Should you have to pass a competency test to vote?

[nihilistic]

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.

You realize that even now it isn't true? There are restrictions beyond just being an American in our laws right now. For example, one restriction is age. Another (I think) is incarceration.

 

[MobBoss]

While I think such a test would be the ruin of the democrat party, sadly, I dont support such a test in order to vote.

 

[GenMarshall]

While I think such a test would be the ruin of the democrat party, sadly, I dont support such a test in order to vote.

I thought the Democratic party is already heading on it's way to ruins .

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You realize that even now it isn't true? There are restrictions beyond just being an American in our laws right now. For example, one restriction is age. Another (I think) is incarceration.

That's different, stop being incredulous. Technically you are not even an "American citizen" until you are 18 anyhow, so it makes sense. Also, when you are incarcerated, you lose all your rights as a citizen, you are, in effect, no longer a citizen while in prison. Of course, ex-cons can vote, because they are 'reinstated' so to speak.

 

[Syterion]

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.

Damn straight.

As to nihilistic, those restrictions are because under 18 you are still a dependent, and are not paying taxes. And if you are incarcerated you sacrificed your right to vote.

 

[MobBoss]

I thought the Democratic party is already heading on it's way to ruins .

Well, it is....but having a competancy test would just grease the wheels even more.

 

[nihilistic]

That's different, stop being incredulous. Technically you are not even an "American citizen" until you are 18 anyhow, so it makes sense. Also, when you are incarcerated, you lose all your rights as a citizen, you are, in effect, no longer a citizen while in prison. Of course, ex-cons can vote, because they are 'reinstated' so to speak.

Uhh, how is that different or ridiculous? The age restriction clearly is an attempt to exclude those who are not considered to be mature enough to make decisions for themselves. How is that justification fundamentally different than restricting someone who has failed a basic skills test?

Also, your other point about having to be 18 before considered a citizen is also completely erroneous. once a baby is born in American soil, he/she is an American citizen. Please stop making such boneheaded remarks.

 

[7ronin]

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.

Well, this would require an amendment to the Constitution, but what they hey. Although I think that most Americans feel that they are entitled to vote for the stupid candidate of their choice just as much as they are the smart one.

 

[GenMarshall]

Well, it is....but having a competancy test would just grease the wheels even more.

I wonder if its not to late to switch parties since I am registered as a Democrat and I dont even agree with half of their views.

 

[nihilistic]

As to nihilistic, those restrictions are because under 18 you are still a dependent, and are not paying taxes.

It isn't financial dependency or taxes. In fact, people on welfare can vote. Senior citizens who are dependents of their children or of the state can vote. The key isn't the financing. It is mental capacity.

 

[shortguy]

Of course I wouldn't support this. Incompetent voters? It's the democratic way! Consider this legend, from an Athenian ostracism:

"Now while the shells were being written upon, on the occasion of which we have been speaking, a very ignorant country fellow is said to have brought his shell to Aristeides, who was one of the bystanders, and to have asked him to write upon it the name of Aristeides. Aristeides was surprised, and asked him whether Aristeides had ever done him any harm. "No," answered the man, "nor do I know him by sight, but I am tired of always hearing him called 'The Just.'" When Aristeides heard this he made no answer, but wrote his name on the man's shell and gave it back to him."

-Plutarch

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Uhh, how is that different or ridiculous? The age restriction clearly is an attempt to exclude those who are not considered to be mature enough to make decisions for themselves. How is that justification fundamentally different than restricting someone who has failed a basic skills test?

Also, your other point about having to be 18 before considered a citizen is also completely erroneous. once a baby is born in American soil, he/she is an American citizen. Please stop making such boneheaded remarks.

Bonehead remarks? You're the one who's fooling youself by being incredulous. The word isn't rediculous, although I can admit your reasoning can proprely be described as such.

Taken from dictionary.com

in·cred·u·lous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-krj-ls)
adj.
Skeptical; disbelieving: incredulous of stories about flying saucers.
Expressive of disbelief: an incredulous stare.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[From Latin incrdulus : in-, not; see in-1 + crdulus, believing; see credulous.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in·credu·lous·ly adv.
in·credu·lous·ness n.

Moderator Action: Please, debate the points rather than attack personally. - The Yankee
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889


First of all, all American citizens are required to pay taxes. Federal law. You do not pay taxes until you turn 18, hence the huge refund you get when you are a minor with a job, ergo you are not a citizen, ergo you do not have the right to vote.
I suggest you read up a little in an American Government textbook.

 

[CaptainF]

You can measure someone's competency based on who they voted for.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

It isn't financial dependency or taxes. In fact, people on welfare can vote. Senior citizens who are dependents of their children or of the state can vote. The key isn't the financing. It is mental capacity.

A great man once said a few words that destroy your argument:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

A truer word was never spoken.

 

[nihilistic]

While I think such a test would be the ruin of the democrat party, sadly, I dont support such a test in order to vote.

Whether which party would be more hurt would probably depend on whihc states it gets imposed on more. However, if something like this is deployed at a national level and we do a head-count, most likely the republicans will be the losers. Afterall, it was the republicans who voted for "the average joe whom i'd like a drink with".

 

[nihilistic]

A great man once said a few words that destroy your argument:

It isn't financial dependency or taxes. In fact, people on welfare can vote. Senior citizens who are dependents of their children or of the state can vote. The key isn't the financing. It is mental capacity.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

A truer word was never spoken.

I don't quite understand how that Ben Franklin quote is supposed to relate to what I wrote. What liberty was given up? What security was gained?

Are you sober?
Moderator Action: Please, keep the debate civil. - The Yankee
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Kozmos]

Maybe just for the nominal level of IQ.

 

[The Yankee]

You can measure someone's competency based on who they voted for.

Depends who you ask.

And the thought of a competancy test to vote disgusts me, even though I'd probably have no problem attaining such a standard. For one...who sets it? Who votes on that standard? Two, this might even cross the line of "one man, one vote," as the states are clearly not equal in terms of education. Three, this will in no way guarantee better results. Who is a better voter, an average person that reads up on some of the issues in the morning paper and votes accordingly or a person that can solve a Rubix cube in 30 seconds but doesn't give a darn about such things, even in passing?

If you were to base it on passing a test of who their representatives are, then those with Internet access have more of a shot of passing such a test than those who do not. Those who have been given different representatives due to redistricting are at a disadvantage also.

Finally, who would look out for those that did not pass the requirement? You trust the new elite to suitably fund the education of those who live in areas where many citizens were disqualified? Why risk your own power?

No, let's keep this the way it was designed to be: Citizens of age that register.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I don't quite understand how that Ben Franklin quote is supposed to relate to what I wrote. What liberty was given up? What security was gained?

Are you sober?

You are arguing for the idea that we ought to limit the field of the populace who can vote, when participation in government is a right, not a a priveledge. Obviously, this is an attempt to produce 'better' results in elections, thus you propose giving up an essenital freedom to gain security from those who would be considered 'bad voters,' ie those who would not pass this voting test.

 

[Tulkas12]

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.

What would the standard be? I think you are confusing bad speaking with stupidity, they are very different.