What are they basing that on and what is being defined as literacy? In college I worked on a project regarding global literacy and we found most statistics quoting the US in the 70 - 80 percent range. I doubt it has changed that drastically in 4 years.
List of countries by literacy rate, as included in the United Nations Development Programme Report 2007/2008.[1][2]
Adult literacy rate. This Report uses data on adult literacy rates from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Institute for Statistics (UIS) April 2007 Assessment (UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2007a), that combines direct national estimates with recent estimates based on its Global age-specific literacy projections model developed in 2007. The national estimates, made available through targeted efforts by UIS to collect recent literacy data from countries, are obtained from national censuses or surveys between 1995 and 2005. Where recent estimates are not available, older UIS estimates, produced in July 2002 and based mainly on national data collected before 1995, have been used instead.
Many high-income countries, having attained high levels of literacy, no longer collect basic literacy statistics and thus are not included in the UIS data. In calculating the HDI, a literacy rate of 99.0% is assumed for high-income countries that do not report adult literacy information.
In collecting literacy data, many countries estimate the number of literate people based on self-reported data. Some use educational attainment data as a proxy, but measures of school attendance or grade completion may differ. Because definitions and data collection methods vary across countries, literacy estimates should be used with caution. — United Nations Development Programme Report 2007/2008.[3][4] page 226
How about a very low barrier to entry? Say, the equivalent of "1+1=?" and "Spell your name?"
Creating and enacting a probably ridiculously expensive nation-wide competency test with a question whose answer can be memorized seems like a Bad Idea. Also, "spell your name" would create headaches for immigrants with non-Americanized names. Although it would be hilarious seeing someone trying to argue with a bored government official that their name really is "Wojciech" and not "Voychek" or something like that.
Eliminating the bottom 1% of voters, ignorance-wise, would go a long way.
Rym, the fact that you are even considering endorsing a reinvention of the Jim Crow laws forfeits the respect I had for you.
Those laws were clearly designed to disenfranchise a race of people at a time when there was furthermore a society which would not support their education and assimilation.
So long as adequate educational opportunities were provided to all who failed, for free, I'd be fine with the disenfranchisement of said failures. Essentially, if we fixed our educational system, we could hold our voters to a higher standard. Until we fix our system, we can't easily or fairly do so.
Some highly educated people are what you describe as ignorant (i.e. republican, religious, racist, sexist, etc.). You cannot blame the education system for those problems.
Those laws were clearly designed to disenfranchise a race of people at a time when there was furthermore a society which would not support their education and assimilation.
So long as adequate educational opportunities were provided to all who failed, for free, I'd be fine with the disenfranchisement of said failures. Essentially, if we fixed our educational system, we could hold our voters to a higher standard. Until we fix our system, we can't easily or fairly do so.
And your suggestion is specifically designed to disenfranchise a group of people based on biological attributes, too. Let the nature/nurture debate rage all you want, but intelligence is almost never a free choice.
And your suggestion is specifically designed to disenfranchise a group of people based on biological attributes, too. Let the nature/nurture debate rage all you want, but intelligence is almost never a free choice.
If that is the case, then should we willingly submit ourselves to the power of those who are less able? Should we accept the rule of those who we could objectively determine were not capable? Should the diagnosed and institutionalized insane be afforded suffrage? Is there a line?
How about a very low barrier to entry? Say, the equivalent of "1+1=?" and "Spell your name?"
What about solving a quadratic equation? That's pretty simple. Maybe there could be a test with five problems including a quadratic equation, a geometric proof, the derivation of a trig identity, an essay on the causes of the American Civil War, and an essay comparing and contrasting heroic symbolism in Beowulf and El Cid.
How about instead of voting for candidates, people vote for issues. Then the candidate who's official platform most closely matches the issue stances that were selected in the election is the winner. Voting won't be as easy as walking into a booth and clicking buttons. You will have to read a long, somewhat complex ballot, that describes the choices in detail. Also, somewhere in the middle of the ballot it will say "check this box, or your vote will not count". That is to make sure that people filling it out actually took the time to read it, and fill it out carefully.
Everyone will have the same ballot. No literacy test or filtering will be needed. The ballot itself will perform the filtering. People who are unable to figure it out, or too lazy to go through the effort, won't vote. Voters will disqualify themselves rather than having some third party disqualify them through testing.
How about a very low barrier to entry? Say, the equivalent of "1+1=?" and "Spell your name?"
What about solving a quadratic equation? That's pretty simple. Maybe there could be a test with five problems including a quadratic equation, a geometric proof, the derivation of a trig identity, an essay on the causes of the American Civil War, and an essay comparing and contrasting heroic symbolism inBeowulfandEl Cid.
And who gets to decide these bottom-line qualifications? Do you? Do I? How about the same politicians who gerrymander district boundaries? Any such system of test-to-vote would be inherently corrupt.
And who gets to decide these bottom-line qualifications? Do you? Do I?
This question is the only thing that prevents meritocracy from working. If we could answer it, something I don't think is possible, I would advocate meritocracy as the only acceptable form of government for all human civilization.
All we need is one question on the test: "Have you ever been a lawyer?" If you check yes the ballot is shredded and the vote is not counted.
If you removed party affiliation information from ballots you would get rid of the problem of "party line voters" who just see the name of the party and check the box for the candidate. We would likely see more third party candidates get into office that way.
And who gets to decide these bottom-line qualifications? Do you? Do I?
This question is the only thing that prevents meritocracy from working. If we could answer it, something I don't think is possible, I would advocate meritocracy as the only acceptable form of government for all human civilization.
No, the only thing that keeps meritocracy from working is that people are selfish and concepts like benevolence and brotherhood are illusory.
How about instead of voting for candidates, people vote for issues. Then the candidate who's official platform most closely matches the issue stances that were selected in the election is the winner. Voting won't be as easy as walking into a booth and clicking buttons. You will have to read a long, somewhat complex ballot, that describes the choices in detail. Also, somewhere in the middle of the ballot it will say "check this box, or your vote will not count". That is to make sure that people filling it out actually took the time to read it, and fill it out carefully.
Everyone will have the same ballot. No literacy test or filtering will be needed. The ballot itself will perform the filtering. People who are unable to figure it out, or too lazy to go through the effort, won't vote. Voters will disqualify themselves rather than having some third party disqualify them through testing.
Can the issues be weighted? As in, I can clearly define which issues I care more about and which ones I care less about? If so this might be a great method, except that it would be too complicated to carry out and there is no guarantee that a candidate would not go back on his word about an issue. It also means that whoever was against flag burning and loved Jesus would always win.
How about a very low barrier to entry? Say, the equivalent of "1+1=?" and "Spell your name?"
What about solving a quadratic equation? That's pretty simple. Maybe there could be a test with five problems including a quadratic equation, a geometric proof, the derivation of a trig identity, an essay on the causes of the American Civil War, and an essay comparing and contrasting heroic symbolism inBeowulfandEl Cid.
Oh shit!
/me runs to buy El Cid on Amazon.
See? If you want to vote, you'd have to do at least a minimum amount of work, thus excluding people who don't take the responsibility very seriously.
I would say that . . . a commission of people decide what's on the test. This commission would include Bill Nye the Science Guy, Carrot Top, Kevin Smith, and Gwen Ifill.
Can the issues be weighted? As in, I can clearly define which issues I care more about and which ones I care less about? If so this might be a great method, except that it would be too complicated to carry out and there is no guarantee that a candidate would not go back on his word about an issue. It also means that whoever was against flag burning and loved Jesus would always win.
Of course if you want to talk about the specifics, it would require a lot of effort to work it out. Though, I've already thought of a few problems with the system, but figured out solutions to some of them. Weighting the issues is an idea I hadn't thought of, and it just might work out well.
As for candidates going back on their word, I see that, but it's no different the way we have it now. Candidates now are under no obligation to live up to their promises in any representative government system I have ever heard of.
My main worry is not that anti-flag burning pro-Jesus will win. My worry is that people will vote for contradictory stances. I imagine people will vote for free health care for everyone, no more national debt, low taxes, better schools. That combination is directly contradictory with itself. You can't have nice things without paying for them, but people will vote for magic fairy land every time.
Can the issues be weighted? As in, I can clearly define which issues I care more about and which ones I care less about? If so this might be a great method, except that it would be too complicated to carry out and there is no guarantee that a candidate would not go back on his word about an issue. It also means that whoever was against flag burning and loved Jesus would always win.
It would also require candidates to clearly state exactly where they stand on an issue.
This would be easy if the line was "Abortion in the first tri-mester: legal or illegal" but how would it handle a more complex issue where the candidates position is far more nuanced or subject to change based on events? Most positions can not be clearly laid out in a short easy to read paragraph.
Interestingly enough, in New York City , 36% of the population performs at the lowest level of English literacy. This is far above the national average of 14%.
Obviously New York has more non-English speaking residents who may be literate in their native tongue, but Rym's literacy test would disenfranchise these people nonetheless. It's quite xenophobic at its core.
Obviously New York has more non-English speaking residents who may be literate in their native tongue, but Rym's literacy test would disenfranchise these people nonetheless. It's quite xenophobic at its core.
Citizenship is required for voting. Should language be required for citizenship? If so, then Rym's plan is fine as is. If not, we can easily have the same test available in many different languages. Then non-english speaking people can vote for someone who doesn't want to make learning English required for citizenship.
In related news, the LPGA is going to make it so women have to learn English in order to play. Thoughts?
Maybe people should have to earn the franchise. Maybe instead of using a test, we could say that some sort of service, like the Peace Corps or the Army would be a way to earn the franchise. If you don't care enough to do that sort of service, you don't get to vote.
While this is true, there is another problem going on. Many of the women golfers are from Korea and such, and don't speak English. As a result, they are having significant trouble communicating with sponsors. They're losing a lot of money because they're players don't speak the language. While there is an issue of fairness in competition, it's not going to happen without the money. They kind of need this rule to stay in business.
Maybe instead of using a test, we could say that some sort of service, like the Peace Corps or the Army would be a way to earn the franchise. If you don't care enough to do that sort of service, you don't get to vote.
Ahh... so rich people, whose families can support them while they get paid next to nothing for national service, get the exclusive right to vote.
Maybe instead of using a test, we could say that some sort of service, like the Peace Corps or the Army would be a way to earn the franchise. If you don't care enough to do that sort of service, you don't get to vote.
Ahh... so rich people, whose families can support them while they get paid next to nothing for national service, get the exclusive right to vote.
I don't think the Peace Corps or the Army pay next to nothing, especially for young people.
We don't have nearly asmany people below the poverty level, compared to New York.
We'rebetter at maththan New York.
We'rebetter at reading too.
Many more of us havea college degreeas well as ahigh school degree.
Our gas ismuch cheaper than yours.
And we don't use as much gas, sinceourcommutes are much shorter thanyours.
Our teenagers needfewer abortions.And it's not because they are keeping the babies, since we havethe lowest birthrate in the country.Amongst teens specifically, it's thesecond lowest rate in the country.
We aren'triddled with AIDS.OrotherSTDs.
We have amongst the lowestalcohol related fatalities.
We aren'tfat like you.That's because we have time toexercise.
We don'tneglect our senior citizens.
We arevery liberalwhen it comes to voting.
And yet it's terrible to be rural?????
Apparently prosecutors in your state don't have to work very hard if you have time to look up all this stuff.
You think a person would have to be supported by his parents if he joined the Army or the Peace corps? What, the Peace Corps and the Army don't pay a salary?
Don't be so naive. Poor people will graduate from college with substantial debt. There is no way that they can afford the small salary that these programs provide. And the Peace Corps at a minimum requires a college degree. So you are either forcing the poor to join the army prior to (or during) college, or to give up their right to vote.
I don't think the Peace Corps or the Army pay next to nothing, especially for young people.
A little research goes a long way, Joe.
As a Peace Corps Volunteer, you are not paid a salary. Instead you receive a stipend to cover your basic necessities; food, housing expenses, and local transportation. At the conclusion of your service as a volunteer, you receive a "readjustment allowance" of $225 for each month of service. If you complete your full term of service, you will receive $6,075.
Certain types of student loans may receive up to a 15% forgiveness, which aint much when you owe thousands upon thousands of dollars.
Obviously New York has more non-English speaking residents who may be literate in their native tongue, but Rym's literacy test would disenfranchise these people nonetheless. It's quite xenophobic at its core.
Citizenship is required for voting. Should language be required for citizenship? If so, then Rym's plan is fine as is. If not, we can easily have the same test available in many different languages. Then non-english speaking people can vote for someone who doesn't want to make learning English required for citizenship.
Large portions of America were owned by the Spanish and French. Wasn't New York originally Dutch? Not sure if English as native tongue has a lot of legitimacy. Also, it sort of undermines Rym's point that cityfolk are less xenophobic.
You think a person would have to be supported by his parents if he joined the Army or the Peace corps? What, the Peace Corps and the Army don't pay a salary?
Don't be so naive. Poor people will graduate from college with substantial debt. There is no way that they can afford the small salary that these programs provide. And the Peace Corps at a minimum requires a college degree. So you are either forcing the poor to join the army prior to (or during) college, or to give up their right to vote.
Pure genius.
Your conservative arguments tire me.
I don't think the Peace Corps or the Army pay next to nothing, especially for young people.
A little research goes a long way, Joe.
As a Peace Corps Volunteer, you are not paid a salary. Instead you receive a stipend to cover your basic necessities; food, housing expenses, and local transportation. At the conclusion of your service as a volunteer, you receive a "readjustment allowance" of $225 for each month of service. If you complete your full term of service, you will receive $6,075.
So? Plenty of people still join the Army or the Peace Corps.
But, maybe if you had done a little research instead of acting like an ass, you would have gotten the joke. Look at Rym's response. He got it immediately.
Comments
Adult literacy rate. This Report uses data on adult literacy rates from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Institute for Statistics (UIS) April 2007 Assessment (UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2007a), that combines direct national estimates with recent estimates based on its Global age-specific literacy projections model developed in 2007. The national estimates, made available through targeted efforts by UIS to collect recent literacy data from countries, are obtained from national censuses or surveys between 1995 and 2005. Where recent estimates are not available, older UIS estimates, produced in July 2002 and based mainly on national data collected before 1995, have been used instead.
Many high-income countries, having attained high levels of literacy, no longer collect basic literacy statistics and thus are not included in the UIS data. In calculating the HDI, a literacy rate of 99.0% is assumed for high-income countries that do not report adult literacy information.
In collecting literacy data, many countries estimate the number of literate people based on self-reported data. Some use educational attainment data as a proxy, but measures of school attendance or grade completion may differ. Because definitions and data collection methods vary across countries, literacy estimates should be used with caution.
— United Nations Development Programme Report 2007/2008.[3][4] page 226
Everyone will have the same ballot. No literacy test or filtering will be needed. The ballot itself will perform the filtering. People who are unable to figure it out, or too lazy to go through the effort, won't vote. Voters will disqualify themselves rather than having some third party disqualify them through testing.
/me runs to buy El Cid on Amazon.
Go read fucking Animal Farm.
If you removed party affiliation information from ballots you would get rid of the problem of "party line voters" who just see the name of the party and check the box for the candidate. We would likely see more third party candidates get into office that way.
I would say that . . . a commission of people decide what's on the test. This commission would include Bill Nye the Science Guy, Carrot Top, Kevin Smith, and Gwen Ifill.
As for candidates going back on their word, I see that, but it's no different the way we have it now. Candidates now are under no obligation to live up to their promises in any representative government system I have ever heard of.
My main worry is not that anti-flag burning pro-Jesus will win. My worry is that people will vote for contradictory stances. I imagine people will vote for free health care for everyone, no more national debt, low taxes, better schools. That combination is directly contradictory with itself. You can't have nice things without paying for them, but people will vote for magic fairy land every time.
This would be easy if the line was "Abortion in the first tri-mester: legal or illegal" but how would it handle a more complex issue where the candidates position is far more nuanced or subject to change based on events? Most positions can not be clearly laid out in a short easy to read paragraph.
Obviously New York has more non-English speaking residents who may be literate in their native tongue, but Rym's literacy test would disenfranchise these people nonetheless. It's quite xenophobic at its core.
In related news, the LPGA is going to make it so women have to learn English in order to play. Thoughts?
We've got amongst the lowest unemployment rate.
We are the healthiest.
We're the third best place to live.
We don't die from terrorism.
We don't have nearly as many people below the poverty level, compared to New York.
We're better at math than New York.
We're better at reading too.
Many more of us have a college degree as well as a high school degree.
Our gas is much cheaper than yours.
And we don't use as much gas, since our commutes are much shorter than yours.
Our teenagers need fewer abortions. And it's not because they are keeping the babies, since we have the lowest birthrate in the country. Amongst teens specifically, it's the second lowest rate in the country.
We aren't riddled with AIDS. Or other STDs.
We have amongst the lowest alcohol related fatalities.
We aren't fat like you. That's because we have time to exercise.
We don't neglect our senior citizens.
We are very liberal when it comes to voting.
And yet it's terrible to be rural?????
Pure genius.
Pure genius.
Your conservative arguments tire me.
As a Peace Corps Volunteer, you are not paid a salary. Instead you receive a stipend to cover your basic necessities; food, housing expenses, and local transportation. At the conclusion of your service as a volunteer, you receive a "readjustment allowance" of $225 for each month of service. If you complete your full term of service, you will receive $6,075.
Certain types of student loans may receive up to a 15% forgiveness, which aint much when you owe thousands upon thousands of dollars.
But, maybe if you had done a little research instead of acting like an ass, you would have gotten the joke. Look at Rym's response. He got it immediately.