i dont think you really get the whole “democracy” thing
Comment on [deleted]
tux0r@feddit.org 1 day ago
She has a point though. There should be a minimum amount of reason to be allowed to vote. Some people shouldn’t be allowed to vote, because if they do, this is what happens.
Sidyctism2@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
tux0r@feddit.org 1 day ago
I don’t think you really understand my comment.
forrgott@lemm.ee 1 day ago
Honestly, I don’t think you understand your comment. 🙄
CalipherJones@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Giving your right to vote into the hands of anybody else opens up the potential for your right to vote to be taken away.
grue@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Actual literacy test (to decide if you have the “minimum amount of reason to be allowed to vote”) used in Louisiana in 1964:
You may think restrictions on voting sound good in theory, but that’s the kind of shit you get in practice because of the kind of shit people who end up writing the rules.
whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Or maybe we should be voting for ideas and not candidates ? And candidates should be defending those ideas, but it shouldn’t be associated to the candidate on the bulletin
Things like: me as a poor person should be paying more taxes and Elon musk should not pay any.
Me as a mexican immigrant should be deported
I should not have access to health system!
…
Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 day ago
A simple religious test could work - Are you religious: Y/N?
tux0r@feddit.org 1 day ago
Nothing’s wrong with religion. I don’t believe that Buddhists automatically make an objectively worse choice than atheists.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Crystal healers, OTOH…
jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Fun fact: a lot of the crystal healers i interact with are solid people.
Nutty sure but most of them are all about emotional wellness and support and very few are okay with trump or republicans.
It always amuses me when the people who think they’re rational and shit on the mystic groups miss out on wonderful friends and allies.
Kind of like the 2019 campaign when everone shit on Marianne Williamson.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 day ago
Personally, I put that kind of woo-woo in the same bucket as religion. It’s all belief in made up nonsense that is indicative of a lack of critical thinking.
Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 day ago
There’s something wrong with outright rejecting objective reality to believe in the fantastical. Doesn’t lend itself well to rational thinking voters, exactly does it?
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Kinda depends on their exact beliefs. Cuckoos aside, a lot of non-extremist religious folks have views that are reasonably compatible with reality, or at least not mutually exclusive.
jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
You mean like running a campaign based on genocide, war hawking, and enabling corporate abuses as a democratic candidate? Yeah i was pretty baffled by that too.
prex@aussie.zone 1 day ago
There are two things in the world I can’t stand: people who are intolerant of other people’s cultures… and ~~ the Dutch~~ smug atheists.
Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 day ago
Smug? No to the point and tired of humouring this nonsense any longer.
CalipherJones@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Religion is a mass delusion. Christianity is a cult. Anyone taking the Bible literally is a fool. Its fairytales. Yet I’m supposed to respect grown ass adults that believe in this stuff? All ridiculous beliefs should be called out for what they are, especially when those beliefs infringe on other people.
grue@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Exactly: voting should only be done by proper God-fearing Protestant Christians! Disenfranchise those heathen atheists! \S
LoreleiSankTheShip@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
There should be at least a reading comprehension test for people to qualify to vote. Even better would be a media literacy and critical thinking test before election season even starts
Comrade_Spood@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
This was literally used as a way in the south to prevent black people from voting. Yall failed history, maybe you shouldn’t vote. Or maybe we should remember laws that restrict rights tend to affect more than their target and will be used in bigoted ways, and so we just shouldn’t restrict people’s rights and shouldn’t give anyone the power to restrict others.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
They’re not wrong, their intent is good. Universal democracy sucks, we just haven’t found a better replacement for it yet, to paraphrase Churchill
Comrade_Spood@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
Everyone deserves the right to have power over themselves and things that affect them personally, no one deserves the right over others. Thats the issue. We insist on using methods of organization where there are those that govern and those to be governed.
Also maybe Churchill isn’t the best person to be paraphrasing in this context considering how imperialistic and racist he was.
jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Incorrect, fptp voting systems suck.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 day ago
I agree that imposing a test to vote is a dangerous idea that should not be done.
But it is worth stopping to consider that America’s history is not the only way things can be done. As everyone is hopefully aware by now, America has a uniquely bad democratic system. Rather than taking the sensible approach of having a single, nonpartisan, national electoral commission, they have each state and even county run elections according to their own rules. That allowed the implementation of extremely hard tests in predominantly black areas while white areas had easy or no tests. Something a unified national system could not do.
Comrade_Spood@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
I do not think centralizing control and decision making is the answer to that. What little decentralization America has rn is exactly what is protecting states like Maine from being completely in the pocket of fascists. The answer is further decentralization to the point people do not have power over others.
PunnyName@lemmy.world 1 day ago
That crap was insanely convoluted. Perhaps he could still use a relatively simple test to ensure people have basic voting condition.
Like, there are people alive who believe both parties are the same.
Comrade_Spood@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
Or you could juat make it so no one has the right to govern others. Then you wouldn’t have to take people’s rights away just cause they have beliefs different than yours, like you are suggesting. A problem in this world is people only seem to think about taking things away and punishing people to solve a problem, which doesn’t work.
EmptySlime@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
Then they should be educated out of those ignorant views, not have their rights restricted. What are you gonna do when some wannabe fascist decides that “basic voting condition” means believing that trans people don’t exist, that climate change is a hoax, and that the ultra-wealthy shouldn’t pay any taxes actually?
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Slippery slope. Today it’s ‘Can you read?’, tomorrow it’s ‘Please explain the history of the Republican party in great detail’.
EmptySlime@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
The right to vote shouldn’t be restricted in any way. If you have legal restrictions then all it takes is bad actors expanding those categories and sorry, you just failed the critical thinking test because you think that climate change is real and life doesn’t begin at conception. Better get ready for your shift at Amazon, serf.
Media literacy and such should just be part of the education everyone gets.
ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
And maybe you have to be a landowner too
Tuxman@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I understand the sentiment, but it’s a very surface level reasoning.
The deeper issue is that as soon as you decide one group can’t vote, then the can has been opened and now it’s easier to add more groups to it. And one day a political party gets to power that decides YOU are in a group it doesn’t like.
Like in certain countries: you CAN present your candidacy for elections…. BUT… it makes you an enemy of the president, and enemies get thrown in jail.