Oh, oh… an please add correlation vs causation… if you do, I’ll vote for you!
I understand, but answer the question. What percentage of people would you expect to be disenfranchised?
Oh, and by loading a a test with questions like this (that you don’t seem to like) – that is, questions that have commonly believed answers that are nevertheless wrong, you can skew the results to disenfranchise more people. Or are you in fact skewing the results? It is a legitimate civics question – does the fact that 66% (or whatever majority you want) will get the answer wrong mean anything? If you make up a series of questions about what powers of government are exercised by which branches of government, you could probably eliminate more than half of the electorate. Keep in mind that voter participation is typically down around 50% already. How small can the voting population be allowed to get?
YES, and with pleasure. That’s arguably even more important, isn’t it?
Another vote for meeee!
It would almost certainly produce a better-functioning society. I would, for example, in lieu of my proposal, be happy with forcing everyone to demonstrate their understanding of the concept, “correlation does not equal causation” before they were allowed to vote.
Systems where only the smartest people were allowed to vote, I believe, would be much better than present systems. And you know what? I would be perfectly happy were I, myself disfranchised under such a system. I would be perfectly happy with putting the governance of the country into the hands of people who were smarter than me. Democracy doesn’t always produce the most human happiness, not by a long shot.
While I disagree with the OP’s opinion on the main subject of this thread, I do agree with him here. Come on, folks, you’d have to have been living under a rock to not know that members of the House are commonly – very commonly – called congressmen, as opposed to members of the Senate being called senators. Yes, technically Congress is comprised of both the Senate and the House, but that’s not the point. I learned this before eighth grade. Everybody – except those picking a nit here – knows just what is meant when they hear or read “congressman Joe Blow.” Let this one die.
Ideally, about the smartest 1-2% of the population (measured objectively). Just like in ancient Athens (the fact that women were excluded aside).
The House/Senate/Congress thing is a matter of commonly used terminology. Any careful construction of a voting test would avoid any such confusion, as all standardized tests try to do. So, it would be “How many persons are in the House of Representatives? How many in the Senate?” not, “How many persons are in Congress?”
Obviously, problems of this nature would have to be carefully screened for. I don’t think, as many posters have opined, that constructing a fair and unbiased test would be impossible. Difficult, yes, but not insurmountably so.
He’s the one who proposed that there be a test, with right and wrong answers. A formal civics test would have to be based on the rigorous terminology of the bicameral legislature.
No, if you vote for my scheme, that will be 15,000+ votes for you!
Well, of course they knew it–they were just being snarky. A tired internet tactic is to try to discredit someone’s argument by finding some trivial error–or “error”–in their post and beating him over the head with it. It’s much less effort than actually coming up with a cogent counter-argument.
Okay, before you seemed ‘troll-ish’ but now you sound like a flat out troll. You joined Jul 2nd and average 32 posts/day in about 10 days (yup, over 300 posts). This isn’t a discussion, this is just troll bait.
None of your suggested questions is adequate. “How many persons are in the House of Representives?” On what day and at what time? How many electoral seats are there in the House of Representatives would be a more accurate question IMO, though you may disagree.
Also, you cannot offer standardized tests of you are going to add questions specific to each and every referendum/initiative/constitutional amendment/ bond issue that end up on thousands of state, county and city ballots. I repeat my earlier questions. Who is going to write these test questions? Who is going to decide what is a correct answer?
And new questions – will there be any public review of the proposed questions and and answers before the election? Will individuals or interest groups have any say in the content or the wording of the questions or answers? Or will individuals just have to sue of they can’t vote.
You also seem to be proposing that voters may be disenfranchised for one vote, but not another, on the same ballot. Is this correct?
Yes, but the real question is, would it be fair or unfair to ask such a question on a test to prove your knowledge of how government works? Does the fact that most people (supposedly) don’t understand that the Senate is a part of Congress put a question about it out of bounds? Who gets to make that decision?
And if the OP wants to limit the franchise to 1% or 2% of the population, there are going to have to be a lot of questions just like it – intended to suggest wrong answers that many folks believe are right.
I actually didn’t realize this. I assumed that when people said “Congressman” they meant “person serving in the US Congress, could be a senator or a representative.” I’m not being snarky or trying to BS you. The bicameral legislature was taught pretty thoroughly in my grade-school social studies and civics classes, so I just figured everyone knew this stuff.
Also, this rock is very comfortable, so don’t knock it until you’ve tried it. 
They’re only “freely available” in a very narrow sense of the term. It might not be possible for some people to take such classes, monetary reasons, logistical reasons, or other reasons.
You ignore that there are reasons that they might be self-selected, among the reasons I listed above. Really, the point seems to be that you don’t really care there might be actual reasons that some people don’t have a certain level of English ability. You’re comfortable broad-brushing them as stupid or lazy, when exactly the opposite might be the case.
It doesn’t matter how many. If you are proposing an exclusionary test, you contemplate excluding somebody and that is too many.
All members of society have a stake in their government, and in a democratic system a government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. Now, we make certain exceptions for age – we are forced, for practical reasons, to choose an arbitrary age of majority, and that has in the recent past been reduced from 21 to 18. However, barring that practical limitation, it is unconscionable to limit the franchise based on these kind of “good enough for me” criteria.
In order to be a member of a democratic society, you have to accept that you have equal voice with people you might not respect or people whose inner workings you have suspicions about. Erecting qualification tests is going backwards in history. We have over many decades struggled to free ourselves from the chains of “only my kind of American is a real American” thinking. We’re not even finished doing that; there is no way we’re going backward.
While “congressman” is often used informally to refer to a U.S. representative and is implied not to be a U.S. senator, the word “congressional” is not in a general sense commonly used to refer to the House of Representatives exclusive of the Senate.
The OP’s premise flawed…and he knows it. He caveated in the OP.
Hell, if you were going to have a theoretical test to establish a learned electorate, don’t just stop at an 8th grade education.
But we all know that would never work. The percentage of the population left to actually vote would be so small. It’s the same reason we don’t have a test to gain a user id and start posting around here. It would be an awfully lonely place.
Since this is the OP’s idea, I would like him to show what benefit this test would confer.
snip.
Yeah probably not the best example I admit, but I don’t think the majority of people dumb enough to not know the answer are going to be making such esoteric arguments. Additionally, we provide study guides for drivers, there is no reason we could not provide one for a voter’s test that provides verified non partisan information that helps inform voters. Say for example there is a question that asks you to identify the definition of climate change. Your study guide will provide the answer factually, it doesn’t need to say anything about causation or the politics surrounding it. Same for the first question I posted. Most people polled would be able to answer that question accurately without a lot of quibbling. Still, I don’t think that such tests need be exhaustive in detail, nor strictly limited to ballot initiatives etc. Just basic enough to ascertain that the person in front of you understands the broad issues of the day; and that they are able to form a political opinion that is based on verifiable evidence rather than someone’s haircut or some such. Also remember that my proposition did not deprive anyone of a vote. It rewarded informed voters with additional weight. You don’t have to get a card and your vote is still just like anyone’s. Take the time to educate yourself and you receive a bonus.
Thankfully, the Constution was changed to add a 24th Amendment, which abolished the Poll Tax.
Not so thankfully, it took until 1964 to happen, Mississippi specifically rejected the amendment and nine other states never got around to ratifying it.
Let’s all take a minute to review just how fragile the right to vote can be.
If you say so.:rolleyes: