ahh voters, not jurors. I couldn’t believe my eyes at first. I thought that two people may actually have posted the exact same question.
Grey Oh this is good. I asked a question. Your answer basically say’s no to my question. Therefore, if you give the government 1 cent. You have a say whether or not who manages that cent. Regardless of who and how many.
KidCharlemagneWell not exactly the same question. Different nouns.
Sorry Kid, I should have used a different subject.
I wish I could find a link to the actual test. It’s out there, I promise (at least an example of it). Back on topic, I disagree that this test would be biased towards anyone other than those that are unwilling to bother to learn about the process. Note that this test is mandatory for people wishing to become naturalized citizens. We, by being born as citizens, are given our citizenship for free (well… sorta, but that’s a whole other debate, so let’s try to stay on topic). I feel that if such a test is the standard by which foreigners are judged to become citizens to the US, then the test is at least a fair bar to measure one’s knowlege of how our government works. Questions are pretty simple to even the non-“intelligencia”, like:
… How many senators do we have?
… Who is the head of the executive branch?
… What is the name of the highest court in the nation?
… Who becomes president if both the president and the vice president die?
And so on.
Now now, name calling will get us nowhere (look at capital hill).
This would entail me having to recall every vote fraud article I’ve ever read, because this is my perception based on the stories I’ve read in the news.
But let me try a couple cites:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment110900b.shtml
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment111700f.shtml
http://www.theamericanprowler.org/article.asp?art_id=2002_12_8_23_7_24
http://www.theamericanprowler.org/article.asp?art_id=2002_10_18_0_34_58
Admittedly, these are conservative sources, but I figured I could find something there a lot easier than searching USA Today or New York Times.
Nonetheless, here is one (also referred to in one of the links above) from USA TODAY:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/votefraud.htm
Fraud in general, though involving Democratic constituencies:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2001-05-11-ncoppf.htm
Why do Democrats oppose fraud investigations?:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2002-10-23-voterfraud_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/wi/main.htm
Okay, so there is a good search engine on USA Today.
Let me rephrase an earlier post slightly. Perhaps instead of saying it’s Democrats getting caught 9 times out of 10, I should have said, it’s Republicans accusing Democrats 9 times out of 10.
Well my criteria has the benefit of not assuming that vast numbers of current voters lack the ability to examine the candidates/issues.
And what about the paranoid bunker boy that shells out $Millions? He shouldn’t get to vote? He shouldn’t have a say in how policy is framed?
Just cuz your parents are Democrats… 
Anyway, those questions above do nothing to indicate whether the potential voter is intellectually capable of forming an opinion.
I find this reprehensible.
YME said, “All too often I hear of political and religious figures (Jesse Jackass) going to the lowest of lowest places, buying groups of people meals and such to get a vote for someone.”
Jesse has been buying meals for down-and-outers for the better part of 40 years. This is not a political ploy.
Re: the OP, most Americans HAVE taken the test. We had to take American History in HS. We had to pass the constitution test in Junior year and a social science course in senior year. I would venture to say that most American students have to accomplish something similar to this before they can graduate.
And brains ain’t all they’re cracked up to be. Being smart doesn’t make a person a responsible citizen.
Erislover, I also find the felony = no vote thing to be unacceptable. I wish someone would show me how it’s constitutional. Anyone? Anyone? Buehler? Or one of our attorneys?
First, I found a site that does “mock citizenship tests” using questions from the real test. I got 10/10 
http://www.herald-sun.com/votebook/citizenship/citstart.html
ANYONE can form an opinion. Whether or not that opinion meets your standards as to what you like/agree with or not is not the issue. The fact that we all form opinions is one of the driving forces of society.
The point of a test is not to see if a voter can form an opinion (and most certianly not to see if they can form an opinion that you approve of), the point of the test is to eliminate those that are not aware enough of the workings of our government to be able to solidly contribute to the decision process.
As a microexample, a man gets a job offer that would require him to move. Certianly he and his wife would discuss the good/bad points to accepting such an offer, but it is doubful that their 5 year old child would be able to add anything constructive to the situtation. Certianly one of the factors discussed between the man and his wife would be the child(ren), but the 5 year old has little authority to get involved with the process directly.
Now don’t think I’m trying to call a bunch of grown americans 5 year olds, I’m just saying that they are ill informed, and unlike the 5 year old, they are ill informed more than likely by choice.
Good. Then this law has it’s desired effect. Don’t commit a felony if you want to continue to have a say in politics.
(I got 10/10)
Sorry, I thought that it was inherently obvious I was discussing the presence or absence of a certain level of logical aptitude. I can’t believe you missed that. Frankly, I thought higher of you.
You only got 10/10 because I helped you.
As to your second comment… do be nice. And I doubt you think that highly of me to begin with.
- Poster’s note, yes, Mithrilhawk and I know each other, we work at the same place *
I’ll take a poke at it, but the following is merely opinion and I will bow to those who may be informed on the issue:
I think it’s an extension of the justification for depriving them of the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness once they’ve been convicted of their crime.
Liberty, and with that the right to have a say in your situation via some form of democratic process, is viewed as endowed by the Creator by our society. When someone commits a crime that deprives others of some fundamental, Creator-endowed right, then society is justified in removing the right of liberty from the criminal for the good of all.
Losing the right to vote is a long-accepted consequence of a felony. To restore the right to vote because a felon has served the time is, in effect, to universally reduce punishment for a crime.
But other than justification, let me state that I find it most unlikely felons care about their right to vote as they plan or commit their felony. And, do we really want murderers, rapists, drug smugglers and child porn mongers to have a say in politics? Is it required to build a case against that?
Why should bothering to learn about the process be a factor? The average voter doesn’t need to know the details about how government works to make their decision which is to decide what candidate they prefer, preferably based on their policies. I can’t see how the correct voting decision would change if, for example, the sentator you are voting for was the only one, or one of ten, unless you are not really voting for the candidate, but voting to keep balance, or voting tactically, or doing something else.
Also, bothering isn’t the only factor. It is a lot easier to find out such things if you have access to the internet, or to reference books, at the extreme afford transport to go to the library regularly. Thus, wealth is a factor.
There is an important difference between citizenship tests for migrants, and voting. If you allow someone to become a citizen then they increase the population, possibly commit crimes, etc, or may be a model citizen and help their community. Their becomnig a citizen directly effects the country, and so there is some justification for having standards for entry. Whether citizenship tests are the best way of applying them is debatable, but having standards is a way of avoiding the country being filled with ‘undesirables’.
Voting doesn’t work like that. Giving someone a vote ‘merely’ lets them help choose a president, sentator, etc, so any standards should be related to how well they can make that decision. I fail to see how knowing the answers to the questions you give help in deciding who to vote for, when that decision is more often a matter of who you feel actually has the best policies, or
you merely kept me from misreading the question.
Nonetheless, despite your pathetic attempts to besmirch my intelligence (butthead:)), you have yet to explain how knowing the name of the first president is an indication of whether one is capable of forming a logical opinion.
Mithrilhawk said, “But other than justification, let me state that I find it most unlikely felons care about their right to vote as they plan or commit their felony. And, do we really want murderers, rapists, drug smugglers and child porn mongers to have a say in politics? Is it required to build a case against that?”
For one thing, those aren’t the only kind of felonies there are. White collar felons, in particular, have good reason to be interested in politics. The point is, you’ve served your sentence. Your crime doesn’t take citizenship away from you. You’ve learned your lesson. You should be able to have a say in the future of your country.
Hold onto a crutch long enough, and you may actually be forced to depend on it someday.
Now, do I personally believe that some people are more “privledged” than others due to circumstances beyond their control? Absolutely. Do I believe that given ambition, one can promote themselves higher? Of course. My parents were making a combined $160 a week when I was born (1980). Note that they were paying taxes on this. Through work, they are now doing much better than that now. With no post high-school education (actually, I think they both have GEDs). Actually, I must take that back now… my mom has enrolled in college. I don’t mean to give myself props by mentioned this, it is just an example close to me that I am familar with. I feel that people can overcome challenges place infront of them by society. It’s the act of holding onto excuses that gets us nowhere. I could have passed that test at 7, and I had no access to materials that anyone else could have gotten at the time. Like I mentioned before, the desire to inform yourself has to do with ambition, and ambition is free (hard to keep sometimes, but it’s not pay-at-the-pump).
High Deity
I notice you haven’t told us what knowing about the detail of how government works is at all useful, let alone neccesary, to make an informed choice on what candidate to vote for.
I admit that people can overcome hurdles put in the way of them by society, and applaud those who do. That doesn’t mean that such things are mere ‘excuses’. It also doesn’t refute the fact that it is harder for the poor to get access to reference materials.
I don’t see how that justifies preventing people voting on the basis of not knowing things that have marginal relevance to deciding who to vote for, when the really important things to consider a things like the views of the candidate on the issues that matter to them, or their political record, or many other things.
Do you want white collar felons involved in selecting your president?
As for serving your sentence, part of my post addressed this when I noted that it is a long-standing policy/law of relieving felons of the right to vote.
To come out now and restore their right is to reduce the sentence.
I don’t want felons to vote.
Sure, you could have picked a better example. Let’s say some Joe gets a felony charge for driving 86 in a 55 (or 55 in a school zone because he didn’t see the flashing light, or other some such thing). He loses his right to vote and his right to own guns. Is that harsh? Yes, perhaps overly so. BUT THAT IS PART OF THE PENALTY.
Felonies are felonies because society considers them a heinous offense against the good of society.
If society wants to create a new class of crimes for non-violent crimes worse than misdemeanors, and this class of crimes does not involve permanent loss of certain rights, that would fine and legal and I’d probably support it.
But just to say felons have served their time and should have a right to vote doesn’t sit well. Again, the majority of us don’t want our collective futures to be influenced by people who are proven harmful to society.