Serious Discussion - What should voting requirements be?

[A18]

As you know, I support the own 1/5 of an acre of land to vote rule.

More specifically, I think I'd make the Senate for property owners and the House for everyone. Everyone would elect the Governor as well.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

What about the spouses of people who own land?

[A18]

Then your spouse would also own the land...I think.

[Gabu]

As you know, I support the own 1/5 of an acre of land to vote rule.

More specifically, I think I'd make the Senate for property owners and the House for everyone. Everyone would elect the Governor as well.

Why not make the Senate for property owners and the House for everyone else?  It seems kind of unfair to have property owners represented twice.

As for myself, I personally think that people should have to take two 10-question tests before they go to vote: one test on one candidate's platform and one test on the other candidate's platform.  If they pass both tests, they can vote.  If they don't, they're deemed "too uninformed to vote".

[Lunar]

Do you support the 1/5 rule for the presidency?

[AuH2O]

Literacy. Preferably a base level of intelligence but that's hard to test.

[Lunar]

Literacy. Preferably a base level of intelligence but that's hard to test.

So, a literacy test before being able to vote?

Alabama used to do that.  However, they used it in conjuction with Grandfather laws to massively suppress Black voting.

[A18]

I think maybe you should have to be 24 to vote for Governor or President.

[Gabu]

Literacy. Preferably a base level of intelligence but that's hard to test.

Well, there goes Bush's landslide.

[A18]

What percentage of children in New York can't read again?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Then your spouse would also own the land...I think.

So would they have to own 2/5 of an acre together?  If you only have to have part ownership of 1/5 of an acre, then a thousand people could form a partnership and buy 1/5 of an acre just for the voting rights.

This would also seriously distort the current valuations of property...enough so that it might constitute an unconstitutional taking of value on the part of the government especially on holdings of less than 1/5 of an acre.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

BTW, I think the current voting requirement are fine, although I think ex-felons should be allowed to vote in all states.

[12th Doctor]

It think that you should have to take a nationally standardized test that contains a few, faily easy questions, that, if a perspective voter doesn't know them, then they will when they look them up.

Questions:

1) What are the three branches of government

2) Who is your Congressman

3) Name your Senators

4) How many members are there of the U.S. House of Representative?

5) How many members are there of the U.S. Senate?

6) Who is you current governor?

7) How many Electoral Votes is the winner of a Presidential race required to have?

If they could answer basic questions like that, then they would at least know something about the government.  If not, then they arent fit to vote.

[12th Doctor]

Literacy. Preferably a base level of intelligence but that's hard to test.

So, a literacy test before being able to vote?

Alabama used to do that.  However, they used it in conjuction with Grandfather laws to massively suppress Black voting.

See, that is the problem.  You mention a voting test and everyone flips out and because of that, there is no way to solve the "idiot voter" problem.  I'm sorry, but if a person knows nothing of the functions of government, then they should not vote.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It think that you should have to take a nationally standardized test that contains a few, faily easy questions, that, if a perspective voter doesn't know them, then they will when they look them up.

Questions:

1) What are the three branches of government

2) Who is your Congressman

3) Name your Senators

4) How many members are there of the U.S. House of Representative?

5) How many members are there of the U.S. Senate?

6) Who is you current governor?

7) How many Electoral Votes is the winner of a Presidential race required to have?

If they could answer basic questions like that, then they would at least know something about the government.  If not, then they arent fit to vote.

Only allowing voters who could name the incumbent would be a huge advantage for incumbents in Congress, who already get enough breaks as it is.  And math questions like #7 are questions that I'll bet less than 20% of people could answer...and I don't blame them: you can make a completely well-educated decision about who to vote for President without knowing this answer.

In fact, people can make educated decisions about candidates in individual races without knowing ANY of these answers.  Moreover, a person can usually know which party best represents them just by knowing the party's general principles, not the mechanical details of our government.  

[Lunar]

See, that is the problem.  You mention a voting test and everyone flips out and because of that, there is no way to solve the "idiot voter" problem.  I'm sorry, but if a person knows nothing of the functions of government, then they should not vote.

It depends whether voting is a right or a priviledge.  If voting is a right then the people can do whatever the hell they want with it, including not voting or voting not in their interests.  If it is a priviledge then it can be revoked for the common good.  Shrug.

[cwelsch]

Citizenship, nothing more.

If you're a citizen and you take the time to register and show up, then you get to vote.

Felons, however, should not get to vote unless pardoned.  Especially violent felons.

[Gabu]

In fact, people can make educated decisions about candidates in individual races without knowing ANY of these answers.  Moreover, a person can usually know which party best represents them just by knowing the party's general principles, not the mechanical details of our government.  

Yes, that's why my proposal dealt with who you're actually voting for, not government itself.  Personally, I like my idea because of this question: if people don't even know who they're voting for, why the heck are they voting?

[The Duke]

One should be 18 years of age, never convicted of a felony (convictions that are overturned shall be exempted), and one must be able to pass the US Citizenship Test.

[freedomburns]

One should be 18 years of age, never convicted of a felony (convictions that are overturned shall be exempted), and one must be able to pass the US Citizenship Test.

AND be able to sink a forty-foot putt.

freedomburns

[The Duke]

One should be 18 years of age, never convicted of a felony (convictions that are overturned shall be exempted), and one must be able to pass the US Citizenship Test.

AND be able to sink a forty-foot putt.

freedomburns

Well, if such a requirement were included, it would probably improve our ability to field a decent Ryder Cup team.

[David S]

Citizenship, nothing more.

If you're a citizen and you take the time to register and show up, then you get to vote.

Felons, however, should not get to vote unless pardoned.  Especially violent felons.

Ditto.

[minionofmidas]

16 years of age, not a certified lunatic, permanent residence in the place you want to vote in, showing up at the polling station in person.

[Inverted Things]

Voting age should be lowered to 5 so that children can participate in school board elections

[elcorazon]

everyone should be able to vote, so long as they are 18 at the time of the election (I wouldn't totally oppose lowering the age to 16, but see no need to do so).  Even felons should get to vote, even if they are currently in prison.

So, Lewis, you oppose absentee ballots.  Even for disabled? military? etc.?