Had you rather more than majority & citizenship be predicates for enfranchisement in US elections?

1. Yes, I had rather U.S. enfranchisement be predicated on more than majority and citizenship.
2. I had rather, in addition to majority and citizenship, predicate U.S. enfranchisement on one's mastery of positive (not normative) intermediate macro and micro economics.
   • Why?
     • It'd force politicians and policy makers to publish far higher quality information about the economic nature of their policies.
       • Voters will be far more knowledgeable about economics and will thus demand far more credible input from would-be elected office holders.
     • Voters can be relied upon to fully understand and know when politicians' remarks re: the economic merits/demerits of a policy are heterodox.
       • The disciplines one must master prior to learning intermediate economics provides one with tools that are very useful for understanding much besides economics.
     • It'd force schools to provide a more rigorous curriculum than they currently do, for a nation cannot demand that folks have a given level of mastery at X and also not provide the instruction so people can obtain the requisite mastery.
     • It'd ensure that folks have a fully rational framework for evaluating any human behavior that can be framed in terms of scarcity (most especially scarcity of time, opportunity, money, effort and/or other resources) and choice.

• Intermediate Macroeconomics textbook
• Intermediate Microeconomics textbook
• Illustration of applied intermediate economics (macro)

Amelia said:

That would disenfranchise people from bad school systems.

While I wish that all voters would at least know the names of the president and vice president, I'm not in favor of forcing people to pass exams before they're allowed to vote.

So I voted no.

Click to expand...

Xelor said:

1. Yes, I had rather U.S. enfranchisement be predicated on more than majority and citizenship.
2. I had rather, in addition to majority and citizenship, predicate U.S. enfranchisement on one's mastery of positive (not normative) intermediate macro and micro economics.
   • Why?
     • It'd force politicians and policy makers to publish far higher quality information about the economic nature of their policies.
       • Voters will be far more knowledgeable about economics and will thus demand far more credible input from would-be elected office holders.
     • Voters can be relied upon to fully understand and know when politicians' remarks re: the economic merits/demerits of a policy are heterodox.
       • The disciplines one must master prior to learning intermediate economics provides one with tools that are very useful for understanding much besides economics.
     • It'd force schools to provide a more rigorous curriculum than they currently do, for a nation cannot demand that folks have a given level of mastery at X and also not provide the instruction so people can obtain the requisite mastery.
     • It'd ensure that folks have a fully rational framework for evaluating any human behavior that can be framed in terms of scarcity (most especially scarcity of time, opportunity, money, effort and/or other resources) and choice.

Please provide your answer to the poll/title question along with (1) on what additional things you'd predicate enfranchisement and (2) why you'd predicate it on that/those things. Obviously, if you'd reduce the quantity of criteria for enfranchisement, your answer must be "no."



Supplemental References:

• Intermediate Macroeconomics textbook
• Intermediate Microeconomics textbook
• Illustration of applied intermediate economics (macro)

Click to expand...

Xelor said:

You weren't asked answer with regard to my reasons for answering yes. You're asked to answer with regard to your own thoughts on the title question.

It so happens that my predicate would have an education impact. Yours and/or others' (if you/they have any additional ones) may not have a scholastic impact.

Click to expand...

1. 
   [*=1]the field has a character limit,
   [*=1]when I first wrote the question/title, I conceived and typed the syntax/diction that first came to mind,
   [*=1]and since it fit in the allotted space, I went with it.

Xelor said:

You weren't asked answer with regard to my reasons for answering yes. You're asked to answer with regard to your own thoughts on the title question.

It so happens that my predicate would have an education impact. Yours and/or others' (if you/they have any additional ones) may not have a scholastic impact.

Click to expand...

Felis Leo said:

Here is the problem: I think testing is far too open to abuses allowing disenfranchisement. Mere proof of age and citizenship is relatively straightforward. This reminds me of the argument for literacy tests that the Southern States put into effect to disenfranchise black voters. I remember hearing anecdotal stories (I do not know how accurate) that because many white Southerners had poor levels of literacy, the registrars would ask whites to spell words like "dog" in order to be able to vote, but would ask black people to spell words like "chrysanthemum" or "antidisestablishmentarianism" in order to be able to enter the polling station.

Click to expand...

Amelia said:

My answer is no.

Okay? Okay.

Click to expand...

Xelor said:

TY. So, your answer is "no." Why?

Click to expand...

Amelia said:

Because I can't think of any requirements to add which wouldn't result in already disadvantaged populations having even lower representation proportionally than they already do at the polls.

Okay? Okay.

Sheesh.

Click to expand...