Tests for voting

[Republic of the Cristo]

I thought of the idea a while ago after learning of literacy tests mandated in southern American states in order for people to vote ( I know, not a great inspiration ). It got me thinking of who all is allowed to vote in the United States. In the United States, all that is required in order to vote is: You be over the age of 18, be a US citizen, meet state residency requirements, and register to vote. Pretty easy to vote here. Some states require photo ID, or do not allow people convicted with certain felonies to vote, or not allow people with certain mental handicaps to vote - all in all though, just about every adult in the US can vote. I wondered if this were a good thing. Consider for a moment the people you interact with every day. How many of them would you say knew both their senator and their district representative? How many of these people know what their state minimum wage is? How many of them can name 5 or more rights in the constitution? How many of them can name two judges on the Supreme Court? In my case, I would say that most people I interact with would be unable to meet all of the above mentioned requirements - despite all of the above seeming to be rather basic political information that everyone should know. Consider now your graduating class from high school. Think of the class you graduated with when you were 18, how many of these people would be able to successfully answer all of the above questions? Exactly! Yet despite a complete ignorance of our political system, we allow these people to select the leaders of our country. I believe, that ignorant voters are a national security risk - driven to vote or support issues not by logic and analysis, but by peer pressure and popular images. A complete incompetent can be elected to any office in the nation, so long as they are popular enough. It can be argued that we need to educate the population about our political system - but we already do that. The average citizen is bombarded day in and day out with political news, but most do not show an actual interest in learning a deeper understanding of the issues facing the nation. You cannot educate someone who doesn't care to learn.

I think that a test should be introduced in the registering process. A tests which asks basic question regarding the American political system: Who is your rep, who is the VP, how many justices in the Supreme Court - as some examples. The test would change every election cycle to reflect election outcomes and to ensure that people could just memorize the test once and never have to keep up to date. If you get anything lower than a B+ you are denied the right to vote. The overall number of voters would, presumably, fall drastically leaving only the most informed and motivated portions of the population to vote for our nations' leaders.

So, what do you think of the proposal?

[Fartsniffage]

It would be easier to just mandate a property requirement to vote.

[Victores]

Well. That means I can't vote.

[Neutraligon]

I thought of the idea a while ago after learning of literacy tests mandated in southern American states in order for people to vote ( I know, not a great inspiration ). It got me thinking of who all is allowed to vote in the United States. In the United States, all that is required in order to vote is: You be over the age of 18, be a US citizen, meet state residency requirements, and register to vote. Pretty easy to vote here. Some states require photo ID, or do not allow people convicted with certain felonies to vote, or not allow people with certain mental handicaps to vote - all in all though, just about every adult in the US can vote. I wondered if this were a good thing. Consider for a moment the people you interact with every day. How many of them would you say knew both their senator and their district representative? How many of these people know what their state minimum wage is? How many of them can name 5 or more rights in the constitution? How many of them can name two judges on the Supreme Court? In my case, I would say that most people I interact with would be unable to meet all of the above mentioned requirements - despite all of the above seeming to be rather basic political information that everyone should know. Consider now your graduating class from high school. Think of the class you graduated with when you were 18, how many of these people would be able to successfully answer all of the above questions? Exactly! Yet despite a complete ignorance of our political system, we allow these people to select the leaders of our country. I believe, that ignorant voters are a national security risk - driven to vote or support issues not by logic and analysis, but by peer pressure and popular images. A complete incompetent can be elected to any office in the nation, so long as they are popular enough. It can be argued that we need to educate the population about our political system - but we already do that. The average citizen is bombarded day in and day out with political news, but most do not show an actual interest in learning a deeper understanding of the issues facing the nation. You cannot educate someone who doesn't care to learn.

I think that a test should be introduced in the registering process. A tests which asks basic question regarding the American political system: Who is your rep, who is the VP, how many justices in the Supreme Court - as some examples. The test would change every election cycle to reflect election outcomes and to ensure that people could just memorize the test once and never have to keep up to date. If you get anything lower than a B+ you are denied the right to vote. The overall number of voters would, presumably, fall drastically leaving only the most informed and motivated portions of the population to vote for our nations' leaders.

So, what do you think of the proposal?

Too easy to use the tests to manipulate the vote.

[Sovaal]

I thought of the idea a while ago after learning of literacy tests mandated in southern American states in order for people to vote ( I know, not a great inspiration ). It got me thinking of who all is allowed to vote in the United States. In the United States, all that is required in order to vote is: You be over the age of 18, be a US citizen, meet state residency requirements, and register to vote. Pretty easy to vote here. Some states require photo ID, or do not allow people convicted with certain felonies to vote, or not allow people with certain mental handicaps to vote - all in all though, just about every adult in the US can vote. I wondered if this were a good thing. Consider for a moment the people you interact with every day. How many of them would you say knew both their senator and their district representative? How many of these people know what their state minimum wage is? How many of them can name 5 or more rights in the constitution? How many of them can name two judges on the Supreme Court? In my case, I would say that most people I interact with would be unable to meet all of the above mentioned requirements - despite all of the above seeming to be rather basic political information that everyone should know. Consider now your graduating class from high school. Think of the class you graduated with when you were 18, how many of these people would be able to successfully answer all of the above questions? Exactly! Yet despite a complete ignorance of our political system, we allow these people to select the leaders of our country. I believe, that ignorant voters are a national security risk - driven to vote or support issues not by logic and analysis, but by peer pressure and popular images. A complete incompetent can be elected to any office in the nation, so long as they are popular enough. It can be argued that we need to educate the population about our political system - but we already do that. The average citizen is bombarded day in and day out with political news, but most do not show an actual interest in learning a deeper understanding of the issues facing the nation. You cannot educate someone who doesn't care to learn.

I think that a test should be introduced in the registering process. A tests which asks basic question regarding the American political system: Who is your rep, who is the VP, how many justices in the Supreme Court - as some examples. The test would change every election cycle to reflect election outcomes and to ensure that people could just memorize the test once and never have to keep up to date. If you get anything lower than a B+ you are denied the right to vote. The overall number of voters would, presumably, fall drastically leaving only the most informed and motivated portions of the population to vote for our nations' leaders.

So, what do you think of the proposal?

Might as well go back to only land owning white men being able to vote.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Whoever writes the test rules the country, and vice versa.

[The East Marches II]

It would be easier to just mandate a property requirement to vote.

Sort of. Base it on income and use the tax returns to figure it out. Ez pz.

[Libertypendence Park]

Well, no, universal suffrage is intended to be universal. There are really only two camps that can make a strong(ish) logical case for curbing voting rights: the "we're poor stewards" and the "we're not stewards" parties.

For the latter, I understand the concept of making sure you have some skin in the game, but since even the distant, slow-moving (American) federal government is so much more powerful today than when the Constitution was penned, I think it's reasonable to say everyone has skin in the game. You only need to worry about people voting on things that won't effect them in a setting where the government actually won't be able to effect them; this environment does not exist right now, so nevermind with that route.

And for your argument, well... I would actually be really, really happy about such a policy being in place, but I know it shouldn't. Under standard democratic ethics, voting is a God-given right extended to every who hasn't broken social contract, independent of how "worthwhile" their opinion may be. If someone wants to vote for the tall candidate just because he is tall, then, yeah, it irks me, but that's between them and their Maker. For that matter, why not just have universal suffrage, but if you're a successful, emotionally well-adjusted person who contributes a great deal to society, you get ten votes instead of just one?

And also other concerns, yada yada voting committee arbitrarily selecting for what knowledge is necessary, yada yada extreme potential for abuse of power...

My default response when the topic of worthwhile voting is brought up is to encourage people to voluntarily refrain from voting if they haven't actually studied the issues of the day. I don't think you should be proud of having voted if you voted without comprehending the sanctity of the process. If you're taking a selfie in a voting booth, then that's a glaring red flag that you Just Don't Get It. But they have just as much a God-given right to choose their government that I do.

[AiliailiA]

No-one should have to prove their fitness to vote. To deny someone the vote, you need to prove they are UNfit to vote. Not just that they might be, or even are probably unfit, nor even are almost certainly unfit. You need to prove they are unfit to vote, beyond reasonable doubt.

The OP does not do that.

[MERIZoC]

I thought of the idea a while ago after learning of literacy tests mandated in southern American states in order for people to vote ( I know, not a great inspiration ).

*thinking emoji*

[Sovaal]

I thought of the idea a while ago after learning of literacy tests mandated in southern American states in order for people to vote ( I know, not a great inspiration ).

*thinking emoji*

It's almost as if though it was on purpose that the people most effected by those laws where blacks and poor whites.

[Libertypendence Park]

*thinking emoji*

It's almost as if though it was on purpose that the people most effected by those laws where blacks and poor whites.

Well, to be fair, the intent of the law is independent of its actual effects of society... If there was any evidence that this policy objectively increased the quality of elected officials after its implementation (gonna go out on a limb here and say there's not), then it did a good job, despite being morally reprehensible.

[Northwest Slobovia]

It's almost as if though it was on purpose that the people most effected by those laws where blacks and poor whites.

Well, to be fair, the intent of the law is independent of its actual effects of society... If there was any evidence that this policy objectively increased the quality of elected officials after its implementation (gonna go out on a limb here and say there's not), then it did a good job, despite being morally reprehensible.

Which are you saying: that the intent was not to disenfranchise blacks and poor whites, or that its "actual effects of [on?] society" somehow doesn't count said disenfranchisement? It's late here, but I'm not coming up with other possible readings.

[Libertypendence Park]

Well, to be fair, the intent of the law is independent of its actual effects of society... If there was any evidence that this policy objectively increased the quality of elected officials after its implementation (gonna go out on a limb here and say there's not), then it did a good job, despite being morally reprehensible.

Which are you saying: that the intent was not to disenfranchise blacks and poor whites, or that its "actual effects of [on?] society" somehow doesn't count said disenfranchisement? It's late here, but I'm not coming up with other possible readings.

If legislation is intended as evil, but ends up being good for society, then why not keep it?

Note: This rather vehemently does not apply to the current topic. By prefacing my statement with a "to be fair", I was indicating that I was speaking hypothetically about intended-evil legislation in general while using this as an example.

[Sareva]

Back to Jim Crow, I take it? I'll be off to South Korea or Poland then.

In all seriousness, I'd rather not implement "voting tests" because of the biggest con of such an arrangement: human beings.

[Major-Tom]

If we're doing a literacy test for voting, I'm fucked.

[Dazchan]

We had a thread here a few months back where someone wanted to essentially legislate via auction, so this isn't the worst idea I've come across, although it is pretty terrible.

Democracy should be open to everyone, regardless of your level of education.

[Omnonia]

I don't believe in banning voters.

I do believe in restricting what political parties can do, both in terms of election campaigning and in terms of policies/laws to propose; on the basis of strong constitutions.

But the moment you require anything else than residency/citizenship and age as a criterion for voting, you may as well stop pretending that democracy is what you're after.

[Sovaal]

If we're doing a literacy test for voting, I'm fucked.

God forbid that they have mathematical requirements.

[Carena]

Just seems like a convenient way to exclude people with a poor upbringing from voting

[New haven america]

"If you get anything lower than a B+ you are denied the right to vote."

Then that kind of takes away the point of "Rights" now, doesn't it?

[Sareva]

If we're doing a literacy test for voting, I'm fucked.

God forbid that they have mathematical requirements.

"You need to understand how your one insignificant vote affects the Electoral College on a statistical level, while also providing proof that you got this answer without a calculator."

[Jueia]

"Ooo, I'm not so sure bout this here Idea Cristo."

Oh shoot, looks like I failed the literary test!

Oh well, I'm just gonna go watch football and drink a cold root beer

[Minoa]

Denying someone the right to vote is only appropriate if they were involved in electoral fraud, or they were too young (less than 16-18 years).

[NeoOasis]

A simple regurgitation test will prove my competence to vote no more than being able to drive home drunk without crashing will prove my ability to drive. At this point knowing the basics of the system hardly makes me well informed or even motivated to participate in the political system. Also who would write this test, and how would it be graded? What if the person is illiterate? Just because you can't read doesn't mean you don't know the basics of the system.

I see no reason to put any restrictions on voting since it would disqualify damn near everyone in the United States, and go against the very concept of universal suffrage.