You can demonstrate English competency at at least the eighth-grade level.
You can pass the equivalent of a eighth-grade civics test.
2a. Specifically, you can’t vote for a congressional candidate unless you can demonstrate that you know what a congressman is and what he does. Ditto for mayoral, senatorial, etc. elections.
You can’t vote on propositions, initiatives, etc. without reading their texts in full and correctly answering several basic questions about the proposed measures.
I realize that this disfranchises the stupid and the lazy. It could certainly be argued that if people want to choose their elected officials on the basis on nothing other than their hair color or party affiliation, that’s their right. On the other hand, I can’t help but feel that when you vote, you have an obligation to inform yourself about what you’re voting on or who you’re voting for.
I do realize that such a law could never come to pass because there would be extended screaming about its disfranchising the poor, the pink, the green, the Martians, the (insert group). I just want to look at it as a thought experiment. Is it fair? Is it workable? Would it confer any benefit, or cause any harm?
It disenfranchises whoever the test-writer wants to disenfranchise, really. You’re hardly the first person to propose such a system. It’s rife with the potential for fraud and abuse, and generally tends to be proposed by people who would like to keep a certain other class of people from voting. In your case, I’m guessing that would be “the poor,” since that’s the only non-imaginary group that you mentioned in your little list.
(As an aside, when making a list of groups in such a way, including “pink, green, Martian,” etc., doesn’t make you seem super-inclusive. It just makes you look ridiculous.)
Yeah, this is a really bad idea. Ask yourself who makes up the test. Then ask yourself if perhaps they might skew the test to meet an agenda.
This is the same reason book banning is bad. The people who decide which books to ban usually have a reason for doing so. “Subversive” is not necessarily a bad thing and I’m not sure we want only the “right” people voting when the definitions of “subversive” and “right” are determined by those in power.
ETA: I’m agreeing with MsWhatsit, it’s the OP I find to be a really bad idea.
Have you ever read a California proposition text in full? Typically they go on for dozens of pages of dense legalese. Even a college graduate would have a hard time with some of them. I think the vast majority of even educated people have to rely on the Impartial Legislative Summary.
Well, you’re guessing, and you’re wrong. I heartily encourage the poor to vote, and wouldn’t dream of excluding them based on their economic status. What I discourage is the people who don’t bother to educate themselves about the basics of American citizenship having and exercising the vote.
The list of groups was a reference to the fact that various ethnic groups would certainly automatically see this proposal as an attack on their rights (much as you reflexively, and without grounds, saw this as an attack on the poor), and I didn’t feel I could name any one of them without getting my throat cut.
Also, the fact that a law has the potential for abuse is not ipso facto a reason to not create it. Anti-drug laws have the potential for abuse. So do laws against fraud and extortion. (Just to name a couple.)
Misplaced and clumsy comparison. I did not propose banning anyone from voting, only that they should have to qualify to do so. Note that the standards I set were pretty darn low.
I don’t know how you got off on the “subversion” tangent.
If you wish. The questions I would propose asking would be simple and the potential voter would only need a basic understanding of the proposition to answer them. The Summary would probably be enough.
Though I would like to include a couple of general questions along the lines of, say, if the proposition is for a bond issue, what is a bond and what does it do. I am actually appalled by the notion that people vote on these things based on TV sound bites and often have absolutely no idea what they’re voting on.
Hm. Wanting voters to be at least minimally educated is silly. Sort of like wanting people who drive to have licenses and pass a written driving test. Silly.
OP superficially has a point: It sure would be nice if we could ensure that voters know WTF they are voting for, so we won’t be all so bamboozled by the partisan sound-snipes. But the poll test has a seemingly insurmountable objection, as nearly everyone above has already noted.
In particular, the objection IS NOT HYPOTHETICAL! We’ve been there, done that. And yes, poll tests really were used to disenfranchise [del]green[/del] [del]pink[/del] [del]orange[/del] BLACK, dammit, people mostly. So with that actual history, we now know that poll tests can’t be the solution. All the hypothetical abuses were REAL, not hypothetical.
Holy tamoley! Just TRY to understand what you’re voting for! I don’t know how anybody can figure out what the laws are, even after we pass them so we can tell what’s in them!
Here’s a strategy I’ve tried: Get on-line, and read LOTS of editorials from LOTS of newspapers around the state, about EACH proposition. I read op-eds from papers in known Republican strongholds (e.g., Orange County) and liberal bastions (e.g., S. F. area) and lots of others. After reading lots of arguments pro and con and judging those arguments, I began to feel I could tell how I should vote.
The down-side: I quickly found that this TAKES UMPTEEN-THOUSAND HOURS to do! I quickly narrowed my strategy to this: Pick a few propositions that I felt were particularly important to vote right on, and study those in this way. The rest, vote based on the stupid measly arguments in the voter pamphlet and hope for the best.
1. You can demonstrate English competency at at least the eighth-grade level.
There are U.S. citizens who may not have good enough English for your test, but who nevertheless are well informed and can accurately select who or what they’re voting for. Why do you want to deny them the right to vote?
2. You can pass the equivalent of a eighth-grade civics test.
Which would help how, exactly? One doesn’t need to know the details of how the system works in order to have an understanding of the likely effect of his vote. Of course, if you could pass this test, perhaps you would know that there’s no constitutional mandate to use or understand English.
2a. Specifically, you can’t vote for a congressional candidate unless you can demonstrate that you know what a congressman is and what he does. Ditto for mayoral, senatorial, etc. elections.
Easy. What he does is potentially make a difference in what happens and how things happen. Who doesn’t know that? And who needs to know more than that?
3. You can’t vote on propositions, initiatives, etc. without reading their texts in full and correctly answering several basic questions about the proposed measures.
Ridiculous, as explained above. I would be very surprised if you have done this yourself.
I realize that this disfranchises the stupid and the lazy.
No, it disenfranchises those who don’t approach politics the way you think they ought to. News flash: not everyone’s thought process is the same as yours. Not everyone does stuff the way you do. There are reasonable ways to live life that are different from yours. You do not necessarily have better understanding or better judgment than those who do not follow your formula. You cannot claim superiority over people who don’t measure up to your vision of the ideal. Get over yourself.
Is it fair?
Hardly.
Is it workable?
Not even close.
Would it confer any benefit, or cause any harm?
Benefit? Maybe you’d feel better. Harm? Oh yeah.
So if there is a group of people who are disadvantaged and I would like to keep them that way by keeping them from voting, all I need to do according to your plan is provide them with a substandard education. What’s great is, their poor education will prevent them from having voting rights so they will never be improve their station. Brilliant.
But it would increase public confidence in the voting system, which is far more important than the potential disenfranchisement of the stupid, lazy and/or poor.
You don’t think there would be a problem with a large group of disenfranchised and economically disadvantaged people in society? Do you think that they might act out in less than productive ways if they were blocked from participating in elections?
Also, if you keep the ignorant out of politics who is going to bother to watch Fox News?
I should probably mention that my previous post should be assumed to contain just a tinge of sarcasm, as well as a reference to another similar ongoing thread.
To reiterate, the problem with this sort of scheme is always that someone has to come up with the test. It’s impossible to come up with a truly objective, unbiased test, and so you are always going to end up giving someone the power to decide who gets to vote and who does not. And just that easily, you’ve gone from a democracy to having one person (or a committee, or whatever) ultimately making the decisions. The plan, while it may sound good, cannot be implemented without turning over control to the test-makers.
I agree with this. I have a very strong antipathy for policies that are supposedly for the public good but which are actually based on contempt for the people you are trying to help.