That is one of the objections people have to your position, yes.
In that case they are objecting to a strawman because, as I stated, that isn't my position. Unfit, unworthy, undesireable, none of them are my position. Ignorance can be quantified (to an extent), having a minimum standard of knowledge isn't asking too much.
That's a good clarification, because most people talking about restricting citizenship consider denying the vote to the unfit a key part of the whole proposal.
Fair enough. I personally think people hyper focus on that one specific facet of such proposals but it's understandable why given our history.
(And I think that term is accurate to the proposal, which would make any discomfort reason to reconsider the proposal IMO. [edit: But on second thought, perhaps "unworthy" is closer to what you mean? I don't think this is a good thing, though.])
Again, such blanket generalizations
are not my position. Repeating that "maybe that's what I meant" won't change that.
But I don't think you've answered the question of why it's worth doing to change from what we have now to exclude those (lazy) people, and why the same reasons don't apply to the exception you want to carve out.
I think I may have misunderstood your initial question. I thought your were asking about the distinction between the willfully ignorant and the rest
in the context of the proposed testing system not why I think we should implement such a system at all. Sorry about that.
You alluded to reasons of decency, but I think it would be utterly indecent to deny a particular person Social Security benefits they had paid into, for example, with the expectation of receiving them in old age, because they flunked a test. At least, based on your saying that "they should retain their access" I figure you mean that should be among the things that normally the test could exclude people from, and it sounds like you think people should need to re-test at various points in life.
The reasons of decency are meant in the context of this hypothetical system not our current system. Again, sorry for misunderstanding what you were asking.
In short, why should I be concerned that lazy-minded people are voting but not that feeble-minded people are?
Right now, with no quality controls or standards in place you should worry about both. You were correct when you said that the outcome is the same. The lack of knowledge about our history (history in general, really), the mechanisms of our government, the responsibilities of municipalities, states, and the federal gov'ts, why certain laws were passed or repealed, the rationale behind certain key court decisions, all of it- it leads to too many damn problems. It's too easy to get people to vote for things against their interest, it's too easy to get public officials pushing for damaging policies, it's too easy for groups like to media to advocate for things like "abolish the Senate" or "remove the electoral college". Ignorant people are lead by the nose into things that will damage them in the long term because they lack the historical context and knowledge to understand what it is they're actually being led to. So, why should you be concerned? Because the general ignorance will kill us if we leave it unchecked.
As to the incompetent, that's more relevant for holding public office and political advocacy/activism. I could expand on this if you like, but it seems self explanatory to me why your want competent people for these actions.
it would be utterly indecent to deny a particular person Social Security benefits they had paid into ...you think people should need to re-test at various points in life
I also mentioned that in this proposed system, you'd have opportunities for retest (after failures), possibly multiple opportunities with reasonable time between attempts to study and learn. It would indeed be monstrous to steal from someone who pays into a system and never give it back. I also said, I'm not proposing a fully developed system with edge cases mapped out, specific criteria for what would be exempted, restricted, inviolate, etc. In this
specific case, I'd probably have a time based rule where young adults have both the responsibility to pay SS tax
and the (potential) to benefit from SS withheld/restricted if they fail while a retiree would have SS be held as an inviolate benefit that wouldn't be removed in case of failure of this hypothetical test. As for periodic retests over the course of your life, I think they are necessary to keep the knowledge fresh in your mind. I believe citizenship is an commitment and I think if you are going to benefit from the system you should also be responsible. This, of course, completely conflicts with such customs like birthright citizenship and, as such, is very unpopular.
I hope this time I answered your question for
why you should care.
@posh-goofiness the problem with requiring the passing of a test before you're allowed to vote isn't with the test itself. It's with those who write and administer the test. They'll do everything they can to make it so that those they don't approve of
will fail the test.
The Voting Rights Act
explicitly bans such tests because they were used to disenfranchise black people (and poor whites) in the South.
Yes. I understand your position here. It is, definitely, a problem with this hypothetical system. However, we don't (seem to) have a problem subjecting legal immigrant (applicants) to these tests. In fact, we consider it desirable to incorporate the system in the legal immigration system.
Though if I remember correctly, the literacy test is still actually perfectly legal. It just needs to be applied universally and standardized. The issue in the South (if I remember correctly) was that there were different tests being given between blacks and whites. After it was challenged in court, they stopped giving the tests because if they needed to give the same standardized (sentence? paragraph?) test between the two groups it did fuck all to limit black voters. Since it didn't do what they wanted to do and it was burdensome to implement, they dropped it. At least, that's my understanding.