Reasoning/Logic Tests For Voters

Godel's proof would prove that any test of logic was ultimately unprovable within itself.

Postulate: reduced taxes = jobs and economic growth
Evidence: "There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm
http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/25/beaton.html

Postulate: The rich earn their riches and create jobs.
Evidence: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm

I am reading Hofstadter's 'I am a strange loop.' In it he stresses thought based on analogy. Given that, analogical thinking could lead to dire consequences if the thought was that of a fanatic such as Cheney or Palin.

Reagan and Bush Jr both reduced taxes and both times the nation went into debt and recession. So given what the conservative wingnuts post daily where is the logic or sense? Logic would say raise taxes as Clinton did.
 
midcan5 said:
Godel's proof would prove that any test of logic was ultimately unprovable within itself.

Postulate: reduced taxes = jobs and economic growth
Evidence: "There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm
http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/25/beaton.html

Postulate: The rich earn their riches and create jobs.
Evidence: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm

I am reading Hofstadter's 'I am a strange loop.' In it he stresses thought based on analogy. Given that, analogical thinking could lead to dire consequences if the thought was that of a fanatic such as Cheney or Palin.

Reagan and Bush Jr both reduced taxes and both times the nation went into debt and recession. So given what the conservative wingnuts post daily where is the logic or sense? Logic would say raise taxes as Clinton did.
Click to expand...

The highest period of U.S. Growth includes time during the depression?
 
cawacko said:
The highest period of U.S. Growth includes time during the depression?
Click to expand...

He is taking the market low and using that as his starting point. Very convenient of him. Not sure how they got the arbitrary 40 years.... probably has nothing to due with the bear market that began in 73 or anything like that.
 
Superfreak said:
He is taking the market low and using that as his starting point. Very convenient of him. Not sure how they got the arbitrary 40 years.... probably has nothing to due with the bear market that began in 73 or anything like that.
Click to expand...

You obviously can't read and are going to that analogy in your head. Try this, read the piece, think, or check this book out.

Amazon.com: The Great Depression and the New Deal: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions): Eric Rauchway: Books
 
I'll do Ib's standard line. I hope your party picks this up, makes it part of their platform and runs on it.
 
in theory i think it's a good idea but it opens up a can of worms if we leave it to the government to determine what an appropriate iq is to vote. They could just keep moving it up until only a small percent of the population would be able to participate.

We could do something by the national average, and anyone below the national average should just shut the fuuuck up and go home.

also this thread is funny as hell.
 
The only reason BAC and others think it's a bad idea is because they're assuming a perfect system couldn't be made. It would inevitably open doors to abuse, because that's what happened in the past. That, my friends, fails the logic test. There's no reason to assume we couldn't make a perfect system that couldn't be abused.

This is all hypothetical anyway, so just assume it. If the perfect, unabsuable system could be made what's the hold up? Seriously. If people are too dumb to be able to reason, they shouldn't have the same say in our democracy as someone like myself.
 
ib1yysguy said:
The only reason BAC and others think it's a bad idea is because they're assuming a perfect system couldn't be made. It would inevitably open doors to abuse, because that's what happened in the past. That, my friends, fails the logic test. There's no reason to assume we couldn't make a perfect system that couldn't be abused.

This is all hypothetical anyway, so just assume it. If the perfect, unabsuable system could be made what's the hold up? Seriously. If people are too dumb to be able to reason, they shouldn't have the same say in our democracy as someone like myself.
Click to expand...

The reason BAC thinks it's a bad idea is because it's a really bad idea .. and it makes absolutely no sense.

If someone is an American, they should have the exact same say in government that you do. There is no litmus test for voting .. not anymore anyway .. and when there was it may have worked out for you or your grandpappy, but it didn't work out so well for millions of Americans like my father who was denied the right to vote because he didn't know how many bubbles there are in a bar of soap.

You make the assumption that there is something more special about you than other Americans and only Americans of your mental ilk have the right to vote.

they shouldn't have the same say in our democracy as someone like myself
Click to expand...

As smart as you may be, I'm betting there are Americans who are smarter. Should you have the right to vote because there are smarter people than you? Should they classify you as inferior?

My brother, this is a bad idea on every measure.

A better idea .. an honest election system.
 
The problem with your comparison to literacy tests is that they weren't applied equally. If both of our grandfathers had to guess the number of bubbles on a bar of soap, not many people would have been voting.

An equally applied litmus test for reasonable thinking just means reasonable people will decide on reasonable solutions for our problems.

If someone can't think reasonably, they they can't be trusted to be making important decisions... at least not as much as someone who has demonstrated they can think reasonably.
 
ib1yysguy said:
The problem with your comparison to literacy tests is that they weren't applied equally. If both of our grandfathers had to guess the number of bubbles on a bar of soap, not many people would have been voting.

An equally applied litmus test for reasonable thinking just means reasonable people will decide on reasonable solutions for our problems.

If someone can't think reasonably, they they can't be trusted to be making important decisions... at least not as much as someone who has demonstrated they can think reasonably.
Click to expand...

The logic/reasoning test is something I considered interesting but never thought politically practical.

Besides, of course, the fact that logical thinking skills can't be taken as the sole important part of a man's ability (and yes, this will be taken all the way down to people arguing the idiots have "common sense" or "folk knowledge" that rational people don't), not all people who would score above average would vote for it, and practically no one who would score below average would vote for it.
 
I was mainly thinking of using a logic test as a way to filter out people in a scheme I was thinking up which involved a legislature composed of random citizens, rather than being elected. It was intended make it hybrid meritocratic and remove the common objection to a body chosen through random sortition, which would be that it was composed of idiots. I suggested applying it to voters in general as sort of a joke, because it would simply be so impractical.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
The logic/reasoning test is something I considered interesting but never thought politically practical.

Besides, of course, the fact that logical thinking skills can't be taken as the sole important part of a man's ability (and yes, this will be taken all the way down to people arguing the idiots have "common sense" or "folk knowledge" that rational people don't), not all people who would score above average would vote for it, and practically no one who would score below average would vote for it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the question of feasibility is something else entirely.
 
Watermark said:
I was mainly thinking of using a logic test as a way to filter out people in a scheme I was thinking up which involved a legislature composed of random citizens, rather than being elected. It was intended make it hybrid meritocratic and remove the common objection to a body elected through random sortition, which would be that it was composed of idiots. I suggested applying it to voters in general as sort of a joke, because it would simply be so impractical.
Click to expand...

There's an interesting idea. You pass a test to be able to put your name in for public representation, from which a lottery of individuals is chosen via random sortition to represent for a set term.

I wonder if a test of this process could be set up somewhere. The problem with a totally random lottery is getting idiots who are controlling/overbearing individuals like Dixie who come in and manipulate the other idiots. If you could weed out the idiots, and weed out the dangerous personality types as well I think it would have a chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top