Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:hj5:

I'm fine with it being limited.

It would be fun seeing Bill Clinton run again.

Clinton vs Obama vs Reagans eternal soul '12!

why is this necessary?

Originally posted by inimalist
why is this necessary? I didn't understand why the 22nd was necessary in the first place.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I didn't understand why the 22nd was necessary in the first place.

I believe the it was in the fear that a President could become like a King; considering the U.S. fought to break away from a Monarchy type of rule, you can see why.

make way for THE EMPEROR then::
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/4668/eperbushiy8.jpg

I think Jed Bartlett in West Wing put it best- you only need one limit on someone becoming what the 22nd Amendment seeks to prevent, and that is the electorate. It is ridiculous to have a law for it, which is out and out saying that you don't trust people not to elect the same man for life even if he is useless.

ok

but is this something that, with 2 wars, major economic downfall, etc, the government of America need concern itself with?

like, do people think Obama is so amazing already the most pressing concern to the nation is that he be allowed 3+ terms?

I'm assuming that it is something that will take both time and money of the government to debate and ratify...

If you only ever prioritised crisis-level politics, then the other things would NEVER get done- and you do need to worry about the other things.

Getting rid of a bad law is a good use of political time in any circumstances.

I'm with Inimalist. Congress already has enough to get done and adding more distractions will make the backup worse.

This all sounds suspicious to me..

sounds like a subtle move towards dictatorship to me :/ Peoples should always have a limit on their legally allowed amount of terms.

They just want Obama for life.

Sounds like a conspiracy.

I'm interested in what Rep. Serrano's angle is here.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
sounds like a subtle move towards dictatorship to me :/ Peoples should always have a limit on their legally allowed amount of terms.

As if, in a modern democracy, there has ever been any risk of anything approaching a dictatorship. Or as if there ever could be, seeing how quickly an electorate gets pissed off with a leader.

No- a law like that actually diminishes democracy by removing legitimate choice from the people. Let them vote for who they want; having been in office before is nothing even approaching a suitable reason to debar someone.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
If you only ever prioritised crisis-level politics, then the other things would NEVER get done- and you do need to worry about the other things.

Getting rid of a bad law is a good use of political time in any circumstances.

fair enough, and I agree it is a bad law.

I just don't like the timing

lol, but who am I to criticize Americans for having a inefficient government. The Queen shut ours down for a month a little while ago.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
As if, in a modern democracy, there has ever been any risk of anything approaching a dictatorship. Or as if there ever could be, seeing how quickly an electorate gets pissed off with a leader.

No- a law like that actually diminishes democracy by removing legitimate choice from the people. Let them vote for who they want; having been in office before is nothing even approaching a suitable reason to debar someone.

How long did it take before we gave up on WMDs in Iraq?

Why did we even get to find out that there were no WMDs?


It's well within the US government's power to convey whatever they want. There's plenty of "influence" over the media as well.





We could have easily put WMDs in Iraq in such a way that it would seem as though they had them in the first place. (Even faking the mineral and radiation profiles specific to a geographic location and processing centers. Yes...they have the resources to fabricate something like that.)

I say that because we even know that there were no WMDs, we should count ourselves lucky.

If a regime really wanted to trick millions of people in a democratic republic that leadership should continue through many terms, it could be done. Even in this modern world. I mean..if someone REALLY wanted to pull the wool over our eyes and make the ulitmate in conspiracy theories, they could pull it off to stay in leadership.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
As if, in a modern democracy, there has ever been any risk of anything approaching a dictatorship. Or as if there ever could be, seeing how quickly an electorate gets pissed off with a leader.

No- a law like that actually diminishes democracy by removing legitimate choice from the people. Let them vote for who they want; having been in office before is nothing even approaching a suitable reason to debar someone.

Indeed, Britain would be a good example- our PMs have way more power over the government of the UK than the US president has over the US and they have unlimited terms, yet we have never had a problem with a dictatorial Prime Minister. (I'm talking about the post-Walpole PMs)

Still, it just shows how good Obama is as a politician.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
As if, in a modern democracy, there has ever been any risk of anything approaching a dictatorship. Or as if there ever could be, seeing how quickly an electorate gets pissed off with a leader.

No- a law like that actually diminishes democracy by removing legitimate choice from the people. Let them vote for who they want; having been in office before is nothing even approaching a suitable reason to debar someone.

The first part of your reply sounds like famous last words.

What President have we had that deserved a third term? I think term limits are fine. They haven't prohibited our growth as a country thus far, and that which they protect against, however unlikely, is too unthinkable to even give a chance to occur.

Get rid of it. There was never a problem with unlimited terms in the first place, this was a silly law. Few people ran more then two anyway.

"if some termination to the services of the chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life."--Thomas Jefferson

I have no problem with it being repealed.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
I have no problem with it being repealed.

Of course not, you limey bastich!

Originally posted by tsscls
"if some termination to the services of the chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life."--Thomas Jefferson
And despite that, such a thing simply did not occur at any point in the 100+ years before the 22nd amendment.

Originally posted by King Kandy
And despite that, such a thing simply did not occur at any point in the 100+ years before the 22nd amendment.
Not the point. Laws are not made to counter the frequency of crimes, just the possibility.

Join the rebel alliance! Stop the empire!

Oh wait a minute i'm getting ahead of myself there.

Seriously, the more we limit the president the less he can **** up.

And its only one step away from a dictatorship. The next step is of course to find a way to bypass the individual voter, which is easy.

Originally posted by tsscls
Of course not, you limey bastich!
Technically, I'm only a half of a limey: I am an American, after all. And last time I checked, I've never been a sailor in my life.

Originally posted by dadudemon
How long did it take before we gave up on WMDs in Iraq?

Why did we even get to find out that there were no WMDs?


It's well within the US government's power to convey whatever they want. There's plenty of "influence" over the media as well.





We could have easily put WMDs in Iraq in such a way that it would seem as though they had them in the first place. (Even faking the mineral and radiation profiles specific to a geographic location and processing centers. Yes...they have the resources to fabricate something like that.)

I say that because we even know that there were no WMDs, we should count ourselves lucky.

If a regime really wanted to trick millions of people in a democratic republic that leadership should continue through many terms, it could be done. Even in this modern world. I mean..if someone REALLY wanted to pull the wool over our eyes and make the ulitmate in conspiracy theories, they could pull it off to stay in leadership.

Talk like this is just irrational paranoid nonsense. that bears no relationship to reality.

Like I say, in denying the electorate choice for no viable reason, it is bad law. Your view of, by default, assuming the electorate will get it wrong, actually shows a basis of anti-democratic thought.

I don't see it being a problem because generally the public tire of a particular government after 2 or 3 terms anyway. The economy generally stagnates if a single regime has been in power that long to due lack of ideas to encourage growth.

The UK shows it well...Labour were elected on an utterly massive landslide victory in 1997...they have since won another 2 terms but it's highly likely at the next election they'll be getting turfed out of office because the public no longer trusts them to run the country.

In the US it's even more likely to change quickly because there is usually a balance between republicans and democrats meaning it's usually pretty close between the two. i would say that no president would last beyond 3 terms because of that anyway.

Originally posted by dadudemon
How long did it take before we gave up on WMDs in Iraq?

Why did we even get to find out that there were no WMDs?


It's well within the US government's power to convey whatever they want. There's plenty of "influence" over the media as well.





We could have easily put WMDs in Iraq in such a way that it would seem as though they had them in the first place. (Even faking the mineral and radiation profiles specific to a geographic location and processing centers. Yes...they have the resources to fabricate something like that.)

I say that because we even know that there were no WMDs, we should count ourselves lucky.

If a regime really wanted to trick millions of people in a democratic republic that leadership should continue through many terms, it could be done. Even in this modern world. I mean..if someone REALLY wanted to pull the wool over our eyes and make the ulitmate in conspiracy theories, they could pull it off to stay in leadership.

I think this is a great point!



Its funny how you speak like you are the ultimate authority ."Irrational paranoid nonsense. no relationship to reality." May I ask how you are "in the know" of American politics?

You are assuming the Electorate actually has any bearing on who becomes President. That is to say ...How do you know the "counts" are valid and the powers to be have not, their hand in it?? How do you know The Electoral College is not on the take? The Electoral College can over ride the Popular vote of the "Electorate". How do you KNOW a person ,or body, is not corrupt?

So therefore,the comments made by dadudemon are really, in fact, not so "Irrational, paranoid nor nonsense. And it does relate to reality. IMO

With mr Happy as president, why do you need a change ever#


http://www.filesavr.com/i/party.gif

Originally posted by Bicnarok
With mr Happy as president, why do you need a change ever#


http://www.filesavr.com/i/party.gif


Thats freakin Hilarious

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Talk like this is just irrational paranoid nonsense. that bears no relationship to reality.

Actually, it's just the opposite.




If you are unable to see that a different set of historical events are possible, then you cannot appreciate or better prepare/understand the present and future. Thinking outside of our virtually media and political fabricated world every now and then can provide excellent insight.

How would you or anyone have evidence to prove otherwise? (I'm referring to the example I gave.) Would you even be aware that a cover-up at that magnitude was perpetrated? How would you even get to the juncture of realization? Meaning, would you even realize that you should question the events that "occurred?"

It has nothing to do with wearing an aluminum foil hat while living in an underground bunker. I was pointing out that it is very possible that, even in this modern world, something like I mentioned is well within the powers of a country such as the United States. Would you put actions like that beyond say, pre-perastroika USSR? Have you ever seen government propaganda perpetrated to to the extent of almost universal indoctrination? Do you think that the permitted media is greatly biased in say, Iran?





Originally posted by Ushgarak
Like I say, in denying the electorate choice for no viable reason, it is bad law.

And here lies the problem with your logic. If you can't understand why it is limited, then you will always end up with illogical conclusions.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your view of, by default, assuming the electorate will get it wrong, actually shows a basis of anti-democratic thought.

On the same token, too much "President' degrades democracy. I'm not sure if you realize what point I am trying to make.


It diminishes the point of democracy. Electing a president has more to do with PR and media games than it does actual policy. If it were based on policy and real positive change, we would have elected Ron Paul.




Maybe you don't realize that even without taking into an account propaganda machines, other things happen during a presidency that strengthens (and sometimes, weakens) the decisive power a president has. If unlimited terms were allowed under a presidency that could play the American political game much better than average, we would see the office of President more resemble a dictatorship as successive terms are inhabited. (Not saying that that could be a bad thing, but it could be a bad and could set a precedence for future administrations. It is one of the things our founding fathers wanted to avoid.)


However, and this is a big however, I don't see it being a major problem with no longer limiting terms.

I was just mentioning reasons why limiting terms could still be good policy. Altogether, I think it's fine limiting it to two terms. There is too much of a "game" involved with politics.


Though, like Jaden pointed out, I couldn't see anyone making it past 3 terms in this modern world. I could see Clinton making it to three terms IF you eliminated his scandals and purgery...but I don't think he would have survived a forth election after 9/11 and the succeeding economic down-turn. That is one of the reasons why I don't see a big problem with eliminating the term cap. However, I will not be so naive as to think there is nothing good about a term cap. (Lest you mistake that as an insult to you, it's not. I highly doubt you think that there is nothing good about a term cap...I was commenting in general.)

Another point is that given an unlimited amount of terms, the President would always be campaigning. He would be doing what he could to win the next election, and not what's in the best interest of the people. It would also give an unfair advantage in campaigning, because the president has a more powerful form of expression with his bully pulpit.

Originally posted by tsscls
It would also give an unfair advantage in campaigning, because the president has a more powerful form of expression with his bully pulpit.

That's not necessarily true. I mean, Presidents sometimes do not get re-elected after all.

As much as I love Obama, I think term limits is a good idea. It changes things up. I mean, a good president is allowed 8 whole years to do what they will with the country, and I think that's plenty of time. I mean, FDR served 4 terms. That's a little ridiculous. I mean, if Obama was allowed more terms, I don't think it would neccessarily be a bad thing, but I think term limits are just fine.

And Ush was saying something about anti-democratic thought....I have that for sure, the fact that the American people re-elected Bush really lost a lot of my faith in the electorate....

And to whoever said they'd like to see Bill run again..he can. I'm fairly certain the amendment limits it to two CONSECUTIVE terms....i could be wrong though

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav


Still, it just shows how good Obama is as a politician.

Connect those dots for me...

Originally posted by Robtard
I believe the it was in the fear that a President could become like a King; considering the U.S. fought to break away from a Monarchy type of rule, you can see why.

It was introduced by whiny politicians who couldn't get into the office of the president after Roosevelt won 4 terms through fair elections.

Originally posted by fruits
And to whoever said they'd like to see Bill run again..he can. I'm fairly certain the amendment limits it to two CONSECUTIVE terms....i could be wrong though

You are wrong. No President can be elected more than twice or serve more than two years, if they took over for someone else, and be elected once.

A vice president who assumed the presidency because his or her running mate was assassinated is still allowed to serve two terms after the completion of his or her first term. In other words, LBJ could have run for president and won twice, even though his first term would have been the completion of JFK's term. Same with Gerald Ford, ect.

u guys r nutz and I thought I drank 2 much..haha

What makes "us" nutz?

Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
A vice president who assumed the presidency because his or her running mate was assassinated is still allowed to serve two terms after the completion of his or her first term. Only if they served less than two years of the previous President's term. If they served for more than two years, then they can only run for one more term.

Originally posted by Robtard
I believe the it was in the fear that a President could become like a King; considering the U.S. fought to break away from a Monarchy type of rule, you can see why. I believe the 22nd amendment was made over 150 years after the "threat" of a new Monarchy existed.

Anyways, I believe that in a real democracy you must have the ability to vote for whoever you want, how often you want...so I think sooner is better to get rid of those silly restraints than later.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I believe the 22nd amendment was made over 150 years after the "threat" of a new Monarchy existed.

Anyways, I believe that in a real democracy you must have the ability to vote for whoever you want, how often you want...so I think sooner is better to get rid of those silly restraints than later.

Ah, but you see, the vote is sometimes stupid because all the elections are are games.


Take for instance Obama - McCain. Both had some good policies, both had shitty policies. They both were caught lying out of their ass due to this wonderful information age. Yet, one of them was elected. One played the game better than the other.


The truth is, the people just want someone in office that makes them feel good. Most are too stupid to know what they really need because they fall for the stupid game. They draw lines in the sand and never truly step over to the other side.



Unfortunately, you can never make a voter educate themselves and be open minded.






Now...if.......MY idea were to be implemented, every voter would be required to take a political proficiency test or they couldn't vote. (The test would be as unbiased as possible...though a pure center test would probably be impossible.) Some get pissed when I say this because they say it isn't democracy. **** those guys.


I think if every voter was required to take a political proficiency test once a year or once every two years in order to keep their voter's card, I wouldn't mind if those same people elected the same dumb ass over and over....then it would simply be self-destruction and they would deserve everything they got coming to them and ignorance would not be an excuse in the history "books".

Originally posted by dadudemon
The truth is, the people just want someone in office that makes them feel good. Most are too stupid to know what they really need because they fall for the stupid game. They draw lines in the sand and never truly step over to the other side.

political psychology is a very new field, yet it has been fairly consistent on the finding that, as opposed to being motivated by facts or ideology, people vote for the candidate they like the most, then (and this is IMHO) adopt whatever political memes they use to prevent cognitive dissonance. What determines what causes someone to like a particular politician is different for individuals and likely varies along the lines people self identify with (liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc).

Originally posted by inimalist
political psychology is a very new field, yet it has been fairly consistent on the finding that, as opposed to being motivated by facts or ideology, people vote for the candidate they like the most, then (and this is IMHO) adopt whatever political memes they use to prevent cognitive dissonance. What determines what causes someone to like a particular politician is different for individuals and likely varies along the lines people self identify with (liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc).

I heart you.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Ah, but you see, the vote is sometimes stupid because all the elections are are games.


Take for instance Obama - McCain. Both had some good policies, both had shitty policies. They both were caught lying out of their ass due to this wonderful information age. Yet, one of them was elected. One played the game better than the other.


The truth is, the people just want someone in office that makes them feel good. Most are too stupid to know what they really need because they fall for the stupid game. They draw lines in the sand and never truly step over to the other side.



Unfortunately, you can never make a voter educate themselves and be open minded.






Now...if.......MY idea were to be implemented, every voter would be required to take a political proficiency test or they couldn't vote. (The test would be as unbiased as possible...though a pure center test would probably be impossible.) Some get pissed when I say this because they say it isn't democracy. **** those guys.


I think if every voter was required to take a political proficiency test once a year or once every two years in order to keep their voter's card, I wouldn't mind if those same people elected the same dumb ass over and over....then it would simply be self-destruction and they would deserve everything they got coming to them and ignorance would not be an excuse in the history "books". That's interesting, doesn't relate to me saying that it is silly to limit the terms, though.

I wouldn't mind if the amendment was repealed. Before it was imposed, the majority of Presidents either lost their next election after the first term or stepped down from running for office a third time because George Washington set the example there. The last time we had a President in office for more than two terms was Franklin D. Roosevelt, who did a great job in leading the U.S. out of economic crisis and through World War II. If he had done anything less, he would not have stayed on for four terms.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's interesting, doesn't relate to me saying that it is silly to limit the terms, though.

Fail.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Fail.

Your idea of a test to determine whether people should get to vote is ridiculous.

Why should someone get to have political authority over a person who didn't get to elect them?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Your idea of a test to determine whether people should get to vote is ridiculous.

Originally posted by dadudemon
**** those guys.







Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Why should someone get to have political authority over a person who didn't get to elect them?

The same reason people take care of retards.


Was it really that hard to make the connection?

Originally posted by dadudemon
The same reason people take care of retards.


Was it really that hard to make the connection?

So...you realise you'll be writing off pretty much most of the black population with your little test?

You'll probably be writing off yourself...

Aren't you a Mormon?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
So...you realise you'll be writing off pretty much most of the black population with your little test?


You're obviously being racist. That really has no place in this discussion and isn't backed by any facts on your part. I actually find your "point" to be offensive.

Some of the most intellectually stimulating political conversations and debates I've had have been with "the black population."


I'll be "disabling" a large portion of the political "game" which is the entire point. durr


A point that you are unable to grasp.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
You'll probably be writing off yourself...

Nonsense. Don't trouble your mind with concepts that are beyond your grasp. You're better off leaving the thinking to those who can do it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're obviously being racist. That really has no place in this discussion and isn't backed by any facts on your part. I actually find your "point" to be offensive.

Some of the most intellectually stimulating political conversations and debates I've had have been with "the black population."


I'll be "disabling" a large portion of the political "game" which is the entire point. durr


A point that you are unable to grasp.



Nonsense. Don't trouble your mind with concepts that are beyond your grasp. You're better off leaving the thinking to those who can do it.

TBH I was trying to connect your meritocratic fallacy of an idea with the tests blacks had to go through to vote in the Southern States, thus to imply your idea was racist and garner support for my cause amongst the less able-minded.

Which is what would happen if you ever floated your idea on the public stage.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
TBH I was trying to connect your meritocratic fallacy of an idea with the tests blacks had to go through to vote in the Southern States, thus to imply your idea was racist and garner support for my cause amongst the less able-minded.

Which is what would happen if you ever floated your idea on the public stage.





And you still don't see how you're being racist?



You just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.

Originally posted by dadudemon



And you still don't see how you're being racist?



You just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.

No, I am being racist to an extent... I am purposefully trying to engage the emotions of a people to defeat your shitty idea.

However, I am redeemed by ploughing on seriously in debate while you continue to act like a clown.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
No, I am being racist to an extent... I am purposefully trying to engage the emotions of a people to defeat your shitty idea.

No, you're just being plain racist and you fail to see why it's racist because you simply cannot grasp the concept behind it.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
However, I am redeemed by ploughing on seriously in debate while you continue to act like a clown.

Ahh.

Yes, you are sooo very much intellectually superior. Just like a KKK Dragon.

Now, your silly little test idea...

Imagine a party/administration get into power who want to conserve their hold on office...wouldn't a good way to do that be to make the tests harder and thus rid more people of the right to vote?

Wow...your idea gets even more shit every ten mins....

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Now, your silly little test idea...

Imagine a party/administration get into power who want to conserve their hold on office...wouldn't a good way to do that be to make the tests harder and thus rid more people of the right to vote?

Wow...your idea gets even more shit every ten mins....



Ah, straw man. Or is this clause #5. The clause that allows a person to pretend to have a valid point to divert attention from the real point being presented.



Since your point was thought of long ago when I was still a wee laddie, I present to you the politician who wants to make the tests easier in a specific way (of course, after a careful statistical analysis based on demographics) that allows more people to pass the test who are more likely to vote for them in the future.



Ooooor maybe the information I presented was sooo short and to the point that you are poking holes in an idea that isn't even worthy of being called an outline.


The test is not made by politicians, silly.

So an independent body makes the test?

So an independent body (unelected?) gets to control who has the vote?

He isn't really being racist. Or, if he is racist, then he is no more racist than people who use Godwin in debates. By linking you with a (now) unpopular movement he is making the audience equate you with Jim Crow/Racist South discrimination. (Which probably isn't a good thing.) If he is being racist then every single person that uses Godwin is a Nazi.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
So an independent body makes the test?

So an independent body (unelected?) gets to control who has the vote?

Indeed. They are the oligarchy, silly.


Originally posted by Red Nemesis
He isn't really being racist. Or, if he is racist, then he is no more racist than people who use Godwin in debates. By linking you with a (now) unpopular movement he is making the audience equate you with Jim Crow/Racist South discrimination. (Which probably isn't a good thing.) If he is being racist then every single person that uses Godwin is a Nazi.

I'm glad someone else chimed in.


It is racist. Things people say and do evince their line of reasoning. "Kne-jerk" reactions or first thought reactions can bring to the surface beliefs that one doesn't really believe fit in with societal norms. I believe he's made a blunder and shown that he is racist. Even if he doesn't really think he is, just naming "blacks" as dumb enough to be cut from passing the test is fairly racist on any terms considering he doesn't know the contents of the test, how it is administered, and how it is sustained.

Also taking into a large account that all races or social "lumps" will be equally affected, he would have been statistically safer in assuming that a larger number of "whites" would excluded from a voting privilage under my suggestion. Now, he can argue educational demographics and quality of education based on simple geography, however, he didn't and still doesn't know enough about the test to make a conclusion about the test excluding a larger percentage of African Americans than other race demographics.

Since he brought up African Americans and implied their being unequipped, he has consciously acknowledged for himself that he sees African Americans as less educated compared to the rest of the population. His point would have been less racist if he would have used Latinos as millions of them are, literally, new to the country. 12 million of them can't vote already anyway...so I'm not sure how good of a point it would have been.



edit - the point of the test is to eliminate the effectiveness of the "game" played. You guys can think of ways to implement the weeding out of individuals who refuse to know anything about politics.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed. They are the oligarchy, silly.

Your idea is shit.

Everyone agrees.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It is racist. Things people say and do evince their line of reasoning. "Kne-jerk" reactions or first thought reactions can bring to the surface beliefs that one doesn't really believe fit in with societal norms. I believe he's made a blunder and shown that he is racist. Even if he doesn't really think he is, just naming "blacks" as dumb enough to be cut from passing the test is fairly racist on any terms considering he doesn't know the contents of the test, how it is administered, and how it is sustained.

Also taking into a large account that all races or social "lumps" will be equally affected, he would have been statistically safer in assuming that a larger number of "whites" would excluded from a voting privilage under my suggestion. Now, he can argue educational demographics and quality of education based on simple geography, however, he didn't and still doesn't know enough about the test to make a conclusion about the test excluding a larger percentage of African Americans than other race demographics.

Since he brought up African Americans and implied their being unequipped, he has consciously acknowledged for himself that he sees African Americans as less educated compared to the rest of the population. His point would have been less racist if he would have used Latinos as millions of them are, literally, new to the country. 12 million of them can't vote already anyway...so I'm not sure how good of a point it would have been.



edit - the point of the test is to eliminate the effectiveness of the "game" played. You guys can think of ways to implement the weeding out of individuals who refuse to know anything about politics.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
TBH I was trying to connect your meritocratic fallacy of an idea with the tests blacks had to go through to vote in the Southern States, thus to imply your idea was racist and garner support for my cause amongst the less able-minded.

Which is what would happen if you ever floated your idea on the public stage.

Now, to totally contradict those points above, the test WILL and SHOULD exclude those who don't know jack shit about politics. It will, unfortunately, discriminate against race because of those things I mentioned, however, that is solely coincidental and is just a symptom of a two-fold problem. It is a problem that is SOCIAL (the social problem can be further refined into three or four further classifications) and POLITICAL. Just because there are existing problems that need to be resolved does not mean that the test idea automatically fails to accomplish it's reason for existing. More "problems" would be encountered with this test other than educational exclusions due problems inherent with race.

On another note, you guys automatically assume that race should play a part in a political system and it shouldn't. There shouldn't be politically related problem based on race to begin with. Don't worry, my ideas are not for the present. 50 or more years will bring about racial blur and damned racial crutches will begin to be a thing of the past.


Besides, I wasn't thinking of applying this test to the U.S. I was thinking about having this applied more at a municipal level. I was REALLY thinking about using this method in my own utopia with it's entirely own laws. I city-like country, if you will. I have many ideas on how I would run this city-country ranging from technology to employment methods. Much much more complex than the current superficial understanding of one element in just the political system.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Your idea is shit.

Everyone agrees.

You didn't read any of my post.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Now, to totally contradict those points above, the test WILL and SHOULD exclude those who don't know jack shit about politics. It will, unfortunately, discriminate against race because of those things I mentioned, however, that is solely coincidental and is just a symptom of a two-fold problem. It is a problem that is SOCIAL (the social problem can be further refined into three or four further classifications) and POLITICAL. Just because there are existing problems that need to be resolved does not mean that the test idea automatically fails to accomplish it's reason for existing. More "problems" would be encountered with this test other than educational exclusions due problems inherent with race.

On another note, you guys automatically assume that race should play a part in a political system and it shouldn't. There shouldn't be politically related problem based on race to begin with. Don't worry, my ideas are not for the present. 50 or more years will bring about racial blur and damned racial crutches will begin to be a thing of the past.


Besides, I wasn't thinking of applying this test to the U.S. I was thinking about having this applied more at a municipal level. I was REALLY thinking about using this method in my own utopia with it's entirely own laws. I city-like country, if you will. I have many ideas on how I would run this city-country ranging from technology to employment methods. Much much more complex than the current superficial understanding of one element in just the political system.

In the defence of democracy Athenians used to argue that if you ask one farmer to guess the weight of a cow- he will probably get it wrong. If you get ten farmers to guess the weight of a cow the average answer will more likely be true than the answer of the one farmer. Ask a thousand farmers and chances are the average answer will be correct.

Perhaps you will say your test is simply sorting out the good farmers from those who find themselves unable to judge weights.

However the next question would be one of legitimate authority.

Why should this government be allowed to rule people who did not take part in electing it? Where is the moral standard there?

Perhaps you should form a nation on a small island where to become a citizen you have to pass the politics test? Failure to pass results in being banished from the state? Thus you avoid dictatorial control.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
In the defence of democracy Athenians used to argue that if you ask one farmer to guess the weight of a cow- he will probably get it wrong. If you get ten farmers to guess the weight of a cow the average answer will more likely be true than the answer of the one farmer. Ask a thousand farmers and chances are the average answer will be correct.


There is a fundamental flaw with this point from the beginning, which is the point of the test. What if some to all farmers have a fundamental misunderstanding of weight to begin with? What if they assumed weight was measured in volts? That may sound silly but a quick search on youtube will net you some really retarded people with extremely bizarre political understanding.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Perhaps you will say your test is simply sorting out the good farmers from those who find themselves unable to judge weights.


No. It will weed out those who have been indoctrinated by a neighboring town who specifically taught the farmers to measure incorrectly so they could manipulate them into buying or trading what ever goods they had to offer. This is why metaphors don't work too well sometimes.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
However the next question would be one of legitimate authority.

Why should this government be allowed to rule people who did not take part in electing it? Where is the moral standard there?

You have it backwards, why should people get to take part in ruling others, via proxy, when they don't understand what they're doing specifically because they refuse to educate themselves because of their comfort zone while also existing in a system that allows for agents to specifically take advantage of and manipulate those I've mentioned? Do I really deserve a leader that will **** the system up even more simply because he or she played the political game right? Would we even have to worry about the political bullshit game if the bullshit was called out or what it was the majority of the time? That's really all I'm looking for. Instead of a celebrity, we get a true representative or law.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Perhaps you should form a nation on a small island where to become a citizen you have to pass the politics test? Failure to pass results in being banished from the state? Thus you avoid dictatorial control.

Umm..wow. That was creepy. How did you know that that is what I was intending? I wouldn't banish them from the onset, though.


The country would require many tests to even become a citizen. Maintaining full citizenship would require new periodic re-certification. There will, naturally, be people who qualified originally but become invalids. (dementia, injury, and so forth)


Now, for those who refuse to maintain their tests, there will be fines as voting will be compulsory for all citizens. (Built in time paid time off from work to re-certify, of course. Missing re-certification will be built into the system to an extent that re-certification will almost always be a direct rejection to the system and should quickly follow ejection.)


Banishment from this "utopia" will be a last resort to the criminal.


I'm far from ironing out the political system as that was the last thing I planned. It has many years of work before it "works" for me. I originally planned this as a technology endeavor but realized later how close technology and its implementation is tied to politics.



Now, one thing I don't like about my system is the presence of indoctrination that could be inherit due to the testing. I don't want that. I don't want the testing to be directly part of the political system. I want it to be part of society. However, someone/s somewhere will have to decide what is including in the certifications. That immediately opens the door for corruption. What would need to be born is virtual intelligence. (Not AI...which is sentience.) This is why the system wouldn't work to perfection like I desire.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There is a fundamental flaw with this point from the beginning, which is the point of the test. What if some to all farmers have a fundamental misunderstanding of weight to begin with? What if they assumed weight was measured in volts? That may sound silly but a quick search on youtube will net you some really retarded people with extremely bizarre political understanding.
No. It will weed out those who have been indoctrinated by a neighboring town who specifically taught the farmers to measure incorrectly so they could manipulate them into buying or trading what ever goods they had to offer. This is why metaphors don't work too well sometimes.
Hmm, I dunno if I agree, to think of another athenian argument- how can you expect people to become literate in politics if they are not allowed to take part?



Originally posted by dadudemon
You have it backwards, why should people get to take part in ruling others, via proxy, when they don't understand what they're doing specifically because they refuse to educate themselves because of their comfort zone while also existing in a system that allows for agents to specifically take advantage of and manipulate those I've mentioned?

I disagree with this, the fact is they are taking part in ruling others in it's loosest sense- but even then only to an equal degree as everyone else. The real issue is of authority. Who has the authority to rule over other people? Only someone who has been duly appointed to do so by everyone over he/she rules surely? I don't think your earlier argument that many people are as capable as retards is very true either what evidence do you have to prove that anyway?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Do I really deserve a leader that will **** the system up even more simply because he or she played the political game right? Would we even have to worry about the political bullshit game if the bullshit was called out or what it was the majority of the time? That's really all I'm looking for. Instead of a celebrity, we get a true representative or law.
You believe that would happen?

Originally posted by dadudemon
The country would require many tests to even become a citizen. Maintaining full citizenship would require new periodic re-certification. There will, naturally, be people who qualified originally but become invalids. (dementia, injury, and so forth)
Now, your assumption is that many people are as politically literate as a retard is literate in anything. I suspect that many of the people who would not pass the test you set will be occupied in the lower strata of jobs...(there are obviously exceptions but lets face it, generally I am probably right). What you might find is your country has a huge amount of basically intellectual people: teachers, librarians, doctors, lawyers etc etc...but what about street cleaners? sewage workers, factory workers and so on so on...your nation will be devoid of people who will be willing to do those jobs surely?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Now, one thing I don't like about my system is the presence of indoctrination that could be inherit due to the testing. I don't want that. I don't want the testing to be directly part of the political system. I want it to be part of society. However, someone/s somewhere will have to decide what is including in the certifications. That immediately opens the door for corruption. What would need to be born is virtual intelligence. (Not AI...which is sentience.) This is why the system wouldn't work to perfection like I desire.

Hmm, if the technology exists to create a test and exclude human corruption...then perhaps... heaven forbid though that it should decide only people with a master's in politics should get to vote.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Fail.

I don't think so. I believe that your reply to me did not discuss why limiting terms or banning certain individuals from being voted for is reasonable and not a silly limitation, especially when it is mostly very capable individuals you ban. I do find the idea of a political test for voters interesting, I think there are a few problems with it, and I don't really agree with the general principle, but the idea itself can be discussed, it was just not related to what I was talking about...almost at the opposite of the spectrum, I think.

Repeal it. If you don't want a third term for a pres, don't vote for them.

this is a cloud for the bigger issue...who cares if bj boy clinton..who I thought did well...runs again...or the non american born pres..who cares... if you think of it from a business view...like britain did...its just business...Im not looking up and posting u.s./british treaties but it spells out there how the world works...I got nothing against the British as I wouldnt be sitting here saying this if it wasnt for them doing good business...but I am not stupid...getting there as I keep drinkin..lol.. but this is nothing but a measure of control...if one can run for an extra term so what...if they cant the next pres just does whats good for business...I dont know guess my mind werks different than most...you just gotta do deep research which is a pain..but dont be fooled its just a business scam...bet many of you can present proof that hasnt been mentioned...there are alot of smart dudes/dudettes here..lol

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Hmm, I dunno if I agree, to think of another athenian argument- how can you expect people to become literate in politics if they are not allowed to take part?

Does not apply in anyway shape or form. Unlike the bronze age, we live in the information age. Common techniques, classes, self study programs, etc. etc. etc. will exist for a political aptitude test. The test should be designed to be very direct with its questions. (No trick questions.) It should be designed so that it measures the ability of a potential voter to legitimately weigh or gauge political concepts and be able to measure with surety that the individual is aware of the political games that are played. (It could cover past examples)





Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I disagree with this, the fact is they are taking part in ruling others in it's loosest sense- but even then only to an equal degree as everyone else. The real issue is of authority. Who has the authority to rule over other people? Only someone who has been duly appointed to do so by everyone over he/she rules surely? I don't think your earlier argument that many people are as capable as retards is very true either what evidence do you have to prove that anyway?

In a democracy, the majority can oppress the minority. I have no idea what you're talking about on your retards comments. I think you've misconstrued humor for the literal.


Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
You believe that would happen?

It would happen to a certain degree. That's why I said a "majority." It would force individuals to recognize and actually prepare on current events and techniques used in politics to "win" votes.

If the voter recognizes more bullshit than they do now, that would be an improvement. My whole idea is becoming not so big of an idea because of this wonderful information age...but it would be mostly those who actively seek out political truth in this information age that would pass this aptitude test anyway.


Someone could still be a straight ticket dumbass, but pass the test, so I don't see why this is that offensive.


Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Now, your assumption is that many people are as politically literate as a retard is literate in anything. I suspect that many of the people who would not pass the test you set will be occupied in the lower strata of jobs...(there are obviously exceptions but lets face it, generally I am probably right). What you might find is your country has a huge amount of basically intellectual people: teachers, librarians, doctors, lawyers etc etc...but what about street cleaners? sewage workers, factory workers and so on so on...your nation will be devoid of people who will be willing to do those jobs surely?

Indeed. This "utopia" wouldn't have very many of those jobs you describe simply because of the automated technologies I would have in place. Most of them would be automated. However, I think you are emphasizing social hierarchy too much. Just because someone's a janitor, doesn't mean that they can't be politically adept. Just because someone's a grill cook at McDonald's, doesn't mean that they are a political layman. I know, I worked at McDonald's as a grill cook.

You can walk into all climes of society and find people very adept at politics. Even people significantly below average in the brains category can be adept enough to contribute positively to politics. You're faith in human intelligence is too weak. (You could say the same of me with my idea, however, my idea would force people to become adept or not live in my country. It would weed out the apathetic or indifferent from participating. They would either "participate" or not participate, if you know what I mean.)


Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Hmm, if the technology exists to create a test and exclude human corruption...then perhaps... heaven forbid though that it should decide only people with a master's in politics should get to vote.

Lemme tell you how I came to the conclusion that it would require VI.

I was thinking that it would be comprised of a board of 12 or more professors of politics and human thinking sciences. This group of men, women, and even children if they qualify, would create questions on this test that would best measure the things I've outlined. However, since I don't like having very much government, I didn't like the idea of another body of government. The more government there is, the harder it is to control corruption. However, this board would be hard to corrupt and probably wouldn't be a bad idea at all. In fact, it could probably be very successful, depending on the policies they have to abide by. But wouldn't they set those policies themselves with an affirmative vote from another governing branch?


This is when I thought of VI. Something not sentient, but still intelligent enough to create tests based on the very extensive parameters set from the onset that everyone would have to agree on at the inception of this utopia. It could be amended, but it shouldn't. It should be decided and unchanging.

The questions will, of course, be recycled very frequently to curb brain dumps. It should pull from a massive database of question that are constantly updated. (Making it impossible to have any effective brain dumps to "cheat" on the tests.) This test should cover political precedence, general political knowledge questions (forcing voters to educate themselves on all major political points from parties, etc.), political aptitude questions to demonstrate the ability to weed through political game bullshit, etc.

I could go on and on. I still like the idea of a political aptitude test to be a registered voter. Hopeful citizens have to take a somewhat similar test in the naturalization process, so what is so foreign about this test?


I will always detest the idea that an idiot next door has just as much of a right to vote as I do when they don't even make an effort in any way shape or form to educate themselves on current political issues and then they cast a vote based on a commercial that made them feel good about a candidate they saw between American Idol segments. I don't want that vote. I don't ever want that type of person to have a voice. I would be fine with the 90 year old lady who can barely read but has actively sought out current political issues and educated herself. Who cares if she's virtually and invalid. Her vote certainly means a whole lot more than that dumbass neighbor.



Indeed, you could say that I am an "intellectualist." Similar to racist, but instead I prefer people who work hard and try to educate themselves over those who are lazy and apathetic towards education.

Well, you could say that just about everyone is an intellectualist to an extent. There's probably much much much more "intellectualism" in this world than racism.







On another note. It should be interesting to you that in this utopia I think about, every citizen will be required to modify their genetics to make them genetically superior IF they haven't already done so. This would include improving their body in almost every physical way, eliminating...or rather, modifying negative portions of their nucleotide sequence to eliminate susceptibility to specific diseases and conditions. I really like this idea and I really want it forced on everyone in the whole world. FORCE!

Hmm it all seems very utopian...and I don't think it is based in any foreseeable reality...

Your points make sense within the context of the world you have created, where the apparatus exists, yet I don't think this hypothetical is at all transferable to the practical reality.

Why rather than just have a compulsory test have a compulsory education program?

Could you explain why this extra government entity would be any harder to corrupt than another government entity? You said it would be, but I didn't see much reason behind it.

Ignoring the (over-hyped) problem of corruption, I think you should look at bias. Even if only the smartest people were allowed on this board, they all still have a unique perspective on life developed from experiences they have had that no one else has. It would be virtually impossible to make the test accessible to all walks of life; even IQ tests and government sponsored standardized tests inadvertently exclude large swaths of the population because of how they are written. Unless your utopia has very small population or is homogenized to an unprecedented degree there will be differences in lifestyle. (Or you could be a communalistic (sp?) dictator a la Anthem.)

Would Political bias be purged as well? If the board is would someone with liberal or progressive views be allowed to vote. (Or vice versa.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, and...GMG, there WOULD be compulsory education. However, one could focus on a specific profession their entire life or get a little of everything. There would be basics as too much specialization with create too much miscommunication or vocational "factions".

But what about a course which specifically teaches people what they might need to know to pass the politics test? Obviously it would have to be carefully monitored but surely it is a sensible idea?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
But what about a course which specifically teaches people what they might need to know to pass the politics test? Obviously it would have to be carefully monitored but surely it is a sensible idea?


Originally posted by dadudemon
...we live in the information age. Common techniques, classes, self study programs, etc. etc. etc. will exist for a political aptitude test. The test should be designed to be very direct with its questions. (No trick questions.) It should be designed so that it measures the ability of a potential voter to legitimately weigh or gauge political concepts and be able to measure with surety that the individual is aware of the political games that are played. (It could cover past examples)


And to add to that, there would be great emphasis on choosing a vocation that contributes to the "collective", if even in an artistic way as interpreted by the expressing individual.