Careful. This seems to be extremely abhorrent to many on this board, and has whipped them into a homicidal froth. Being uninformed, they seem to feel, is no grounds for disqualification. Being unable to say what a senator does shouldn’t disqualify you from voting for someone to fill the office.
The idea that voting is a right of being a citizen, not of being a carbon-based life form, would seem self-evident, as well as the idea that citizenship carries with it certain obligations.
Perhaps. But there’s not a lot of non-English politically discursive content out there. And much of what is out there focuses on the needs/interests of a specific ethnic group rather than that of the body politic as a whole (no criticism of that intended).
(1) There are already plenty of incentives for immigrants to learn English. They don’t need disenfranchisement as another.
(2) The people who are slow in learning English are most often adults who (a) find it most difficult to learn a new language and (b) already have multiple pressures on their time, including earning enough money to live.
(3) If they are in an immersion environment, they will benefit from it; if they’re not in an immersion environment, disenfranchising them won’t change that.
(4) Whether they learn English or not is a matter that affects their own personal lives. It’s not for some privileged outsider to judge them and then take away their political voice as a punishment.
Your experience is with self-selected groups. There are always the people who can’t afford to take the time or money to take your classes. There are always some people who find it more difficult than others to learn new languages especially at a certain age. Assuming that your personal experience “demonstrates” something about millions of people whose lives and situations you have no clue about is actually a very good reason not to give you or people like you the power to make rules about who gets to vote.
It is not self-evident. The right to have a voice in your government is a basic right, a fundamental right in a democracy. And the fact that poll taxes or tests of all kinds have been struck down as unconstitutional pretty much should end that discussion.
You again have zero idea what you’re talking about. Non-English speakers have plenty of access to information in this country. The fact that it might not be the kind of information that you particularly like is beside the point.
Hee hee. I knew you were making that basic error when you originally criticized my post. “Disfranchise” and “disenfranchise” are, in fact, synonyms, or equivalents, if you like. Look it up.
You obviously don’t belong on the Voter Testing Board. Thus do you illustrate the need for testing applicants before they are accepted to the position. (Even though testing is mean.)
My brother-in-law is an alderman, That is the only qualification I need.
The official Voter’s Test Booklet only recognizes disenfranchise. This isn’t complicated. Anyone with an 8th grade education should be able to figure it out.
That’s pretty much my point–they are a group that chose to become educated in English. Such choice is freely available (including the choice to not learn English and remain marginalized).
Many posters, yourself included, have objected to a voter qualification test as exclusionary. I really doubt that requiring voters to have an eighth-grade education excludes very many people at all.
Greenslime,
You say “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 talk about congressional elections and then say “ditto” for senatorial elections as if they were separate categories. You do realize, don’t you, that congressional elections include senatorial elections, right? You wouldn’t make an obvious mistake like that.
You say that “saying who can or can’t vote is a function of the executive branch of government”. Can you go into a little more detail concerning that? Are you sure the legislative branch isn’t involved in determining who can and cannot vote?
Something no one (astonishingly) has yet mentioned about the OP’s idea. Every citizen will have to take a new test virtually every election, to prove knowledge to the content of the propositions/initiatives/referendums.
And a lot of these tests are not going to be able to be written at the national or even the state level – they will have to be written at the local level for things like issuing bonds or hiking local property taxes for the school district. Who is going to write these tests? More importantly, who is going to decide what is the correct answer?
For example, Acid Lamp’s example upthread:
Sorry, Acid Lamp, your ‘simple’ example has at least two correct answers from one point of view, and NONE from another POV. ‘Unsure’ is an absolutely and unambiguously correct answer if you are not in fact sure of the definition. And many, maybe most, “right to lifers” support the right to abortion in some cases and not in others. A lot of them would disagree that any of these answers is a correct definition, because they self-identify with the term “right to life” but not how you and your test would define it.
And then there are all kinds of crazy shit that gets onto ballots, for instance (IMO) the ‘personhood’ initiative in last election in Mississippi that defined a human egg to be a person the moment of conception. Is your test going to ask, or say, anything about the consequences of such a vote – such as possibly criminalizing some forms of contraception? And even worse shit could show up – I can easily imagine some yahoos getting something on a ballot that says “No mosques can be built in our city.” Is your test going to ask, “Does this referendum meet the criteria of freedom of religion as laid out in the constitution?”
But writing and scoring a knowledge based test are simply impossible to do without multiple groups of people on two or more sides of an issue screaming (and suing) over the process. Elections could grind to a halt while courts sort through all complaints over every single test question for every single ballot item.
The dictionary says otherwise. If you’re trying to say, in your own circumlocutious fashion, that standards would be arbitrary, that’s not a given. They may have been in the past–so what? This isn’t the past.
My point is that the testing board gets to decide. Maybe Ms. Tester liked the look of the guy who went before you, so she let a few errors slide. But you look like the sort of person that we really don’t want around here, so you’re going to be graded more strictly.
Ah-ha, you say, but we will eliminate the possibility of abuse by testing the testers. Interesting plan. Who administrates the test for the testers? Who tests them?
If tests become a requirement for voting rights, then whatever group happens to be in power will try to manipulate the testing process in order to get more of their favored voters allowed, and more of their unfavored voters disallowed. This is not preventable.
Besides which, I have to question your own basic knowledge of civics if you think that disenfranchising groups of voters based on arbitrary testing criteria is appropriate in our legal system.
Oh, and welcome to the Dope.
The dictionary is not the Voter’s Test Booklet.
Hey, slime didn’t claim that he could pass the civics test, did he?
Okay, capitalize “Congressional” if you want. Most people don’t consider the Senate to be part of Congress.
The executive branch enforces the laws that the legislative branch has enacted. Thus, including or excluding voters, based on established criteria, is the role and function of the executive branch.
Legislative: A voter qualification test shall be administered to all eligible perosns who wish to vote…
Executive: Please complete the following test.
No, give me credit for acknowledging that if I couldn’t pass such a test, I shouldn’t be allowed to vote, either.
Very well, you have failed. See you in two years.
What.
Dude, tell me you’re just messing with us now.