this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2024
523 points (97.3% liked)

politics

19237 readers
3429 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) came in fifth place in a straw poll of voters in the district where the controversial congresswoman recently relocated and is trying to win reelection to the House.

Boebert, who was first elected to represent Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District in 2020, announced last month she would switch districts and instead run for reelection this year in the 4th District, after its House member, Rep. Ken Buck (R), decided to retire from Congress.

The new district for Boebert would likely give her a significantly better chance at reelection if she wins the Republican nomination. She currently represents a swing district, and Boebert had seemed likely before her switch to face off a second time against Democrat Adam Frisch, whom she defeated in 2022 by fewer than 600 votes.

The 4th District, meanwhile, is a solidly Republican district that has elected a Democratic House member only once in the past 50 years.

But the results of the straw poll Thursday, which followed the first debate among GOP candidates running for that district, indicates Boebert may have an uphill battle.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (4 children)

https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/06/voting-rights-and-the-supreme-court-the-impossible-literacy-test-louisiana-used-to-give-black-voters.html

OP film yourself taking this test and post the results for us to grade. You have ten minutes, you need a perfect score to pass. This is a very real poll test given to people in Louisiana (at the discretion of poll workers, of course) to determine whether they were allowed to vote.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Sure— but your suggestion is red herringly tangential as it pertains to A CANDIDATE holding office in Congress.

I am not running for office.

Our representatives, however, should (at the bare minimum) understand how government works in my opinion— which was the basis of my post.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Just because something bad was done in the past doesn't mean something superficially similar can't ever be a good idea.

Line maybe a test that's made in bad faith explicitly to disenfranchise black people isn't representative of the merits of tests in general. Maybe the problem all don't want tests, but instead it was having a system completely controlled by the most vile racist people that could be found.

Of course first we'd have to get rid of the current crop of vile racists in charge of most states. It would be more of a protective measure to put in place if the good guys ever gain control.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

one of the fundamental problems of legislation is that, whatever law you put into place, eventually the most horrible asshole you can imagine will be in charge of implementing and enforcing it. if you make it so that you need to pass a test in order to run for office, look forward to the opposition party doing their best to game those tests to selectively disqualify their opponents. it's inevitable in a competitive system like this because people who don't take every advantage tend to lose to people who do.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Just broadly speaking, I'm extremely skeptical of arguments that we can't do X because it could be or has been abused, because as you've pointed out, everything can be abused with sufficiently bad people running it. Having a system that's not open to abuse simply isn't an option. If we can't keep bad people out of power, we're just fucked, so there's no point in worrying about systems that will be abused by the bad guys, because if it gets to that point, you've already lost, and all your safeguards against abuse will be swept away anyway. At best, you can slow down the bad guys while they're consolidating their power and maybe give time for some kind of counterattack.

[–] shalafi -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

^ NAILED it.

OP: Doesn't know American history, wants civics literacy test for politicians.

[–] cor315 8 points 10 months ago

That's like being mad that my doctor doesn't have to take a test to be a doctor and then someone saying I should take this test to be a doctor.

I don't wanna be a doctor but I hope my doctor has the creds to know what the fuck they're talking about.

Your point is dumb but I still see the problem with requiring politicians to take a test. Lots of potential corruption.