I wasn’t offering them as specific examples of questions, but rather, how the phrasing might be as to eliminate the Congress/House/Senate ambiguity. I also think that your proposed wording might be too complex for a test intended to be understood and passed by someone with an eighth-grade education. But please, let’s stop picking this particular nit.
That is indeed what I am proposing, that there should be both general voter qualification (which would be permanent) and specific-issue qualification (which would have to be renewed). After the initial qualification, the subsequent process could be very speedy: “Answer these five true-false questions regarding Proposition 153. Three correct is a passing score, and a passing score is required for you to be able to vote on this measure.” It could be done online or at the polling place.
I asked rather than attempted to answer this question, but my answer would be, a more informed electorate. Granted, that would be brought about by culling the uninformed from that population. Still, if that incentivized the thereby disfranchised to become informed, it would be time and effort well spent, as they would thereby be able to rejoin the electorate, this time qualified to do so.
I am answering this question on the assumption that you really meant to ask what benefit the imposition of the test requirement, not the test itself, would confer.
You think your test “ideally” should eliminate all but 1 or 2 percent of the voting population, with means that your have already thrown out your “high school education” and “basic knowledge of government” criteria. A test that 98% of people failed would, pretty much by definition, require a lot more than that.
Not at all. I too would prefer that idiots not vote, but that doesn’t mean I want to make it illegal for them to do so. In the same vein I want to see Rush Limbaugh off the air, but consider censorship to be worse than allowing him to spew garbage freely.
Among my people, we carry many such words as this from many lands, many worlds. Many are equally good and are as well respected, but wherever we have gone, no words have said this thing of importance in quite this way.
Look at these words,We hold these Truths to be Self-Evident, all People are created Equal, they are endowed with Unalienable Rights, among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. To secure these Rights, governments are instituted among People, deriving its Just powers from the Consent of the People. A government of All the People, by All the People, for All the People. A Democracy in a Republic, established upon the principles of Freedom, Equality, Justice, and Humanity.That which you call “Teh Const Itushon” was not written for the chiefs or the kings or the warriors or the rich or the powerful, but for ALL the people!
Equality has to be more than just a word.
CMC fnord!
Points to the American history nerd that gets what I was, mostly, stealing from, no points for the pop culture nerd that gets the rest!
That’s a loaded question. An informed electorate will simply make their decisions based upon better criteria. This (hopefully) would allow a smoother, smaller government that works better for the people. It would also (hopefully) decrease the number of ignorant base voters on either end of the spectrum, returning such people to the fringe where they belong rather than having to cater to them with soundbites.
A well-informed populace is indeed critical to the success of a democracy. But I think our energies are better spent working to make sure that the public is being appropriately and adequately informed, rather than setting up some kind of arbitrary criteria for what constitutes being informed, and disenfranchising those who don’t meet the standard.
The government qualifies voters all the time–it’s called voter registration, along with certain qualifications such as being a citizen, not being a convicted felon, etc. QUOTE]
Convicted felons can and do have their rights restored, including voting and gun ownership.
No. You’re not reading. I was asked what would be ideal, and I said that only the top 1-2% would vote. My suggestion in my OP would restrict voting to the top 98-99%–those who had an eighth-grade education, or had acquired equivalent knowledge/skills.
If you’re only culling 1-2%, how much benefit is there really to establish a test that has been shown to have been abused many times?
And before you answer, take a look at the activities of the Voting Rights Sectionof the Department of Justice in just the last year – a year that didn’t include a national election.
Sure, just write a sentence on wax paper with a ballpoint pen.
Yes. I learned this in 8th grade. I don’t know, and no one has suggested, what has changed that makes the same abuses unlikely
This is what I like about the legislature making laws. I hire a professional issue-understander who reads all this crap and does what I would do if I understood the issues, and then I can do other things with my life.
Of course, even when the system actually works that way, the trade-off is that it’s actually me and 700,000 or so other people getting together to pick one professional issue-understander, and we have different opinions on who it should be.
I like this one. In practical terms it wouldn’t disenfranchise anyone, since those people have other ways of getting heard.
How is it different? Other than being later.
It is indeed a tired tactic, but since you’re arguing to deprive of a voice people who make errors (or what are claimed to be errors) it is actually relevant here.
The civil rights movement, civil rights legislation, a massive change in social mores, and the fact that we’ve elected a black president and many other high officials.
The abuses you mention date from decades ago. Nowadays, society won’t stand for that sort of thing. A reversion to the 1920s seems rather unlikely. Or, in the case of the South, to the 1960s. “Being later” is, in fact, quite a significant difference.
I should mention one thing in passing: I’m not talking about disfranchising any group; not even the stupid, as a stupid person can still learn the basics about our government and how it works.
So, you are saying we should enact this law, disenfranchise millions, those millions then can sue and clog up the legal system, only to have the Supreme Court later rule this law unconstitutional, consistent with previous rulings. Seems like a rather pointless exercise.
Also, I’m still confused about your proposal: you want a basic test that 8th graders can pass. But ideally only the top 1 or 2 percent can pass and vote. Which is it?
I already asked this. I only wants the top 1 or 2 percent to vote, but the proposed test doesn’t go that far. Perhaps the rest can be disenfranchised by other tests – vision, hearing, hand eye coordination, etc.
Only that which an eighth-grader would reasonably expected to have. So no, you wouldn’t be expected to know what a bill of attainder or a pocket veto were, but you might have to know which body, the House or the Senate, ranks higher.
