Real Retards Vote. Why you Don’t Want to Stop Them.

Most people are actually stupid now. The average IQ in America sits around 100 with a 15 point deviation in either direction. So all in all, that could mean 85! Which curiously used to be considered “retarded” until 1973.

This means that by yesterday’s scale not only are people stupid now-a-days, but borderline retarded. Even worse, the word retard was completely removed from any government or national organization’s categorization of intellectual ability between 1992 and 2010 because of Political Correctness. In 2010 a Bill was passed into Law “banning” the use of the words “retarded” and “retardation” from medicine… So the word “retard” doesn’t even exist anymore, legally speaking. Logically speaking, in 1973 America introduced and mixed several retards into society and called them normal, now we have to deal with them. Now it is socially unacceptable to identify them. Many scholars believe this is a problem.

Have you ever wondered why voters pick the candidates they do?

The convenience factor that brings on intense autumn voting, is also why people are so uninformed and less likely to do independent research. So much information is thrown at people today. Overwhelmed citizens feel like they have learned enough… even though most people only hear about controversy, and hot topics. We can also speak on the gatekeeper issue, but that is for another time.

Honestly, I am not so sure that many of our elected officials, nor the candidates, are generally qualified for running a campaign or office (which is why many of them hire experts who then use social engineering to put a retard in office)…If you ask me anyways.

A Solution

Don’t allow people the right to vote without first taking a test that maintains basic knowledge on the current candidate’s past actions (not beliefs). This would have questions like: How old are they? Have they ever held any particular office and for how long? Did they ever get any legislation passed or accomplish… anything?

These types of questions will not only streamline the “informed voter initiative” but also encourage more logical decision making (rather than manipulated ethical decision making). Most candidates for presidency or any other office have not provided any betterment for society, nor managed anything more than their own financial records (if that). Asking questions that aim to strike inquiry in these directions will create a competitive discussion that measures and bases a candidates legitimacy on real success. There are many community organizers who would then be motivated to run for office, due to their proven success and not popularity or bought and paid for reputations.

The feasibility of this happening is growing as information “access” is becoming so widespread. There will be less of a chance that “discrimination” suits could ensue, so long as the “qualified” voter (under the voters rights act) has free access to the information (which then jobs may have to pay employees for more downtime…rather than just voting or jury duty – putting more stress on the private sector [who are going to lobby against it]). Although, the time required to inform a voter of a candidates past record could be so minimal that it would be considered sine qua non (without consequence) and pro bono (for good) (I hope so at least).

The repercussions of this systematic change would result in campaigns that include the answers to those questions. This would most likely nullify much of the understanding as to what those facts mean by use of persuasion, but there would be some good that would remain; making the change worthwhile.

I remember hearing my grandparents talk many times about voting when I was young. They would say: “We always vote Democrat”, as if that was the way to go. Not to insult the intelligence of my grandparents, or any Democrats. My grandmother was a legal secretary and my grandfather was well involved with politicians, judges, etc…So the flux of party voters sticking to their registered favorite is not limited to uninformed nor uneducated and for that reason, the better informed the electorate become the more likely voters will align visions with candidates.

There really is no reason we shouldn’t have a fair test that is based on facts of the candidate’s past. According to Constitution Daily the test would be Constitutional (Munson, 2011). Remember this was real once upon a time, but racial tensions could rise and the connotations of oppression may prevent it from happening just yet.

Another Solution to Consider

I believe we need an Age of Responsibility Reformation in the United States and I wrote a paper on it which you can find here if you care to read: http://www.slideshare.net/ChristopherKemmett/age-of-responsibility-reformation-46711975

The idea is that a person gains all of their rights when they can pass a comprehensive test that grants those rights, all at once. There are nearly 20 sub-classes of humans living in America (institutionally), and really more than that. I touched on a few, but the idea of having overly powerful citizens that are more capable (legally) than others – undermines progress and promotes quarrel. Also, allowing people to retain the liberties expressed through those rights should be a maintenance process that requires mandated retests upon medical suggestion, if say a traumatic brain injury (TBI) occurs. Nevertheless, this test could be sufficient as to measuring intellectual capacity of voters who may be force fed basic facts but still lack the ability to critically analyze, and weed them out of the voting process (maybe even the job market)…

Why we shouldn’t push for any of these changes.

This is an interesting topic and I am not too sure which direction the country will go in. Namely, precedents are what keep me from drawing a conclusion because, generally, they remove rights and liberties by drawing a line that removes possible opportunity. Though, States could supply an answer for this, “The People” are not protected by the Constitution in granting a federal right to vote. Therefore, I don’t really want a change and neither should you. So I will not support one. Reforming removes lines and laws, but the existing laws are supporting the voting rights we have today, regardless if they allow retards to vote or not!

PS. Bush v. Gore affirmed U.S. citizens have no Constitutional right to vote.

Enjoy the clip below!

The literacy tests that were given in the 60’s were institutionally racist, in my belief, at least this one. Try and finish this test in 10 minutes or less. GO!

References

Munson, H. (2011) Should voters have to pass a civics test? Retrieved from http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/04/should-voters-have-to-pass-a-civics-test/

Onion, R. (June 28, 2013) Take the ‘impossible’ literacy test louisiana gave black voters in the 1960’s. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/06/28/voting_rights_and_the_supreme_court_the_impossible_literacy_test_louisiana.html