WILL T STICK HIS HEAD INTO COOKER AND ADD MORE GREASE ???
More likely someone will take the opportunity to assassinate him, or at least take him out of the running: “Oops, there was some oil spilt on the ground and he slipped and fell face first into deep fryer. There was nothing anybody could have done.”
Also, what a worthlessly partisan podcast. The first half at least, I don’t need to hear any more of this drivel. Glenn “election fraudster” Youngkin a “strong candidate”, really?
This is exclusively peddling RCV to totalitarians. Though coming from an anti-libertarian think thank, I guess that shouldn’t be too surprising. But it doesn’t address any of the advantages RCV has. To normal-thinking people this does nothing but serve to smear RCV and give it a bad reputation.
It deserves one.
RCV elects communists.
Relative to exhaustive run-off voting, yes. But relative to first-past-the-post voting, certainly not. And relative to approval voting, maybe and maybe not. In any case, RCV does not deserve a bad reputation in an absolute sense.
“RCV elects communists.”
This is the same bollocks as “guns kill people”.
No, people kill people using guns. But guess what, they also do so using knives.
And people elect communists using RCV, but they also do so using any other method. And they do so more easily using FPTP.
They are more apt to elect communists using Rcv because it makes voting and vote counting more complicated,which makes fraud easier, so it’s worse than the normal voting we have now, which is already bad enough. Standing count would make things better. Rcv (rotten commie voting) would make things worse. Oh yeah it also makes it easier for manipulators to manipulate people who don’t understand bullet voting games.
You have it backwards.
RCV does not make voting more complicated. And in so far as it makes counting more complicated, it also makes fraud more complicated.
FPTP meanwhile, is inherently more communistic, exactly because it makes all votes into bullet votes. Not being able to express a second choice nor to vote against a candidate, makes it far easier for a broadly unpopular candidate to win the election.
Standing count is a violation of the right to keep ones vote private, which puts people in danger. In addition, it disenfranchises voters who would then have to travel long distances at great personal expense in terms of both time, energy and money, in order to vote.
And that’s all assuming SCS’s optimistic scenario where the term isn’t being used to refer to a voice vote or a visual head count, as at the Libertarian National Convention, without any actual counting or verification of the voters.
Much more important than the voting method, is the electoral system. Even if we stupidly continue to use communist first-past-the-post method, we could significantly improve things nonetheless, simply by getting rid of the communist winner-takes-all system
I’m not opposed to RCV, but I think more folks understand runoffs, so I think that that has a better chance of being accepted. The main probable with a run-off is that it requires a second election, with additional costs.
Also, approval voting is probably easier for people to understand, and doesn’t require a runoff. Some folks complain that partisans will almost always bullet vote with approval voting. IMO, that’s not necessarily bad; it’s a valid strategy for those with a strong preference. So, it cam be considered a form of hidden score voting; the voter with strong preferences will cast fewer approval votes than a voter who is more indifferent. This already happens to some extent with multi-member at-large elections under plurality voting.
“The main probable with a run-off is that it requires a second election, with additional costs.”
Two-round run-offs are an improvement over FPTP, but are still far less fair than exhaustive run-offs (i.e. each round of the election, the candidate with the fewest votes gets eliminated until a candidate gets 50%+1) which will (on average) have more rounds and thus be more expensive.
“Also, approval voting is probably easier for people to understand, and doesn’t require a runoff.”
RCV also doesn’t require a run-off (hence the somewhat misleading name “instant run-off voting”), and ranking preferences is so simple that many species of animal can learn to do it.
“Some folks complain that partisans will almost always bullet vote with approval voting. IMO, that’s not necessarily bad; it’s a valid strategy for those with a strong preference.”
Indeed. But again, this can also hold true with RCV when it is done correctly: you shouldn’t need to fill out every rank, only giving your favorite candidate the highest rank (and perhaps your least favorite the lowest) should suffice as a valid vote.
There’s no reason why standing voting can not be done with ballot voting. Those who want to make a standing vote would be free to do so; while those who want a ballot could do that as well. At the end of the day, the standing votes could be combined with the ballot votes.
Let people vote the way they prefer. Different strokes for different folks.
One advantage of standing vote over ballot vote is that it doesn’t require a voter to be able to read. You will note that when the 15th Amendment was passed, most freedman couldn’t read. That’s why it didn’t require ballots.
“ranking preferences is so simple that many species of animal can learn to do it.”
Should we allow dogs and horses to vote? Which reminds me, since cats have become an issue in this election, can cats actually count?
Richard Winger has openly said all votes should be counted, even from cats.
Standing ranked choice voting would be ideal for dogs and horses. They don’t need ballots; they just tap their preferences.
If the Haitians eat the dogs and cats can they still vote?
The dogs and cats or the Haitian illegal invaders who eat them?
“Should we allow dogs and horses to vote?”
Probably not. Too much risk of someone telling them how to vote. But then again, we allow humans with the same level of intelligence to vote despite that, so who knows.
“can cats actually count?”
Jury’s still out on that, I think. But I wouldn’t be at all surprised, given that elephants, horses, cows, many apes and monkeys and various types of birds can.
RCV/IRV ignores most of the data in a Place Votes Table.
The *Middle* is divided – as usual.
34 A-M-Z
33 Z-M-A
16 M-A-Z
16 M-Z-A
99
With RCV/IRV, M loses. A beats Z 50-49.
A = Stalin, M = Washington, Z = Hitler
—————
Place Votes Table
— 1 — 2 — 3 — T
A 34 – 16 – 49 – 99
Z 33 – 16 – 50 – 99
M 32 – 67 – 0 – 99
T 99 – 99 – 99
i.e. RCV/IRV will cause even more extremist winners due to rigged majority *mandate* stuff.
M has a mere 99 of 99 votes in 1st and 2nd place.
Also — symmetry — Z has 50 in last place — should lose. M then beats A 65-34.
————
Head to Head (Condorcet) Math – from 1780s — repeat 1780s.
M beats A 65-34
M beats Z 66-33
Condorcet is obviously correct by the math of having a 3rd choice beat each of 2 existing choices head to head.
A > B
C comes along.
IF C > A and C > B, THEN C should be the winner.
*******
Condorcet math — ALL elections —
legislative, executive, judicial.
ALL combinations of —
Test Winner(s) vs Test Loser — Test Other Losers
Number ranked votes go from TOL to TW or TL.
Would need computer voting to do all the combinations in any *larger* election.
Also– vote YES or NO (default) on each choice for a tie breaker when a TW/TL does not win/lose in all combinations.
For 2 or more exec/judic offices (e.g. 2 judges), the 2 or more top ranked number votes are used in the TW/TL/TOL math.
Legislative body elections — the final Winners would have a Voting Power equal to their final votes (direct from voters plus indirect from Losers).
—-
Thus — Proportional Representation — legis and nonpartisan Approval Voting (YES/NO) exec-judic — pending Condorcet head to head math.
***
RCV/IRV FATAL defects May 2018 — EXTREME Example
RCV/IRV ignores most of the data in a Place Votes Table.
The *Middle* is almost gone – see Germany 1933.
49 A-M-Z
49 Z-M-A
1 M-A-Z
99
With RCV/IRV, M loses. A beats Z 50-49.
A = Stalin, M = Washington, Z = Hitler
—————
Place Votes Table
— 1 — 2 — 3 — T
A 49 – 1 – 49 – 99
Z 49 – 0 – 50 – 99
M 1 – 98 – 0 – 99
T 99 – 99 – 99
i.e. RCV/IRV will cause even more extremist winners due to rigged majority *mandate* stuff.
M has a mere 99 of 99 votes in 1st and 2nd place.
Also — symmetry — Z has 50 in last place — should lose. M then beats A 50-49.
————
Head to Head (Condorcet) Math – from 1780s — repeat 1780s.
M beats A 50-49
M beats Z 50-49
Condorcet is obviously correct by the math of having a 3rd choice beat each of 2 existing choices head to head.
A > B
C comes along
IF C > A and C > B, THEN C should be the winner.
*******
Condorcet math — ALL elections —
legislative, executive, judicial.
ALL combinations of —
Test Winner(s) vs Test Loser — Test Other Losers
Number ranked votes go from TOL to TW or TL.
Would need computer voting to do all the combinations in any *larger* election.
Also– vote YES or NO (default) on each choice for a tie breaker when a TW/TL does not win/lose in all combinations.
For 2 or more exec/judic offices (e.g. 2 judges), the 2 or more top ranked number votes are used in the TW/TL/TOL math.
Legislative body elections — the final Winners would have a Voting Power equal to their final votes (direct from voters plus indirect from Losers).
—-
Thus — Proportional Representation — legis and nonpartisan Approval Voting (YES/NO) exec-judic — pending Condorcet head to head math.
—
Note – see “mathematics of voting and elections” in a Google search regarding 3 or more choices math.
The dogs and cats or the Haitian illegal invaders who eat them?
Both
“One advantage of standing vote over ballot vote is that it doesn’t require a voter to be able to read. You will note that when the 15th Amendment was passed, most freedman couldn’t read. That’s why it didn’t require ballots.”
This is quite likely false.
When the 15th Amendment was passed most Northern states used paper ballots. Viva voce voting was more common in the South.
When the 14th Amendment was passed the Northerners were concerned that because of the 13th Amendment and the end of slavery that Southern states that would gain representation in the House of Representatives. Early versions of the 14th Amendment would have apportioned the House on the basis of 21 YO males Citizens who could vote (i.e., the choosers specified in the Constitution). A state might set a higher voting age, or a property or literacy requirement, but they would lose representation.
But northeastern states would have lost representative share because their population had more women and children. When older sons came of age, they were more likely to migrate to the West where they could homestead. Once they were established, they might be able to attract a mate. Because of high maternal deaths, widowers who owned their farm were more attractive for marriage than younger men still living on the family farm. A woman who married a husband still living with his family, would likely be subordinate to their mother-in-law, and treated as a servant. It was more likely that a younger son would inherit the family farm. By the time he was in his teens, his father would be less strong and able to perform hard physical work. The younger son would gradually perform more of the hardest labor.
Because of the eastern states having disproportionately fewer adult males as a percentage of the total population, the 14th Amendment was modified to the final form, where the apportionment population is adjusted in proportion to the share of adult male citizens (excluding felons and rebels) who were permitted to vote. If blacks were not permitted to vote, and they constituted 35% of the adult population, the apportionment population would be reduced by 35% (e.g., apportionment_population = total_population * (1.00 – 0.35) )
But then federal control of the South, statutory enfranchisement, and the 15th Amendment resulted in few blacks being formally disenfranchised. Before the 1870 Census there was some effort to provide for an actual determination of the number of disenfranchised adult male citizens, but there was no funding. There were requests for guesstimates. But most States said 0%.
Massachusetts provided precise numbers of idiots, imbeciles, and illiterates, all of whom were disenfranchised. They took pride in their high literacy rate as well as the precision which they could measure the three categories. So the population of Massachusetts could be multiplied by 99%, while that of other States could be multiplied by 100%. All this was to no effect. Frustrated by the inability to apply the apportionment clause of the 14th Amendment, they copy-pasted it into statute, where it still resides. There has not been a serious attempt to measure disenfranchisement since the 1870 Census, even as it became more formalized under Jim Crow and beyond. The reason that literacy tests are banned is because they produce racially differential results.
Because the relative share of the apportionment population residing in the South increased as a result of elimination of the 3/5 clause, the number of representatives apportioned to Southern states would increase. Had the size of the House remained level as it had from 1830 to 1860, Northern states would have had reduced number of representatives. To avoid this happening, the size of the House was increased by about 20%. And they actually came back a few months later and sprinkled a few more representatives around so that no State lost representation. But for these bonus representatives, the 1876 Tilden-Hayes election might have been tied.
The 1870’s apportionment bill also made other changes. It set a uniform election date for Congress to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, and permitted runoffs or at least multiple trials. It also provided that if a state gained representatives and was unable to redistrict, that the additional representatives could be elected at large. This practice after reapportionment persisted until the 1960’s.
So Radical Republicans from States like Massachusetts were quite content with literacy tests and the use of paper ballots (though not government-printed) was quite common by this time.
Regardless of history – the 13th amendment on, and especially the first several after the war , were never properly ratified – we’re soon going to be in a post literacy era where the ability to cast spells will be as rare among the population as during the “dark ages,” and with many of generation alpha + that’s already the case. Few people younger than gen X can read cursive, know what it is, etc. English as a second language, dyslexia, etc are very common.
Ability to read is relative – how many adults read at what grade level? I’ll resist the temptation to speculate how many folks up north would be allowed to vote today if idiots and imbeciles were disenfranchised nowadays or to suggest anything like an exact correlation with D party support.
IT IS ME EL GATO!
https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2024/10/17/youth-voter-registration-by-state/75595009007/
NEWBEE VOTERS —
MORE COMMIES OR FASCISTS OR OTHERS ???
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/donald-trump-reportedly-fry-cooker-105935347.html
WILL T STICK HIS HEAD INTO COOKER AND ADD MORE GREASE ???
More likely someone will take the opportunity to assassinate him, or at least take him out of the running: “Oops, there was some oil spilt on the ground and he slipped and fell face first into deep fryer. There was nothing anybody could have done.”
Also, what a worthlessly partisan podcast. The first half at least, I don’t need to hear any more of this drivel. Glenn “election fraudster” Youngkin a “strong candidate”, really?
This is exclusively peddling RCV to totalitarians. Though coming from an anti-libertarian think thank, I guess that shouldn’t be too surprising. But it doesn’t address any of the advantages RCV has. To normal-thinking people this does nothing but serve to smear RCV and give it a bad reputation.
It deserves one.
RCV elects communists.
Relative to exhaustive run-off voting, yes. But relative to first-past-the-post voting, certainly not. And relative to approval voting, maybe and maybe not. In any case, RCV does not deserve a bad reputation in an absolute sense.
“RCV elects communists.”
This is the same bollocks as “guns kill people”.
No, people kill people using guns. But guess what, they also do so using knives.
And people elect communists using RCV, but they also do so using any other method. And they do so more easily using FPTP.
They are more apt to elect communists using Rcv because it makes voting and vote counting more complicated,which makes fraud easier, so it’s worse than the normal voting we have now, which is already bad enough. Standing count would make things better. Rcv (rotten commie voting) would make things worse. Oh yeah it also makes it easier for manipulators to manipulate people who don’t understand bullet voting games.
You have it backwards.
RCV does not make voting more complicated. And in so far as it makes counting more complicated, it also makes fraud more complicated.
FPTP meanwhile, is inherently more communistic, exactly because it makes all votes into bullet votes. Not being able to express a second choice nor to vote against a candidate, makes it far easier for a broadly unpopular candidate to win the election.
Standing count is a violation of the right to keep ones vote private, which puts people in danger. In addition, it disenfranchises voters who would then have to travel long distances at great personal expense in terms of both time, energy and money, in order to vote.
And that’s all assuming SCS’s optimistic scenario where the term isn’t being used to refer to a voice vote or a visual head count, as at the Libertarian National Convention, without any actual counting or verification of the voters.
Much more important than the voting method, is the electoral system. Even if we stupidly continue to use communist first-past-the-post method, we could significantly improve things nonetheless, simply by getting rid of the communist winner-takes-all system
I’m not opposed to RCV, but I think more folks understand runoffs, so I think that that has a better chance of being accepted. The main probable with a run-off is that it requires a second election, with additional costs.
Also, approval voting is probably easier for people to understand, and doesn’t require a runoff. Some folks complain that partisans will almost always bullet vote with approval voting. IMO, that’s not necessarily bad; it’s a valid strategy for those with a strong preference. So, it cam be considered a form of hidden score voting; the voter with strong preferences will cast fewer approval votes than a voter who is more indifferent. This already happens to some extent with multi-member at-large elections under plurality voting.
“The main probable with a run-off is that it requires a second election, with additional costs.”
Two-round run-offs are an improvement over FPTP, but are still far less fair than exhaustive run-offs (i.e. each round of the election, the candidate with the fewest votes gets eliminated until a candidate gets 50%+1) which will (on average) have more rounds and thus be more expensive.
“Also, approval voting is probably easier for people to understand, and doesn’t require a runoff.”
RCV also doesn’t require a run-off (hence the somewhat misleading name “instant run-off voting”), and ranking preferences is so simple that many species of animal can learn to do it.
“Some folks complain that partisans will almost always bullet vote with approval voting. IMO, that’s not necessarily bad; it’s a valid strategy for those with a strong preference.”
Indeed. But again, this can also hold true with RCV when it is done correctly: you shouldn’t need to fill out every rank, only giving your favorite candidate the highest rank (and perhaps your least favorite the lowest) should suffice as a valid vote.
There’s no reason why standing voting can not be done with ballot voting. Those who want to make a standing vote would be free to do so; while those who want a ballot could do that as well. At the end of the day, the standing votes could be combined with the ballot votes.
Let people vote the way they prefer. Different strokes for different folks.
One advantage of standing vote over ballot vote is that it doesn’t require a voter to be able to read. You will note that when the 15th Amendment was passed, most freedman couldn’t read. That’s why it didn’t require ballots.
“ranking preferences is so simple that many species of animal can learn to do it.”
Should we allow dogs and horses to vote? Which reminds me, since cats have become an issue in this election, can cats actually count?
Richard Winger has openly said all votes should be counted, even from cats.
Standing ranked choice voting would be ideal for dogs and horses. They don’t need ballots; they just tap their preferences.
If the Haitians eat the dogs and cats can they still vote?
The dogs and cats or the Haitian illegal invaders who eat them?
“Should we allow dogs and horses to vote?”
Probably not. Too much risk of someone telling them how to vote. But then again, we allow humans with the same level of intelligence to vote despite that, so who knows.
“can cats actually count?”
Jury’s still out on that, I think. But I wouldn’t be at all surprised, given that elephants, horses, cows, many apes and monkeys and various types of birds can.
Heck, bees can apparently even do rudimentary arithmetic:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/M6hGjh9SJ_M?start=471&end=536
Now the illegals are invading Logansport.
@Springfield nom pets @Q
https://www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2024/09/IMG_2941-600×400.jpg
RCV/IRV FATAL Defects Apr 2018
RCV/IRV ignores most of the data in a Place Votes Table.
The *Middle* is divided – as usual.
34 A-M-Z
33 Z-M-A
16 M-A-Z
16 M-Z-A
99
With RCV/IRV, M loses. A beats Z 50-49.
A = Stalin, M = Washington, Z = Hitler
—————
Place Votes Table
— 1 — 2 — 3 — T
A 34 – 16 – 49 – 99
Z 33 – 16 – 50 – 99
M 32 – 67 – 0 – 99
T 99 – 99 – 99
i.e. RCV/IRV will cause even more extremist winners due to rigged majority *mandate* stuff.
M has a mere 99 of 99 votes in 1st and 2nd place.
Also — symmetry — Z has 50 in last place — should lose. M then beats A 65-34.
————
Head to Head (Condorcet) Math – from 1780s — repeat 1780s.
M beats A 65-34
M beats Z 66-33
Condorcet is obviously correct by the math of having a 3rd choice beat each of 2 existing choices head to head.
A > B
C comes along.
IF C > A and C > B, THEN C should be the winner.
*******
Condorcet math — ALL elections —
legislative, executive, judicial.
ALL combinations of —
Test Winner(s) vs Test Loser — Test Other Losers
Number ranked votes go from TOL to TW or TL.
Would need computer voting to do all the combinations in any *larger* election.
Also– vote YES or NO (default) on each choice for a tie breaker when a TW/TL does not win/lose in all combinations.
For 2 or more exec/judic offices (e.g. 2 judges), the 2 or more top ranked number votes are used in the TW/TL/TOL math.
Legislative body elections — the final Winners would have a Voting Power equal to their final votes (direct from voters plus indirect from Losers).
—-
Thus — Proportional Representation — legis and nonpartisan Approval Voting (YES/NO) exec-judic — pending Condorcet head to head math.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
—
Note – see “mathematics of voting and elections” in a Google search regarding 3 or more choices math.
***
RCV/IRV FATAL defects May 2018 — EXTREME Example
RCV/IRV ignores most of the data in a Place Votes Table.
The *Middle* is almost gone – see Germany 1933.
49 A-M-Z
49 Z-M-A
1 M-A-Z
99
With RCV/IRV, M loses. A beats Z 50-49.
A = Stalin, M = Washington, Z = Hitler
—————
Place Votes Table
— 1 — 2 — 3 — T
A 49 – 1 – 49 – 99
Z 49 – 0 – 50 – 99
M 1 – 98 – 0 – 99
T 99 – 99 – 99
i.e. RCV/IRV will cause even more extremist winners due to rigged majority *mandate* stuff.
M has a mere 99 of 99 votes in 1st and 2nd place.
Also — symmetry — Z has 50 in last place — should lose. M then beats A 50-49.
————
Head to Head (Condorcet) Math – from 1780s — repeat 1780s.
M beats A 50-49
M beats Z 50-49
Condorcet is obviously correct by the math of having a 3rd choice beat each of 2 existing choices head to head.
A > B
C comes along
IF C > A and C > B, THEN C should be the winner.
*******
Condorcet math — ALL elections —
legislative, executive, judicial.
ALL combinations of —
Test Winner(s) vs Test Loser — Test Other Losers
Number ranked votes go from TOL to TW or TL.
Would need computer voting to do all the combinations in any *larger* election.
Also– vote YES or NO (default) on each choice for a tie breaker when a TW/TL does not win/lose in all combinations.
For 2 or more exec/judic offices (e.g. 2 judges), the 2 or more top ranked number votes are used in the TW/TL/TOL math.
Legislative body elections — the final Winners would have a Voting Power equal to their final votes (direct from voters plus indirect from Losers).
—-
Thus — Proportional Representation — legis and nonpartisan Approval Voting (YES/NO) exec-judic — pending Condorcet head to head math.
—
Note – see “mathematics of voting and elections” in a Google search regarding 3 or more choices math.
http://ballot-access.org/2019/05/19/two-utah-cities-will-use-ranked-choice-voting-in-municipal-elections-this-year/
RCV DEFECTS – ESP FOR SINGLE OFFICES
https://www.yahoo.com/news/special-counsel-releases-trove-redacted-150646209.html
ZILLION PAGES – MANY REDACTED
FAILURE TO INDICT/TRIAL/CONVICT IN 2021
IT IS I, EL GATO OF EL CATO! THIS BLEW UP!
The dogs and cats or the Haitian illegal invaders who eat them?
Both
“One advantage of standing vote over ballot vote is that it doesn’t require a voter to be able to read. You will note that when the 15th Amendment was passed, most freedman couldn’t read. That’s why it didn’t require ballots.”
This is quite likely false.
When the 15th Amendment was passed most Northern states used paper ballots. Viva voce voting was more common in the South.
When the 14th Amendment was passed the Northerners were concerned that because of the 13th Amendment and the end of slavery that Southern states that would gain representation in the House of Representatives. Early versions of the 14th Amendment would have apportioned the House on the basis of 21 YO males Citizens who could vote (i.e., the choosers specified in the Constitution). A state might set a higher voting age, or a property or literacy requirement, but they would lose representation.
But northeastern states would have lost representative share because their population had more women and children. When older sons came of age, they were more likely to migrate to the West where they could homestead. Once they were established, they might be able to attract a mate. Because of high maternal deaths, widowers who owned their farm were more attractive for marriage than younger men still living on the family farm. A woman who married a husband still living with his family, would likely be subordinate to their mother-in-law, and treated as a servant. It was more likely that a younger son would inherit the family farm. By the time he was in his teens, his father would be less strong and able to perform hard physical work. The younger son would gradually perform more of the hardest labor.
Because of the eastern states having disproportionately fewer adult males as a percentage of the total population, the 14th Amendment was modified to the final form, where the apportionment population is adjusted in proportion to the share of adult male citizens (excluding felons and rebels) who were permitted to vote. If blacks were not permitted to vote, and they constituted 35% of the adult population, the apportionment population would be reduced by 35% (e.g., apportionment_population = total_population * (1.00 – 0.35) )
But then federal control of the South, statutory enfranchisement, and the 15th Amendment resulted in few blacks being formally disenfranchised. Before the 1870 Census there was some effort to provide for an actual determination of the number of disenfranchised adult male citizens, but there was no funding. There were requests for guesstimates. But most States said 0%.
Massachusetts provided precise numbers of idiots, imbeciles, and illiterates, all of whom were disenfranchised. They took pride in their high literacy rate as well as the precision which they could measure the three categories. So the population of Massachusetts could be multiplied by 99%, while that of other States could be multiplied by 100%. All this was to no effect. Frustrated by the inability to apply the apportionment clause of the 14th Amendment, they copy-pasted it into statute, where it still resides. There has not been a serious attempt to measure disenfranchisement since the 1870 Census, even as it became more formalized under Jim Crow and beyond. The reason that literacy tests are banned is because they produce racially differential results.
Because the relative share of the apportionment population residing in the South increased as a result of elimination of the 3/5 clause, the number of representatives apportioned to Southern states would increase. Had the size of the House remained level as it had from 1830 to 1860, Northern states would have had reduced number of representatives. To avoid this happening, the size of the House was increased by about 20%. And they actually came back a few months later and sprinkled a few more representatives around so that no State lost representation. But for these bonus representatives, the 1876 Tilden-Hayes election might have been tied.
The 1870’s apportionment bill also made other changes. It set a uniform election date for Congress to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, and permitted runoffs or at least multiple trials. It also provided that if a state gained representatives and was unable to redistrict, that the additional representatives could be elected at large. This practice after reapportionment persisted until the 1960’s.
So Radical Republicans from States like Massachusetts were quite content with literacy tests and the use of paper ballots (though not government-printed) was quite common by this time.
Regardless of history – the 13th amendment on, and especially the first several after the war , were never properly ratified – we’re soon going to be in a post literacy era where the ability to cast spells will be as rare among the population as during the “dark ages,” and with many of generation alpha + that’s already the case. Few people younger than gen X can read cursive, know what it is, etc. English as a second language, dyslexia, etc are very common.
Ability to read is relative – how many adults read at what grade level? I’ll resist the temptation to speculate how many folks up north would be allowed to vote today if idiots and imbeciles were disenfranchised nowadays or to suggest anything like an exact correlation with D party support.