Should people have to pass a test to be allowed to vote?

[bluestateguy]

When I see these polls showing that 40%-45% of Americans say Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, I have to ask if such people should be allowed to vote. If maybe, all Americans should have to pass a simple test every 3 years indicating that they have a basic grip upon reality.

For example, these questions might be asked:

Was Saddam Hussein involved in 9/11?

Which party controls the Congress?

Name ONE of the following:

The governor of your state
Your Representative in the US House
One of your two US Senators
Your Representative or Senator in your state's legislature
The mayor of your city

etc.

They would have to be the type of questions that could not be parsed every which way, or subjected to postmodernist psychobabble.

If people failed, they would either be disqualified from voting for the next election, or they could take a class to be educated about some basic facts, and then allowed to vote.

[northernsoul]

1. Who will design and administer these tests?

And we truly trust anyone who wanted to?

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. People like Ken Blackwell and Katherine Harris?

[northernsoul]

31. I think that would inevitably be the result, yes.

n/t

[RedStateShame]

2. That was tried once, during our more overtly racist days as a nation.

I would not look forward to seeing that return.

[bluestateguy]

10. All right, but what if we said that everybody had to take the test?

No exceptions.

During Jim Crow, such tests were only administered to blacks. The "grandfather clause" was used to exempt whites.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[northernsoul]

32. Who sets the standard for ignorant and uninformed?

Some GOP election judge could decide that I'm "ignorant and uninformed" by some subjectinve standard and turn me away. This would be a powerful, and ultimately dangerous tool to rig elections.

[heidler1]

35. What proof is there that untrue answers come from ignorance?

I submit that many false answers are cooked up to cast doubt on the truth. Humans love to hoax or lie about many things to sell a false viewpoint. The swift boaters would have passed any test you could conceive of and the still vote to have their way. This is not a straight forward problem.

[shortcake]

3. National Voting Rights Act of 1965 n/t

[Balbus]

4. Yes, and we should have a voter's tax also.

[bluestateguy]

13. No, I'm against that. That's not what I was arguing for.

Let's keep the discussion on what I actually proposed.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

Pretty close to what I was going to say

mine was:

No, and they shouldn't have to pay a tax either.

May we never forget our mistakes from the past.

[StraightDope]

5. "Should people have to pass a test to be allowed to vote?"

In a word, no. Even idiots have the right to decide who should govern, in my opinion.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Well, you fail the history portion.

I keed, I keed.

[Solly Mack]

7. No

[ThomWV]

8. Tests Were Useful In Keeping Negros From The Polls, Who's Next?

Just the great unwashed and uneducated?

[porphyrian]

9. Yes, answer this question:

Are you an American citizen and a legal adult?

If you answer yes, you should be able to vote.

[T Wolf]

24. Why is it limited to adults???

Because we are thought to be able to make a reasonable decision and those under 18 are not? Or is there another reason?

The age limitation is invalid, IMO.

Any argument against the OPer's opinion that a test should be used fails to address the age issue as a parallel. If voting is a right, there should be NO limits on who may vote.

Personally, I think there should be a test. Failing that, there should be no requirements. Period.

The poll tax and other arguments against a test are bogus.

[mjjoe]

30. 26th Amendment

Currently, the Constitution provides that basis with the 26th Amendment. When you say "no limits" do you mean to suggest that high school students should be able to vote? Grade schoolers? Toddlers? While I will allow there are some inconsistencies with the legal definition of adulthood (driving age, voting age, drinking age), 18 seems reasonable as an age at which most people have the maturity and responsibility to cast a vote.

[T Wolf]

33. Exactly my point.

If the stated reason for an age limit is so that "people have the maturity and responsibility to cast a vote" I would hold that that is an arbitrary and invalid criterion.

Why shouldn't high school-age people be allowed to vote? Or younger? Give me one reason that does not hinge on "being capable" that could not be used to exclude people who vote by ballot position or physical looks or any other "invalid" reason.

[porphyrian]

36. Because that's how our laws are written.

I am fully aware, as I was before I was 18, that the "legal adult" designation is arbitrary and inaccurate, having nothing to do with experience, wisdom or maturity. However, there is no practical way to test for these things on a national scale, or even on a local one, and the requirements of such a test would also be arbitrary. How do you judge someone's level of life experience, which is a private matter, anyway? How can you label peoples' maturity levels, when they change from situation to situation? On the other hand, we cannot simply dismiss the "adult" requirement because we can't determine when a child is voting independantly from adult expectations and/or manipulation except on an individual basis, and we're back to the logistical impossibility of implimentation. Age is a constant, progresses at a predictable rate, and thus serves as a functional index across a large population. While it isn't the most accurate or fair, it is at least unfair to everyone equally.

We have a right to use tobacco, but not until we're 18, which is the arbitrary age assigned to the designation "legal adult." Are you suggesting that we should have no age limit on tobacco use? What about alcohol, porn, driving, gun ownership, holding of political office...see where this is going?

The reason I'm not for a test is that tests are used to EXCLUDE voters, not include them, for malicious reasons. While you could say my way excludes children, you're right, but not maliciously. Adults (as defined by law) gain additional rights they don't have in childhood, but they also gain additional responsibilities, such as the civil duty to vote or to protest by choosing not to vote. Tests only allow those who test well to vote, and that isn't the way to run a representative democracy.

[T Wolf]

37. You seem to be saying that it is the way it is because it's the law.

The poll tax was a law. The men-only suffrage was a law.

And "testing well" is a false objection. We are not talking about a three-hour SAT for christ's sake. If someone has test anxiety because of a question or two, does not that disqualify them from being able to make a reasonable decision?

Malicious or not, denying someone the right to vote because of age is discrimination. Pure and simple and without justification.

[porphyrian]

39. You are confusing two different laws.

On one hand, we have a law that defines a legal adult. That is the law with the age restriction, not the law determining who can vote. On the other hand is the law which states you must be a legal adult and a U.S. citizen to vote. If you have a problem with what constitutes a legal adult, you can change that law the same way we can change any law. It is ridiculous, for the reasons I've already listed, to suggest that we should have no legal adult designation.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

43. Age limits don't matter as much as others.

The point of universal suffrage is that it ensures government for the people. If any group is disenfranchised, then their interests can be neglected by the government. However, disenfranchising the young like this doesn't matter, because everyone effected will ultimately get the vote and can take revenge by voting against anyone who they disapproved of when younger.

[DeeDeeNY]

11. You read my mind

If only that could be done!
But I don't know that educating the steadfast 30% who back this administration would enable them to open their closed minds. They label anyone who questions our government as traitors, as they are thoroughly brainwashed.
It's unfortunate, but giving them basic facts would not be enough to open their eyes.

[mazzarro]

12. Absolutely No

Voters have a right to be IDIOTS and ignorant of current affairs if they so choose. But politicians, the media, and conscentious members of the population are obligated to educate voters on the issues. This is particularly the obligation of the media. I am even open to government financed election campaigns and the Australian idea of mandating compulsory voting by all voting aged citizens - so that most of the efforts will be focused of educating voters on issues

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CBGLuthier]

21. OK, I think you just got to go

Been folowing your work. Gonna miss ya.

[slackmaster]

14. Yes

They should be able to prove their age and citizenship.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[banjoterror]

16. Umm...

I guess that's all tongue in cheek, right? It still seems a little dangerous to act like our opposition is all a bunch of super tards. Sure a lot of people in the country are misinformed, but lets not act like the Democrats haven't always and don't still practice misinformation. And it's not like I haven't seen (and probably written) some flagrantly ignorant things on this forum. For that matter we all have very different perspectives and views on things. It almost reads like your joke presupposes a sort of progressive dogma existing ("common sense," or "basic facts" right?). I think that's dangerous thinking. I saw a poster at a protest once, and if we just took its simple and poignantly expressed advice we could get this country moving in a new direction right quickly now: "Throw Bush in a wood-chipper"

[sweetheart]

19. no, rather simply voting should be mandatory

Mandatory voting would force the silent majority to come out, and
the rest would be history.

[slackmaster]

23. egad, that's the worst idea I've seen today

Compulsory participation goes against the grain big-time.

Generally I prefer having fewer people vote. The fewer people who vote, the more MINE counts.

[sweetheart]

34. its a small price to pay, the only responsibility in a democracy

Sure you could pay the traffic ticket fine for not voting, but it is absurd in the
extreme for people to willingly be compelled to pay taxes every year, but to balk
at voting every few years, really, taxes every year in the thousands to support war,
but voting every few years to have a balanced political body politic, out of the question.

[Totallybushed]

41. You mean the

people who are so satisfied with the way things are that they don't bother to vote? The sheeple who can be brain-washed by any RW propagandist that comes their way?

I don't know that you will like the result. In any event, it shouldn't be mandatory. People have the right to vote "none of the above" by staying home, and it should remain that way.

[Imagevision]

20. No, just photo-ID and a paper receipt from the voting machine

[mjjoe]

22. Shame

For whatever it's worth, you shamed me into looking up the names of my reps in the state legislature. And I also double-checked on the name of the town supervisor (there is no mayor in my municipality).

Maybe instead of passing some kind of law, we need to find a way to invoke a sense of shame into people for not knowing who represents them at the local, state and federal levels. Not sure how that would happen, but voters really ought to know who is making laws for/against them.

[chaska]

25. Yes, Ask them what their favorite color is, red or blue.

;)

[Jack Rabbit]

26. No

Democracy is about universal, equal citizenship. Unfortunately, the ignorant have as much right to participate in civic affairs as the intelligent. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Testing would just be a way to reforce the power of the elites in a fundamentally undemocratic system. For example, one could as easily say that correct answer to question number one is Yes and disqualify anybody who says otherwise.

[leftofthedial]

27. of course not, UNLESS

it's a test to weed out repukes or anyone who ever voted for any bush in any election

[Benhurst]

29. I rather have the candidates take a test.

They would be required to pass; but all scores would be published before the elections.

[ComerPerro]

38. Depending on who makes the test, the answer to the first question might

vary.

If RWers make it, the answer could be "yes, but Bush never said so"

[Totallybushed]

40. Literacy tests

have been declared unconstitutional. I suspect this little plan would go the same road.

Doesn't a person have the right to have a say in who represents him in his government regardless of his education, intelligence, or beliefs. Just because he doesn't vote your way doesn't mean his vote shouldn't count.

[Cobalt-60]

42. Regrettably, no

In theory we're all supposed to pass a test on the US constitution to graduate High School, though HS graduation isn't a requirement, either.
Nor can we require one. If any such restriction were allowed it would quickly be abused by the GOP.
There is the citizenship requirement.
At least all naturalized Americans have passed the Constitution test.

[lonestarnot]

44. Sad truth is we have the burden to educate, so get busy!

[MissB]

45. No. 1000 times over, no.

[etherealtruth]

46. You are joking ...

... right?