Post by Perturabo on Nov 21, 2011 6:08:53 GMT -5
Did you base your response on the intentions behind my post, or did you base your response on your perceptions of it?
And also, those past actions were only to prevent blacks from voting. This wouldn't be the case here.
If the intention behind your first sentence is that it wouldn't "prevent blacks [or other minorities] from voting," then you would be correct.
If, instead, your intention was to say that it wouldn't prevent any legitimate voter from voting, then there is no benefit in creating an unnecessary law that would almost certainly potentially backfire on those who wrote it.
I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's pretty stupid to compare the two.
Did you read the questions on the sample test? Sylvana called for "basic logic and political understanding tests before someone is allowed to vote." The questions on that test are written below a (public) high school senior's level. They don't come much easier than that.
Also, here's a little anecdote: When I was a college freshman nearly a lifetime ago, we did a survey/interview on our opinions of voting. Among the responses were that, if someone didn't have all the facts, he or she shouldn't vote; yet, at the same time, if he or she didn't vote, then it was his or her fault for not voting. All other reasons about not voting, including being underage at the time, were thrown out with the reason of "no vote, no right to an opinion."
Note: This post was started after yours and not finished until after Napoleon's.
