Should people who aren't that bright be allowed to vote?
 

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?

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?

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

What are your criteria then?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

Opie,

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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...

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

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.''

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

I'm more concerned of what the completely knowledgable people would do with such a system....talk about rife for abuse. The history of poll tests has been one of intentional disenfranchisment of minorities or other groups. You say that we already have massive fraud in our elections so why reintroduce such an easily abuseable "protection" as a poll test?

Voting abuse via poll tests could produce lots and lots of cases of wrongful disenfranchisment...this has been it's most common usage throughout our history.

The idea of amending the constitution to okay a poll test makes me a little queasy...see my above statements.

I don't see how this would produce any more abuse than we already have - what with people in some areas being told they will have to pay their parking tickets if they show up at a polling station.

As I said - there is always the potential for abuse in all things - but we do not always aim for the lowest common denominator, and when we do, I oppose it. As such, I oppose the right to vote being given to people that are clueless as to the basic information they are exerting their power over.

You state that there have been tests in the past that have proven detrimental. Like what? When?

They were proven detrimental because they were used to wrongfully disenfranchise blacks, other minorities, poor whites and many other less-powerful types. This is standard knowledge and has been stated in this thread already. Your test may be different on the surface but it is still the spiritual descendent of the ugly tests of the past. I doubt that it would take very long before someone perverted it for their own gain again.

The difference between voter intimidation and the abuse of your proposed poll test is that voter intimidation is already illegal, not a standard part of the process that is written into the constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow

It would be nice to come up with a way to have a constitutional amendment which leaves no room for misues, but I'm just not sure it's possible, not to mention affordable. I don't think it's feasable, unfortunately, for every polling station in every nowhere, America to provide support for the endless number of languages possibly spoken here.

Don't get me wrong Opie, I understand what you're getting at and I do sympathize, I just really don't think, sadly enough, that there is a truly fair way to do it. :(

Who decides?
 

Who decides the "intellectual" criteria? Congress? Aiiiiiee. Democracy is just that. The great unwashed make decisions that certain classes do not agree with - therefore they should not have the right to vote.....

Hmmm What's the next step?

I think until more than half the country votes we really shouldn't have to worry about excluding people.

I don't see how a comparison to racial segregation makes any sense - unless you mean we would be segregating people who do not have enough information to make a valid judgement. But that is precisely the point.

The language aspect I already spoke to - ballots are not provided in every language on the planet, so if language is not an issue with the ballots, it would not be an issue with the tests.

The process of democratic election should be "DEMOCRATIC", thus a true representation of different opinions of the ENTIRE (sound minded) population- 'a cross section' as one said before in this thread.

The problem of stripping 'uneducated mass' their right to vote based on their academic record will be:

* The 'educated mass' is very likely to have some what different social ecomnomic status from the 'uneducated mass', this no doubt in my mind will bring a confilict of interest. If the 'uneducated' 'irresponsible' gave up their rights to the 'educated' 'more responsible', what will stop the 'educated' population from abusing their own voting rights to only benefit themselves? Isn't this the problem why democracy is created in the first place?

My point is that in order to have testing it would have to be EXTREMELY specific for one thing. No grandfather clauses at all. And how do we know the test is compiled fairly, unlike the "literacy tests" given to blacks?

How often do you hear about grandfather clauses, racial segregation or fraud when it comes to the content of drivers tests?

There are certain empirical facts which lie outside the realm of cultural subjectivity. These facts would make up the test. As I demonstrated with the sample questions listed above.

This is not a "if you're not really damn smart, you're not voting" thing - it's basic information that anyone spending a marginal amount of time paying attention to the candidates and the issues would know.

Who makes the test? A bipartisan organization with an oversight committee with multiple University Political Science dept. reviews.

Perhaps we should just allow land owners to vote?

Or perhaps white males (as testing has shown that they are the best educated on political issues).

Or perhaps white male landowners. That rings a bell for me.

I've never heard of fraud in driving tests, but I have heard of widespread voting abuses. It seems that what works for one might not work for the other.

Your idea does seem both logical and reasonable but there is a reason that most restrictions on voting have been removed over the course of American history. Many of these barriers were designed to remove the political power of some of the least powerful Americans. We should seek alternate methods to overcome voter apathy or ignorance...the potential for abuse and inherent elitism of a poll test disqualifies it for consideration in my mind.

Just a thought:

Educated, informed, intellegent, does not equal to: Responsible.

There are a couple of fundamental differences with all voting restriction of the past vs. this political test:

1- None of those voting restrictions were intended directly address the issue of ignorance. Ostenisibly, those in favor of those restrictions may have claimed that the goal was to create a more accurate poll of knowledgeable public opinion, but the reality is they did not target knowledge - they targetted whatever they predetermined was a seperation between those with knowledge and those without. In most cases, this broke down along racial lines.

2- None of those voting restrictions were avoidable. Because they actually had nothing to do with the knowledge of the person affected by the restriction, there was nothing that an excluded person could do to become included. In my example, that situation is not present. If you fail a test, you are not prohibited from ever voting, you simply have to learn the very basics of the issues by paying a marginal amount of attention to society and pass the test when you retake it.

I do not see any inherent avenues of abuse or elitism with a basic knowledge test.

There's a whole thread around here discussing responsibilty. Essentially, responsibility is contingent on being educated and informed. If you lack information, you are unable to judge what is or is not the responsible course.

This thread's title gives me inspiration to start a new one:
"Should people who aren't that bright be allowed to be president?"

I can think of recent two presidents who did not display the intellectual capicity to adequately comprehend and carry out the intricacies and duties of the
POTUS. Maybe we should tackle that question before we further examine the
voter question. After all, presidents who do not have the reasoning ability of
their predecessors might cause some damage to the country, like.....oh.....let me...see.......signing legislation and executive orders that result in trillions of dollars in new deficits. <a href="http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:rjY7FT6e22MJ:ksghome.harvard.edu/~jfrankel/Republicans%2520and%2520Democrats%2520Have%2520Switched.PDF+Jeffrey+Frankel+switched&hl=en">
When it comes to White House economic policy, the Republican and Democratic parties have switched places since the 1960s.</a>

Why would it require a constitutional amendment? There is nothing in the constitution that guarantees *anybody* the right to vote. Its all up to the states. A state can decide to not let anyone vote if they wanted to. All the constitution says about voting is that you can't deny someone the right to vote for specific reasons (race, gender, age if you are over 18).

out of curiosity, who's the other?

All you have to do is live in Illinois - you'll hear LOTS about it ;)

Opie, I'd LOVE to think of a fair way to do it, I just can't. Can you give some example of how you would word legislation to avoid any possible loopholes to use the test for discriminatory purposes?

A responsible person is likely to be an educated and well informed person, I agree, but is the reverse true? A irresponsible person doesn't have to be uninformed and not educated.

From 1981 until 1993, the federal debt increased from $994 Billion to
$4351 billion, or $4.35 trillion. This amounted to $3377 of new debt amassed
during 12 years of combined Reagan/Bush I presidencies.

From 1993 to 1999 the debt increased an additional $1254 billion, in
the first 6 years of Clinton's presidency. From 1999 to 2001, during Clinton's
final 2 years, the debt increased only $164 billion. Total new debt added in
Clinton's 8 years was $1418 billion. Total new debt added in just 4 years
under Bush I was $1484 billion. Bush II took office in 2001 with the rate of
debt increase slowed to 50 percent of the rate during his father's term.
In the 8 years before Reagan took office in 1981, the federal debt had
increased by $566 billion. During Reagan's 8 years, the rate of new debt more
than tripled, to $1893 billion during his presidency.
In the 4 years since 2001, the debt is increasing $1717 billion, compared to
$400 billion from 1997 to 2001. From 1981, when Reagan took office, the
federal debt has increased from $995 billion, which was accumulated from
1789 until 1981, to $7486 billion, or $7.486 trillion.
Recap:
Carter 1977 to 1981 $288 billion of new debt
Reagan 1981 to 1985 $908 billion of new debt
Reagan 1985 to 1989 $985 billion of new debt
Bush I 1989 to 1993 $1484 billion of new debt
Clinton 1993 to 1997 $1018 billion of new debt
Clinton 1997 to 2001 $400 billion of new debt
Bush II 2001 to 2005 $1717 billion of new debt (projected)

I personally know a number of people who can't answer any of those questions, but will be casting valuable votes nonetheless. They may not know the answer to those questions, but they are informed (by me) on a number of issues we feel are important to us.

Why do you feel those questions are even relevant to who our next president should be? Now I understand you were just making examples, but hopefully you will rethink your position in light of the realization that many people feel strongly about one or two issues--and they vote accordingly. If my father-in-law wants to vote solely on whether abortion should be criminalized, that's between him and his deity. It affects me as a member of the larger society, but so my vote affects him in similar ways. What you may feel to be relevant issues, may not be (and most likely will not be) to someone else.

Why did I bother to answer this? We already have a buffer against the unintelligent masses making choices that could prove detrimental to the nation--the electoral college. It's almost silly that someone would support a test on political knowledge before voting when that person would flunk it.

Interesting discussion.

I hear a lot of talk about the fact that all "sound-minded" adults should be allowed to vote, and it got me thinking of the definition of being of sound mind.

In my opinion it extends further than those who are diagnosed with a mental illness. [Edit: A man can be] brainwashed by baseless propoganda and he could well use that as the basis of his voting decision. He is not using his mind in a responsible manner, as the instrument of critical and inquisitive thought - he is just doing what he has been told. But then the question arises of, "Who decides what is propoganda and what isn't." Truth is a relative concept after all.

But I still feel that knowledge of basic issues should form some part of the basic requirement. In my first post I mentioned the case of the parents of a friend of mine who want to vote Labour because of a supposed policy of theirs which in fact is not a policy of theirs at all. Refusing these people the right to vote would not only save the electorate from being subjected to policies that the voters never intended to be put into practice in the first place but would spare his parents the embarrassment of playing a part in their own downfall. The problem is that we have people voting who don't know what they're actually voting for, in which case how is the vote representative of the will of the people?

How to implement these measures would be the problem, and I like Opie's suggestions, although I think that the tests should be more black and white ("Who is the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer?") to limit the ambiguity of some knowledge and opinions.

This, in my opinion, is another reason to ensure basic knowledge prior to voting. You are basically telling people how they should vote based on your own opinions and motivations. How is this in their best interests? They should be collating their own information and forming their own viewpoints. In essence, this practice could result in you casting 5 or 10 votes.

It's not that the answers to these questions are relevant to who should lead the country, but rather that being able to answer these questions would be evidence of being able to make an informed opinion about who to vote for. I would have no problem with your father-in-law voting solely on the basis of the issue of abortion - as long as he was knowledgeable enough to know each candidate's stance on it and his vote was an informed one.

political action and parties hinge upon groups of people forming ideas based on simlar ideals. it's in peoples best interest to vote on issues that are meaningful to them or the group of people they share views with. groups coalescing together and determing what is important to them, even if there are only 7 of them, is the very nature of politics. nothing is going to result in me casting 5 or 10 votes: I only vote once, and my friends, who share similar views on the issues that are important to us as a political group, will vote one time each.

That you would draw a distinction between me or a party official motivating people to vote in a particular way is very strange to me. It seems to me that I would know the needs and issues within my circle of friends better than a party official. I must say that I find your notion of representative politics very strange if you think that people should be tested whether they know enough of some outsider's opinions and views rather than if their information is formed within the circle of people they spend time with every day of their lives.

People will make an informed decision based on what is important to them--not what you (or anyone) else thinks should be important and subsequently placed on a test. My father-in-law only needs to know that his candidate doesn't want to allow abortion--he doesn't need to know what anyone else thinks about it in order to make an 'informed' decision. That's my point.

From the sounds of your original post I was under the impression that you informed your friends as to the stances of various candidates and the impact they would have on their lives if voted into office. If it is a genuine discussion, then fine. If it's you acting as their only source of information, then it is not.

If you worked in marketing you would know that the influence of someone that is known to you versus the influence of a stranger (you vs. a party official) is astronomical. Strangers are more likely to be viewed as information sources - acquaintances are more likely to be viewed as decision influencers. You are therefore more likely to influence a friend's vote and this is an influence that is easily manipulated. Again, an informed decision is not made, but an order is obeyed.

I don't think I understand the second part of your paragraph. If I understand it correctly, you think that people should be tested on the views of their circle of friends? When it comes to voting someone into power, unless that person is a friend of yours, the views of your friends are irrelevant. But I don't think I've understood you correctly.

The only problem being that not everyone will make an informed decision. And with regards to your father-in-law, I direct you to the example I've made twice now with regards to voters thinking that someone stood for something when in fact they stood for the complete opposite.

I think that being well informed before the election and being ignorant before the election are simply two valid ways of choosing a candidate. This is a matter of freedom of choice.

On the otherhand we also should increase public awareness of the election to reduce confusion and 'mistaken identity' on the ballot paper, but should never bar people from the ballot box just because they choose to be or simply ignorant.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselection...329858,00.html

i posted this on the general discussion thread about this guardian initiative.
i put it here too because it directly gives the lie to the collection of stereotypes trotted out above.

read through this and then let me know about the profound grasp of history exhibited by american conservatives.

o yes, it is most impressive.

beyond a certain point, you simply have to let conservatives talk and the need for comment simply dissolves.

This statement from the thread starter:

"When I hear someone say that Al Qaeda hates America because of all the freedoms afforded to its citizens, I don't consider that person to be of sound mind."

tends toward undercutting any validity this thread may have.

This quote from the above poster:

"While I think there are people to stupid or uninformed to vote (I call these people liberals)..."

follows up on the same approach and baits flames as does the first quote.

Thanks to those who moderated their responses here. Considering the other side to be stupid, not-bright, not of sound mind, or uniformed is neither reasoned nor reasonable. Please carry on in a spirit more in keeping with respectful discussion.

Yes, to echo art's points, it is detrimental to this discussion to make inferences that those with different opinions or perceptions of events are less intelligent than you.

I have edited out the above examples which art provided and tried to do so in a way that preserves the greater point of the post. I also want to thank those of you who did not take the bait in this thread. It has been an interesting discussion because of your resistance to the devolution of the discussion.



On topic with the thread, this is a perfect example of the problems that are present in voting tests. The only questions which are fair to ask are questions which are absolutely, 100%, black and white. And, in politics, almost nothing is.

The thesis, then, is back to whether we want as near as possible a reflection of the constituency in our voting process. Personally, I do. If we are or become a nation of people who do not think very well, so be it. Natural selection is an unyielding and never ending process. I'll take my chances with it.

A valid opinion. One which I don't agree with, but a valid one nonetheless. I believe that there is a reason we are a republic as opposed to a straight democracy, and I believe that this is one of those reasons - a recognition that there are some people more suited at making decisions than others. Personally, I would like to see a way to fairly extend this to voting (erring on the side of caution), but I cannot seem to find a way that is completely safe from covert and even unintentional discrimination . So, I am forced to agree for the time being that the current way is the best we have. To work within this realm, changes must be made, instead, to provide more clear and objective knowledge to voters - something the media is becoming ever worse at.

Sorry, but I don't consider what I wrote to be flaming. The example that I have given above is an example of what I call an uninformed decision. There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim and there never has been, so to me, someone making their voting decision based on this "opinion" is not making an informed decision.

It is not so much an opinion that I do not agree with as a baseless opinion.

ARTelevision, I'll admit that I was aggravated from the moment Bush "took"
office because it is reaonable, in my mind, given the facts that I have posted
all over these threads, to have the informed opinion that the Supreme Court
of the United States, in concert with Bush, his brother and his backers,
preempted the rights of the voters in Florida, and subverted the U.S. Constitution by installing Bush in the POTUS by judicial edict.

Bush had deliberately misled this country into a war that has needlessly
resulted in the deaths of too many Americans and Iraqus. He has attacked
and diminished the Bill of Rights and the Geneva Convention by denying
Citizens and foreigners who have been accused of crimes, a right to an
attorney, and an opportunity to appear before a judge, holding unindicted
individuals for as long as three years now. Bush's economic policies and
government budget management have been disasterous to our future
credit risk, and to the soundness of the dollar. He has conducted government
in secret unless forced by legal action to disclose the deliberations that the
people have a right to observe. He has appeared for only 25% of the press
conferences that recent past presidents have participated in.

I observed Republicans in the federal legislature react to the point of impeaching former President Clinton for lying under oath about an adulterous
affair, in a deposition that occurred because conservative Republicans known
to Bush financed the litigation that made the deposition possible.

I lived in Manhattan on 9/11, and now I observe that in a recent poll, nearly
half of NYC residents believe that Bush and his government had enough
advance knowledge of the 9/11 attack to prevent or minimize it's effects if
they had made doing so a priority. It is clear to me that Bush and Cheney
have deliberately encouraged and inflamed a climate of fear in order to
strenghten their own political power. It is ironic, that this tactic of deception
has succeeded in creating a heightened level of fear among people who live
in areas of the country that most probably will never face a terrorist attack.
Ironic that in the frontline, high probability areas of NYC and Washington DC,
the populations are overwhelmingly in favor of the election of Bush's opponent.

The debates revealed to anyone who wanted to look that Bush does not
appear to have the maturity, self control, commuinication skills, or the
ability to think on his feet to be qualified to be POTUS. I beleive that anyone
who would publically declare that terrorists "hate us because of our freedoms", is making an empty and stupid statement. I am outraged and
quietly hostile toward people who support Bush for reasons unrelated to
their religious beliefs, because I am informed about Bush's record, his failings,
and his potential to do much greater harm to our country and to the world.
Bush has failed the test of honesty and forhtrightness that I require of a
POTUS. I respect the rights of others to hold informed opinions that differ
from my own, but I did observe the low standards of tolerance that
Republican leaders displayed towards Clinton in their impeachment of him on
charges that Bush's actions render moot, in comparison.

When I read that you enthusiastically support a candidate who I believe,
without a doubt, has committed multiple acts that have violated his oath to
"preserve and protect the Constitution", a candidate who should be
enduring the process of impeachment, and then criminal prosecution if the
impeachment proceedings deliver evidence that would warrant that, I have
no choice but to wonder how you could support a man under such a cloud
of valid accusations.

The next time you decide that it is necessary to "moderate" in these threads,
please ask yourself how you would react if you held a point of view similar to
mine, before you determine who is being too shrill or too obnoxious here.
I read the Chicago Trib's endorsement of Bush's candidacy with as open a
mind as I could muster. Please review the articles at these links to get a
better idea of why the outrage only grows among some of those that you
have the authority to moderate:
<a href="http://nytimes.com/2004/10/19/international/19war.html">The Strategy to Secure Iraq Did Not Foresee a 2nd War</a>
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41903-2004Oct18.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41903-2004Oct18.html</a>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?oref=login&pagewanted=all&position=">Without a Doubt nytimes.com 10/18/04</a>

Wasn't this thread locked?

Yes it was. I re-opened it in the hope that it would proceed well.

host: questions that you have regarding how this site and this Forum are moderated are to be PMed to staff and not to be posted publically.

I understand your issues.

My moderation in these threads has nothing whatsoever to do with my particular point of view.

Your response may be understandable but it is out of line.

I think it would be very difficult to measure ones right to vote in terms of intelligence. I too struggle with this idea as I no longer believe in universal sufferage just because you are born in this country and don't commit felony crime.

Part of the reason I believe this now is that I think making it a "right" for everyone who can register, is over 18 and not a convicted criminal has cheapened it to the point where it is no longer valued. This has led to our current low voter turn out. It is something of an excepted reality that things that are "free" to us are valued and cared for less than those we earn. I think it is time to make all citizens who wish to vote earn it in some form.

Another part of the reason I dislike universal sufferage is that it seems a lot like the fox guarding the hen house to me in financial terms. All of those citizens who receive all or part of their income from government entitlements are, in effect, in a position to vote for those who will continue those programs the longest. It is the same as me having control over the executives who decide payraises at work. It is not good business in my view.

There are reasons the founding fathers put in the property requirements for voting rights in the first Constitution. While I do not agree with them disqualifying some because of color or sex, the property requirement makes more sense to me. I have long thought that some limited form of this would be good too add back to voting. I am not completely sure how to go about it, of course. There are some issues with it that would need to be addressed. For example, my aunt who worked for the government, was never on any type of government entitlement program, never married, never owned a home of her own (she prefered living in an apartment) but yet paid taxes and understood politics/history very well. She was not a property owner but it was by choice and was definitely qualified to vote in terms of intelligence.

Like I said, needs some work but I think this should be looked at.

i've heard the statistics for voter turn out in other democratic countries, and the put us to shame. but one of the factors in that may be that we hold our elections on a tuesday, while most other places do it on the weekend. if we changed that, we might have more people turning out and it won't seem so devalued.

My problem with the opinion in Tilted Politics and in general is when I am told that my opinion is "uninformed", as if the writer knows who I am and what my life experience is, while theirs is obviously superior.

My opinion may be different, it may be unpopular with you, but I can promise that it is neither "uninformed" nor inferior.

host, I asked art to re-open this thread because I thought a worthwhile discussion was happening outside of the couple jabs taking place. It appears to me that I may have overestimated its worth though.

As art said, if you have questions regarding moderation, PM them to someone, don't hijack threads for your own means. Considering that you admit you are "hostile" to those who support Bush, it seems to me as though you may not exactly have the most objective perspective of what you perceive. If you cannot respect the fact people differ in opinion from you, and you see nothing wrong in this lack of respect, that easily explains why one may not see certain things as "fair."

Both comments art pointed out are comments which had the potential to threaten the evolution of this thread. Both were comments that would have had validity if they were stated in a more respectful manner. One of them I was able to edit in such a way as to get the point across I think just as well without being disrespectful of the fact some people have different opinions and interpretations of facts.

"Outrage" is no excuse for showing disrespect and contempt for other people's opinions. The strength of your point of view makes absolutely no difference in your responsibility to be a respectful poster, however much the other person's view may differ from yours. The rest of your post I'll simply attribute to grandstanding - you know full well it has nothing to do with the subject of the thread. When you're free enough of a "hostile" mind to make those points in the appropriate places, you may feel free to do so in a way in which is respectful of the fact some people, who are equally and even more intelligent than you (and, yes, less as well), hold a very different opinion.

I reasoned to have this thread kept open because I thought it was a valid discussion and because it's one I also take a personal interest in. At this point though, I am willing close it at the drop of a hat. Get this thread back on topic and civilized again.

Because if your too fcking stupid to punch the chad out completly- you dont deserve to live much less vote ( ok im joking- but Republican or Democrat- throw it out!)

If you cant complete registration forums IN Full ( IE colorado sued by ACLU because thousands didnt check the box affirming citizenship - even though they signed a statement at top of forum affirming they were ) you dont deserve to vote.

Its real simple people- and if you can't figure that out- stay home on nov2nd and say us all a headache, and money in 1000$s of dollers of recounting/court fees

Are you saying that the elderly don't deserve to vote because they may have issues with ballots? Are they the "stupid" people that you're referring to?

Did I say that? I dont recall that. As most liberals do - you twist words to get your point across.
I said you if having to fully punch out a chad is beyond your capability, then yes, you don't deserve to vote. There is no reason that "old people" are unable to full punch out a chad. If you cannot fully complete the ballot, that is what election workers are there for. If you cannot turn over the ballot to make sure no chads are hanging on the back of the ballot, then I would suggest that you stay at home

declaring indimindation even if none exists - as the democratic manual in Kerry Edwards in Colorado suggest with their leaked manual...

I was only following through on the logical progression of your statement. Since many elderly people had trouble punching out and handing over chads and given your latest statement, it seems logical that you support that.

Well while true many elder had a problem -it went beyond that... I don't believe all the ballots in question belonged to elder people. It also is important to re-bring up the Voter registration forums in colorado, because it pertains to this and because my " too stupid" quote refers to that also- If you cannot check the box at the end of the form - and fill out the form FULLY- then you dont get to vote. Its plain and simple. Now for people with arthritis, or seeing problems ,etc , then I feel for them - but that is what polling workers do. Ive seen several signs at polling stations that ask voters to not hesitate to ask for help if they have a problem/question or concern.

Regardless of whether it was all elderly or not that had problems with the Fla. 2000 ballot, your hard and fast rules would exclude these very same people. As I've argued throughout this entire thread, trying to exclude "stupid people" from voting is an intrinsically elitist, undemocratic and dangerous idea.

I said simply " throw it out"

I didnt say they cant vote- i said if it isnt done properly throw it out.

Elitist? No.

*sigh* I said to get the thread back on topic and civilized again. Apparently the second part was too hard. It's a shame too - I thought this was an interesting subject.

As with all arguments, there is a respectful and civilized way to get a point across and, of course, the opposite. We see far too much of the opposite in Tilted Politics.