DJ Happy

I was having a conversation with a friend of mine the other day and he was arguing that voting need not necessarily be viewed as a right, but a privilege. If it were up to him, he'd only allow university graduates to be able to vote as they'd be the only people in the nation capable of making an informed judgement about what was best for the country.

I countered his argument by saying that his criteria would segregate voting in terms of financial ability rather than intelligence as there are plenty of bright, well-informed people who did not or were unable to attend university, and that many of degrees on offer do not require that much brain-power in order to pass (see: Golf Studies at Southampton University).

But it did get me thinking. After all, there are plenty of uninformed, "intellectually challenged" (how's that for a PC term?) people who hold my fate and the fate of my country in their hands. How do they know what's best for the country? Should tabloid readers who simply regurgitate the views of the nation's rags be allowed to vote? Or those who base their views on "documentaries" made by the likes of Michael Moore? Or those people who know nothing about anything but will vote for a particular candidate because of a long standing and unjustifed party affiliation? Or those who don't understand what a party actually stands for (for instance, parents of a friend of mine who want to vote Labour as they think they are against the notion of joining the Euro when in fact Labour's stance is the complete opposite)?

Should there be an intelligence and information criteria for voters to meet before they're allowed to vote?

Rodney

In my darker moments, I'm with you. At the Democratic convention in 1956, Adlai Stevenson, the Democrat's liberal and intellectural nominee was told by a supporter, "You have the vote of all thinking Americans." "Yes," Stevenson answered, "But I need a majority!"

But I wouldn't be for it, because such criteria are what they used to have in the old South as a tool to keep blacks from voting. A "literacy test" that could be very hard -- but only if you were black. Remember, enforcement would be in the hands of politicians, who apparently can't even be trusted these days to ensure a correct vote count.

So, no. Safer and better to keep it as it is. Besides, who decides what the correct criteria are?

tecoyah

According to MY criteria.....your "Buddy" would have just lost his voting power. Ignorance is the worst form of failed intellect.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

DJ Happy

What are your criteria then?

tecoyah

Sarcasm....I would have no criteria in place for voting "rights". My statement was calling into question the belief that a college education actually makes one more informed. One can certainly benefit from extended schooling, and will gain a lead in the race for a desired field, but this hardly equates to an understanding of Politics. In general I simply found the whole idea flawed, and the premis somewhat insulting to those of us that did not wish to be, or could not afford to be in University.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

adysav

There are also plenty of intelligent people who choose not to go, and a lot of people who go to spend a few years getting shit-faced at their parents expense.
They don't, and neither do you.
I'm glad it isn't up to you who is allowed to vote. Graduates automatically read broadsheets? Tabloid readers aren't capable of critical thinking?
Who do you trust when it comes to this kind of information? If there's a news source that is totally impartial then I don't know of it.
I would say knowledge of party policy is just as important as intelligence as you can't make a valid decision without the facts. Even then, how can you possibly know which parts of policy will actually take effect, which will be successful and which will just change.

The only way you could enforce the kind of thing you're talking about is by having the entire electorate take an exam before each election. People can vote for who they want for any reason they want, that is democracy. If the people currently in power held the view "you can't vote if you think differently to us", we'd be living in Stalin's Russia.

ARTelevision

I think a cross-section of the populace - those who turn up to vote - is an important component of representative government. We get the government we deserve and it is important that the government reflects who we actually are as best as the mechanisms of voting can ensure.

__________________
create evolution

Willravel

Because we have a government 'of the people', it has to be represented by all citizens. It's a reality, whether you like it or not. An intellectual hierarchy is not constitutional, though it makes sense on the surface.

ShaniFaye

What about people like me....that are college graduate tabloid reading voters?

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

cthulu23

Well, if you're looking to move backwards as a nation, why not reinstitute property requirements, the poll tax or literacy tests while we're at? These are all mechanisms that were used to prevent the poor, "ignorant" masses from expressing themselves politically and are viewed today as morally and democratically abhorrent. My brother, who holds a masters in history, once took a poll test that was given to black voters in the good ol' Jim Crow days...he said it may have been the most difficult test he ever took and that the majority of his post-grad class was unable to complete it.

Perhaps your "intelligent" friend should spend some time educating "lesser" voters rather then advocating for their disenfranchisment. Dangerous ideas like education requirements for voters should remain in the dustbin of history, right where they belong.

Rekna

The only test that people should have to pass in order to vote is a test that shows they know how to use the voting mechanism. For instance 4 years ago floridans should have proven they know how to punch a hole in a piece of paper only once per section!

OpieCunningham

The key here is not to evaluate a potential voter based on literacy, education level or some other unrelated measure of intelligence. The issue is whether the potential voter has the current knowledge necessary to distinguish the basic differences between the various candidates.

When we test a potential driver, we do not care whether they can solve geometric problems or have knowledge of English literature or information on the current theories of the Big Bang - we ask them what a Yield sign means, what to do when changing lanes and whether they are able to parallel park - all aspects which are pertinent to the priviledge they are attempting to gain.

I see no reason a similar method of testing should be applied to potential voters. Asking basic questions such as:

"Who favors allowing workers to invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market?"

"Who urges Congress to extend the federal law banning assault weapons?"

"John Kerry says that he would eliminate the Bush tax cuts on those making how much money: Over 50 thousand a year, Over 100 thousand a year, Over 200 thousand a year, Over 500,000 a year?"

"Who is a former prosecutor?"

"Who favors making the recent tax cuts permanent?"

"Who wants to make it easier for labor unions to organize?"

Anyone not able to answer a majority of these questions likely does not have enough information to cast a valuable and informed vote.

cthulu23

Opie,

Any attempt to place knowledge based restictions on voting is blatantly undemocratic and is an invitation for electoral fraud and abuse.

OpieCunningham

Why?

We don't let anyone drive a car until they have demonstrated the knowledge and ability to do so without endangering others.

I see no reason not to apply that precise qualification to the act of voting.

tecoyah

Okay....we are now assuming that the "truths" told by the candidate, are reality. In this nightmare of lies we are fed as a society, by those who wish to control our destiny there is little that bears any resemblance to the truth.
That said, who can honestly say they "know" a candidates position, I cannot. And I have seriously tried for months. I do not lack the intellect to understand what is said, only to discifer the spin from the facts.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

OpieCunningham

The questions are not written to require the candidates positions to be true - they are written to discern the test takers ability to differentiate between the candidates and their knowledge of current events.

There is no ambiguity in the answers to these types of questions.

Willravel

He meant that knowing the issues does not equate with knowing the truth, so it is irrelevant. At least that was what I understood from his thread. Voting on lies is just as useless as voting on hair color or how white they are.

OpieCunningham

It's not a question of determining whether a voter knows the truth. The question is whether a voter knows anything. Truth/lies are subjective. If you are not able to answer basic questions pertaining to the differences between the candidates, you have no basis to make any judgement - you might as well be declaring that you are voting for Candidate X because you like his hair. Such a decision should not be allowed to impact the country.

powerclown

Saying that only college graduates are qualified to vote because they're smarter is crazy. Some of the stupidest people I know are college graduates and some of the smartest are blue-collar tradespeople. The knowledge of a collection of facts is no substitute for life experience. The argument could be made that college graduates are less worthy to vote because they're too idealistic and unrealistic. I would propose the voting age for college graduates be raised to 25, when they'd have some real life under their belts. Discounting the votes of those who haven't gone to college is simply undemocratic and non-representative.

cthulu23

Unlike driving, voting is a right, not a privilege. As asinine as it may seem, I can vote for candidate X because of the way he dresses if I want to....that is my right as a citizen. The ability of every citizen to participate in government is a cornerstone of democracy. It only takes a casual look at history to see that the people suffer when this fact is forgotten or ignored.

g9999ius

if you look at what is happening on the internet via blogs, etc., you will see that intelligent, informed, motivated people are finding each other and using their collective weight to affect the process as best as possible.

a motivated activist can affect the outcome of an election by much more than the one vote an uninformed voter can.

OpieCunningham

It's not good enough to state "it's a right". What does that mean? It's automatic? But it's not. We already have a law designed to prevent unknowledgeable/unexperienced people from voting - the age law. 17 year olds are not allowed to vote because they are deemed without enough knowledge or experience to offer a valid judgement.

Simply stating "it is a right" is meaningless - it is a right to drive a car, but we still test people to ensure they have the knowledge and experience to do so without causing harm. It is a right to own a gun - but we don't just give them out to anyone who has the cash to pay for one. If these "rights" are capable of negatively impacting other people's lives, such as driving a car and owning a gun, they should be pre-qualified before being handed out. Voting is a right which, with a lack of knowledge and understanding, can negatively impact other people.

cthulu23

As stated in my previous post, driving is a privilege, not a right. Voting rights, which apply to most ADULTS (children have all kinds of rights denied from them...a minority of states denies voting to felons), is a different matter altogether.

Any criteria for voting designed by a human will be imperfect and subjective. At one time it was thought that only propertied males had the mental faculties necessary for voting. This arrogant idea, and many others like it, has been proven to be harmful and undemocratic. Any return to a exclusionary voting system would be a giant step back for this nation and ignores the perils of such a system that history makes very clear.

OpieCunningham

I hardly think comparing propertied males to a test of empirical facts is appropriate.

History does not make clear anything regarding what I have proposed.

Voting is no more or less a right than driving. You keep repeating that their is a distinction, but you have not demonstrated what that distinction happens to be. As such, your opinion that any qualifications for voting is anti-democratic does not seem to be based on any facts, particularly as we already have laws which limit voting "rights" to those who have gained a life experience that is deemed acceptable, arbitrarily determined to be any person 18 years of age or older.

Paq

ok, here's one for ya....

I'm in my late 20's. I live in the south. I went to the polling booth with my dad in 1980 when i was three. I do remember this bc it's the same freaking polling booth i am going to on nov 2nd...anyway..I live in a predominately black neighborhood, probably a 65/35 split black:white....

so, we're in line at the polling booth fairly early in the morning....i'm right beside my dad and we are right behind a roughly 60 yr old black gentleman...
Sooo, we step up to get the ballot and i hear the lady in front ask the gentleman about 5 minutes worth of questions ranging from who was running, what were the issues, who were the presidents during his lifetime, certain questions about civil rights, questions about congress, questions about SCOTUS, questions about the parties, questions on his life, background, education...The gentleman patiently answered everything the lady asked and she said, "I'm sorry, but you just aren't qualified to vote, you clearly are not up to date on the issues" and i was worried bc, while my father is relatively intelligent, he's not exactly 'book smart' or politically aware, etc, other than basic issues....So, we get up to the lady, she says, "Here mr sullivan, just go over there and have a good day"

Sooo.....apparently, some people take it upon themselves to decide who is up enough to vote....

that was the only time i remember seeing somethign like that, but when i was talking to one of my history proffs, he told me the same story over and over again, year after year.....

Scary stuff

at times, i definitely get worried about who casts a vote, but at others, I can see WWAAYYY too many problems with instituting a voter standards test....

__________________
Live.

Chris

OpieCunningham

Pointing to an illegal and possibly racist example of someone pretending to qualify a voter as a means of explaining why you might feel that a voter qualification test can cause problems is disingenuous.

cthulu23

Denying someone the right to vote is fundamentally undemocratic by it's very nature. You are denying a vote. No matter how logical your suggestion may be you are placing a subjective restriction on others and you are crossing into dangerous territory. Where do you draw the line? How many issues must a person know? Does being a one issue (eg - abortion, death penalty, environment, defense) or straight-party-line voter make a vote less relevant? Who has the authority to determine what is an acceptable level of knowledge?

OpieCunningham

We deny plenty of people the right to vote (people under 18 years old, felons) - and it is not considered undemocratic. So I will no longer address this aspect of your argument as you have repeated it a few times now without supporting it.

A test of basic facts is not subjective. We do not consider an SAT to be subjective because there is only one correct answer for each question. And the written drivers test is not subjective. It is not a test of opinion - it is a test of knowledge of facts.

How many aspects should someone know? Well - that is entirely the point: they must know enough to be deemed qualified. I believe somewhere around 60% to 65% is considered a standard passing grade.

One issue voting is indeed a problem. Not nearly to the degree of non-issue voting, which is exactly what this test would address. These are not difficult questions. It does not take studying to pass - it takes awareness of the society that you live in. If you do not have awareness of the society that you live in, you should not be afforded the right to affect change within it.

Willravel

That is one hell of a story (not speaking sarcasticly, but sincerly). I feel a great amount of remorse towards that man, and everyone who has ever been treated like that. I say remorse because I am infected with a terrible condition; I'm white in America.

I live in this happy little world that all of me and many white friends love black people, but we never seem to hang out with them. We totally believe in equal rights, but aren't bothered by racial profiling. We gladly make racial and ethnic jokes around the office, drinking our $3 cups of coffee. We see the news, where a black man is suspected of a rape, despite there being no whitnesses and no evidence to say if the guilty party is black, white, or anything else, but we don't even notice. We live in a world where the media tells us about black people who are so white washed, and so unthretening, that we don't mind seeing them on tv. But not too much. We see Wayne Bradey and Bryant Gumble and we think that those are the 'good blacks'.

This is a disease of retardation. This is a disease just as alive and thriving as it was 50 or 100 years ago. It has mutated to fit the worlds changing views, but it is still just as strong as it ever was. This is the continuing decay of equality. At times like the one Faq mentioned, I am embarassed for my race. I wonder how it is that african, asian, indian, native american, middle eastern, south american, central american, and every other group can put up with our shit so often and for so long.

I was lucky enough to have basically no white friends growing up. That doesn't mean the infection hasen't tried.

This is a PERFECT example of why everyone has to be allowed to vote. What if a woman like that was in charge? What if you were in charge? What if I were in charge? I don't trust myself to be completly 100% fair, and if you do you need to rethink your own personal truths. We are constantly fighting to keep our constitutional rights, so why would we knowingly give up such a fundamental right?

Edit: while I was writing, 2 other people posted. This was in response to Faq.

cthulu23

Denying a vote is undemocratic regardless of whether or not we have other undemocratic policies in place. Society does deem some restrictions to voting necessary, such as setting a threshold age, but restrictions such as poll tests have been largely abandoned as they have been found time and time again to be unfair and unconstitutional. Your ideas may be logical on the surface and well intentioned but it flies in the face of American legal and democratic thought. I hardly think that the return of the poll test would be viewed with favor by the Supreme Court.

jonjon42

let's not disenfranchise anybody...instead let's just take the safety labels off of things and the problem will solve itself.

Critical thinking skills...

__________________
A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

OpieCunningham

I've never heard of a poll test as I have described it. Show me where they have failed time and time again.

Rodney

Boy, I had something scathing to say about this election and Darwinian selection.... but it wasn't productive. Damn.

Vis-a-vis critical thinking skills in our society, the California State Universities and Dept of Education just released a report on results of pre-placement tests which show the college-readiness of high school juniors:

What's more, this is a voluntary test. If you don't have any plans of going on to college, you don't have to take it, so the numbers for the full school population are a whole lot worse. So, roughly one-fifth of college-bound high school juniors in California can parse the deluge of detailed information about the state of the nation around them, much less express their own opinions in any detail. Is it any politics and campaigning has sunk to the cartoon level? Most people aren't prepared to parse anything more complex, even if they cared enough to do it.

Oh oh, Darwin alert! WHOOP WHOOP WHOOP! Natural selection of voting populace approaching in two to five years! WHOOP WHOOP WHOOP!

(If you want the whole article:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...on/9915483.htm

Posted on Thu, Oct. 14, 2004

High school juniors not ready for college

By Becky Bartindale

San Jose Mercury News

More than three-quarters of California high school juniors tested last spring could not read or write well enough for college-level work. Students fared much better in math; 55 percent of the juniors met the college math standard.

The results, released Wednesday, are the first from a unique state testing partnership between the California State University system and the California Department of Education to gauge whether high-school juniors are ready for college. The goal of the test, which is voluntary, is to warn students who aren't prepared in math and language arts so they can use their senior year to catch up.

It is the first time in the nation that a state's public schools and a university system have worked together to coordinate and test their expectations for high-school graduates, said David Spence, executive vice chancellor and chief academic officer for the CSU system.

California has set tough standards for high-school students to master, and they are in line with what the CSU expects, Spence said. ``It's one thing to have standards,'' he added, but it's more challenging to ensure those standards are being emphasized in the classrooms.

Part of the readiness scores come from several dozen questions within the California Standards Test, which is given to all high-school juniors in the state. There also are supplemental questions, which are voluntary, that cover math, language and writing skills. Nearly 40 percent of California's 385,000 high school juniors took the supplemental English test and 30 percent the math.

Some 55 percent of the students tested proficient in math. In language, though, only 22 percent met the proficiency standard, and the main problems were reading with comprehension and writing analytically. Students who pass are exempted from having to take CSU placement tests when they enroll at a CSU campus.

Scores for individual students have been sent to school districts, and schools should be getting them to students and parents soon. The state released only overall results of the testing Wednesday; results by county, district and school will be posted on a CSU Web site next week.

The majority of CSU entering freshmen discover they need to take remedial classes in English or math after they take the university's placement tests. It is often a shock, Spence said, because the average high-school grade-point average for those students who need remedial education is a solid B.

``The scores reveal what I've said all along,'' said state schools chief Jack O'Connell. ``We must make high school more rigorous if we want students to be prepared.'' He said the new testing program would smooth the way between high school and college.

CSU has set as a goal that 90 percent of its entering students will be proficient in English and math by 2007. But the reality is that 58 percent of freshman last year needed remedial help in English, math or both. CSU spends about $30 million a year providing students with remediation, Spence said.

CSU trustee Roberta Achtenberg said she expects to see proficiency rates rise among freshman as the result of the early assessment.

``We need to drive down the number of incoming freshmen who require remediation,'' she said. With more students entering the university academically ready, ``we will improve graduation rates and shorten the time to a degree, which is the goal.''

CSU is offering help for high school students who don't meet the standards and their teachers. A 12th-grade reading and writing course will be available to high schools next fall, training for high school teachers will be offered, and CSU has developed Web-based writing and math diagnostic programs and an online math tutorial.

Some school districts already have taken steps to address students' problems.

``The English curriculum has been very literature based,'' said Art Darin, chief academic officer for San Jose's East Side Union High School District. His district is requiring more writing, not just in English classes but across the curriculum.

``If students have to pass a college placement exam by writing a five-page essay,'' Darin said, ``then we should be preparing them for that rigor.''

SecretMethod70

The problem with poll testing, even when they are tests only of one's knowledge of the issues, is that it is impossible to be prepared for every possible language that may come through the door to vote.

Incidentally, while I would like to see some sort of test verifying that people who vote know the most basic of issues, I haven't been able to think of any truly fair way to do it - mainly due to the above.

Opie: Voting is a right. A right can be described as "A power, priviledge, faculty, or demand inherent in one person and incident upon another. Generally defined as 'powers of free action.' Something that you have the sovereign authority to do because there is no higher authority to get permission from." However, all rights are accompanied by responsibilities - such as the right to bear arms is accompanied by the responsibility to properly use the weapon. Six year olds don't not have the right, rather they are incapable of understanding the permanence of death so as to responsibly use the weapon. Personally, I think having at least a very basic understanding of what you're voting for or against can be considered a responsibility of the voting right. However, again, I have not been able to think of a completely non-discriminatory way to test for this mainly due to the language barrier.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

OpieCunningham

Ballots themselves are language specific - so I do not see why that should be a limiting factor in any qualification test. Further, for those who cannot read but still feel they are knowledgeable on the basic aspects of the election, the test can be given orally.

adysav

Have you heard the saying "with rights come responsiblities"?

Felons knowingly waver their rights when they commit a crime, that is their choice.
People under 18 are essentially unaffected directly by the outcome of elections as they are dependent upon another person. They essentially have very little responsibility. Young people are not denied rights and responsibilities because they haven't proven themselves, but because they are mentally and physically underdeveloped.

hannukah harry

and what difference does it make if you know current events or the platforms the people are running on? in general, if you like republican policies, you may just vote straight ticket R. or, you might vote straight ticket D if you like the dems policies. you may not care how much the candidate strays from the party line because you like what that party stands for. i don't need to know that kerry says this or that bush did that if i believe that the policies that one party stands for is the better way to run the country. you don't need intellegence or knowledge of the current events to do that. there are smart people who like one party over the other, and there are dumb people who agree with them. why should we restrict the dumb person from voting that way when smart people can do it?

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

OpieCunningham

So what? We should let the irresponsibility of a few million people affect the responsible? I disagree.

The felon = disenfranchisement issue has been discussed in a seperate thread. I still see no correlation between the two issues other than "they should know better", which doesn't mean anything at all - we could penalize them by cutting off their legs and still be able to say "they should have known better". Doesn't make cutting off their legs the correct thing to do. The reason I brought it up here is because we have created laws which limit this so-called "right" of voting.
This is such an arbitrary justification. We can determine that everyone under the age of 18 is mentally and physically underdeveloped? And what about the people over that age who are mentally and physically underdeveloped? They have the automatic right to vote. And how do we determine that a group of people are unaffected by the vote and should therefore not have it? Children are directly affected by the vote in the ways that their guardians are affected by the vote. It is entirely false to claim ANYONE is unaffected by the vote. So we're left with the arbitrary age determination of ability to have the judgement deemed necessary to make a choice in a vote. Why not change that to something far less generalized and require a basic test? This would be far more accurate in determining who is and who is not mentally and physically developed, but more importantly, it would determine who has the actual knowledge of the basic issues that their actions are affecting by partaking in the vote process.

cthulu23

We already have special legal statuses for mentally incompetent people. If one is an adult and of a sound mind they should be able to vote. A less legally and socially problematic solution to this problem would be voter education campaigns. This is far from a perfect solution but it is more palatable to me then poll tests that could be socially biased and unfair. If this test were to apply to local as well as for federal elections just imagine the potential for abuse.

OpieCunningham

There is potential for abuse in anything. We have abuse at massive scales today - without any testing procedures. Assuredly there would be some degree of abuse with a testing procedure. But the benefits would outweigh the abuse because there would be no completely unknowledgeable people affecting the course of the nation.

There is more danger of abuse in a drivers test. If you bribe the test provider to pass, you are circumventing the methods society uses to judge worthiness to operate a vehicle. As such, you could potentially cause the death of innocent people due to a lack of knowledge of proper driving regulations. Voting abuse of this nature would simply cause one ignorant vote being cast. In both cases, the percentages of scale are too small to offer any significant negative impact.

As for SCOTUS aspects, it's obvious this whole thing would require a Constitutional Amendment.