We need a permit to vote, same as we need a permit to drive...
First test... Eye test, recognizing colors and shapes. We do not need blind people, sorry. Be assured we can blind them anyway...
Second... Hearing and listening, being able to hear and to answer a simple question like 'What time is it?' We do not need folks that are deaf either, after all.
With these two tests we can already eliminate 75% of the currently registered voters, after all, all who are refuse to see and hear are worse than those who are handicapped.
Then we have a cognition test, like knowing what a dog looks like compared to a cat and if by any chance if the thing waddle, quacks and swim identify the critter a fowl. Those that are really smart can declare it's a duck and not get penalized.
Now we are getting serious...
One needs to recite the constitution verbatim, as it was written. Bonus point if one can also recite and give the date of all the amendments made up to today with the dates they were passed.
This time I would guess that 99.99% of the 25% left are eliminated.
For the 0.01% left, if they can recognize where their asses are they must identify Paris's present location.
Out of the 150 million folks who could vote I doubt will be any left so the election will be reduced by a random selection of names placed in a hat. Whoever picks a name out of the said hat gets shot and the winner becomes president until it is time to select a new one... No volunteer needed, these will be terminated w/o prejudice the moment they raise their hands.
Oh and the right of speech? Who gives a rat ass about it, this is such an odd thing to have that no one understand the origin of it, what it means and what are the caveats... Especially in a forum like this one...
Rongnongno wrote:
First test... Eye test, recognizing colors and shapes. We do not need blind people, sorry. Be assured we can blind them anyway...
Second... Hearing and listening, being able to hear and to answer a simple question like 'What time is it?' We do not need folks that are deaf either, after all.
With these two tests we can already eliminate 75% of the currently registered voters, after all, all who are refuse to see and hear are worse than those who are handicapped.
Then we have a cognition test, like knowing what a dog looks like compared to a cat and if by any chance if the thing waddle, quacks and swim identify the critter a fowl. Those that are really smart can declare it's a duck and not get penalized.
Now we are getting serious...
One needs to recite the constitution verbatim, as it was written. Bonus point if one can also recite and give the date of all the amendments made up to today with the dates they were passed.
This time I would guess that 99.99% of the 25% left are eliminated.
For the 0.01% left, if they can recognize where their asses are they must identify Paris's present location.
Out of the 150 million folks who could vote I doubt will be any left so the election will be reduced by a random selection of names placed in a hat. Whoever picks a name out of the said hat gets shot and the winner becomes president until it is time to select a new one... No volunteer needed, these will be terminated w/o prejudice the moment they raise their hands.
Oh and the right of speech? Who gives a rat ass about it, this is such an odd thing to have that no one understand the origin of it, what it means and what are the caveats... Especially in a forum like this one...
First test... Eye test, recognizing colors and sh... (
show quote)
Been hittin' the hooch again, huh?
Rongnongno wrote:
First test... Eye test, recognizing colors and shapes. We do not need-blind people, sorry. Be assured we can blind them anyway...
Second... Hearing and listening, being able to hear and to answer a simple question like 'What time is it?' We do not need folks that are deaf either, after all.
With these two tests, we can already eliminate 75% of the currently registered voters, after all, all who are refusing to see and hear are worse than those who are handicapped.
Then we have a cognition test, like knowing what a dog looks like compared to a cat and if by any chance if the thing waddle, quacks and swim identify the critter a fowl. Those that are really smart can declare it's a duck and not get penalized.
Now we are getting serious...
One needs to recite the constitution verbatim, as it was written. Bonus point if one can also recite and give the date of all the amendments made up to today with the dates they were passed.
This time I would guess that 99.99% of the 25% left are eliminated.
For the 0.01% left, if they can recognize where their asses are they must identify Paris's present location.
Out of the 150 million folks who could vote I doubt will be any left so the election will be reduced by a random selection of names placed in a hat. Whoever picks a name out of the said hat gets shot and the winner becomes president until it is time to select a new one... No volunteer needed, these will be terminated w/o prejudice the moment they raise their hands.
Oh and the right of speech? Who gives a rat ass about it, this is such an odd thing to have that no one understands the origin of it, what it means, and what are the caveats... Especially in a forum like this one...
First test... Eye test, recognizing colors and sh... (
show quote)
A simple IQ test would be good enough and you would end up with the same results.
Unfortunately the Constitution does not require an IQ test to be able to vote. I hate having to wait in line on election day and that would have eliminated the need for me having to stand behind someone who has a bad case of gas.
incognito wrote:
Unfortunately the Constitution does not require an IQ test to be able to vote. I hate having to wait in line on election day and that would have eliminated the need for me having to stand behind someone who has a bad case of gas.
You stood behind the shoe polish sweating guy???
Wow! I feel for you.
Although it would violate the Constitution and undermine democracy, I can see an up side. If we gave voters an IQ test, they would never have elected Trump in the first place.
Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. Voting is a right.
Actually it still is a privilege...
But then again, who cares?
The 'forefathers' were creating a class of people (landowners) until others strongly objected and created a larger privileged category of men, all white by the way. Since the pool was still limited, and they were so fearful of one buying the presidency they created the electoral college... That is now in the way of a fully democratic federal election. We see the results today.
It took a long time for minorities and women to get this privilege too. Have you forgotten already? If it had been a generic 'right' why is there a need to 'allow' excluded folks today?
Rongnongno wrote:
Actually it still is a privilege...
But then again, who cares?
The 'forefathers' were creating a class of people (landowners) until others strongly objected and created a larger privileged category of men, all white by the way. Since the pool was still limited, and they were so fearful of one buying the presidency they created the electoral college... That is now in the way of a fully democratic federal election. We see the results today.
It took a long time for minorities and women to get this privilege too. Have you forgotten already? If it had been a generic 'right' why is there a need to 'allow' excluded folks today?
Actually it still is a privilege... br br But t... (
show quote)
So much for the importance of the intent of the founders. If we went by that, we would still have only white men voting.
Frank T wrote:
Although it would violate the Constitution and undermine democracy, I can see an up side. If we gave voters an IQ test, they would never have elected Trump in the first place.
The IQ test sounds good, except that who gets to decide what tests are acceptable and what the qualifying score should be? A benevolent dictator has it's advantages, until you end up with one who isn't benevolent. Elections have mostly worked well until now when one side has decided they don't wish to accept the results. Some sort of sanity test for candidates would seem to be a good idea, but it is subject to as many abuses as other ideas.
Rongnongno wrote:
First test... Eye test, recognizing colors and shapes. We do not need blind people, sorry. Be assured we can blind them anyway...
Second... Hearing and listening, being able to hear and to answer a simple question like 'What time is it?' We do not need folks that are deaf either, after all.
With these two tests we can already eliminate 75% of the currently registered voters, after all, all who are refuse to see and hear are worse than those who are handicapped.
Then we have a cognition test, like knowing what a dog looks like compared to a cat and if by any chance if the thing waddle, quacks and swim identify the critter a fowl. Those that are really smart can declare it's a duck and not get penalized.
Now we are getting serious...
One needs to recite the constitution verbatim, as it was written. Bonus point if one can also recite and give the date of all the amendments made up to today with the dates they were passed.
This time I would guess that 99.99% of the 25% left are eliminated.
For the 0.01% left, if they can recognize where their asses are they must identify Paris's present location.
Out of the 150 million folks who could vote I doubt will be any left so the election will be reduced by a random selection of names placed in a hat. Whoever picks a name out of the said hat gets shot and the winner becomes president until it is time to select a new one... No volunteer needed, these will be terminated w/o prejudice the moment they raise their hands.
Oh and the right of speech? Who gives a rat ass about it, this is such an odd thing to have that no one understand the origin of it, what it means and what are the caveats... Especially in a forum like this one...
First test... Eye test, recognizing colors and sh... (
show quote)
Then using your logic, everyone should be required to be licensed to speak against the government. Once one Constitutional right is regulated all rights will be subject to regulation.
A simple three question test would be fine...
How many congressmen do we have in the House of Representatives?
How many Senators are in the Senate?
How does a bill become a law?
That would eliminate about 1/2 the voters, and honestly people who can't answer those simple questions have no business voting anyway.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.