Political Question

[Mighty NorCal]

In this day and age, is it unreasonable to have people take a qualification test in order to vote? Not some lengthy crazy thing, but show you have a basic, rudimentary understanding on the issues at hand? Make materials available in order for people to be informed, regardless of financial class?


I point to the recent Kimmel sketch on ACA Vs ObamaCare.

 

[Барбоса]

While I think such a qualification approach undermines true democracy and would to an even more elitist electorate, as people become more akin to voting for a specific party out of ignorance and fear rather than for actual political views, it becomes a more preferable evil.

 

[Blade]

Not unreasonable at all. People who vote for the sake of voting without knowing about the subject, or vote based on prejudice or hearsay stemming from ignorance kinda screws up the point of voting in the first place. For example, if people hear that something like Obamacare is bad from their favourite news channel, they'll vote against it, even if they don't know what it's about. A qualification test wouldn't weed all those people out, but it would certainly help.

Then again, I'm not American, and I know you guys have a different attitude towards voting over there.

 

[Richard Blonoff]

I'm pretty much with Barbosa on this one. Requiring people to pass a test on current issues, and I will be honest I watch the news two or three times a week and read headlines most days but I can't tell you everything going on, does undermine what democracy is supposed to be all about. That said I think people who vote Republican based off "That Muslim president is gonna take our guns" or voting Democrat because "Bush is a war hungry frat boy who couldn't pass an IQ test" are an issue.

Like my mom, as much as I love her, is completely unaware on current issues, yet she still votes; mostly based on what her crazed extreme right wing born again friend posts on Facebook.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

It's an interesting argument. On one hand I think it's complete shit that Republicans have tried to suppress voting which mostly affects minorities but the complete hypocrit in me thinks voter testing is a great idea.

So no, I don't think it's right. The best we can do is try to educate people so that when they go to the polls to vote for POTUS every five years they make the smartest decision.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

There should be evaluation tests to open bank accounts, own firearms, vote, collect any government benefits, including unemployment, welfare, and others.

Too many people abuse the system to the point of making it hard on others to get what they need. If you have a standardized test for everyone, then that solves the problem.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

I've thought this before, but these things always fall over. How do you decide who makes the test and designs the questions and how can you ensure that the test is not discriminatory etc.? It becomes circular. Who's worthy to say someone is worthy and who's worthy to make them worthy?

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I dont understand how it undermines democracy, or creates elitism. If you cant read, you cant properly vote anyhow.

I didnt say the test necessarily needs to be hard, just explaining the basic principles of the issues, platforms, and both parties view of them. The "test" is more of a "proof you took an hour of your life to read this 25 page pamphlet we sent out".....I think anyone who wants their way with the way America is ran should at least be able to put that minimal level of effort into it.

You put the test and informational materials through a governmental vote just like anything else. No slants, no angles based on what you want to sell, just the basics.

I think when the founding fathers set all this shit up, it was with trust in soceity that they woud educate themselves on all of the above, and the canidates. The system is terribly abused these days.

 

[Harthan]

People who are actually too stupid to vote rarely do, I think, so I don't think the problem really exists as much as you think it is.

The trouble is the people of reasonable intelligence who have been utterly convinced of one side or the other's views based on pure propaganda without actually employing the reason they (mostly) have.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

People who are actually too stupid to vote rarely do, I think, so I don't think the problem really exists as much as you think it is.

The trouble is the people of reasonable intelligence who have been utterly convinced of one side or the other's views based on pure propaganda without actually employing the reason they (mostly) have.

I thought of this exact same thing when I first devised the concept.


However, if we help ten people, thats ten more who have a fucking clue than before.

Also, the test demonstrates you understand the other side's perspective as well as your side. Thats kinda the point.

You cant force people to use reason, but the majority dont make any sort of attempt to understand and see the other side. The test quantifies that you have at least read and understood what the other side has to say on a subject.

 

[Slash-LN]

People don't want to be educated. They want to be right. Even if that means ignoring all facts presented to them.

My mom is the exact opposite of Yaz's mom. When an election comes up either she reads up on what both sides have to say about the issues at hand or if she feels like she doesn't go through the trouble to do that then she feels like she shouldn't vote.

I don't know a whole lot about politics but when I weight in on an issue or try to explain something to someone I like to do my research first.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

. When an election comes up either she reads up on what both sides have to say about the issues at hand or if she feels like she doesn't go through the trouble to do that then she feels like she shouldn't vote.

Whch is the responsibility and accountability that every American should take up before they vote. Very few do, and thats the problem.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

Should be pretty much mandatory in countries like India. Politicians pretty much depend on the poor here to secure their places in the Parliament. It's basically a "I'll give you money if you vote for me system here."

In the US, I'm not so sure. But yes, something very basic could come in very handy to ensure that the voter is a person who can make a decision on his own and isn't voting for some financial gain or something.

 

[Dirk]

It's better than "vote buying". The parties roll into the townships and hand out t-shirts and some food, the people vote, then the parties disappear, leaving disappointment and broken promises in their wake.

 

[ScreaminNormanSmiley]

I think that we should eliminate voting altogether.

 

[Sparky]

There should be evaluation tests to open bank accounts, own firearms, vote, collect any government benefits, including unemployment, welfare, and others.

Too many people abuse the system to the point of making it hard on others to get what they need. If you have a standardized test for everyone, then that solves the problem.

I wonder if Milenko is allowed to have a bank account yet....

 

[Clucky Duck]

It's a bad idea. For various reasons. Who will be writing the test questions? Will it really be fair? I know people talk about "discrimination against minorities" but it could be discriminate against anyone. If extreme Liberal Democrats write the brunt of the material then it tips against people who are Conservative. And if the opposite happens because of extreme Conservative Republicans, then liberally minded folks get screwed.

Now I do think that voter I.Ds need to happen, because there are many MANY things that the government requires people to have to purchase certain items and to perform a plethora of functions in society. I actually know people from home (US) that got bored and voted four different times in different cities in my state, and they were able to because there is no system in place to combat that. And there are people who will still call it racist and discriminatory, but I've only seen this to be propaganda or shrt sighted at best. It takes maybe $20 to get a form of ID, whether it's a Driver's Liscense or what. And if you have to have an ID to do less important things like drive, buy alcohol, buy a gun, open a bank account, apply for food stamps, welfare, and social security checks, get on an airplane, GET MARRIED, ADOPT A PET, and to hold a rally or protest, then voting (the most important function of our citizenry) should be required for that as well.

 

[SavageTaker]

I'm almost 100% sure that's unconstitutional. Plus it would disenfranchise people as it would become a "hassle," to vote. Also, like someone else mentioned, who would write the questions? Who's to say some parts of such "test," are fair and some unfair? We all have opinions and a way of viewing things, so it's very unlikely that everyone would completely agree on this. I leave you with these two pieces of legislation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965