Some kind of Test before Voting?

[SteveRogers]

I would support this, but it would never happen. Why do so many feel
That uninformed voters are a benefit to society? If you don't understand basic civics
Should you really play a part in choosing the most powerful person on Earth?

Yes they should because that's how democracy works.

"That's how democracy works" isn't really a good justification.

Why do you think that it is preferable to have people who aren't that smart voting?

Voting is just picking who will be leading our country. Basically hiring our government's managers.

Does Apple allow idiots to pick their managers, or do they only allow a very select group of people to pick their managers?

Do you think Apple would be better off if they allowed every person who was alive at age 18 to select their managers?

I don't see how anyone could imagine that allowing more idiots select the people who run our government could do anything but allow for worse people to be in those positions.

Well our country was designed to be a representative democracy. If only the educated elite were allowed to vote, we would cease to be a democracy. It sounds like you want to make the argument that an oligarchy or dictatorship would be better, so why don't you go ahead and make that argument? Why obfuscate with all this nonsense about civic education? Voting in an election isn't anything like being a major shareholder in a corporation because in an election each person has the same equal "share" or influence. One man, one vote.

[ElectionsGuy]

no because the test can be changed and can be used to deny certain groups of people right to vote .

If there was a test I would accept this , but only if the test questions are put in the constitution

Who is the current president
What are 5 rights the constitution guarantees
When did the US declare independence
Who was the 1st president
How many total senators are in the United States

 

There's a lot more than 5. Unless you're just referring to the 1st amendment.

[WVdemocrat]

Bad idea.

Although, I'd prefer for uninformed people to simply decide not to vote. And when I say "uninformed," I don't mean stupid, I just mean people who don't know enough about the political system, government, and world affairs to make an informed decision.

[PJ]

Although, I'd prefer for uninformed people to simply decide not to vote. And when I say "uninformed," I don't mean stupid, I just mean people who don't know enough about the political system, government, and world affairs to make an informed decision.

And how does one define that? Voters don't need an extensive knowledge of the political system to understand how basic issues will affect their day-to-day lives. The interests of the "uninformed" are just as much at stake in elections.

[Intell]

How about no, everyone has a right to vote, despite their intelligence and how much they know, if this is the case, the system will make poor and uneducated people, not have the right to vote, which should not happen in a democracy.

The only required to vote, would be presenting your citizenship or driver license, or something easy to prove to show that you are a citizen of the country in which you preside. Voter registration, should also be automatic.

[Mister Mets]

no because the test can be changed and can be used to deny certain groups of people right to vote .

If there was a test I would accept this , but only if the test questions are put in the constitution

Who is the current president
What are 5 rights the constitution guarantees
When did the US declare independence
Who was the 1st president
How many total senators are in the United States

 

There's a lot more than 5. Unless you're just referring to the 1st amendment.

I think his point is that voters can mention any five.

A significant problem with any test is the question of who comes up with it. Presumably those guys would try to game the system, with questions that their supporters are likelier to answer. Republicans might ask about the national debt, while Democrats would ask voters about racial justice issues.

Conservatives would likely fare better here, due to the democratic advantage with high-school dropouts.

True.  Democrats would be more likely to be disenfranchised with practically any type of test, unless it was so complex that only the top quintile or so could pass (as liberals fare well with those at the low and high ends of the cognitive ability spectrum, conservatives more in the middle, in general). 

Democrats would likely do worse on standard tests, but if Democratic lawmakers are able to come up with the questions, they could make it biased against Republicans.

[dead0man]

How can the 'political class' be changed when people aren't voting to change it?

I'll field this one.

We've been convinced that we should vote for the lesser of two evils.  So people either hold their nose and pull the lever for whichever piece of trash is slightly less disgusting than the other piece of trash, or they stay home cause what's the piont?  Trash is trash.

[Mr. Illini]

Compulsory voting for those who pass the test?

If only all informed people would voluntarily vote and all uninformed people would stay home...

[Antonio the Sixth]

If only all informed people would voluntarily vote and all uninformed people would stay home...

...democracy would be worse off.

Seeing all these self-professed leftists fantasize about kicking out "uninformed" voters makes me sick. You gleefully trample on the most basic and sacred progressive values. TNF might well be right about American liberals being a bunch of hypocritical elitists, after all.

[ag]

Once the "uninformed" are barred from vote, it, peculiarly, makes them instantly informed of a crucial feature of the political system they live in. Namely, that the system, in which they are denied participation, is run by their enemies. Arguably, at that point this becomes, by far, the most important feature of the political system - though a lot of the "informed" might be unaware of it. So, at that point one would have to recognize that the "uninformed" are much better informed than the "informed". Hence, it is the "uninformed" that should then get the vote, while the "informed" should be denied it.

Of course, in practice, this is, indeed, what happens. It is usually known as "revolution". A nasty bloody process it is, though. Perhaps, we should stick to letting everyone vote?

[Mr. Illini]

If only all informed people would voluntarily vote and all uninformed people would stay home...

...democracy would be worse off.

Seeing all these self-professed leftists fantasize about kicking out "uninformed" voters makes me sick. You gleefully trample on the most basic and sacred progressive values. TNF might well be right about American liberals being a bunch of hypocritical elitists, after all.

How would democracy be worse if the electorate were more informed, now?

Not sure where uninformed voting is in the progressive handbook.

[ag]

If only all informed people would voluntarily vote and all uninformed people would stay home...

...democracy would be worse off.

Seeing all these self-professed leftists fantasize about kicking out "uninformed" voters makes me sick. You gleefully trample on the most basic and sacred progressive values. TNF might well be right about American liberals being a bunch of hypocritical elitists, after all.

How would democracy be worse if the electorate were more informed, now?

Not sure where uninformed voting is in the progressive handbook.

It all depends on whether you think elections are about aggregating information or preferences. If it is the latter, than, surely, asking people to identify the capital of the United States is not going to do much to improve the quality of the electorate. Actually, upon consideration, I am not certain that asking people to identify the capital of the United States would improve the quality of the electorate in any sense.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

O.K. here's the deal. We do indeed institute a 'test before voting'. And it works like this: if you think that such a test is a good idea, then you are prohibited from voting. Fair?

[ag]

O.K. here's the deal. We do indeed institute a 'test before voting'. And it works like this: if you think that such a test is a good idea, then you are prohibited from voting. Fair?

Absolutely!

[Antonio the Sixth]

O.K. here's the deal. We do indeed institute a 'test before voting'. And it works like this: if you think that such a test is a good idea, then you are prohibited from voting. Fair?

Absolutely!

Yup, endorsed.