I mentioned that I voted, and they naturally asked me who I voted for. I said, "De la Cruz. Third party."
"Sorry, I didn't quite catch that?", one of them said, and the whole group looked at me a bit puzzled — so I reiterated, "De la Cruz, a third-party candidate."
"...Wait, there's a *THIRD* party?"
I'm certain a huge percentage of Americans don't know there are third parties. And I bet a sizeable number of Americans think Bernie is "third party". More than 50% of Americans read below a 6th-grade level. And - of course - Americans who can read at higher level usually don't. We aren't nation of readers either.
I was going to quote the literacy in the United States Wikipedia page but I decided not to. I noticed two things that are funny together.
I assume the text is intentionally written to be obtuse, annoying, and unclear because it damages so much of the American mythos. The text is even worse than when I visited the page ~6 months ago.
The average American would never, ever read more than a paragraph of that or similar crap because they can't.
---
Ninja edit
Snopes is a very American site and can take forever to get to the point but they did answer their main question simply.
so first of all "nationally" is redundant, so don't jot that down.
Secondly: 1/5 of adult americans can't read AT ALL?? That's... that's too much.
Christ that page needs and editor
Add quotation marks ffs
Not really relevant to the discussion of literacy in the US. Certainly not in the introduction.
You are adding it as a source, just write the claim and add the year the claim was made.
Should be the first sentence if you're going to include it at all.
The funny thing is that the page was already bad ~6 months ago. I assume there's endless editor squabbling so the page becomes a bigger and bigger mess.
"You're asking questions already explained by the shirt."