- cross-posted to:
- colorado
- cross-posted to:
- colorado
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) came in fifth place in a straw poll of voters in the district where the controversial congresswoman recently relocated and is trying to win reelection to the House.
Boebert, who was first elected to represent Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District in 2020, announced last month she would switch districts and instead run for reelection this year in the 4th District, after its House member, Rep. Ken Buck ®, decided to retire from Congress.
The new district for Boebert would likely give her a significantly better chance at reelection if she wins the Republican nomination. She currently represents a swing district, and Boebert had seemed likely before her switch to face off a second time against Democrat Adam Frisch, whom she defeated in 2022 by fewer than 600 votes.
The 4th District, meanwhile, is a solidly Republican district that has elected a Democratic House member only once in the past 50 years.
But the results of the straw poll Thursday, which followed the first debate among GOP candidates running for that district, indicates Boebert may have an uphill battle.
https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/06/voting-rights-and-the-supreme-court-the-impossible-literacy-test-louisiana-used-to-give-black-voters.html
OP film yourself taking this test and post the results for us to grade. You have ten minutes, you need a perfect score to pass. This is a very real poll test given to people in Louisiana (at the discretion of poll workers, of course) to determine whether they were allowed to vote.
Sure— but your suggestion is red herringly tangential as it pertains to A CANDIDATE holding office in Congress.
I am not running for office.
Our representatives, however, should (at the bare minimum) understand how government works in my opinion— which was the basis of my post.
my issue isn’t tangential. everyone has the right to vote, and to run for office, absent any criminal history. there’s a reason it’s unconstitutional to do this to voters. I agree with you that candidates should understand how government works, but a test like this absolutely not the way to determine who can and cannot run for office. You know that one politician? That one asshole that you just cannot stand, you dislike them personally, disagree with everything they stand for and think they’re just morally bankrupt? Whatever law you put in place, them or someone even worse than they are will be in charge of enforcing one day.
You’re continuing to conflate two arguments. I am exclusively speaking about candidates.
what I’m saying is that people will do the same thing to pervert the intention of this whether you use it to limit voting rights or who can run for office. they’ll make it an impossible test, they’ll be in charge of who has to take it, and they’ll use it to exclude candidates they dislike. the poll tests are an example of this happening already. it will absolutely also happen if you force candidates to pass a test.
Just because something bad was done in the past doesn’t mean something superficially similar can’t ever be a good idea.
Line maybe a test that’s made in bad faith explicitly to disenfranchise black people isn’t representative of the merits of tests in general. Maybe the problem all don’t want tests, but instead it was having a system completely controlled by the most vile racist people that could be found.
Of course first we’d have to get rid of the current crop of vile racists in charge of most states. It would be more of a protective measure to put in place if the good guys ever gain control.
one of the fundamental problems of legislation is that, whatever law you put into place, eventually the most horrible asshole you can imagine will be in charge of implementing and enforcing it. if you make it so that you need to pass a test in order to run for office, look forward to the opposition party doing their best to game those tests to selectively disqualify their opponents. it’s inevitable in a competitive system like this because people who don’t take every advantage tend to lose to people who do.
Just broadly speaking, I’m extremely skeptical of arguments that we can’t do X because it could be or has been abused, because as you’ve pointed out, everything can be abused with sufficiently bad people running it. Having a system that’s not open to abuse simply isn’t an option. If we can’t keep bad people out of power, we’re just fucked, so there’s no point in worrying about systems that will be abused by the bad guys, because if it gets to that point, you’ve already lost, and all your safeguards against abuse will be swept away anyway. At best, you can slow down the bad guys while they’re consolidating their power and maybe give time for some kind of counterattack.
deleted by creator
^ NAILED it.
OP: Doesn’t know American history, wants civics literacy test for politicians.
That’s like being mad that my doctor doesn’t have to take a test to be a doctor and then someone saying I should take this test to be a doctor.
I don’t wanna be a doctor but I hope my doctor has the creds to know what the fuck they’re talking about.
Your point is dumb but I still see the problem with requiring politicians to take a test. Lots of potential corruption.