Those are supposed to be unfair to the uneducated, SAT’s and other tests are supposed to test what you know about the subjects tested (as well as how well you understand it).
However, the potential to rig tests to favour the party in power isn’t really there, or at least not to the extent it is with a voting test, which could be manipulated.
It’s possible that people might get the question wrong if the same questions are used, you do have a point. However, if the questions were known in advance I suspect that most people would remember the answers off by heart, or ask outside the polling station, or find someway of getting the answer. The stakes would probably seem higher than getting a history question correct, and more people would have an interest in helping them get it right.
Quoting silverfish:
*Those are supposed to be unfair to the uneducated, SAT’s and other tests are supposed to test what you know about the subjects tested (as well as how well you understand it).[/]
Ok first off, i’ll admit that my questions were a little slanted, but they were examples, except for #1 and #2 just because they deal with the present times. History probably shouldn’t be a critiera for voting.
But High Deity brings up an excellent point, what about current, and BASIC government education. Number of senators, the three branches, terms and etc…
Would this be fair test? It certainly couldn’t be slanted by government parties, right? It’d be just like the government test you took in high school, but instead of a 100 questions, just a simple 10 random questions.
I agree with you point that more people would get the question right than actually know it, but I feel that the basic idea of the test is to eliminate the really stupid people.
I don’t think that would be fair either, it would be biased towards the well educated, and those with the resources to research things. It also isn’t really relevant in making a decision about what party or candidate to vote for, in most cases. I live in Britain, so I didn’t do a government test, and manage to consider most issues without referring to the number of MPs in the house of commons, or the number of lords, or how bills pass through parliament, although I have a reasonably good knowledge of the subject (through research for an entry I wrote here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A591383)
Such things are unlikely to be relevant to discussion of abortion, taxes, or many other issues.
When I last voted I did use knowledge of the fact that I was voting for an MP (and a councillor, in seperate elections on the same day), who would represent my constituency in the house of parliament, which is the sort of thing that I suspect almost all people know anyway. The only essential knowledge needed to vote is that the person you are voting is more likely to get into power than if you vote for someone else.
Stuff about how long you are electing someone for, or other things like that might be useful, but not so essential that someone should be deprived of a vote because they don’t know.
I don’t think it will eliminate very many people at all, if the questions are fixed (in the case of the history questions at least), and it would probably be the case that you catch out people who don’t remember to remember, or don’t realise there is a test, because they are uniformed, not because they are particularly stupid.
The point about having fixed questions, though, was an aside, to my main point that if the are decidate every time there would most likely be bias in choosing the questions, or the sort of questions asked.
I’m absolutely opposed to any type of test for voting. Too much possibility for abuse, and who the hell are you (generically) to decide who’s “smart” enough?
A question, though. Is there any legal restrictions in the US on voting based on so-called mental retardation? I’m genuinely curious, and not trying to say if the should be shaped one way or the other. Suppose someone operates at a 7 yr old level. They can talk, read some, even hold down a simple job. Any restriction on this type of person voting in any Western Democracy?
And the democrats say:
“Vote for me and I’ll give you free health care.”
translation:
“Vote for me because I’ll give you something for nothing.”
At least the tax cuts example is not giving people money, but rather taking less of it.
Taxes come from us. Look at your paystub.
**
unsupported? unsupported?
Do Republicans engage in vote buying? In fraudulent vote-getting schemes? Yes. But nine times out of ten, it’s the Democrats. Either Republicans are smart and don’t get caught or Democrats are more likely to be corrupt. Which is it, are they stupid or corrupt?
I do allow that there are intelligent, uncorrupt Democrats, however – but that some of their grassroots and city level people are dirty, dirty, dirty.
For example, there was more than 100% voter turnout in some Philadelphia precincts that voted for… Al Gore. And this last go around, in some NW state, the Democrats got caught filing fraudulent absentee votes and the Republican lost by less than a percent – it made the difference.
Bottom line: politics is dirty and the Democrats are better at it.
Now to get back on the thread…
Have you ever seen Jay Leno or heard a radio show host send a camera/microphone out on the street and ask people questions like, who is the president?
People on the whole are absolutely, horribly uninformed. I call the public at large Sheeple, because they form their opinions in high school and never question them again, and because they do and think whatever Dan Rather and Oprah tell them to do and think.
If he can answer some basic governmental questions, yes, he can vote.
Oh yeah, well how about you write a two page essay on the Battle of New Orleans?
Alas, I fear you have the truth of the matter.
With all due respect, cite please?
Let me state also, this thread is not republicans vs. democrats. I just use Jesse Jackass as an example. If the republican party buys gifts and lunch for potential voters, than the hell with them too. There are bads seeds in every apple. I’m just sayin’ that these bad seeds target such people that don’t have a clue where they are in the first place. Then they put them on a bus, bring em’ to Chuckie Cheese and corrupt their feeble little minds into voting.
BAD BAD BAD!
Define basic governmental question. I’ve already said why I think that the number of senators, and other similar questions are not valid for deciding if someone should vote, and all that is needed for someone’s vote to be meaningful is to know that you are helping your candidate to gain power by voting for him/her.
Also, who decides if someone explains the concept well enough, and how do you avoid bias in marking?
The role of government in a Republic or Parliamentary system comes down to “what to do with all this tax money”. Now since the government is supposed to represent the will of “the people” and consequently taxes “the people” those taxed should have a say in how/why they are taxed.
If the local tin foil hat loving UFO’ologist is paying tax s/he should have a say in how that tax money is spent.
It dawns on me that the OP posses questions that have nothing to do with Logic, which is the supposed topic of this thread.
Let’s give standardized IQ tests to voters. If you score “Unable to Add Single Digits” or “Unable to Read Nursery Rhymes,” then you can’t vote.
I get slack for this: http://archive.nandotimes.com/election2000/story/0,3977,500277012-500433713-502748482-0-nandotimes,00.html
“They’re lining up buses at minority churches, loading them up and hauling them to the polls as soon as church is over,” Huckabee said. “That’s against the law, but when you have Democrats running the election commissions, Democrat prosecutors, Democrat judges, what are you going to do to stop it?”
Grey, you stumped me!
Good or bad?
There now, that wasn’t that hard was it?
And to answer Mr. Huckabee’s question in the quote, I say, “Florida”. 
Is there some reason you posted the exact same question a half hour after me???
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=156817