I’m curious if anyone has the solutions to these.
replies(5):
Take question 20:
> Spell backwards, forwards
Is "backwards" the object, with "forwards" describing how to spell it — as in, "Spell the word 'backwards', forwards"?
Or is it being used as an adverb, telling you how to spell the word "forwards" — as in, "Spell backwards the word 'forwards'"?
But, my understanding is that the test is purposefully opaque, so that any answer can be considered “wrong”, at the discretion of whoever’s running the test.
At first I thought "oh, they're just using a slightly different, but perhaps reasonable, meaning of "second letter after". But if that's the case, then they used a different meaning of "first letter after" for the first part.
#16 is also wrong: it calls for a black circle overlapping the left corner of a triangle, but they drew it overlapping the right corner.
And for #25, they wrote it out, but all of it did not fit on the line, and did not write the terminating ":" in the text, so that's technically incorrect too. (And it's debatable whether or not they were supposed to write out the text that's inside the triangle, or the "gotcha" of writing out the text in the question.)
I love that they gave up for the last two questions. I imagine most people who were forced to take that test did so too, assuming they even made it that far in the allotted time.
'the' comes twice
Would be interested to see what share of population would get all of those correct (if it's even possible). I for one wouldn't.
Sadistic stuff.
Assuming they did write the correct thing, and assuming the test administrator would be unusually generous about the placement of the words, they still got it wrong: they left off the colon at the end.
> "Your word is 'weather'."
> "Which one? Can you use it in a sentence?"
> "Certainly! 'I don't know whether the weather will improve.'"
(obviously the joke doesn't work as well written out)
The real racism was in all the ways to bypass the test. Grandfather clauses, land ownership clauses, "demonstrated understanding" options. Most White people challenged by the test wouldn't ever need to actually confront it.
These weren't the only requirements either. You had to be of "good character" and "understand the duties and obligations of citizenship under a republican form of government" and to be able to "read _and_ write."
Finally even if you were Black and managed all of this it wasn't at all a guarantee that your registration or vote would be accepted. Sometimes this understanding would be communicated in an act of violence.
The test is a tiny archival curiosity created by a much more overt system.
> [NOTE: At one time we also displayed a "brain-twister" type literacy test with questions like "Spell backwards, forwards" that may (or may not) have been used during the summer of 1964 in Tangipahoa Parish (and possibly elsewhere) in Louisiana. We removed it because we could not corroborate its authenticity, and in any case it was not representative of the Louisiana tests in broad use during the 1950s and '60s.]
Each parish in Louisiana implemented their own literacy tests, which means that there wasn't really much uniformity in the process. Another (maybe more typical) test: https://www.crmvet.org/info/la-littest2.pdf
That's all theory of course and in practice I bet people did talk about this afterwards and figured out it's BS and it didn't help either way. But it's easy to "find out" (and then try to do something about it) if you stick together. But if nobody sticks together on it and tries to do better for themselves by themselves, everyone does worse for themselves in the end.
It's not possible to know the right answers because there never were any. This means the test has no predictive power, not that it's impossible, and again, since some Whites unable to prove education did have to contend with this, it was designed that way intentionally.
I feel "near impossible literacy test" is a terrible description. The "intentionally ambiguous literacy test" would be more apt.
More worrying is I am unable to find a definitive provenance for this document. It suggests it was used in the early 1900s but the print quality and format seems unusual in several ways to me. Which is why I attempted to reduce it in favor of considering the rest of the system.
One of the questions is "Congress cannot regulate commerce ..." and the answer is within a state. Which I agree with, but SCOTUS does not (Wickard v Filburn, 1942).
https://web.archive.org/web/20161105050044/http://www.laed.u...
> 28. Divide a vertical line in two equal parts by bisecting it with a curved horizontal line that is only straight at its spot bisection of the vertical.
I have no idea what a curved horizontal line is. A horizontal line is parallel to the X axis of the XY plane and has no curvature.
https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/white-aust...
The follow-up, in which the author chronicles their (unsuccessful) search for an original: https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/07/louisiana-literacy-....
The follow-up explicitly notes that the word-processed version shown in the original article is a modern update; a typewritten version that is supposedly closer to the original is shown at the bottom of that article (and available at https://web.archive.org/web/20160615084237/http://msmcdushis...), although the provenance of this version is also unclear ("McDonald reports that she received the test, along with another literacy test from Alabama, from a fellow teacher, who had been using them in the classroom for years but didn’t remember where they came from.")
"Impossible" also refers to how the test administrators used it: in order to make voter registration impossible for some people.
> That comment is a reflection of my pedantry
Stop with this sort of thing, please. It's just noise, and doesn't add to the discussion.
> Draw in the space below, a square with a triangle in it, and within that same triangle draw a circle with a black dot in it.
In that case, “a square with a triangle in it” is fairly unambiguously the object, which would make the sentence construction “[verb] [adverb], [object]” — exactly the same as the second interpretation of “Spell backwards, forwards”.
> The President of the Senate gets his office
> a. by election by the people.
> b. by election by the Senate.
> c. by appointment by the President.
The Vice President is the President of the Senate, but the duties are typically exercised (save the tie-breaking vote) by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, a Senator chosen by whichever party currently has a majority. It seems both a. and b. could be considered correct.
Even "who is the first president" knowledge shouldn't be a bar to voting. Do you think they offered this literacy test in the native languages of all taking it? Do you think all people in the US had the opportunity to learn, in their language, the history of the country?
At the time there were systemic barriers to education that meant that many folk were probably not even taught who the first president was. Let alone how old you have to be to be president.
Both "backwards" and "forwards" could be correctly interpreted as the adverb in this one. It could be asking you to "Spell the word backwards, in a forwards manner" or "Spell in a backwards manner, the word forwards".
It's ambiguous enough that someone grading the test who wanted the disqualify you could make the case you got it wrong, no matter if you wrote "backwards" or "sdrawrof".
1. Draw a line around the number or letter of this sentence.
I have no idea what "the number of this sentence" or "the letter of this sentence" even means.
Additionally, think about all the votes that were passed when these tests were present. Every one of those votes meant a huge and consistent portion of the population could not participate. Which probably created a situation where that population was at a disadvantage across many systems.
Even if they stopped doing this test in 19XX, it would take a significant amount of time to unwind not only the unfair policies enacted under it but also the damage done by those policies to families. We might still be undoing the damae from them.
A similar case is redlining -- city policies that forced immigrant and minority populations to live in certain areas, limiting those family's abilities to participate in the growth of housing value. A couple generations cannot accrue value from their homes, because they've been forced to live in a low value area. Even once redlining became illegal, those families were 60 years behind in an exponential growth curve. Fixing the policy is a great start, as was removing these tests, but we need to do more to actually make things right.
The sheer unadulterated racism from the past is still very much being felt in the present, as waves and ripples from past decisions and policies led to inequal financial and social outcomes that take generations to repair (if they ever can be repaired.)
And the immigration officer could pick the language you were to be tested in.
Which led to one account I read of an immigrant who was polyglot with an interest in different languages. He could handle all of the languages the officer tried, until Welsh.
As I recall, this ended up in court, where the judge allowed the immigration, and pointed out that none of the immigration officers could understand Welsh themselves.
This example was also far from universal, certainly across the entire USA but even in Louisiana.
edit: reading other comments, it isn't clear whether this information is even true for a small subset of Louisiana 60+ years ago
Regardless of which you chose, if the examiner wished to disqualify you, they could simply say it's the opposite.
It's a mystery how that appears to proportionally exclude along racial and ethnic lines but it's assuredly not that by delibrate intent.
Just a happy accident really?
The full story is quite fun. He was initially refused permission to disembark, which he solved by leaping five metres from the ship, thereby making landfall (rather literally). The government then tried to exclude him using a dictation test, which could indeed be in any European language, and the test he failed was administered in Scots Gaelic. Some controversy arose when it turned out that the person giving the dictation test couldn't themselves understand Scots Gaelic, but the High Court ultimately ruled in Kisch's favour for the somewhat amusing reason that Scots Gaelic was 'not a European language' (at least within the meaning of the relevant law). [0]
Australia has a long and not-particularly-storied history of extreme border restrictions. Laws banning non-white migration persisted in one way or another until 1973, and in the subsequent fifty years Australia has done progressively more insane things to keep people out, including removing all of Australia from the Australian migration zone (so migrants never actually 'arrive' in such a way that might give them a right to seek asylum), using the navy to put people that arrived by sea back on boats and launching them vaguely in the direction of other countries, keeping people actually accepted to be refugees (!) off-shore in remote Pacific island concentration camps for years, and - during COVID - criminalising its own citizens leaving Australia for two years (and briefly even the return of Australian citizens home). [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_exclusion_of_Egon_Ki...
Incidentally, this is one of the things critical race theory actually talked about: how laws can be non-discriminatory on the surface, but deliberately created and applied in a discriminatory manner.
To trot out Wilhoit's Law again: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
Also this sample test (https://lasc.libguides.com/c.php?g=940581&p=6830148) is from the Law Library of Louisiana, aka, the State Bar of Louisiana. Are you accusing the State Bar of Louisiana and the Louisiana Supreme Court of lying about the history of their state?
And this article (https://www.nola.com/news/politics/civil-rights-victory-50-y...) by NOLA actually goes through the history of the tests, citing contemporaneous reporting of the tests over several decades, though you would probably need physical access to the microfiche archives to confirm them yourself.
Unless you are suggesting that SCOTUS, SCLA, and the biggest newspaper in Louisiana are all conspiring together to make up these tests, the historical record for these tests existing is very well established.
What in your opinion makes the voter registration disenfranchising for voters?
> "Only who can prevent forest fires?" [You] [Me]
> Bart selects "You".
> "You pressed 'You', referring to me. That is incorrect. The correct answer is 'You'!"
Now, they’ve concentrated them into a few larger service centers that are often miles away from the cities they serve and require appointments, sometimes not available for several weeks… but with a few that spontaneously crop up at short notice.
Guess what does not work for people reliant on the meager public transportation infrastructure or getting rides from also time-strapped friends and family?
Germany, by contrast, requires every resident to register in the city or town they live in for an ID, whether they intend to vote or not, but even small towns have such an office, and as someone else pointed out, every citizen receives a letter 30 days before each election telling them exactly who/what is being voted on, where they are to go on Election Day (always a Sunday), and how to vote absentee if they’re not going to be in town that day.
I don't claim this test is useful, but as a matter of fact the first question is not hard.
Any test that needs 100% accuracy to pass when you are under pressure, filling ambiguous and unimportant questions, is simply bullshit. It's design to make you fail at will if you think about it. Even one ambiguous question is sufficient to fail an otherwise perfect submission: just say the answer was the other way around.
Or are that just the typical high standards of proof that coincidentally pop up whenever rightwing opinions receives legitimate criticism? Standards that they themselves never even remotely hold themselves to ("my sisters aunts dog heard on facebook")?
If you were white (“your grandfather could vote”), you were usually exempt, even if you could barely sign your name on your voter registration.
Can you suggest a specific mechanism to do it that would be transparent to the public?
I don't know about the US specifics but in Russia people voting multiple times was the main strategy of fraud in 2010s (that is before they gave up all the pretence). Before this scheme came into being, the system of isolated voting points where every action was observable and verifiable based solely on the local context had worked reasonably well, to the displeasure of authorities.
I could have residence in a city because I was born there but I could live in another one because for one year I have to work in that other city. But I don't sell my home, terminate contracts with utilities etc, also because maybe I go back home once or twice per month to visit friends and parents. Ok, so when I have to vote I do it in my city of residence, in a given place and not in any other one, and I have a card that I have to present together with my photo id. They have a register with the voters that are expected to vote there and they check my name on the list, stamp my card, give me the ballot.
Note that this is a process that starts when one is born and keeps going through all the life of a person. It's quite an effort but it makes participating to elections very low effort for a voter. If we had to register to vote... Who would vote, only very interested people. It's amazing that so many people vote in the USA given the process.
However I argue that the question by itself is fine: it is well defined and has only one reasonable answer. No one presented any other sensible answer so far.
So a presidential candidate picks a vice president running mate. Voters vote for the pair. The electoral college then, usually but not always, cast votes matching the voters.
So who decided? Technically the electoral college. Who were guided by the voters. Who voted for someone the president picked.
But given that tests like these for their purpose carry serious impact in democracy, the test should not have been rushed, and made sure to be correct and relevant, which points to the conclusion that it was made to exclude people and that maybe the scorers looked at the names of people and where they lived as part of the determination, making it easy to nix an applicant based on bogus ambiguous questions.
In many countries if you are a citizen (or permanent resident, depending on the election), old enough, and registered as living in the country you are automatically registered to vote. No need to do anything, your form shows up in the mail before every election. The only times you might have to do something is if you've very recently moved to a different part of the country or if you live abroad.
A joke I sometimes tell during conversations when australia comes up:
"You know, Australia is a great country so I once was thinking of migrating there. So I called the australian embassy. First thing they ask me is if I have a criminal record. So I answered oh I'm sorry, I didn't know that was still a requirement, and hung up."
Of course, those tests shouldn't be that ambiguous, but if they were phrased a bit more clear, these would be very simple. At the same time, English has changed in the last 50 years. That phrasing might have been common back then.
14, 15, 16 that others pointed out.
24. They printed 3 words when a single word was called for. The test is very clear about following the direction exactly, no more and no less. Also "mom" might be wrong, "wow" should be safe.
28. The vertical line is bisected in clearly unequal parts.
If the person answers A, then the grader can state that this is correct if they like them, or assert that instead B is correct if they don't, so that the test can always provide the desired outcome.
In case that was sarcasm, then I have to disagree. The current German state has an excellent track record when it comes to voter enfranchisement. Its shortcomings with the democratic process lay elsewhere. The last really questionable action relating to elections was the questionable ban of the communist party - in 1956.
It doesn't matter how rational it seems. Government - particularly the racist oligarchy that is the US government - cannot be trusted to act with rational benevolence.
Ambiguous: 1 10 11 20 21 22 26 27 Ambiguous execution (e.g. "draw a line around"): 4 5 7 8 9 12 14 Easy on the face of it: 2 3 13 15 16 17 18 25 Nonsense: 6 23 24 28 29 30 Difficult to execute (e.g. "draw this complicated set of shapes in a small space while under time pressure without making any mistake"): 19
That's just my quick assessment and might vary for you but I probably took more than 10 minutes just to think about this. At best (and I was generous) 7 out of 30 questions are clear.
And that is assuming the questions have been formulated in good faith, which is evidently not the case. Question 2 could mean just as well instruct you to draw a line under the whole expression "the last word" in that line, or a line under "the last word in this line", or just under "line". Who's to say?
Oh wait, it could also refer to "the last 'word' in this line", so you would need to underline "word".
If education played some role you would probably might have seen an alternative party/form of government emerging over time as people became more educated.
You can get 0 answers wrong and there would still be a way of throwing away your vote. Take question 11 - cross out the number necessary when making the number below 1 million. Do you cross out the excess 000s or do you cross out 1,000,000. Or do you cross out enough numbers to make the number below 1 million? The answer is it doesn't matter because (a) by giving you a multiple viable chance they've already managed to disenfranchise a percentage of the people they're targetting, and (b) whatever you do they can just claim the opposite interpretation and refuse you a right to vote.
There wasn't some high minded idealism behind this test. It was a tool for the people administering the election to select who they wanted to allow to vote. Any test you design will serve the same purpose, albeit some more efficiently than others.
In terms of practicality, your taxes this year? Your lifetime taxes? College students? No vote. What happens if I paid a million in taxes last year because I sold my company but nothing this year because I took a year out? Do state taxes count? What about state contracts, do we discount Elon Musks' vote because he receives so many state contracts for his companies like SpaceX? Or do we worry that Elon Musk gets tonnes of political power which he then uses to pressure the government into.. awarded him more SpaceX contracts? Those paying the most taxes are by definition those who have benefitted most from a well run country, surely they be penalized not given more power?
Yes. The point of literacy and competency testing is obviously exclusionary.
The fact that literacy and competency testing were misused in the past is no excuse to allow illiterates and incompetents to determine the course of our civilization.
I’d be interested to know which ones you saw as ambiguous?
FWIW the test is obviously mostly about tricking the test taker, and not that much about literacy. Along with one question that seems possibly designed to filter out people with a non-Christian interpretation of the cross as a geometric figure.
Most notably, pilot examinations for aviation and maritime certifications.
I think they use these types of questions to exclude rule memorisation and test the ability to reason about the intention or relevant effects of rules and principles of the art involved.
It seems like the intention is also to penalise the inability to reason about ambiguous situations, ensure that the subject can effectively divide attention (if you spend too much time focusing on these ambiguous situations trying to find a nonexistent perfect answer you will fail the test), and to filter out low cognitive ability in general.
I’m not a test design expert, however, so ymmv.
If you want a more down-to-earth argument: it's just plain interesting and there's good constructive discussion to be had about it.
PS: The website is called Open Culture: The best free cultural & education media on the web. I'm not sure what you mean by "tech blog", if you are referring to HN, non-tech posts are fairly common here and they are valued.
There were many white Americans fighting for equality for all. Heck, look at the recent BLM movement, the woke discussions, #metoo and more.
All of these things were possible because of the 60s, because of white legislators, white judges, white supreme court judges, pushing for change, enacting change, creating the US today which, while imperfect, is quite supportive of equality, both legally and culturally.
So yes, there was all sorts of main stream media pushing for equality.
Heck, the first interracial kiss on US primetime was in the 60s on Star Trek ToS.
I'm glad we both agree that more money should abundantly be allotted to education budgets, and making higher quality education more accessible — without discrimination — to the masses.
I do view the literacy and competency tests as a tool that should be pointing in the other direction: at all elected and non-elected officials; exhibit A, the United States House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology of 2014 [0] (relevant timestamp: 02:47).
It's obviously not the optimal system to ensure that the best possible decisions are taken, it's not designed for that.
It's more about allowing everyone to have a say in their destiny, to decide together what "best" means, even if it's somewhat objectively wrong.
Of course, you need significant balancing mechanisms to ensure that bad decisions are not too common. So you don't let the people micromanage everything and you build the system such that different parts of it keep each other in check. Sometimes it goes too far and the population has very limited choice over what's going on, sometimes it doesn't go far enough and the system is incompetent and chaotic. Often it's both, it's a hard problem.
But there's obviously better human organizational systems to take the right decisions towards a given goal or metric. That's why companies are not democratic, they are better at optimizing wealth creation (or whatever other metric), but we keep them sandboxed within the big-picture, keeping monopolies to a minimum (particularly the monopoly on violence, the core leverage of any government) so that they have a somewhat limited influence on people's lives. The military is not democratic either, neither is the justice system, nor many other performance-critical systems, they are more optimized to take better decisions at the expense of giving a choice to everyone they impact.
"Current state" is a convenient wording to exclude 1933-1990
For example, Consuls (president-like) were voted-in indirectly through a popular assembly (kinda like the Electoral College). They elected two Consuls that had to rule jointly and keep each other in check. Their term was only 1 year and they could not run for election again for the next 10 years. Consuls rarely had the chance to do any significant damage to the system or build-up power.
The Senators served for life and acted as a counterbalance. They were also elected rather indirectly by other popular assemblies, but they came mostly from the aristocracy that maintained a consistent tradition of Roman culture and morals, for better or worse. The thing is that there were enough of them (300, later 600) that internal competition always kept them in check and prevented anyone from getting too much power.
An interesting system.
But please do not take this as me advocating for such a system. The Romans were terrible violent oppressors by modern standards. A system of government lasting for a long time is not necessarily a good feature, it just means that it's good at keeping its power, nothing else. A status quo that cannot be easily changed is great if you are lucky and the status quo turns out to be good, but it's horrible if the situation is bad and there is no easy way to fix it.
I just wanted to give a bit of context.
People with poor reading and logic and legal skills are still people, living in society, paying taxes, with lives just as complicated and interesting as mine. Who am I to say that they shouldn’t have a say in how things are run?
Obviously democratic voting should be as equal as possible. In fact, with today's technology we should be striving for "direct democracy" more than ever.
There should be no test at all, rushing was not the problem, and the likelihood of prejudice was the entire point.
Because it was made by racists. Who were trying to achieve racist goals.
Much clearer this way.
They know what’s going on, and you can tell by their credit score.
If the distributed system is not partitioned, you can show up to vote anywhere and they tell your home precinct that you've voted; then during vote counting the precinct where you voted tells your home precinct "add the following to your vote totals".
If the system is partitioned -- either from network outages or remote polling locations or mail-in ballots -- then your ballot goes into an envelope and is physically sent to your home precinct in the week following the election, to be verified and included in the count.
It's not a matter of capability, it's purely a factual matter. It's not up for debate black Americans would be disproportionality affected, and as such you can easily argue the policy has racist intentions. What some black Americans say, and what some politicians say, does not matter.
Hope that helps!
See also: Gerrymandering. Same concept.
In the naivest, most shallow analysis Voter ID is not racist because black Americans are just as capable of receiving ID. The logic is fine, but purposefully ignorant.
The barrier to ID IS NOT just "do you have the physical/mental ability to get ID". The barriers are economic and geographic. When you don't put DMVs in black areas that becomes a barrier. When IDs cost money that becomes a barrier. When a motor vehicle is required that becomes a barrier.
If it was this, there would be quotes around "word".
> No, wait, you needed to underline every occurrence of the word "line".
If it was this, it wouldn't say "last".
This particular one is not ambiguous.
I’ve worked in the ID space and know how the parts work together. When I found myself widowed and having to get a passport for my son, the process of getting a replacement social security card for him was incredibly onerous. 3 different visits! Mind you this was to get a replacement cardboard card - getting survivors benefits is a simple phone call.
Multiple visits is a barrier for folks without paid time off. Physical documents is a barrier for folks without unstable housing or noncustodial parents.
It’s interesting that all of this bullshit is required to exercise your right to vote. But we have the minimal possible controls on the right to bear arms in those states.
But I believe that now that we have public education available to everyone we should have some basic literacy and civic tests for people to vote.
Also, provide no-expenses IDs for people, make voting day a national holiday, stop private campaign financing, make lobbying illegal.
Give free public transporation on voting day for those who need, but otherwise stop the idea that we have to convince everyone to vote, no matter how desinterested and oblivious to the issues they are.
The idea that people who couldn't care less about public life and their issues need to vote no matter what is completely stupid.
Voting is not only a right, it should entail a duty of being minimally interested on its consequences. Democrats love this because it favors their base demographics, but that's how you get a Donald Trump too.
> I was preparing for my last major standardized test, the Graduate Record Exam, or GRE. I had already forked over $1,000 for a preparatory course, feeding the U.S. test-prep and private tutoring industry... I wondered why I was the only Black student in the room...
> The teacher boasted the course would boost our GRE scores by two hundred points, which I didn’t pay much attention to at first— it seemed an unlikely advertising pitch. But with each class, the technique behind the teacher’s confidence became clearer. She wasn’t making us smarter so we’d ace the test—she was teaching us how to take the test....
> It revealed the bait and switch at the heart of standardized tests— the exact thing that made them unfair: She was teaching test-taking form for standardized exams that purportedly measured intellectual strength. My classmates and I would get higher scores— two hundred points, as promised— than poorer students, who might be equivalent in intellectual strength but did not have the resources or, in some cases, even the awareness to acquire better form through high-priced prep courses. Because of the way the human mind works— the so-called “attribution effect,” which drives us to take personal credit for any success— those of us who prepped for the test would score higher and then walk into better opportunities thinking it was all about us: that we were better and smarter than the rest and we even had inarguable, quantifiable proof.... And because we’re talking about featureless, objective numbers, no one would ever think that racism could have played a role.
> Excerpt From How to Be an Antiracist, Ibram X. Kendi
The disturbing party coming up on the Right feels like Germany has blamed itself for too long. That “self-blame” is a lot of what has enabled modern Germany to be a much better place than it was before the war.
(I’m an American living in greater Nuremberg, and get to see monuments to Germany’s failures on a regular basis)
The way something like this was administered, was that tests returned by white people were given a cursory glance and accepted, and tests returned by black people were just rejected and given some random explanation as to why they were wrong, and then the test was chucked in the garbage. Nobody cared what the right answer was, all that mattered was there was some fig leaf explanation for why black voters couldn't vote. Mostly black voters stopped bothering to try after a couple of go arounds here -- not to mention the physical intimidation that went along with it. The point was to inculcate learned helplessness.
This wasn't the SAT, y'all.
In Italy you're meant to always carry a valid, officially accepted form of ID (and as far as I know, only ID card and Password fully qualify, but driving or nautical licenses, gun permits, and some forms of railway employee ID are also generally accepted as they're ultimately made by the government) and it's a crime (with up 2 months in jail, though it's usually just a fine) to refuse to show it upon request to on-duty "public security officials" (Italy has a bunch of entities in addition to the normal police) and in a few other rare categories (a bus or train inspector has the power to demand your ID if you're travelling without a ticket and need to be fined).
If you don't actually refuse, but you explain you just forgot your ID at home, you can still provide your details verbally and are usually allowed to go, and "invited" to show your ID within XX days at any police post. But if you were driving a car, there will be a small fine anyway.
If the officer has any suspicion you lied, or that your ID is fake, you can be taken to a police station for identification.
Your feelings on the matter don't constitute an argument.
> Homeless people and your unemployed uncle NEED to vote so that people like you, who evidently hate them, don't vote to toss them into the Bone Crusher 9000.
Hysterical nonsense.
Since the literacy test was used at the discretion of the authorities in charge of the vote they could choose who to give it to based on how likely they were to get away with using it.
I mean if you know the black people in your district will vote for a particular party you probably don't actually want to keep the black people in your district from voting, you want that party not to win because otherwise the party might help the black people living in your district.
If there are 1800 black people and 1100 white people that can vote in your district, then maybe you only need to keep 900 people from voting to be safe.
So then you announce you will be checking outstanding warrants at the polls, 600 people don't show up. You only need to keep 300 people from voting! So you start giving literacy tests to black voters but letting the white voters through - how many black people you think you will actually need to give that literacy test to before the rest of them wise up that you aren't going to be letting them vote?
I'd say maybe 20.
Now how many of them going to get copies of that test to do something about? What if you don't want to give them a copy of the test? How they going to get that copy of the test?
I'm sorry but I think this kind of thing would be pretty under-documented, just like most crime. I'm agreeing you can't keep it thoroughly hidden but hidden enough that it is difficult to say with any specificity this was the actual test used in that district on that day to fail these people.
on edit: removed something that was probably a bit rude, sorry, was going through some problems with kid at the moment and frustration transferred to my writing.
One critical strength of democracy is that it allows voters to remove the current politician - even if that politician would rather not be removed.
Where would you pick your line? Small moves of the line change the size of the disenfranchised group.
And I have to admire your chutzpah of suggesting tests to create a disenfranchised group on an article showing serious flaws with testing... Of course you haven't suggested a single way to fix any flaws. I sincerely hope you are not working in any engineering role.
Nor do your feelings that poor people are de facto dumber than rich people.
You're automatically registered essentially. You only need to show up with the form/ballet you were sent and your ID. Your vote is anonymous, just registered that you voted.
Personally I like the Aussie way even more, which is compulsory.
I feel this is necessary in a democracy. Voting needs to be easy, swift and free for that to work though.
They're citizens of our society and therefore any and all societal decisions will directly impact them. It is our right to have some amount of influence over decisions that directly impact us. You, yourself, understand that.
Why then should that concept not extend to the poor? This question is purely rhetorical - I know you don't have an answer, and probably the least embarrassing way forward would be to just say nothing. But, that's the perspective I'm addressing here and why I didn't bother to explain why the poor deserve those rights. I don't need to - I get those rights, and I like them, so that's the status-quo.
Any filter immediately becomes a tool to limit the number of voters for the opposition.
We already have arguments over what should be considered a felony , gerrymandering county lines, etc.
Seems like requiring a certain level of education would just incentivize more attacks on public education
Feelings.
> An unemployed and homeless uncle might have more wisdom than a 30 year old with 4 degrees.
Some gifted 14-year-olds might have more wisdom than a 30 year old with four degrees. Yet nobody with any sense wants 14-year-olds to vote, because we know that, as a group, their opinions will now lead to better decisionmaking.
> Obviously democratic voting should be as equal as possible.
Try making an argument in support of your point. Stating that your position is "obvious" without providing an argument in its favor is obviously a cop out.
The commerce question is supposed to be answered by reading the constitution by itself, not by reading SCOTUS opinions. So this is different from actual constitutional scholars. That makes this question unsuitable for literacy tests.
At a minimum: I think people should be given ample time to complete a literacy test, at a date and time chosen by the test taker, and also have multiple attempts available. And for the content of the test, they should have actual elementary school students attempt it to make sure it isn't too difficult.
> The Constitution of the United States places the final authority in our Nation in the hands of...
> a. the national courts.
> b. the States.
> c. the people.
The answer key says c. is correct, but I think I would have answered a. You could also argue the States is correct, since they have the authority to amend the Constitution. The very concept of "final authority" is sort of antithetical to the Constitution.
Maybe there was concern, when progressives were fighting this sort of thing, that if they picked the most unbelievable example, the naive public (those not familiar with the residents of a typical Klan-era backwater Louisiana parish) would question its veracity… as we see today…
Imagine you were going to forge a such a test? I don’t think I could make up something this ridiculous if I tried. I’d have to be practiced in generating trick questions, and motivated by malice to come close.
What if you did not get the benefit from this public education? Now you're discriminating against the uneducated, who may have their own opinion on education policies that they should have the right to vote on.
While I agree that everyone should have literacy and calculus and all those other skills that we nowadays consider "basic" or "elementary", and everyone should have access to them, if not be required to go to school up to a certain age / level... you can't assume everyone can or does, through no fault of their own.
No, but we should require proof that you _are_ a citizen. And no, a flimsy attestation that certain groups fight tooth and nail against periodic verification of (see the arguments that come up every time the voter rolls need to be purged of the dead, people who’ve moved, or to ensure that no one lied about their citizenship status) isn’t a good solution.
I mean it would be a huge undertaking etc etc, but there's people and state actors with infinite means to do so.
The other trick is that the line could be too short depending on your handwriting, in theory disqualifying the tested person regardless of what they write down.
I don't think anyone with that necessary education would pass the test.
Yes, they are well aware of what happened in 1930s and that there was Hitler, etc.
And still they conveniently fail to see any connection with today times. It is some unclearly defined Nazis who took over the control of Germany and did all the killings and destroyed a few countries around. But not anyone's grandfather was involved. And supposedly the companies which built their wealth on slave work and death of thousands continue to prosper.