Originally posted by wxyz
You like OANN and/or Newsmax?
Oh yeah. They're both much better than FOX.
Originally posted by Surtur
OANN has that really hot blonde
You mean Liz Wheeler? I don't really think she's all that hot (she's only about average, imo, but she is really smart though) and she's no longer with OAN.
She left OAN not that long ago. She also now has her own You Tube channel where she continues to own the libs and the MSM.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Why do they keep voting for it then?
Because most people are terribly informed.
They cannot separate policy from person. And vote for person instead of policy.
Even when presented with evidence that they strongly oppose policies of a candidate that they like, they say they will vote for their guy, anyway.
The average person cannot and should not be counted on to make informed voting decisions. We have mountains of data to support this.
Originally posted by wxyz
Tucker and Hannity should move to OANN or Newsmax.
FOX is between a rock and a hard place. Although I'm sure the fake conservatives at FOX would love to see Tucker fired, they know that he is their cash cow, so to speak.
Tucker is the most popular cable news show on television by far, perhaps even the most popular of all-time.
Originally posted by Surtur
Damn she left? I'd do her.
Eh, I don't see what is so sexually appealing about her unless her intelligence is what makes you wanna do her. Granted, she has that in spades.
I also seem to remember you saying you'd do Alyssa Milano as well lol. She is just gross to me and always has been.
Trish Reagan (who used to work at FOX but is now on another channel) is far more sexually appealing than either one of them, imo. She's hot AND smart.
Originally posted by wxyz
Assuming that's true, how would you resolve this?
Well...my good sir!
Do I have some ideas! WEEEEE!
Okay, we can start, here:
Originally posted by dadudemon
Did you know over 96% of Americans have a mobile phone? Did you know over 81% have a smart phone? And this data is over a year old and those numbers are only higher than they are, now.https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/
I wrote a very lengthy paper on how such a system would work for my political science degree. How do immigrants pass the test? Who runs the current tests?
Yes, I would definitely like to run the tests and write all the questions. Not even kidding a little bit. I would definitely want other like minded, objective, individuals to QA the work to ensure I didn't put a bias in the questions. It should be based purely on accessible language (already the law), facts, and the ballot-candidates. How does "isidewith" manage to create questions that do such an amazing job of not having a bias? You act like it is impossible so we shouldn't even try to enfranchise more voters (more on this, later).
You clearly do not know I am smarter than this. That's just weaksauce condescension on your part. As if you can insult me into changing my mind or position with indirect influence like this...
What brings me to this kind of belief is the extreme amounts of ignorance and a lack of due diligence when it comes to politics voters. The average voter is dangerously illinformed. Many hold lies as beliefs and beliefs that are harmful. They do not take the time it takes to actually understand the nuances and facts of the US Civic System and the politicians running for office. Their votes are sometimes harmful. And we see that all the time.
Currently, the belief that not everyone should get a right to vote is actually in place in nearly 100% of every single country that allows votes.
My system could be expanded to legal denizens which would enfranchise, potentially, even more voters.
This is an idea that is as old (from what I know) as Ancient Greek Philosophy. Maybe it came about even sooner but I am not aware of it. But the idea of ignorant voters being harmful and educated voters being beneficial is not a new idea and has been entertained for thousands of years. It is part of why Lockean Rights exist: to protect us from the oppression of the ignorant and harmful majority and minority. You already live in a system that tries to hedge against the risk of ignorant voters.
Let's start with actual research into this very topic:
You failed to understand why ignorant voters are harmful. The ignorance from voters hits topics such as common false ideas about members of the LGBT community (ignorant voters have kept members of the LGBT community oppressed for many many decades), Muslims, Jews, immigrants, unemployment rates, entitlement program spending, and so on.
And this research shows that the ignorance is independent of education quality, too. Even high-attaining countries like Sweden suffer from the ignorant voter, despite being the number 1 on the list.
And the excuse that voting after passing 2 proficiency exams is "elitist" is simply false. Voters must vote using ballots or voting touch screens which requires them to be literate to begin with. For those who are disabled, provisions are already made and those provisions work. Why act like this is reinventing the wheel?
My idea could expand the right to vote to children who take the time to educate themselves. As a kid, I was frustrated with ignorant adults. They didn't know how the system worked and just regurgitated political talking points that their favorite pundit vomitted instead of actually educating themselves and understanding American Civics. Many young people are just like I was. Why do they deserve to be silenced?
And in the paper I wrote on this, I outlined exactly how the questions would be written for such an exam to insulate it from the party in power who would load the test against their opponents (it would be difficult to pull this off, anyway, regardless of who is in power). Firstly, all the questions would have to be posted - first and foremost. Just like they are, now, for the Citizenship Test. I also outlined multiple ways to implement it including an option that does not disenfranchise any voters but enfranchises high scorers. This could include financial incentives like tax credits (imagine empowering your poor by facilitating political landscape proficiency and tax breaks). There are multiple ways to go about implementing such a system such as giving greater weight to high scorers, electing a panel of political scientists who manage the tests similar to how the SCotUS is run (but with voters coming from academia, the populace, and congress), implementing on the civic portion (which would be almost a 100% direct adoption from the immigration test we have, now), and facilitating measures such as purely secure electronic voting which would allow people to be certified and registered to vote all through an app or web app (similar solutions already exist in other countries - the US is just behind).
I think you feel like this exam is 100 questions long. It wouldn't be. It would be very similar to the citizenship test for both parts of the exam. We could run a pilot program with volunteers (who would still get to vote).
Do you understand that Trump would not have been elected in 2016 if this system existed? Do you also understand that it would push voters to know more about the candidates they are voting for? Why do you oppose an knowledgeable electorate?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Because most people are terribly informed.They cannot separate policy from person. And vote for person instead of policy.
Even when presented with evidence that they strongly oppose policies of a candidate that they like, they say they will vote for their guy, anyway.
The average person cannot and should not be counted on to make informed voting decisions. We have mountains of data to support this.
Should probably start by investing in education then.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Should probably start by investing in education then.
Dude, I'm so amazing, my posts write themselves:
Originally posted by dadudemon
Let's start with actual research into this very topic:The ignorance from voters hits topics such as common false ideas about members of the LGBT community (ignorant voters have kept members of the LGBT community oppressed for many many decades), Muslims, Jews, immigrants, unemployment rates, entitlement program spending, and so on.
And this research shows that the ignorance is independent of education quality, too. Even high-attaining countries like Sweden suffer from the ignorant voter, despite being the number 1 on the list.
Originally posted by wxyz
Going to be a hard no for me, on requiring people to pass some kind of test before they can vote.
After years of seeing about 50% of informed voters and 50% of terribly informed voters (rough estimate), I'm definitely okay with raising the bar and I don't give a shit about disenfranchising huge percentages of voters. They can take the time to educate themselves on who they can vote for or he less of a voice or no voice.
This plus RCV would be the best go forward path to depower the Dems and the GOP.