - Thomas Jefferson famously spoke of a "natural aristocracy" which should govern a country. Lee Hsien Loong, the former PM of Singapore, cited Jefferson in a speech justifying the strict meritocratic practices in his country which led to massive backlash from the opposition, who accused him of elitism and arrogance.
An epistocratic republic! First I've seen that phrase. Isn't that what the Framers anticipated when they made "the People" soverign?
The citizenship test is not about issues. It's about US history and how our federal government is structured. Many say few American voters could pass that test. That's all I'm talking about.
The Framers were extremely skeptical of unrestricted democracy. The term "epistocracy" was popularized in the book "Against Democracy" by Jason Brennan, who is a libertarian who espoused the idea that having one-person-one-vote leads to worse outcomes than prioritizing or weighing the votes of the highly informed more heavily.
About 30-40% of Americans could pass the citizenship test. The percentage is likely higher among voters. A much more difficult test like the one I described would have maybe a few % at most who pass it (though that percentage will rise if it's known as a prerequisite to voting). It would probably be something that most of the Framers would approve of, actually, as a check on democracy. There are some who argue that the property requirements were sort of a proxy for that - typically, rich men were well-educated, and it was no accident that the first president elected after the franchise was expanded to all white males was Andrew Jackson. Like I said though, having such stringent requirements in place would completely neuter any claim that the US has to being a democracy (it would also require that the Voting Rights Act be amended to allow such a test). Whether that is for better or for worse is anyone's guess - it's never really been tried as a universal standard (literacy tests were never applied uniformly).
I'd like to see passing the citizenship test a requirement for voting. There are alternate testing protocols for voters who didn't finish school or who hate tests. Many students in American schools fit that profile and teachers are trying to find alternate testing protocols. For one, they can be interviewed. Or they can create an art project that shows their understanding of how our country works.
Of course, with any system, some will game and others will exploit. But this is no reason not to employ a system. In time, they can be caught. See the Atlanta Public Schools cheating scandal where teachers and administrators adjusted struggling students’ test scores in an effort to save their school from closure.
One problem: Republicans do a bit better on the citizenship exam than Democrats, actually (https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/crosstabs_Civics_Test.pdf , https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/30/poll-americans-citizenship-test/86559188/ , https://www.nationalreview.com/news/most-eligible-voters-would-fail-u-s-immigration-civics-test-survey-finds/). Most Democrats aren't highly educated mostly white liberals, but rather less-educated minorities.
Or have legit disabilities like dyslexia.
Mandatory voting would at least negate some of the shenanigans that Rs use to suppress and depress the vote in Democratic communities.
This is tough because it does smack of literacy tests and poll taxes of the past, but I get your frustration.
It can be used to benefit Republicans or Democrats depending on the difficulty of the exam. An exam at the difficulty of the US citizenship exam benefits Republicans (there have been surveys done where respondents were asked to take the exam and Republicans do slightly better than Democrats on them) because it would exclude the least-educated (mostly minorities) while letting moderately educated (mostly working-class whites) pass, while most likely a more difficult exam, say, at the level of APUSH/AP Gov/AP Micro/Macroecon would result in a heavily Democratic electorate because it would in effect require a college-equivalent education to pass.
And how can you prevent cheating on any sort of test these days? Standard tests would have the answers published online within minutes.
And JVL has been telling us we should have more children. I sense that needing to take a test first might have the opposite effect. Lol.
Yep. But they want all of their concerns to be taken seriously even though they don't make any effort to understand what it would take to address their concerns and the realities of the world. And trying to inform them is often met with whataboutisms or just shrugs, not really grasping that their ability to live a life of blissful ignorance is in jeopardy if we lose liberal democracy.
Remember, "It's the economy, stupid"? Today it's, "It's the decadence, stupid." 75 years of the longest period of peace and prosperity and they're whining about people they don't like living in THEIR country. Yeah, tell that to the people who lived here before your ancestors, who were all immigrants, did.🤯
“But they want all of their concerns to be taken seriously even though they don't make any effort to understand what it would take to address their concerns and the realities of the world.”
THANK YOU, JEFF. So much of this since 2020, when people were whining about how corrupt elections are, and then I’d ask, are YOU volunteering as an poll watcher/election judge,” and they’d say no. They couldn’t be bothered to find out how elections were actually run, but they were POSITIVE elections were all corrupt. I just CAN’T with these idiots.
I actually did that a number of years ago. I was concerned about election integrity. I was a poll watcher then became an election judge. I was impressed how careful the people, of both parties, were to make sure elections were fair.
This is a large beef I have with campus protestors right now.
Hopefully they've all left campus by now!
So agree with this.
Any of these "swing voter" or "undecided" focus groups are just monuments to the ignorance, laziness, and selfishness of the average American. It's brutal to listen to these people spout lies and murder logic.
I want to give them the benefit of the doubt if they said “I don’t know anything about this.” But instead they will say things like “unemployment is very high right now” which is just wrong. So they aren’t even ignorant, they have chosen to listen to incorrect information and then parrot it back.
I've been calling it 'aggressively ignorant" since the beginning of the Tea Party - they're actually proud of it.
The worst part is that it makes a case for the proposition that democracy may in fact be not such a good idea. But what to replace it with??
Isn’t there a famous quote, “democracy is the worst form of govt, except for all the others.”
That's been the dilemma since the days the constitution was still being written. Democracy's major weakness is the ignorant voters. Of course, you also need safeguards against the majority repressing the minority parties. But, what else?
Hate to say it, but the original voters were white men pared down further by having to be owners,
No form of government works if the moral rot is extensive enough in a country.
Agreed. I am still mystified that such a thing as "undecided voter" exists in this country right now. But, again, I am even more mystified that 35% of the country is ride-or-die for a piece of walking, talking, orange human excrement, so there's that...
Carville said according to an NBC poll, only 24% are MAGA, ride or die. Being a convicted felon is not gonna help him with the other 76%.