Ah, Americans.

It’s Poe’s Law Playground over there… sickly addictive, funny and sad all at once.

Poetry:
“The Obama death squads coming. Coming for your granny’s soul. Better run back to Alaska. And drill under the North Pole.”

The people online looked from teabagger to troll, and from troll to teabagger, and from teabagger to troll again, but already it was impossible to tell which was which.

Alternately:

“Make the illegal Muslin Meskins work at forced labor to protect us from the Bees and the Spiders. Lizard People, also.”

Mickey: I didn’t feel like registering, but I would like to register and submit my idea:  “Nationalize all Fortune 500 companies.”   Come on.  You know it’d solve a lot of problems.

Unfortunately, your suggestion that they undergo any kind of regulation that can stand between them and profit is in stark opposition with those who can afford the necessary advertisements to counteract such a sentiment, particularly amongst easily-swayed rural folk. (Although, considering they own so much of the American senate, being nationalized would just be a handy smoke screen for them to legitimize bailouts which mostly go to their CEO’s bankrolls.)

And I suppose my suggestion that the right to vote voting requires a passing grade every-four-years in a federally regulated political science classes, favoring a public but educated minority is responsible for all political change as opposed to an easily-swayed uneducated majority, would result in mass riots and bloodshed in the streets.

Politics, gotta love em’. Society can be no more a bastion of perfection than the individuals that populate it, particularly in a democracy.

geldonyetich: And I suppose my suggestion that the right to vote voting requires a passing grade every-four-years in a federally regulated political science classes, favoring a public but educated minority is responsible for all political change as opposed to an easily-swayed uneducated majority, would result in mass riots and bloodshed in the streets.

The only problem I have with your suggestion, and it’s the reason why I can’t support it, is that it would be too easy to manipulate the questions to make damn sure only people who agree with you end up getting the franchise. Take this account of a seemingly innocuous civics quiz: http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/2010/04/12/literacy-quizzes-again/

Yeah, I know you can’t exactly rig the answer to the number of congressmen in Hawaii, but no matter how factual you think you’ll be in selecting the questions. You just have to emphasize certain authors over others: Friedman over Keynes, etc. Just look at the bickering that surrounds any attempt to develop a “Western Canon”, each iteration of which inevitably short-changes non-English writers.

How would “federally regulated” change anything?  If it’s anything like your federally regulated stab at healthcare reform, it doesn’t bode well. Federally regulated just means someone has been more successful at pulling the proverbial blanket.
Your plan would be an improvement – in theory.  But it could easily go haywire.  Even if you were just giving the right to vote to those who finished high school.

Technogeek: The people online looked from teabagger to troll, and from troll to teabagger, and from teabagger to troll again, but already it was impossible to tell which was which.

I own the copy right to Animal Farm! Pay me $3k and I won’t send you to prison!

John Moore:
I think you need to do a little research into U.S. history. We’ve done the whole disfranchisement gone haywire thing.

It’s easy enough to pick up an overview. Done. Hmm, beyond the generalization that certain people weren’t allowed to vote, it doesn’t seem to be anything at all what I suggested. If you’re a big proponent on learning our mistakes from the past, you should really pay better attention to details.

edit- I know, I spelled gullible wrong. Guess I shouldn’t be alloed to vote.

Ummm. 

What? 

Wow.

I’m foiled by your logical approach . Curses. I guess voting really should be a state granted privilege, not right of citizenship. Because, obviously, thinking otherwise is an emotional appeal.

And can fit on a bumpersticker. Thus, is without logic.

And, if the voting requirement is federally regulated, then what’s to worry, right?  And clearly, I can’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that such a system would repeat the mistakes of the past.

I am beaten.

I’ll actually read your message.

Really? I didn’t pick up on that. Thanks for letting me know.

Personal growth is an interesting thing. I’ll be awhile before John Moore matures enough to be able to understand why I refused to participate with his overly sophomoric approach to the topic. As for me, I’ve matured enough to wonder why I ever wanted to hang out with a group of people so petty and small that they would put another human being in a box and hurl insults at them for entertainment.

Geldon, you live in a country where there was Federal approval of owning black people for more than a century, which was banned because it was the most economically devastating thing that the North could do the the South short of Napalm, and you still think that the Federal government is infallible enough that it should be free to reshape the voter pool in the image it desires?

If you take a closer look at what I wrote here, I never said that this idea of mine was bulletproof or easy.  Indeed, I wrote the exact reason why it would go wrong, “But is is nonetheless problematic. Sooner or later, you need to come up with a ‘ultimate authority’ on what makes up a fair quiz. If this ultimate authority is corrupted, then what?” I’m not proposing to have a magic bullet that would solve this.
My disagreement with John Moore was only that, when I browsed disfranchisement in the United States, I saw no mention of disfranchisement for intellectual reasons, but rather based on race or geography.  So, basically, history has no verifying examples that had anything to do with what I said.
That was all.   Contrary to the amount of apparent spam expressed, you’re misreading me if you think I’m absolutely positive that this idea of “allowing an intellectual minority as opposed to an uneducated majority” democracy idea is even possible.  Nevermind if it could be pulled off once implemented, good luck getting the average American citizen to accept that they no longer have a say in the fate of their country (despite abysmal voter turnouts).
This would have to be my reply to both Vetarnias and Sheepherder in this regard, because looking what they wrote there, I can see a combination of thinking I’m talking about racial profiling, which I’m not, or believe I have a magic bullet to assure a fair testing method, which I don’t.  You’re both also using previous examples that (like the disenfranchisement examples before) have nothing to do with intellectual disenfranchisement, and this detail is so vital as to render those examples moot in my mind.
So, to summarize: Would it be awesome if we could assure that all the smart, informed people were responsible for the voting process, thereby facilitating a better chance at positive chance for the country?  Sure.  Would it be easy or likely to happen, with no chance that corrupting interests could use it as a method to wrest power for nefarious purposes?  I wish.

I did not really bring race into this; nor do I think this was Sheepherder’s intent. He was just pointing out that racial disenfranchisement was a Federal measure, in direct response to your assertion that your quiz would have to be federally regulated.
There is one area in which it is already present: application for citizenship. But it has less to do with intellectual disenfranchisement than with ensuring that new citizens have a functional knowledge of the country. And try to impose that on people born of American parents.
Intellectual disenfranchisement was precisely what I was talking about; and what is also interesting is that in some prominent cases it came from so-called “reform” movements.  Mandatory sterilization for reasons of “moral degeneration”, for example, or Prohibition.
That WSJ link, by the way, is so far-fetched as to stretch the limits of credibility.  The assumption, first, that Canada and Mexico would have enough clout to obtain, between them, half of the U.S. States; second, that the territories annexed by Canada would range as far south as Colorado, but would exclude the far more credible possibility (based on his theory) that Canada would not annex some of the New England states such as, in particular, Vermont, NH, and Maine; third, that Alaska would “go to Russia” (why not Canada?) when there is little left of the Russian heritage there, not to mention that the U.S. obtained Alaska by purchasing it, not by invasion; fourth, that despite their division, they would maintain a high degree of cooperation, and perhaps cohesiveness, because of their shared language; fifth, by failing to respect traditional divisions that would make it far more likely for both Carolinas, Tennessee and perhaps Virginia, to join the south.  Looks like the prof decided on a scenario where all foreign powers would carve the US between themselves, even though (1) Canada can’t; (2) nor can Mexico; (3) China could, but won’t risk it. He built a scenario that respects nothing of the continent’s history or the current situation.
I do not exclude internal division, but I think the specter of the Civil War will prevent any attempt at leaving the Union. You seem to be in a downward spiral, I’m not denying it, but you’re not going away.

Vetarnias:
Intellectual disenfranchisement was precisely what I was talking about; and what is also interesting is that in some prominent cases it came from so-called “reform” movements. Mandatory sterilization for reasons of “moral degeneration”, for example, or Prohibition

You might notice I’m dwelling heavily on the details. Bringing in things like countermeasures against “moral degeneration’ and whatnot demonstrates an impressive breadth of knowledge, but the lens is so unfocused away from what I’m talking about that most of your post has me wondering what you’re hoping to prove by going so far afield. You were closest in mentioning we have an immigration test, but in the same breath mentioned why even this isn’t worth mentioning, so you haven’t left me with a whole lot of material I actually want to work with here.

Sheepherder: France: Autumn 1793. Radical leftists storm The Convention demanding, among other things, that only the working class be enfranchised, and that the monarchy-sympathetic moderate members be arrested as enemies of the republic. In the aftermath a man by the name of Maximilien Robespierre takes power of The Committee of Public Safety. 16 000 to 40 000 are executed for treason in the space of a year.

The detail of what I suggested has to do with there being federally regulated and publicly available classes which provide basic qualifications for understanding political landscape (political science classes, I called them) in order to be allowed to vote.

Exactly what does the raiding of the proletariat during the most violent decade of French political history have to do with this? Seriously, they just finished axing off the heads of the resident monarchs for hundreds of years, and were having nasty upheavals like this virtually every other week. You honestly believe this has anything to do with the political climate in the United States?

Even if the political climate were even remotely similar, it has nothing to do with my original idea of enforcing an informed voter as opposed to a brainwashed one, not even close.

geldonyetich: Exactly what does the attendance of elected officials in the legislative body the most violent decade of French political history have to do with this? Seriously, they just finished axing off the heads of the resident monarchs that month, and were having nasty upheavals like this only once.

You should probably read the material you cite.

I thought you dudes were quoting the more nutbar posts from the linked site, but it turns outthis is all your own work!  Wow.
Anyway, this initiative has my vote!
The US military should adopt the mullet as the official haircut of the armed forces. Symbolically, this style tells Al Kaida that we’re protected from the back. Practically, it offers sun protection and less time on barbershop chairs at military bases and more time kickin’ butt.
 

Con: How’s that whole “we need intellectuals instead of idealogues running the coutry” thing working out for you Scott?

It doesn’t help that some of the most virulent ideologues also happen to be so-called intellectuals.

Bleh. This is why I don’t get into too many arguments on the Internet these days: in the vast majority of cases, you’re talking to somebody who’s too busy to be bothered to understand what you write and/or so determined to be “right” that they’re simply unable to perceive things any other way.

Imzeweiner: Geldon, will your required poly sci class include any questions regarding the historic use of “Literacy tests”? …… Intellectual disfranchisement is nothing new. Just as passing a test is not necessarily a measure of intellect or the ability to make the right decisions regarding politics. Tests, no matter who regulates them or creates them can not be free from cultural or socio-economical bias; and I would argue a poly sci test would be probably one of the biggest culprits of them all. What are we testing? Basic knowledge, civics, governing theories? Which ones? What’s right? Is it multiple choice or essay? The ability to obtain an education is so closely correlated to socio-economic status that essentially what you are proposing to do is to strip the last, if not the only, power poorer Americans can wield within our great country. While you are clearly cynical of the political process, lest not forget how much the ability to vote has given ALL Americans, whether Black, women, non-land owners, ect.

Case: Too busy to be bothered to understand what he’s reading.
A good kneejerk reaction of what I’d expect to hear if you read only two words of what I said, “intellectual disenfranchisement,” thereby getting the wrong idea about what I meant and pointing out all the obvious flaws.

Sheepherder: You should probably read the material you cite [because, clearly, this refers to exactly what you were talking about with laser precision].

Case: So determined to be right they’re unable to perceive things any other way.
I already told you why your example tanked. If this is your reaction, I don’t see why I should bother to tell you again.

A Man In Black: Eventually the trolls will get done with such a site. Even once they’re done spamming 4chan memes, you’ll still have people like geldonyetich posting hopelessly demented plans for “improving” the country.

Lets count the number of things that were wrong in such a tiny message.
1. This is the Internet. The troll supply is unlimited.
2. You’ve zero qualifications to establish you’re an authority on what is a hopelessly demented plan.
3. Lets hear your suggestion. Anything. I’m sure somebody would be along shortly to let you know how hopelessly demented it is.
4. I’m not terribly insistent on my idea anyway. I’ve just been clearing up misconceptions about it all this time. Which, on the Internet, is sort of a pointless endeavor because nobody ever bothers to read.
Just to get back on topic a bit here, this whole rigmarole where nobody can even be bothered to understand what I wrote is the reality that any politician worth his/her salt has to deal with every day in trying to rule us. Knowing how bad the average American is at understanding the political landscape, I’ve little doubt that they consider getting opinions from us on about the same level as hearing out the whiners on an MMORPG forum explaining how the other classes need to be nerfed. Consequently, http://www.americaspeakingout.com is nothing more than propaganda anyway. At most, perhaps the GOP will take that data so they can build up arguments to counteract anything suggested in the event that their opposition comes up with a similar idea.

Cymbaline:  Oh, the irony?

I wish I could say this was ironic. But suggesting I can’t live up to my own standards when you yourself would have to not be living up to those standards in order to misinterpret the situation thusly isn’t ironic. Just sad.