Should you have to pass a competency test to vote?

[Arcades057]

Every election year in America there is a spat of "get out the vote" advertisments on TV, radio, papers, and anywhere else they can stick them. All this advertising to vote, but no advertising to actually educate yourself before you do vote. What good is it to say "I'm voting for Bush/Kerry because my mom is"?

I believe the country would be in much better shape if we, as a whole, learned about the political situation prior to voting. Bush likely never would've been elected, he would not have even gotten the nomination from the GOP I bet, and Kerry certainly wouldn't have been running against him. If we were educated and we could weed out the morons and the liars, we'd have a much stronger field of future leaders, like Colin Powell and Joe Lieberman. A few questions that should be answered before someone can vote are...

1) How many states are in the USA?
2) As an American citizen, your rights are explained and guaranteed by what bill?
3) The two major political parties are _____ and _____?
4) There are how many Justices of the Supreme Court?
5) What is the US capital?
6) July 4th is what US holiday?
7) Did you complete this form in English, without aid?

I believe #4 is the least important question, but #s 7 and 2 are the most important questions to be asked. If anyone cannot answer these questions without googling it or asking someone, you should not be voting in the US.

Thoughts?

 

[GenMarshall]

I believe that there should not be a competency test to vote. It sounds too much like them Jim Crow laws they had in the south back after the Civil War when the Southerners tried to make the illiterate African-American slaves take a literacy test at the time.

Unconsitutional I say. It was unconsitutional back then and it will be unconsitutional today.

 

[Azadre]

You're elitest and wrong... but that is just what I think. It's a Democracy, not an oligarchy

 

[Xenocrates]

The test that you propose would not discourage stupid voters, religious fanatics, corrupt voters and careless voters.

I propose that instead of a test on the voter, that there should be a test on the candidate. It should be a plain IQ test. Any failing candidates would be disqualified.

 

[Urederra]

I don't agree, mainly because there must be someone who writes and checks the tests, and, even if the tests are checked electronically, it may favour one kind of people, usually your kind of people, over the others.

You want an example. Just check your question #7. are you favouring one subset of the population over the other?

 

[nihilistic]

I believe that there should not be a competency test to vote. It sounds too much like them Jim Crow laws they had in the south back after the Civil War when the Southerners tried to make the illiterate African-American slaves take a literacy test at the time.

Unconsitutional I say. It was unconsitutional back then and it will be unconsitutional today.

It was unconstitutional because they gave tests of differing difficulty base on skin color. If the same test or the same difficulty of test is given to everyone, it is completely legal.

As of now it is not practiced because no state wants to shrink their electorate (and thus influence).

Anyway, I'd support something like this.

 

[Elta]

The test that you propose would not discourage stupid voters, religious fanatics, corrupt voters and careless voters.

I propose that instead of a test on the voter, that there should be a test on the candidate. It should be a plain IQ test. Any failing candidates would be disqualified.

...The more intelligent the politican the more nefarious

 

[bhsup]

Absolutely not. While I do wish people who can't be bothered to learn about the issues would just stay home, it is a fundamental right in this nation and I would no more tinker with that than I would the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Xenocrates]

...The more intelligent the politican the more nefarious

Then disqualify all the ones that pass the IQ test!

 

[Arcades057]

You want an example. Just check your question #7. are you favouring one subset of the population over the other?

You guessed it! I'm actually advocating that in America you can only vote in English, just like nearly every other country will allow you to vote in one language, theirs. There is no reason why someone should be allowed to vote (or be allowed to become a citizen) who cannot read and speak at least a semblance of English. My ancestors did it, so can they.

 

[armathas]

Hmm, rather than testing literacy at the polls, let's make everyone in the United States take a Citizenship test (Which would consist of: A literacy test, at least basic knowledge of American history, a passing knowledge of how our gov't is supposed to work, and mandatory 2 years gov't service (be it military or otherwise)). Now if you pass the Citizenship test, then you have the privilege of voting. For those of us who are already considered citizens, we would also have to take the test as well, just to be fair. Ahh Heinlen and his Federation
<- waiting for the inevitable character attacks to follow.

 

[Urederra]

A) Not an american here, but I recall reading that there is not official language in the USA.

B) What's wrong with printing the ballots in more than one language? And it is not true that nearly every other country will allow you to vote in one language. I haven't been in many different countries, but I can tell you that you can choose the laguage of your ballots in many countries, including Netherlands, Spain and Swizerland to name a few.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Intelligence can't be measured, nor can one's man's opinion be shown to be worth more than another's. A test would be terrible, we are not in a position to determine those who have a right to vote.

 

[bhsup]

...then you have the privilege of voting.

The one flaw there is that voting is a right, not just a priviledge. Just as freedom of (insert your favorite constitutionally protected right) is a right, not just a priviledge.

 

[Elta]

You guessed it! I'm actually advocating that in America you can only vote in English, just like nearly every other country will allow you to vote in one language, theirs. There is no reason why someone should be allowed to vote (or be allowed to become a citizen) who cannot read and speak at least a semblance of English. My ancestors did it, so can they.

Ummm when you become a citzen there is a english test, there are plenty of countrys that have more than one language belgium,india,mexico there's probably more I am sure. Spanish is a offical language of new mexico. The idea alone of the federal government regulating language (something that should be a state right or not important) is offensive

Next we can institute a federal agency to say what is and isn't a english word and if you use one not on the list you can be arrested for not speaking english right?

 

[Nobody]

Would you then allow non-us citizens who can pass the test to vote? because that could be interesting.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No, there should not be a compitency test, or any other kind of test to vote. The only requirement should be that you are a citizen of that nation/state/county. If you put ANY kind of a test or anything similar, you destroy the fundamental part of a democaracy: free elections.

 

[GenMarshall]

Would you then allow non-us citizens who can pass the test to vote? because that could be interesting.

For me, I perfer that a voter should be a US-Citizen first before they can be able to vote.

 

[armathas]

The one flaw there is that voting is a right, not just a priviledge. Just as freedom of (insert your favorite constitutionally protected right) is a right, not just a priviledge.

Yep that is true. It is also a "right" to bear arms. I still would have a problem with someone who has the mental capacity of a turnip, excercising that right.
Not to mention somewhere that "right" got broken..hmm. Being that our gov't can disregard those rights they don't like.
As for the rights we have, I believe strongly that we should bear some responsibility as well. That responsibility being, educating ourselves on the issues/candidates so we can make informed votes, otherwise what is the point, it's just a big lottery (of course the winner always being the one who can buy the most tickets.)
Americans need to wake up and smell the errr, pig farm. Out with the corrupt politicians. Put our bureaucracy on the slimfast plan. In other words let's fix the system.

 

[Urederra]

For me, I perfer that a voter should be a US-Citizen first before they can be able to vote.

As I said before, not an american here and my mother tongue is not english, but I think that your sentence is not correct english, therefore, you won't be able to vote.

(just kidding, don't take it seriuosly)