this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2025
540 points (83.4% liked)

Comic Strips

18492 readers
1935 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 58 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Fuck no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test

Between the 1850s and 1960s, literacy tests were used as an effective tool for disenfranchising African Americans in the Southern United States. Literacy tests were typically administered by white clerks who could pass or fail a person at their discretion based on race. Illiterate whites were often permitted to vote without taking these literacy tests because of grandfather clauses written into legislation.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago (2 children)

The problem there is the administration of the tests, not the tests themselves.

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 16 points 6 days ago (8 children)

And that is a non-solvable problem.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 16 points 6 days ago (9 children)

you think the current racist rich people wouldn't be racist and rich if we introduced an exam to the voting process?

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] eluvatar@programming.dev 55 points 6 days ago (19 children)

Who determines the questions and answers? Now they are the ones determining who can vote and thus the people in control.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 28 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Brazil had something like that in the early republic days, only literate people could vote. Needless to say, only the robber baron elites kept getting elected, also thanks to the significant amount of fraud that happened. "The election is won during the counting"

[–] Blujayooo@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

Good point, maybe the idea works better in theory than practice. Haha

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 39 points 6 days ago

They used to do that in the US during the Jim Crow era. It went predictably.

[–] Red_October@lemmy.world 11 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yeah it sounds fun unless you have any awareness of how this actually worked out when it was used in the past. Fully not okay.

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago

You mean tests that were designed to ensure that only "the right people" were able to pass them. As well as a grandfather clause that exempted all of those right people (in modern times there would likely be a voter roll purge that would somehow lose most liberal voters while miraculously keeping all of the conservative ones).

[–] bremen15@feddit.org 22 points 6 days ago (4 children)

It's not working. We have relatively equal education in Germany, and we have plenty of intelligent, educated people voting far right.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

“Educated” does not equal intelligent, and it certainly does not imply broad intelligence. You can train a relatively stupid human being to do all kinds of stuff and if you’ve ever worked with people with degrees you know what little value they carry.

I went to college and have white collar career and my family is largely university educated. I worked with structural engineers at my last job and half them were just barely able to do their jobs with the worst ones being the senior people. Elsewhere in the world there have been anti-vax doctors and nurses, psychotic therapists, and theologians who have read the bible who still do all the horrible things they definitely know are bullshit. I bet nearly half the people here on Lemmy know a software developer or three who shouldn’t ever touch a computer. People with degrees are more likely to be more intelligent but, especially while living in a world where they’re basically expected, that’s really just not a guarantee.

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (4 children)

Even people who are actually smart buy into fascism, though. It's not just a question of dumb vs intelligent, but of ethics.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Sunsofold@lemmings.world 25 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Keep trying, Jay. One day you'll make a funny comic.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mlg@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Even if you assumed the test successfully filtered out an educated voterbase, it would take all but five seconds for X party to cheat their exams, kind of like the "grandfather law" which essentially bypassed jim crow era literacy tests for everyone who was white.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Even if you assumed the test successfully filtered out an educated voterbase

"Educated" is already doing some heavy lifting. What education are you demanding voters possess?

Because I've had an earful about "Marxist Professors corrupting our youth!" for my entire life. I doubt conservatives would consider any kind of liberal exam a legitimate test of voting aptitude.

Meanwhile, there's enough jingoism and nationalism in our education system already, such that I could see an exam question "Which religious extremist sect was responsible for 9/11? Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists" or "Is an individual with XY chromosomes a man or a woman?" that's a bit... loaded? Especially when administered right before a national election.

[–] frostedtrailblazer@lemmy.zip 21 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

If I recall correctly, Aristotle proposed something like only the educated being able to vote. I think if everyone was guaranteed free access to both a high school and college education, along with all food and living costs covered for anyone studying, then I could see having at least any associates level degree being an okay barrier of entry to voting.

However, such a thing would need to be protected by some unremovable barriers. For instance, education would need to continue receiving appropriate funding, food and other living costs such as renting a room would need to be covered even as the cost for these things change. People with disabilities would need to receive proper accommodations.

A caveat I’ll add is that there would need to be more community colleges built and much more funding for pre-K thru 12th grade as well.

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 9 points 6 days ago (2 children)

There'd need to be a massive overhaul of the education system. Most people who do graduate still make stupid-ase, self-sabotaging choices.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (4 children)

Voting should be mandatory, punished by like a $200 fine for non voters.

[–] qwerty@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 6 days ago (4 children)

Yes, let's force everyone to vote whether or not they have any clue what's going on or who the candidates are, great idea.

[–] dellish@lemmy.world 31 points 6 days ago (3 children)

It works in Australia. The main upside is since voting is mandatory the onus is on the government (or more precisely, an independent body called the Australian Electoral Commission) to make sure there are enough polling places, voting papers etc to accommodate the full turn out. Further, voting is done on a Saturday and there is plenty of opportunity to vote early/do a postal vote/vote from a completely different electorate etc.

My understanding from several US elections I've seen is there are a LOT of people who would like to vote but can't due to work, ridiculous waiting times, lack of facilities etc. Compulsory voting would mean all of this would have to be taken care of without the states mucking around with their own rules.

To address the issue you have, yes, people who have no clue turn up and vote BUT whilst voting is compulsory, submitting a valid vote is not. So long as you turn up and take your bits of paper you can just draw a dick on them or whatever if you don't feel you know enough to have a say.

ridiculous waiting times, lack of facilities etc.

This is a big part of the GOP's strategy for maintaining power in a "democracy" despite not having the support of anywhere near a majority of the general public. Wherever possible, they ensure that voting in Democratic areas is as difficult as they can make it. In some places they've even made it illegal just to hand out water to people waiting in line to vote.

[–] qwerty@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You can (and should) provide fair access to voting without making it mandatory. Most people would probably submit a valid vote anyway, there's a lot of no/low information voters already and refusing to vote, for example to boycott the election or for whatever other reason is also a valid political stance. Plus I'm not a fan of any financial penalties because they're basically an extra civil rights subscription for the wealthy who can afford to pay the fines, while a poor person who doesn't make it to the polling booth gets disproportionately screwed.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] astutemural@midwest.social 7 points 6 days ago

InB4 the Non-Voters just start doing the Wilmington Massacre repeatedly.

Check your history books about what happens when the majority of the population has no political voice. Things get ugly.

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 3 points 6 days ago

Still trying to figure out what happened in the second frame.

load more comments
view more: next ›