Let me preface this by saying the following is an excruciatingly long rant of near mythic proportions. Sorry. I haven’t gotten to sit down and rant about something when I felt like it in a long time. It wasn’t my intention to stay up all night ranting, but I did. What follows is the result of my somewhat sleepy efforts. I’m not going to proofread it, so I do apologize if I come off sounding like an insane person. I’ve put most of it behind the cut to save everyone’s scroll bars.

I read a post at Newsvine tonight entitled I want to take away your right to vote!. I’m not going to argue the illiteracy rates in the United States right now, because it’s almost 3 am, and I am too tired to look up statistics … and I still have ironing to finish. What I’d like to refute is the idea that anyone who doesn’t have a college level of literacy is incapable of understanding the issues presented to them as voters by political candidates and their government.

The post begins by suggesting that voters be required to take a test to determine whether or not they understand the issues, and presumably candidates, they are voting on. If they don’t pass the test, they can’t vote. There are so many reasons why that is such a bad idea, I am not going into them either. Do I have to? I’m sure most of us can come up with at least one or two reasons why testing people before allowing them to vote is a bad idea. The first one that pops into my brain is the fact it would be denying some people their constitutional right to vote. Call me silly, but that’s enough of an excuse to me. Do I think some people make unwise decisions while voting, possibly because they don’t fully understand the issues and candidates they are voting on? Yes, and some of them are college educated. Do I think testing people for ANYTHING AT ALL before allowing them to vote is a good idea to stop people who pick candidates by their favorite sports team, because they either don’t understand or don’t care about the issues or candidates? Hell no! Everyone gets a voice no matter what they want to say with it or how they want to use it.

Now that I haven’t ranted too much about the things I didn’t want to get into tonight, let’s get into the heart of this post: Can people who function at a literacy level lower than that of a college student understand the political issues of our times and be an informed voter? I believe they can, and I believe they can do so at a much lower literacy level than the poster at Newsvine believes they can. I intend to demonstrate this point using books recommended for various school years to show that having a lower literacy level isn’t actually as horrifying as it sounds to someone coming at it from a snobbish and elitist viewpoint. It’ll be fun! I promise!

After starting the Newsvine post with a pronouncement that people should be tested for comprehension of issues before being allowed to vote, they go on to list a variety of statistic concerning literacy rates in the USA. It’s those statistics I want to look at and really delve into … or rather, I want to show what it means to have a sixth grade level of literacy. Before I do that though, I would like to post a quote from further on in the Newsvine post to give you some idea of the perspective from which the writer is looking at them.

It boggles the mind to think that apparently only 3.5% of the populace can possibly understand what they’re even voting on…

Well, it boggles my mind to think that someone believes only people reading, writing and comprehending on a college level are capable of making informed decisions in the voting booth! Sounds to me like so much elitist snobbery. People are quite capable of being able to function in society and make rational and intelligent decisions without having a college education, just as people with a college education are quite capable of not doing so. Reading level is not necessarily a good indicator of intelligence or ability to comprehend current events and issues. To look down your nose at 96.5% of the population of America and declare them unfit to vote is, I think, the very definition of conceit.

Now on to statistics, reading levels and voting:

“Forty-two million Americans over the age of sixteen can’t read.”

This is a sad statistic, and I do wish we could some day achieve a 100% literacy rate with everyone reading and writing on at least some level. I have known a number of people in my life who couldn’t read. It isn’t an adequate sample size to draw any firm conclusions, but I am going to make a generalization anyway. Many of the people who are completely illiterate are also devastatingly poor, and they tend to have so many other problems of their own to deal with that voting isn’t exactly a top priority … survival is. Like I said, not a scientific study by any means, just personal observation. It actually doesn’t matter as much as you might think and hope who the president is if you can’t keep food on the table and a roof over your family’s head. Also, those who are totally illiterate and interested in voting can inform themselves of issues and candidates by watching TV, listening to the radio, or discussing it with family and friends. Not being able to read and write doesn’t mean you are stupid or mentally challenged. It just means you can’t read and write, a skill that isn’t innate and must be learned. I’ve know a few illiterate people who were very bright, interested and informed on current events and issues. How many people who ARE literate inform themselves of issues and candidates with the aforementioned methods? I’d imagine the number is pretty high among the middle class. Some of them are even college educated.

Fifty million can recognize printed words on a fourth- and fifth-grade level.

What are fourth and fifth grade students reading? A good example of a book that appears on many reading lists is The Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Franke. Have you read it? It isn’t exactly a light-hearted tale lacking in deep concepts, nor is it devoid of issues requiring some deeper thought to understand. It’s a rather heavy and dark story of one young girl’s life during a heavy and dark bit of history. I would feel comfortable with anyone capable of reading this book to be as informed as they want to be before voting. Just because someone reads and writes at this level doesn’t mean they haven’t gained an intelligence level above that of your average pre-teen, and it’s arrogant to assume they are no smarter or better informed about life and the world around them than a middle school kid.

Fifty-five to sixty million are limited to sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade reading.

Here are a few books often found on reading lists for those in sixth, seventh, and eighth grade: Watership Down by Richard Adams, 20,000 Leagues Beneath the Sea by Jules Verne, Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert L. Stevenson, and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain. Is anyone here really going to argue with me that someone capable of reading these books isn’t capable of making an informed decision in the voting booth? I hope not. Should I remind everyone that newspapers have long been written at this reading level or slightly lower so the majority of people can understand them? Once again, let’s not equate literacy level with intelligence level. Anyone capable of reading and understanding Watership Down is more than able to understand the issues and candidate standings before voting and functioning as an informed citizen.

Thirty million have ninth- and tenth-grade reading proficiency.

This is where I think it gets downright ridiculous. Someone with a ninth or tenth grade reading proficiency would be capable of reading books like Animal Farm by George Orwell, A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens, Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, and Hamlet by William Shakespeare. People capable of reading those books and reading at that level are more than fully capable to be completely functioning members of society and as equally informed as their more literate college-educated neighbors. If we tested everyone in the USA, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find CEO’s of a few major corporations who read at this level … or congressmen … or maybe even a president or two. Remember, reading level is not equivalent to intelligence level. A human adult can read at a high school level and still be highly intelligent and able to put that intelligence to work.

So far we have covered 182 million of the 300 million people living in the USA. According to the statistics presented in the Newsvine post, some 60% of Americans read at a tenth grade or lower level. Sounds shocking when you say it without considering what those levels mean, which is what I have tried to do by presenting book titles that are commonly read in schools at various levels. Then, to me at least, it doesn’t seem to be so horrifying at all. Approximately half of that 60% are functionally literate to a point they can be active and fully informed members of society, and those in lower literacy brackets can also be informed on current topics and issues through other means, even if those means are viewed as inadequate by other persons.

So who does the post’s writer think should have the right to vote? Apparently the 3.5% of the population whose literacy level would allow them to complete college level work. That is going to end up being a rather small number … something in the realm of ten million or less voting aged adults. That almost sounds like a ruling class. Should ten million people be making decisions for all 300 million of us? I’d say no way, especially if they believe they are the only ones “capable” of making informed and “correct” decisions due to some misplaced sense of snobbery based on reading levels. I shudder to think what sort of world a group like that would set about creating. I imagine it would be a world in which people would have to pass tests before being able to exercise their most basic rights, and what a fun place that would be to live in … don’t you think?

Its complicated [testing for voter comprehension] and will be fraught with legal discrimination battles to defend the rights of morons to make uninformed decisions, and accusations of elitist pandering.

We don’t even have to bring such an idea to fruition. I’ll save anyone who feels it’s a good idea the wait for the legal battles and accusations. Every citizen of this country who is of legal voting age gets to vote. Also, this idea is ABSOLUTELY a prime example of elitist pandering and “we know what’s best for you” thinking. Everyone gets to vote. Period. It doesn’t matter if they cast their vote from an informed position or whether they do so because the candidate has blue eyes like their grandfather. They all get to cast a vote. To deny anyone who wishes to the opportunity to vote for any reason whatsoever by testing them, taxing them, or in some other way hindering them is to take an enormous shit on the constitution of this nation, and hasn’t it been shit on enough lately?

Besides, who is to say that 3.5% are going to walk into the voting booth and make some sort of wise decision about who and what to vote for just because they understand who and what is being voted on and can pass a test on the subject? They could still vote for someone due to those blue eyes, or because they approve of the candidate’s favorite baseball team, or vote against a proposition because Great Aunt Nancy doesn’t like it. Wisdom and the ability to make wise decisions are not quite that intrinsically entwined with intelligence or literacy levels. Smart people make stupid decisions too, and from what I can tell from that writer’s post at Newsvine (as well as many of the following comments), one of the stupid decisions being made over there is that they are, in fact, a part of the 3.5% and that they know what’s best for everyone. Methinks someone needs to learn a little humility … and they need to consider exactly what can be read and understood by people at differing literacy levels. Otherwise, they just come off looking like educated snobs sitting around wringing their hands and crying “we be running things so much better if it weren’t for all the stupid people!” Yeah, well, stupid comes in all shapes and sizes, and a college education with college level literacy isn’t always a good indicator of whether or not someone is as dense as a stone. Personally, as one of the people who would pass this proposed voting test, thus earning my right to vote, I don’t want that much responsibility. When you set up a ruling class, sure they can do things any way they want to, but when it goes wrong, whose head will be on the chopping block? I’m guessing the 3.5% who thought they knew best.

Simply put, after I have gone on at length (and boy did I), to remove the right of any American to vote as they see fit and decide for themselves what reasons they will vote the way they do is to destroy the very fabric of our democracy. Anyone who feels otherwise should pack up their bags and move to a country where only the elite have a say in how things are run, because I will do whatever it takes to make certain this country doesn’t go that route. I certainly hope others are with me on this.

Thus ends this rant. Two and a half hours of thinking and typing. Didn’t mean to take that long and stay up all night, but I did. Oh well. I feel better now that I got that off my chest. I do have two small nit-picky things to mention that really have nothing to do with the subject presented in the post I just responded to but annoyed me. I might as well get them off my chest as well.

A majority of this group [6th, 7th, and 8th grade reading level] could not figure out the price per ounce of peanut butter in a 20-ounce jar costing $1.99 when told they could round the answer off to a whole number.

That’s a math question. It has nothing at all to do with reading ability. Using a math problem to demonstrate an ability to read and comprehend current events and issues is like using a biology question to determine sexual compatibility. I don’t see the correlation.

Also, in the last quote just above there’s a missing apostrophe. “Its” and “it’s” apparently foils even the members of the 3.6% who are worthy of voting. I know that is really nit-picky, but when someone sets themselves up as some kind of intelligent and wise person who should be allowed to make decisions for others due to their high level of intelligence, I usually demand exacting perfection. Funny how seldom I find it in people who put themselves on such high pedestals.

Now I have to go do my morning routine with giant black bags under my eyes and hope I have the energy to get done all the things I need to get done today. But at least I finally sat down and ranted about something at the very moment I felt like doing so. I’m finding it difficult if not impossible to go back to my rants sitting in draft mode and finish them. When the mood passes, it passes. Best to strike while the iron is hot, even if that means missing out on sleep.

One last thought: Stating that 96.5% of American adults are not capable of making informed voting decisions is exactly like all the other fear, uncertainty and doubt spouted at Americans every day about every possible thing that could screw up their lives … like terrorist attacks or meteor strikes. Just as everyone who can put food on the table, a roof over their family’s head, and a new car in the garage thinks they are upper-middle class or rich, everyone who reads a statistic like that will think they are a part of the 3.5%. So who was this poster trying to scare? I’m an educated and informed voter who decided who and what to vote for and against through careful and lengthy deliberations, and it didn’t scare me. I have to guess the writer of the post wanted to scare those of the 96.5% who believe they are a part of the smaller group who would be able to earn their right to vote. Doesn’t that sound like the same old political propaganda? “Vote for us, because you are one of us, and we know best!” Until after the election when suddenly, “you” aren’t one of “us” anymore, but we still know best. At least that’s the way it sounds to me.