Should people who don't know how government works be allowed to vote?

[Sixchan]

A few weeks back there was a thread on citizenship tests where it was suggested that even natives to a country should have to take one. Also, some (including me) thought that if you didn't pass the citizenship test you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

If everyone is allowed to vote then people who don't even know what powers they're giving to the people they vote for could end up electing a tyrant.

What do you think?

 

[joespaniel]

I would never put any condition on the right to vote.

Some countries levy a poll tax, and keep out the lower classes that way.

A citizen doesnt need anything but common sense to know a dictator from a normal slimey politician.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I do not believe anyone should be allowed to vote.
Save the evil dictator, moi.
I also believe in the extension of slavery to anyone who doesn't have a knighthood.

Ah, the ALP! Can't beat it for democracy!

 

[Sixchan]

A citizen doesnt need anything but common sense to know a dictator from a normal slimey politician.

No-one knew Hitler was going to kill thousands of Jews, though.

 

[joespaniel]

Actually, most people did know Hitler was a pschycopath, but the big burly brownshirts at the polls "influenced" their voting decision.

Hitler was not "elected" in any sense of the word. It was a sham, an insult to all true democracies everywhere. The Nazis battered and intimidated their way to power.

I doubt such a thing could happen again in a western nation. You know what they say:

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

1930's Germany was also so economicaly depressed that people were lighting their stoves with paper currency. Civil disorder was rampant.

Kind of like Afghanistan in the 1990's...

 

[CurtSibling]

I think the world has a long way to go before
tyrants become an endangered species...

...and then they will be replaced by the likes of Bill Gates.

Human greed manifests itself in many ways...

 

[Greadius]

Voting isn't a privledge, it is a right. Requiring 'tests' at polls was something done in the Old South under Jim Crow laws to keep blacks from voting. Of course even if they got the questions right they were told they were wrong... far too easy to abuse.

Voting shouldn't be a test. I think 'knowing how government works' is extremely difficult... someone would literally need to spend hours learning the ins and outs. Or are we just talking about the basics? Better question yet: Why does it effect a joe average voter if he doesn't know anything about the workings of government. That is what representative democracy is all about; he trusts the person he votes for.

 

[Immortal]

I agree with Greadius, it is everyones right to vote, no matter how stupid they are. If voting rights are restricted then before you know it then they will put an economic requirement to vote and the whole system fails!

 

[amadeus]

The only requirements should be (in my opinion) that you are a citizen of the country, and that you have at least a rudimentary understanding of the language of that country.

In the case of the United States, English. Mexico, Spanish...etc.

 

[Richelieu]

And who decides who is allowed to vote ? And who decides that those who decide are the one who should be making that decision ?

When you put such a restriction you create a new category of citizen : they are governed by others without being able to influence their decisions in any way. (Slaves ?)

" a government of the people, by the people..." as long as they meet "somebody's" standards.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Greadius
Voting isn't a privledge, it is a right.

I think it is a duty! In a respresentative democracy, where (theoretically) the people rules through their elected leaders every single voter should be informed about the system and the party's agendas. Of course in reality that isn't the case, so what to do about it?
Richelieu (the forum poster) asked who would decide about the right to vote, and that is a good question. So is letting the (politically) uneducated and uninterested vote better? I don't know, I fear both isn't really good...

 

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Hitro
every single voter should be informed about the system and the party's agendas. Of course in reality that isn't the case, so what to do about it?
So is letting the (politically) uneducated and uninterested vote better? I don't know, I fear both isn't really good...

I agree.

I've been trying to get my hands on a quote but can't seem to find it. It goes something like this : "The price that you pay for not taking part (taking an interest - keeping yourself informed) in your government is to be governed by people who are worse than yourself."

Anyone who wants to run for an office should not be permitted to occupy it.

 

[Umask077]

Only the inner party should be allowed to vote...


Oh wait. This is democracy. Stupid people can vote.

IMHO I think technocarcy is the ultimate form of goverment. Allowing every citizen a vote on every issues. Using technology from today it would be pretty easy to put the issues that concern the individual in front of them. They could vote on any but most would choose to vote on the ones that concern then most. Tailored voting site much like a tailored news website.

Starship troopers (the movie) had it so only citizens can vote, and you must serve in the military to become a citizen. It was very socialist in nature. Democracy allows anyone to vote, socialism and communism tend to eliminate that some or lots.

My only opinion is that ballots should be in english (in america) and if you cant read them then you dont get to vote. I dont think we need spanish ballots or anyother ballots. Course I feel that the same should be true of imigration paper work. Its in english and must be filled out by the adult applicant without the help of an interpreter. If they cant be bothered to learn the language of a country they shouldnt be allowed to live there.

Should the end user be allowed to vote? yes. Do i believe in america voting does any good? No.

 

[Karnokki]

Who is to develop the criterion for this citizenship test? And what will it be based upon: a given country's history; one's socioeconomic background; perhaps an IQ test? There is a major problem with a majority of tests designed to measure intelligence. They tend to reflect only the knowledge and experience of the designer, and fail to take into consideration the diversity and backgrounds of the individuals who will take them.

How about this, we'll all just take the naturalizaton test our respective countries require for citizenship. We'll study like mad for about a week, pass the test, and then six months later we will have forgotten most of what we learned. Will this make us more intelligent voters?

Let's use Civ Fanatics as an example. It has a type of governing body with a president if you will and a group of officials who formulate and enforce the rules. These rules are straightforward, reasonable and fair. If a person follows them they are free to participate in the forum and other areas as often as they like. But what if the rules weren't fair? And to compound matters, what if this website were the only one of its kind on the net. Or the only forum on the web period. What if the powers that be decided to create new standards based upon a set of esoteric criteria known only to them and a few select others. Or worse yet, what if they decided an individual could not post or otherwise interact on this site unless they were able to achieve a standard score, say a 6000 on the monarch level of Civ III. One thing's for sure, you wouldn't be reading this, not from me anyway. Right about now I imagine some of you are probably voting for a rule change. So I'll wrap this up.

We have to be careful anytime we start talking about excluding select members of a given society, expecially from something as important as the right to vote. Rather than electing tyrants, we may find that the tyrants have taken away the election.

 

[allan]

"Course I feel that the same should be true of imigration paper work. Its in english and must be filled out by the adult applicant without the help of an interpreter. If they cant be bothered to learn the language of a country they shouldnt be allowed to live there."

When applying for citizenship, yes. But applying for immigration? Right off the boat? Learning languages takes not only time, but also exposure in most cases. Unless you are one of these gifted geniuses or linguists that can pick up a language by remote study or tapes, if you are like most people you really need to spend time talking with people who speak that language before you can hope to master it. What kind of exposure to English have most immigrants had prior to coming to the US? Very little to none. And it was the same way 100 years ago, actually more like NONE then because English wasn't the "global" language it is becoming today. So expecting knowledge of English from someone who has never before been to an English speaking land, or may not have even had an English teacher back at home, is as unfair as you going to China and being expected to instantly understand, read, and write any Chinese text that is handed to you. If you stay, and decide you want to become a citizen of China, then YES, you should spend that interim period of your stay learning as much Chinese as you can. And no doubt you will. Same for the US. But such knowledge doesn't come overnight, although I'm sure most immigrants wish it did or could....

 

[allan]

As for the topic itself, while I see the point Sixchan is trying to make, I also see it being another avenue for potential abuse, and my approach is to eliminate as many potential avenues for abuse as possible, because such avenues WILL be taken if they exist--history has pretty much proven that to conclusion. Hence my stand for VERY limited government--far fewer avenues for unscrupulous abuse and corruption.

And these actually go hand-in-hand. Frankly, the way government REALLY works (i.e. not necessarily what Civics class in high school teaches you) has become so damned involved and complicated (and often misleading or hidden) that even I and others who are fairly comfortable understanding complex systems often struggle grasping things about it--certainly less technically-minded people often end up throwing up their hands and saying "whatever, I'll try to make the best decisions I can but dang, things just seem out of my control." And unfortunately, they often are. But that is the fault of what the system has been allowed to become (with or without the people's blessing, but with the people's sufferance), not necessarily the fault of people who are seldom if ever told how the system REALLY functions, and are encouraged to ignore its corruption.

With a very limited government, and no corruption, this would not be an issue--even borderline morons would grasp enough of the simplified system to use it. But with what we have now? Just another avenue for abuse, another brick in the wall....

The BIG question of the day is, are we really a democracy, thoroughly and truly? Think about that one. What is a vote here really worth?

 

[joespaniel]

I knew three guys who served in my rifle company, who were all from foriegn countries. One from Jamaica, and two from Honduras.

All felt it was their duty to serve, even though not required in this country, because the US allowed them to come freely and made them citizens.

Think about that. Most spoiled little brats lucky enough to be born here would never do that.

Those three guys also voted in every election. Which is more than I can say for myself. I never voted until the last presidential election (Gore vs Bush), and look what happened!!!

Regardless of someones first language, the right to vote applies to all citizens. I see nothing wrong with ballots in Spanish or Swahili, as long as democracy is served.

I would be more concerned with inner party politics than who gets to vote in a general election. In the US, both the Republicans and the Democrats are becoming self-serving corporations to further the members careers, not serving the voters interests.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Everyone must be allowed to vote, because no fair test could be conceived to determine who should and who should not be allowed to vote. It would be nice if everyone who voted DID know how the government worked, but the truth is we will always have some people who vote who don't know much about government, and likewise some people who DO know about government may not vote.

On the topic of voting, I think here in the US there should be a holiday designated just for voting. It would tremendously increase voter turnout. Or at least hold election days on Saturdays or Sundays. Right now voting days are during the week, and lots of people don't vote because they have to work.

 

[Karnokki]

Origninally posted by allan:

The BIG question of the day is, are we really a democracy, thoroughly and truly? Think about that one. What is a vote here really worth?

I understand your sentiment. I have asked myself that question on several occasions. But unless I am mistaken the system the US has, at least on a national level, is a democratic republic and not a true democracy. In this regard not every vote counts directly toward an elected official, i.e. the president. The votes instead count toward the electoral college, which is why a presidential candidate can win an election without garnering a majority of the vote. (Perhaps, Sixchan, this serves to weed out those individuals who are uniformed or otherwise debilitated.)

However, there is another way to look at this. Instead of asking does my vote count, maybe we should instead ask, what if I didn't have a vote? I think about those individuals who survived the tanks at Tiananmen Square, and those that didn't (unlike a few spearmen and horsemen I've seen) and have concluded what really counts is the fact I have a vote.

 

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by joespaniel
In the US, both the Republicans and the Democrats are becoming self-serving corporations to further the members careers, not serving the voters interests.

I have to say that's the way it's beginning to look when viewed from up here. And i think it would be childish (especially in Canada) to see this as something that should not concern us because it's happening in the U.S.
Anyone who wants to run for an office should not be permitted to occupy it.
Do you know anyone (who is sane) who wants to be President?