If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Could you pass the 1964 Louisiana voter literacy test? Could you even pass the first question?   (slate.com) divider line 226
    More: Asinine, Shelby County, documentary evidence  
•       •       •

24681 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Jun 2013 at 5:46 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



226 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-28 06:19:29 PM
How does one "1.  draw a line around the number or letter of this sentence" when they ask you to "circle" something later on?  (examples #4 and #5 are good...)

If you circle the "1." you fail because you did not follow the directions, you drew a circle, not a line.
If you draw a line THROUGH it you fail because you were supposed to draw that line AROUND it.
If you draw a square around it, you fail because you drew a square, not a line.

/no voting for you no matter what you put down.
//repeat WarGames reference mentioned already
 
2013-06-28 06:19:33 PM
How did these ever get ruled unconstitutional?

I propose a new test though.

Do you regularly post to Facebook, Twitter or the Politics tab on Fark?

If you answer no, you can vote.
 
2013-06-28 06:21:23 PM
Literacy test?

I was told there'd be no math.
 
2013-06-28 06:21:39 PM

jehovahs witness protection: Trayvon's girlfriend damn sure wouldn't be allowed to vote.


Relevance? Or do you just take any opportunity you can to take a swipe at people you think are beneath you?
 
2013-06-28 06:21:47 PM

patentguy: netweavr: The "single wrong answer" criteria would probably have gotten a lot of people who just brain-farted on something.

You're starting to understand.  The person grading might miss an error by a white voter while making sure to find any technical error by a black voter.  It's not the test, it's the grader.


It's not just that, it's who takes the test.  In this situation, if you could prove you had a fifth grade education you didn't have to take it.  They probably found a way to make black schools not count or something like that.
 
2013-06-28 06:22:10 PM
Also I still don't get number 1 for sure and I sure do love 21 that is completely unnatural to write.

I also ran our of time with 4 questions left. This was like taking the "idiot test" in grade school.
 
2013-06-28 06:22:16 PM

NutWrench: 1. Draw a line around the number or letter of this sentence.

I assume this one is supposed to make you run out the clock, while you scratch your head, saying WTF.


Obviously, you're not from Louisiana. Neither am I, but I worked in Baton Rouge for a time.
This question makes perfect sense; it just needs to be translated. Google doesn't have a Bayou to English translator yet, but that shouldn't stop you. Stuff 8-10 marbles in your mouth, and then read the sentence aloud. "wawawineawouhahumbaoweddauhisentens."
As anyone who's ever spent time in Baton Rouge can tell you, that means, "circle the number 1 that's next to this sentence.
 
2013-06-28 06:23:10 PM

Johnson: How does one "1.  draw a line around the number or letter of this sentence" when they ask you to "circle" something later on?  (examples #4 and #5 are good...)

If you circle the "1." you fail because you did not follow the directions, you drew a circle, not a line.
If you draw a line THROUGH it you fail because you were supposed to draw that line AROUND it.
If you draw a square around it, you fail because you drew a square, not a line.

/no voting for you no matter what you put down.
//repeat WarGames reference mentioned already


I consider myself rather intelligent but it was shiat like that which totally threw me off on this test.  There is NO WAY I could ever pass it.  Half of the questions do not even make sense!
How in the world could one draw a LINE AROUND something?  A LINE??  Unpossible!
 
2013-06-28 06:25:45 PM

Johnson: How does one "1.  draw a line around the number or letter of this sentence" when they ask you to "circle" something later on?  (examples #4 and #5 are good...)

If you circle the "1." you fail because you did not follow the directions, you drew a circle, not a line.
If you draw a line THROUGH it you fail because you were supposed to draw that line AROUND it.
If you draw a square around it, you fail because you drew a square, not a line.

/no voting for you no matter what you put down.
//repeat WarGames reference mentioned already


This is the answer to your question
FTA

The (white) registrar would be the ultimate judge of whether an answer was correct.

My guess is that he would determine if circling something that called for you to draw a line around it was correct. And as somebody already said in response to my above post regarding the question, the registrar would determine that whatever the prospective voter didn't dowas the correct response.  Which I probably believe was more than likely the case.
 
2013-06-28 06:27:04 PM

Anderson's Pooper: My proposed test for the 2012 Presidential Election

1.  Are you planning on voting for Romney because Obama is black?

2.  Are you planning to vote for Obama because he will give you a phone?

If you answer "Yes" to either of the above you shouldn't be allowed to vote.


1. No, I voted for Obama because Romney's a damn fool.

2. I didn't need a free phone from the government because I wanted a cooler one for myself, so I bought my own.

Now, a question for you: Do you think that sucking up to your rich Republican overlords will get you a blowjob from them?
 
2013-06-28 06:28:46 PM

video man: ZAZ: Some of those seemed like a written version of a sobriety test, not a literacy test.

"Say the alphabet backwards."

"Z... A... Officer, I can't do this sober."

I've memorized the ZYX's. I can rattle them off with a BAC in excess of .10


ORLY?
 
2013-06-28 06:29:02 PM

semiotix: I'm a little annoyed with this particular post, history under Rebecca Onion being one of the very few things  Slate has done competently lately. And, in fact, until now, it's been GREAT.

But the  Slate post links to a page on the Civil Rights Movement Veteran webpage which contains  this page which in turn contains two links. One, marked "circa 1964?" is the one shown in the article. Here's what it looks like:

[s18.postimg.org image 488x365]

The other link is marked "circa 1963" (note, no "?") and looks like this:

[s22.postimg.org image 386x359]

Notice how one looks like it was typed or printed in 1963, and the other looks like it came off a mid-1990s word processor?

Now, literacy tests existed. Tests about the Constitution, etc., existed. And they were used in exactly the way you'd think--there's no controversy about that whatsoever. But it's entirely possible that the thing shown in this  Slate article isn't even a transcription of a real document--it smells a bit wrong, and (argument from authority alert) I'm a twentieth-century American historian. It's almost too cute, and the white registrar turning black voters away from the polls in 1964 Louisiana didn't need to be cute.

So, this is dangerous--because if this one fishy document gets debunked, all of a sudden the AM radio dial is going to light up with people talking about how  blacks never had any trouble voting AT ALL, and the VRA was just those damn liberals trying to mess with honest folks' constitutional rights, etc. etc.


The one from 1963 appears to be typed on an IBM Selectric typewriter with the Italics ball.
 
2013-06-28 06:29:36 PM

gweilo8888: Not saying it proves it to be real, but two seconds on Google finds the exact same document in print as a real test in "Gateways to Democracy: An Introduction to American Government , 2nd ed.", published byCengage Learning:

http://bit.ly/13cPgmN

That makes it a bit more believable than a random blog.


I'm prepared to believe it is real (or rather an accurate transcription of something real). Just because something is unbelievably weird/stupid/evil doesn't mean some historical actor wasn't doing it,  especially when it comes to this kind of thing. It still worries me that nobody has the original online, or (in the page or two of Google results I looked at) has an obvious citation to a primary source. But in any event it's minor historical malpractice to put something like that up without a comment on its authenticity.

Part of the issue here is that a lot of those relics of "massive resistance" ended up getting flushed right down the memory hole when the VRA passed, precisely because everyone concerned knew how they'd look. There are a lot more living memories of literacy or civics tests than there are surviving tests, which is the kind of "anomaly" that ______-deniers of any stripe love to scream about. ("There's not a single purchase order for Zyklon-B in this whole Nazi file cabinet! Your 'Holocaust' is invalid!")

So it looks like they made a choice between highlighting the more boring but totally legit one (a non-tricksy civics test that was simply impossible to pass unless you were literate and the right color) and the flashier but potentially dubious one.
 
2013-06-28 06:30:54 PM

Krieghund: thamike: Oh, good.  Another one for the collection.
[i915.photobucket.com image 850x394]
[i915.photobucket.com image 850x186]
[i915.photobucket.com image 850x390]
[i915.photobucket.com image 850x543]
[i915.photobucket.com image 850x390]

Seriously, get a life.

If you don't like a poster, ignore them or flag them as a troll. If you're planning on reposting every instance of JWP saying something idiotic, you'll be here all day.


Or, just go for the shorter route...  Only repost the things from JWP that aren't idiotic.

Saves quite a lot of time.
 
2013-06-28 06:31:49 PM
JAGChem82:

Now, a question for you: Do you think that sucking up to your rich Republican overlords will get you a blowjob from them?

69?
 
2013-06-28 06:31:57 PM
20. Spell backwards, forwards.

Wtf is that asking for? I'm guessing it's either "backwards" or "sdrawrof", but I'm just not sure. It could also be "backwards, forwards".
 
2013-06-28 06:31:59 PM
Score of 100 gets you arrested on vagrancy and leased into peonage before the election.
 
2013-06-28 06:32:08 PM

Archimedes' Principal: Question #30: What is this I don't even.


#31. Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
 
2013-06-28 06:32:33 PM
Which answer is #20 even looking for? I'm guessing "backwards," but given the rest of the test's awkward grammar and wording, along with English's fluid word order, I don't  think I can rule out "sdrawrof"
 
2013-06-28 06:33:09 PM

Dman33: Johnson: How does one "1.  draw a line around the number or letter of this sentence" when they ask you to "circle" something later on?  (examples #4 and #5 are good...)

If you circle the "1." you fail because you did not follow the directions, you drew a circle, not a line.
If you draw a line THROUGH it you fail because you were supposed to draw that line AROUND it.
If you draw a square around it, you fail because you drew a square, not a line.

/no voting for you no matter what you put down.
//repeat WarGames reference mentioned already

I consider myself rather intelligent but it was shiat like that which totally threw me off on this test.  There is NO WAY I could ever pass it.  Half of the questions do not even make sense!
How in the world could one draw a LINE AROUND something?  A LINE??  Unpossible!


You could draw a line on a manifold m, then embed the manifold in a manifold n of one higher dimension, and claim points of n on lines through n connecting distinct points on the image of the curve on m have a line drawn around them. It's what I would do.
 
2013-06-28 06:33:21 PM
...to say nothing of how precise any circles you drew had to be...

/Sorry! That's ovoid! No vote for you!
 
2013-06-28 06:33:43 PM
mithras_angel:

Or, just go for the shorter route...  Only repost the things from JWP that aren't idiotic.

Saves quite a lot of time.


Or just do like I did a long time ago and make him one of 3 troll assholes on permanent ignore.... So I don't have to see you idiots blathering about him all farking day long.
 
2013-06-28 06:34:03 PM
No way you can do this in 10 minutes! 24 would take me a minute alone to think up words that look the same back and forth! RACECAR would probably disqualify me since it could be interpreted as two words.
 
2013-06-28 06:35:37 PM
What's sad (or amusing, depending on how you feel about the efficacy of voting) is that most people don't bother voting in most elections anyway. Voter turnout for the 2012 primaries in most states was under 20% (per elections.gmu.edu). A few states (Montana, New Hampshire, N. Carolina) got a whopping 31% turnout and those were the highest turnout rates.

Turnout for other elections (statewide and local elections) is even more pathetic. People who hold public offices in most states are determined by, at best, 10% of the eligible voters. Guess who that 10% tends to be?

So we don't really need literacy tests and laws requiring picture ID to depress non-white voting. Non-whites (and many white people who aren't elderly and/or Jesusy) are taking themselves out of the process already. And then they biatch about old white people ruining it for the rest of us with stupid voting laws. The laws are stupid, but since most of them don't seem to be too interested in voting anyway, I have to wonder why the fark (other than self-interest) I should care if requirements become too "onerous" for them. They don't vote now.
 
2013-06-28 06:39:13 PM

leonel: No way you can do this in 10 minutes! 24 would take me a minute alone to think up words that look the same back and forth! RACECAR would probably disqualify me since it could be interpreted as two words.


I think it's incorrect even if it were one word.  They're probably looking for stuff like MOM or TIT.  Pretty sure you can only use A, H, I, M, O, T, U, V, or W, the vertically symmetric letters, and it also has to be a palindrome.
 
2013-06-28 06:41:43 PM
I actually think a test before being able to vote would be a great thing; but it shouldn't be designed to test someone's reading comprehension...it should be about the most basic issues that are relevant for whatever election is happening.  If you can't correctly identify 3/5 political stances of the person you are voting for....should you really be voting?

I firmly believe this push we have for 'everyone' to vote is the worst possible thing you could do.  It's not about race or education - I have a master's degree - but I don't follow politics.  I haven't studied political science or economics or law or anything else that might be important for our elected officials.  Oh sure - I want 'more jobs' and 'less taxes' and 'more freedom' and 'lower crime' - but so does everyone else.  Not only do I not have any idea on *how* to get those things, I don't follow politics enough to even summarize the issues, much less how different politicians stand on them.

I have no business voting.  So I don't.

But I have so many friends who are as clueless (or more so) - who don't just vote; but strongly identify with a political group and encourage others to vote.  Most often, you can identify someone like this from their Facebook wall.

Oh well - it'll never happen.
 
2013-06-28 06:41:48 PM

bwilson27: mithras_angel:

Or, just go for the shorter route...  Only repost the things from JWP that aren't idiotic.

Saves quite a lot of time.

Or just do like I did a long time ago and make him one of 3 troll assholes on permanent ignore.... So I don't have to see you idiots blathering about him all farking day long.


I've only got one person on full ignore; I use a multi-stage process, where I flag them, and they get greater and greater shades of red.  Once they're past the last red, is when they go on full ignore.

Curiously enough, Tats has gotten down to pink levels lately.
 
2013-06-28 06:42:25 PM
Smelly Pirate Hooker:

So we don't really need literacy tests and laws requiring picture ID to depress non-white voting.

If you lack the life skills to acquire a photo ID, we're all better off without your vote.
 
2013-06-28 06:43:15 PM
Dman33:  How in the world could one draw a LINE AROUND something?  A LINE??  Unpossible!

It is quite simple:
Put your pencil point down at any spot around the selected object.
While applying light pressure, draw a line AROUND the object.
Lift pencil.

Apparently this is something that white folk can do easily.
Anyone else would draw a circle and be disqualified from voting.
 
2013-06-28 06:44:19 PM

JAGChem82: Anderson's Pooper: My proposed test for the 2012 Presidential Election

1.  Are you planning on voting for Romney because Obama is black?

2.  Are you planning to vote for Obama because he will give you a phone?

If you answer "Yes" to either of the above you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

1. No, I voted for Obama because Romney's a damn fool.

2. I didn't need a free phone from the government because I wanted a cooler one for myself, so I bought my own.

Now, a question for you: Do you think that sucking up to your rich Republican overlords will get you a blowjob from them?


Read #1 again.  If you answer "Yes" you are a racist twit who shouldn't be voting.  The test is designed to eliminate single issue numbskulls who don't think past 1.  Don't vote for the black guy and 2. Vote only for the guy who will give you the most stuff.

As for the blowjob, I'll take 'em where I can get 'em.
 
KIA
2013-06-28 06:48:50 PM
Maybe it is politicians who should be required to take such a test in public with their scores published before they are allowed to vote on a measure?
 
2013-06-28 06:52:02 PM
You realize only geniuses and Schrödinger's cat voted in mid 60s Louisiana.
 
2013-06-28 06:54:16 PM

Smelly Pirate Hooker: Voter turnout for the 2012 primaries in most states was under 20% (per elections.gmu.edu)


In a number of states you're not allowed to vote in a primary unless you're registered with that party.
 
2013-06-28 06:54:27 PM

100 Watt Walrus: jehovahs witness protection: Trayvon's girlfriend damn sure wouldn't be allowed to vote.

Relevance? Or do you just take any opportunity you can to take a swipe at people you think are beneath you?


That seems to be pretty much everyone
 
2013-06-28 06:55:18 PM

semiotix: So, this is dangerous--because if this one fishy document gets debunked,


Here's a link to Alabama's test in 1965 as part of a civics education program.  Whether the test FTFA is accurate or not it's pretty obvious that these tests were used as a barrier to voting rights, not to protect voting legitimacy.

Warning: .pdf link  http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/lessonplans/us/july-dec08/ a labamatest.pdf

/if I were a teacher my class would be doing this project
 
2013-06-28 07:02:28 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: I actually think a test before being able to vote would be a great thing; but it shouldn't be designed to test someone's reading comprehension...it should be about the most basic issues that are relevant for whatever election is happening.  If you can't correctly identify 3/5 political stances of the person you are voting for....should you really be voting?

I firmly believe this push we have for 'everyone' to vote is the worst possible thing you could do.  It's not about race or education - I have a master's degree - but I don't follow politics.  I haven't studied political science or economics or law or anything else that might be important for our elected officials.  Oh sure - I want 'more jobs' and 'less taxes' and 'more freedom' and 'lower crime' - but so does everyone else.  Not only do I not have any idea on *how* to get those things, I don't follow politics enough to even summarize the issues, much less how different politicians stand on them.

I have no business voting.  So I don't.

But I have so many friends who are as clueless (or more so) - who don't just vote; but strongly identify with a political group and encourage others to vote.  Most often, you can identify someone like this from their Facebook wall.

Oh well - it'll never happen.


/sees what you did there
 
2013-06-28 07:04:33 PM
Johnson: It is quite simple:
Put your pencil point down at any spot around the selected object.
While applying light pressure, draw a line AROUND the object.
Lift pencil.


A line is a straight one dimensional figure with no width that extends to infinity. From a geometrical standpoint, it is technically impossible.

You can't draw a line around something because a line has no curvature (unless you're warping the fabric of space).

// I mean, if you really want to get technical, you can't even draw a line (only the representation of one) since a line extends to infinity.

// If you want to get pedantic, you can draw a line segment (which a layman will generally call a "line").
 
2013-06-28 07:05:40 PM

semiotix: I'm a little annoyed with this particular post, history under Rebecca Onion being one of the very few things  Slate has done competently lately. And, in fact, until now, it's been GREAT.

But the  Slate post links to a page on the Civil Rights Movement Veteran webpage which contains  this page which in turn contains two links. One, marked "circa 1964?" is the one shown in the article. Here's what it looks like:

[s18.postimg.org image 488x365]

The other link is marked "circa 1963" (note, no "?") and looks like this:

[s22.postimg.org image 386x359]

Notice how one looks like it was typed or printed in 1963, and the other looks like it came off a mid-1990s word processor?

Now, literacy tests existed. Tests about the Constitution, etc., existed. And they were used in exactly the way you'd think--there's no controversy about that whatsoever. But it's entirely possible that the thing shown in this  Slate article isn't even a transcription of a real document--it smells a bit wrong, and (argument from authority alert) I'm a twentieth-century American historian. It's almost too cute, and the white registrar turning black voters away from the polls in 1964 Louisiana didn't need to be cute.

So, this is dangerous--because if this one fishy document gets debunked, all of a sudden the AM radio dial is going to light up with people talking about how  blacks never had any trouble voting AT ALL, and the VRA was just those damn liberals trying to mess with honest folks' constitutional rights, etc. etc.


Variable-width font plus hand drawn circles does make it seem to be a fraud. The font says a professional typesetter would have been used to get the variable width. The hand drawn circles and the random spots suggest a mimeograph was used. Both at the same time? Unlikely.
 
2013-06-28 07:07:06 PM

Johnson: How does one "1.  draw a line around the number or letter of this sentence" when they ask you to "circle" something later on?  (examples #4 and #5 are good...)

If you circle the "1." you fail because you did not follow the directions, you drew a circle, not a line.
If you draw a line THROUGH it you fail because you were supposed to draw that line AROUND it.
If you draw a square around it, you fail because you drew a square, not a line.

/no voting for you no matter what you put down.
//repeat WarGames reference mentioned already


Plus you'd fail anyways. The 1 isn't in the sentence. The only "number or letter" as I see it is the a.
 
2013-06-28 07:12:53 PM

gfid: Smelly Pirate Hooker: Voter turnout for the 2012 primaries in most states was under 20% (per elections.gmu.edu)

In a number of states you're not allowed to vote in a primary unless you're registered with that party.


Which states? In Texas, I (a registered Independent; go ahead and make your jokes) can choose which primary to vote in.

I used the primary figures because using the actual 2012 presidential election figures are deceptive: presidential elections always have higher turnouts. But those turnouts aren't typical. I used what I could find fairly quickly.

You can make excuses for people, but it seems that most of them care enough about their voting rights to biatch about attempts to fark with them, but they not enough to do the thing that actually makes a difference: voting. In every election. Including the boring-ass school board, city council, mayoral elections. The ones in which Obama isn't running.

I voted in a municipal runoff election a couple weeks ago. I guarantee you, I was one of the very few. And I live in a city of about 130,000 people. With various voting locations. In a state that allows early voting (for now, but who knows how that may change, after the Republicans get done making sure the dirty whores pay for having sex outside of marriage).

Being a Democratic-leaning voter in a Republican-controlled state sucks. And the people I blame for it being Republican-controlled are not the Republicans.
 
2013-06-28 07:15:17 PM
So much nicer not registering to vote. I never have to worry about things I can't change anyway.
 
2013-06-28 07:16:07 PM
i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-06-28 07:16:42 PM

NotoriousW.O.P: Yes. Then again, I'm white.


Do you own property?
 
2013-06-28 07:17:20 PM
Question 21 is ambiguous - does "upside down" in this context mean "flipped vertical" or "rotated 180 degrees"?

Actually, due to random use of quotation marks, many of these are ambiguous.

For instance, a valid response for question 20 is: "B,A,C,K,W,A,R,D,S, comma, F,O,R,W,A,R,D,S"

And another possible answer to 21 could be "the word vote upside down, but in the correct order"
 
2013-06-28 07:19:03 PM
100% designed to Dq the majority black voters at the time plain and simple.
 
2013-06-28 07:20:40 PM

lordargent: Johnson: It is quite simple:
Put your pencil point down at any spot around the selected object.
While applying light pressure, draw a line AROUND the object.
Lift pencil.

A line is a straight one dimensional figure with no width that extends to infinity. From a geometrical standpoint, it is technically impossible.You can't draw a line around something because a line has no curvature (unless you're warping the fabric of space). // I mean, if you really want to get technical, you can't even draw a line (only the representation of one) since a line extends to infinity.// If you want to get pedantic, you can draw a line segment (which a layman will generally call a "line").


sounds uppity to me
no voting for you!
 
2013-06-28 07:21:40 PM

detroitdoesntsuckthatbad: So much nicer not registering to vote. I never have to worry about things I can't change anyway.


I'm pretty sure that's the GOP motto.
 
2013-06-28 07:22:26 PM
OK, think I just found the results for the recent runoff election in my city. One city council seat was decided by a little over 3600 people. Where I voted (they broke it down by voting location), I was one of 72 voters. No wonder the old people manning the polls looked so bored.
 
2013-06-28 07:22:30 PM
I wonder if voting cards had the party affiliation next to the candidates back then, like they do now, so people wouldn't have to remember all those pesky names when they go to vote...
 
2013-06-28 07:26:19 PM
And if that test were made a part if a new "anti-voter fraud" law passed in a red state today, there would be legions of people rushing to post "what's so hard  about passing a test to vote? I had to pass a test to pass 4th grade/get a driver's license, etc "
 
Displayed 50 of 226 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report