+- Drunkard's Walk Forums (http://www.accessdenied-rms.net/forums)
+-- Forum: General (http://www.accessdenied-rms.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: General Chatter (http://www.accessdenied-rms.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Thread: 4th of July Challenge (/showthread.php?tid=11638)
Pages:
1
2
4th of July Challenge - ordnance11 - 07-04-2013
For those living in the U.S...and those who are not living in the U.S., this challenge:
A proposed citizenship test
One of the more radical proposals concerning citizenship is that you are not guaranteed to have it at birth, but must earn it at age 18 and pass a test every 10 years to renew it. So, let's see how you folks do on the first try.
You need a minimum of 30 to pass. 50 or over, you passed with distinction.
I got 55 on the first try. Cold. No googling. No help. Let us see how the rest of you do, eh?
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
- hazard - 07-04-2013
Exactly 30.
Not bad for a Dutchman with no interest in the US.
- Ankhani - 07-04-2013
45, because I don't know the Supreme Court Justices by name.
---
The Master said: "It is all in vain! I have never yet seen a man who can perceive his own faults and bring the charge home against himself."
>Analects: Book V, Chaper XXVI
- robkelk - 07-04-2013
I got a 29. I suppose I could have passed if I had guessed any of the items I didn't answer... but that's good enough for somebody who doesn't want to be a US citizen, right?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
- Logan Darklighter - 07-04-2013
47
- Dartz - 07-04-2013
Less than 30.... quite a bit less.
I would argue however, that stripping citizenship from someone based on the results of a test is rife for abuse. Louisiana Voter Literacy tests, anyone? It's already easy enough to disenfranchise people as it is....
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
- robkelk - 07-04-2013
Here's a site that'll give you a practice citizenship test for Canada. The pass mark is 75%, so pick a province, ask for 100 questions, and get your custom test:
http://www.v-soul.com/onlinetest/
(I managed 89%. It took me 20 minutes to complete, putting me in the top one-eighth...)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
- DHBirr - 07-04-2013
I got a 59, which utterly astonished me as I was guessing wildly for most of the Supreme Court Justices, and didn't put anything for the civic participation questions (I'm something of a recluse; voting is pretty much the extent of my participation in the community). I suspect 23 years in the Army biased the scoring and then some.
-----
Big Brother is watching you. And damn, you are so bloody BORING.
- Dartz - 07-04-2013
Try the Irish one
Well... it's the closest thing we've got to one.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
- robkelk - 07-04-2013
Dartz Wrote:Try the Irish oneI'm not sure about most of these, but I'm pretty sure the answer to #30 is B.
Well... it's the closest thing we've got to one.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
- Jorlem - 07-04-2013
41, but I left all the Supreme Court justices blank.
-----
Stand between the Silver Crystal and the Golden Sea.
"Youngsters these days just have no appreciation for the magnificence of the legendary cucumber." --Krityan Elder, Tales of Vesperia.
- ordnance11 - 07-04-2013
Quote:DHBirr wrote:I suspect that too. since I am a veteran also and I had done some volunteer work on the side. But to paraphrase Heinlein said in Starship Troopers: a person who voluntarily serves places the welfare of his country/community before his self interest, for him would be the first prerequisite of being a citizen, i.e. a voter. The only thing I didn't check was if I had ever demonstrated peacefully.
I got a 59, which utterly astonished me as I was guessing wildly for most of the Supreme Court Justices, and didn't put anything for the civic participation questions (I'm something of a recluse; voting is pretty much the extent of my participation in the community). I suspect 23 years in the Army biased the scoring and then some.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
- ordnance11 - 07-05-2013
Quote:Dartz wrote:The premise is that you were not one to begin with at birth and must earn it. Which puts you on an even footing with the descendants of the plymouth rock brethren if they have to do it also.
Less than 30.... quite a bit less.
I would argue however, that stripping citizenship from someone based on the results of a test is rife for abuse. Louisiana Voter Literacy tests, anyone? It's already easy enough to disenfranchise people as it is....
I would agree that the possibility for abuse on the test is great. That's why I think Heinlein's idea of citizenship is a good one. You get citizens, who are eligible to vote and permanent residents, who cannot vote. Everyone has equal protection under the law, except for the right to vote. To earn the right to be a citizen, you need to a served a number of years in full time civilian community or military service, starting at the age of majority. Successful completion of your service would make you a citizen. Only a citizen can vote. And only a citizen can run for public office.
The main reason I think it is a good idea is because I already had gone through this route, so I will admit bias on this idea.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
- hazard - 07-05-2013
To be honest, the big issue isn't so much giving only people who (have already) give(n) to the community the right to vote as making sure that the voters are interested and invested in excercising their right to vote and to do so wisely.
- Dartz - 07-05-2013
ordnance11 Wrote:Quote:Dartz wrote:Less than 30.... quite a bit less.The premise is that you were not one to begin with at birth and must earn it. Which puts you on an even footing with the descendants of the plymouth rock brethren if they have to do it also.
I would argue however, that stripping citizenship from someone based on the results of a test is rife for abuse. Louisiana Voter Literacy tests, anyone? It's already easy enough to disenfranchise people as it is....
I would agree that the possibility for abuse on the test is great. That's why I think Heinlein's idea of citizenship is a good one. You get citizens, who are eligible to vote and permanent residents, who cannot vote. Everyone has equal protection under the law, except for the right to vote. To earn the right to be a citizen, you need to a served a number of years in full time civilian community or military service, starting at the age of majority. Successful completion of your service would make you a citizen. Only a citizen can vote. And only a citizen can run for public office.
The main reason I think it is a good idea is because I already had gone through this route, so I will admit bias on this idea.
America is already disturbingly military-happy in many ways.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
- ordnance11 - 07-05-2013
Quote:Dartz wrote:IIRC, West Germany in the 80's had a set-up of either community service or Bundeswer when you get called up. As as to who get's do do what, the first thing is that you must want to be a citizen. You can then register and let Uncle Sam choose for you or you volunteer. Peace Corps, volunteer firefighter, Civilian Conservation Corps, Americorps, environmental remediation are tasks that springs into mind for a kid coming out of high school. Or go get a college diploma and do your time then. Or not do your time and you get a boring and normal life. Except you do not get to vote.Quote:ordnance11 wrote:Quote:Dartz wrote:Less than 30.... quite a bit less.The premise is that you were not one to begin with at birth and must earn it. Which puts you on an even footing with the descendants of the plymouth rock brethren if they have to do it also.
I would argue however, that stripping citizenship from someone based on the results of a test is rife for abuse. Louisiana Voter Literacy tests, anyone? It's already easy enough to disenfranchise people as it is....
I would agree that the possibility for abuse on the test is great. That's why I think Heinlein's idea of citizenship is a good one. You get citizens, who are eligible to vote and permanent residents, who cannot vote. Everyone has equal protection under the law, except for the right to vote. To earn the right to be a citizen, you need to a served a number of years in full time civilian community or military service, starting at the age of majority. Successful completion of your service would make you a citizen. Only a citizen can vote. And only a citizen can run for public office.
The main reason I think it is a good idea is because I already had gone through this route, so I will admit bias on this idea.
The problem with Heinlein's concept... acknowledged in the book AFAIK... is finding enough stuff for everyone who wants to be a citizen to do. And, for that matter, choosing who gets to do what. By random lotto? By merit? Either way is going to create some form of dissafected subclass who want rights but can't get them for whatever reason.
America is already disturbingly military-happy in many ways.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
- Dartz - 07-05-2013
We've never had national conscription or service. People would actively resist any attempt to introduce it. Blame The Somme. It was one of the things that spurred the '16 rebellion.
Arguably however, there will always be those who, because of circumstance, find themselves unable to serve in an official capacity. Ultimately, limiting the franchise and citienship is far too easy to abuse. It is far too easy to find excuses and reasons to exclude someone. There is already obvious voter suppression going on on many US States. Please, lets not give them more ammunition to suppress some more.
I have voted. I have voted every opportunity I've had. I've spoken with my representative on subjects that're important to me because democracy doesn't end when the ballot is cast. I've met them in person on campaign and actually held a long an informative conversation with my current TD. I bitch and complain online about the government. My younger brother, on the other hand, has never bothered to take part.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
- ordnance11 - 07-05-2013
I'll agree with you on the voter ID laws...especially in the South. Being part of the federal government also made me more aware of the politics involved at the federal level, state and local levels.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
- Dragonflight - 07-05-2013
It seems to me that if anyone tried to make Heinlein's vision of the future come to pass, it would ignite an interest in the rights of citizens like nothing else has in a century. Not to volunteer or any of that. But to defeat the bill before it passes...
---
Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do.
- Rod.H - 07-05-2013
I got 37. Didn't even bother to try to name the supreme court judges and mostly guessed the rest of what I didn't know. I was surprised I got the date of the US flag right, but I knew two were wrong, had to be 1800's.
And the Irish one, if you answer #30 with B....I don't think you'd like the response in certain places.
'Sides the answers C.
- ECSNorway - 07-05-2013
Any form of citizenship that recognizes different classes of people -- be it a proposal like this, or one like David Weber used in the Honor Harrington novels (you get disenfranchised if you don't pay income tax, basically), or something like Heinlein's proposal, or anything else -- including a system of nobility, the so-called "Affirmative Action" programs, any protected class -- is an abhorrence to human dignity, and must be abolished, disavowed, and despised, without remorse or regret.
And if anyone cares, I tried the "test", and scored a 37.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
- robkelk - 07-05-2013
ECSNorway Wrote:Any form of citizenship that recognizes different classes of people -- be it a proposal like this, or one like David Weber used in the Honor Harrington novels (you get disenfranchised if you don't pay income tax, basically), or something like Heinlein's proposal, or anything else -- including a system of nobility, the so-called "Affirmative Action" programs, any protected class -- is an abhorrence to human dignity, and must be abolished, disavowed, and despised, without remorse or regret.That's a rather expensive poll tax in the Honor Harrington universe. (It might not be what was intended, but it's what that works out to...)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
- nemonowan - 07-05-2013
There is another approach to this problem, which I am partial to (probably because it is in use in my country): you make voting in whatever election/referendum/etc MANDATORY. Voting is not only a right, it is a duty.
When you reach 18, you have to register as a voter (no party affiliation declared - you can register with a party as a member if you want to vote in their internal elections). In every election, the fact you voted is registered and you get proof of having voted. If you didn't, you have to present a medical certificate of illness, proof of having been outside the country, or something similar; if you don't, you get hit with a significant fine and until it is paid any interaction with public services is severely curtailed.
Of course, this requires facilitating the vote: every election is held on a sunday which is also declared a holiday, and polling places are plentiful (on registering you declare your address and are assigned a polling place near your home; that can be changed as needed; you can also vote in different one in case of necessity) and well staffed by public servants (who get extra free days for this overtime). People who have to work on sunday anyway HAVE to get free time to go to the polls; since the process is streamlined, it rarely is a long wait.
The advantages are clear: people are encouraged to get involved, there are no vote suppression issues, and there isn't any issues with low showing at polls so the winner does not have a mandate.
- robkelk - 07-05-2013
I refer you to Hermann the Irascible, a short story by Saki, as to how well this would work...
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
- nemonowan - 07-05-2013
Rob, please elaborate on how a puerile mysoginistic fantasy attack against the british suffragettes relates to the actual, well-functioning, electoral process of a real country (Uruguay)
Or did you reach the word "mandatory" in my post and stopped reading in a pique of "Me proud yankee! Me not registered or mandated by any government!" ?