The lazy disenfranchise themselves.
You can not have a voting test without it being used by whoever administers it to achieve some end. It cries for abuse . It was wrong before and wrong now. You can not expect people to live under a government and have no say at all.
Yes, I agree. Idiocy is God given. But ignorance is self-imposed. Let the idiot vote, but at least let him demonstrate and interest enough that he grasps the concepts.
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical interrogative ceremony!
I agree with the last part, but if they want t have a say they need to just get a basic rasp of the principles/issues.
I don’t like the idea being proposed, but if you feel that some restrictions need to be placed on voters, make it a one-time deal. When you turn 18, you go down to register to vote. You take a short civics test (something that any 10th grader should be able to pass), and only get to register if you pass. Then that’s it-- you’re good for life. Or, require that everyone pass some sort of civics test in HS before they can register to vote. I still think that would be seen as discriminatory, even if it wasn’t. And if were seen that way, it would have the same effect as if it really were.
Still, I personally wouldn’t want to see any such restriction in place. Democracy means you sometimes have to accept that your guy lost, even if he lost because of the “stupid vote”.
I could maybe – probably not, but maybe – see justification for this if we were some flourishing multi-party democracy and voting mattered. But check it out. There’re two very similar parties. Who cares if there are idiots? Get in line, flip a coin.
I agree completely with Parker and Stone, but I don’t think there should be a test. It’s one of those things that I kinda wish was just self-imposed (fantasy, I know) instead of written into law. Like I wish people didn’t get abortions, but I’m against outlawing them. I wish guns didn’t exist, but I’m against outlawing them. It’s an ideals vs. reality thing.
That said, I do kinda like John Mace’s idea of a one-time test either in high school or before you register to vote. The outrage against it would probably be that lots of people would never take it because they’d be afraid to ever have to admit to failing it (of course people would say they didn’t take it because it’s inconvenient or something.) Voter turnout would go way down, and whatever party it hurt most would make it their sole mission to get it overturned.
8 years ago, I would have disagreed with that statement. Today, I find it utterly unfathomable.
Whatever you wanted to achieve with this test you would not achieve -unless it was the goal of corrupting the test to disenfranchise people you don’t like. There’s no possible way to force people to learn what you want them to learn, or to use that knowledge when they actually go and vote. I know lots of single-issue voters; it’s religious for them and you’re not going to change it.
The OP proposal as it is just plain isn’t feasible. It also is sort of meaningless since really there’s no one in the country who is qualified to vote on who should or shouldn’t be elected. Politicians themselves aren’t experts in the field of most of the things they legislate, nor do they get reprimanded for passing laws that later get slapped down by the courts or proven to be ineffective, so long as the bill was popular.
And in the US at least, the vanishingly small number of the intellectualist liberals would be screwed at the voting booths if there wasn’t the great big pool of idiots that voted with them. Since their numbers, combined, seem to average out to being equal to the conservatives–even though it’s just happenstance–there’s not much room to complain that both sides aren’t being heard.
But like I said, the ultimate issue is that no one has a grasp on even the foundations of every issue, be it economic, sociological, legal, medical, or what-have-you.
A better/alternate solution would be to make voting work different. If a person has skill in a particular sector–economics, science, medicine, law, military matters, etc.–you give them a vote for that “field”. Everyone also has an individual vote for a generic field that’s just called “morality” or “trust” or whatever. Then you give various fields various weights to all the fields. the “trust” field might be 50% of the vote and is open to everyone, “law” 5%, “military” 3%, medicine 7%, etc. each specialised field open to only the people qualified to judge it. The weights of the fields could be set by the popular vote/electoral college vote so everyone is still getting their representation of the issues, but the issues themselves are somewhat being decided by those in the know.
What if it were on the ballot itself? Use a punch-ballot system verified independently by representatives from both parties (sort of the way things are verified now. Ask 4 questions with 3 answers each (sample: “Which branch of the government contains Congress: executive, judicial, or legislative?” “Which of these rights is guaranteed by the first amendment: the right to bear arms, the right to an attorney, or the right to free speech?” “Who is currently vice president: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, or Nancy Pelosi?” “Where are you likely to find an earmark’s first appearance: in a legislative bill, in an executive order, or in a judicial decision?”) Have a pool of 50 questions from which they are drawn. Any ballot on which at least one question was answered incorrectly would be invalidated. Bipartisan observers would review all rejected ballots.
I still don’t know whether I’d approve. But it might be a feasible system.
As for the cultural problems, I don’t think that’s an issue. The literacy test would be designed to test one particular area of knowledge, unlike the SAT.
Daniel
But it’s self-correcting the other way, too, or at least it might be. It’s absurd to pretend that “encouraging people to vote” constitutes merely telling them to go to the polls on a certain day and pick someone at random. If you can successfully encourage someone to vote, you’ll probably also cause them to start paying attention to the issues.
If someone doesn’t care, they don’t care, and won’t vote. If you can convince them it’s good to vote they’ll likely do some thinking and listening on the way.
I disagree . . . just by their very nature those campaigns tend to say, “I don’t care who you vote for, just vote.” There are people out there who absolutely will go to the polls and vote just because P-Diddy told them to. If you want encourage people to vote by getting them interested in issues then you should talk about those issues, and remind them their voice can be heard at the polls. “Rock the Vote”, etc, is stupid.