this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2025
508 points (83.2% liked)

Comic Strips

18437 readers
1913 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 57 points 4 days ago (21 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.

load more comments (21 replies)
[–] Red_October@lemmy.world 12 points 3 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 3 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).

[–] eluvatar@programming.dev 52 points 4 days ago (16 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 (16 replies)
[–] abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone 193 points 4 days ago (2 children)

If voting needed an exam, they would use that exam to stop certain demographics from voting. And no, I'm not talking about the ignorant.

[–] bestagon@lemmy.world 83 points 4 days ago

They used to do this and it turned out exactly how you describe. I would probably also add it’d incentivize politicians to dismantle educational institutions serving certain demographics

[–] apftwb@lemmy.world 39 points 4 days ago

Surely there are no examples in American history that voting eligibility exams were used to stop certain demographics from voting.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 236 points 5 days ago (22 children)

What that actually looked like:

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 148 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (30 children)

A perfectly designed test - ambiguous enough that anyone subjected to it can be failed.

I still don't know what #11 is "supposed" to be.

[–] 0ops@piefed.zip 39 points 5 days ago (8 children)

I think it's supposed to say "Cross out the digit necessary", so one digit, in which case cross out the 1 because there's enough 0's that crossing out one 0 isn't enough.

It's 10 that has me confused. Is it asking for the last letter of the first word that starts with 'L' in that sentence? It doesn't actually specify.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] THB@lemmy.world 32 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Can anyone explain #1 to me? What are you supposed to circle? It says "the number or the letter". There's 1 number and the entire sentence is literally letters...

It's like when the waiter asks "Soup or salad?" and you say "Yes".

[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 24 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Circle? It clearly says draw a line around whatever you decided wrongly to indicate. Lines don't curve and aren't boxes, so good luck.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (28 replies)
[–] TheFogan@programming.dev 98 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Also worth pointing out, WHY the test is so bad... 1. obviously not even well educated people today can agree on the meaning of a good portion of the questions.

but the biggest thing is, not everyone had to take them... IE the key point intention was "if a parent or grandparent has ever voted, you can skip this test". which is such a blatant giving away that they don't care of an individuals knowledge, they aren't actually worried if they can read, they were just keeping first generation voters from voting... at a time when in particular a specific subset of american's were in position to be first generation voters.

[–] match@pawb.social 38 points 4 days ago

(black people, particularly)

[–] match@pawb.social 56 points 4 days ago (1 children)

There are two more pages to this and it gets worse

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 27 points 3 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"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 37 points 4 days ago

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

[–] mlg@lemmy.world 8 points 3 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 3 days ago* (last edited 3 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.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 73 points 4 days ago (11 children)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] wetbeardhairs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 87 points 5 days ago (12 children)

It is 100% used as a weapon to disenfranchise voters.

I do however believe that it should be used on CANDIDATES.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Sunsofold@lemmings.world 30 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bremen15@feddit.org 21 points 4 days ago (9 children)

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

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 30 points 4 days ago (4 children)

the main function of the contemporary media: to convey the message that even if you’re clever enough to have figured out that it’s all a cynical power game, the rest of America is a ridiculous pack of sheep.

This is the trap.

-David Graeber, The Democracy Project

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 42 points 4 days ago (19 children)

This is a bad idea. You would just be creating another layer of gerrymandering.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 43 points 4 days ago

Nah, the exams wouldn't be mandatory for everyone. You have a degree? Exempt. You graduated from one of the "certified" high schools (the ones in white neighborhoods but we don't call it that wink wink)? Exempt. Passed NRA shooting license exam? Exempt.

[–] misteloct@lemmy.dbzer0.com 31 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The exam:

Q. What is the secret password? A. Make America Great Again

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 48 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (6 children)

Sure. Disenfranchise most people. That's a suitable hack to a
checks notes
stable, legitimate, and responsive government.

Even China would have more political legitimacy than such a system. It would collapse almost immediately.

If you ever want a good example of functionalist ideas leading to absolutely uncritical nonsense, here it is.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] frostedtrailblazer@lemmy.zip 21 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] multifariace@lemmy.world 26 points 5 days ago

And the approved voters just happened to be from the 50 people who controlled the testing.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (4 children)

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

[–] qwerty@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 4 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 28 points 4 days ago (4 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›