Should "literacy tests" be reinstated?
 

Back in the dark days of U.S. history, literacy tests were used by many states in order to prevent black people from voting. Since that time, they have carried with them the stigma of racism and injustice.

However, perhaps literacy tests could serve a useful purpose today. I feel that it is unfortunate, to say the least, that the American public is so poorly informed about the basic functionings of our government. I dare suggest that people who have an exceptionally poor understanding of political issues and procedures are doing a disservice to their fellow countrymen by voting.

I view it as fortunate, in many ways, that only roughly 60% of the electorate votes in presidential elections, and an even smaller number in less important contests, as I take this as a sign that only those with a strong interest in voting take the time to do so.

If such a test did exist, I would suggest that voters would need to get a certain percentage of the following questions right in order to vote:

1. Who is your current U.S. Representative?
2. Who is your current U.S. Senator?
3. Who is the current President of the United States?
4. Who is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?
5. How many people are currently members of the Supreme Court?

These questions are, of course, just examples of what could be asked. Ideally, the test would be very general and easy to pass if the test-taker had even an elementary understanding of and interest in politics.

Conversely, this test would bar a number of people from voting, and likely a disproportionately minority group as well. It flies in the face of some democratic principles, but not necessarily of republican principles.

Is it appropriate to require some very modest level of political competence in voters, or should even the most clueless and uneducated have the right of suffrage? What would be the consequences of making either decision?

Universal suffrage.

Yes, we should expect competence in the electorate but instituting tests is just going to make it *more* difficult to get the vote out. I would wager that the 60% you see today would drop to 40% very quickly.

I will not argue the fact that a large number of the electorate are clueless about the system but I think that speaks more to your education system than anything...

If testing is neccessary then I would add it as a mandatory "civics" course in grade or high school, but to have it be a prerequisite to voting smacks of the elitism that caused the literacy tests to be discontinued in the first place.

I'm stuck on that one regarding the voters. They found so many reasons to discount the votes of minorities already in the last election... at least in Florida. A lot of these were older persons who didn't have the educational opportunities that we have these days. But they understand about how they would like life to be, though many couldn't name their Representative nor read above a third grade level. I'm not sure I know who my Representative is. But, I also refuse to make a decision on a ballot unless I'm informed. Maybe that's the key.

Could we make our politicians take the test? I can think of several of my local government idiots that would fail. Flat out. That's a plan.

Felons shouldnt vote. Almost all of the "disenfranchised" voters were turned away because of that (in Ohio too).

Anyways while it sounds like a good idea, it's a very slippery slope. From litteracy it could turn into naming your representative to having to be "above average". Universal sufferage is the best way in my opinion.

I'm just wondering why felons should not be allowed to vote? Especially after they have paid their debt to society. Is it because they are most likely to vote for a certain party, or because there is a real legitimate reason?

Felons that have served their time can reapply for voting rights.

Just one of them?

Just one of them?

Most should know that, and that's not based on literacy. I'm sure there are many illiterate children all across the world who know who George Bush is.

Personally I don't know how these would apply to anything. I know that I've never voted on a Supreme Court justice, and I'm pretty sure no one else has either... And really, I couldn't tell you much about any of them aside from knowing a few of their names that I had to pick up for a government course.

In regards to a felon's inability to vote, I see it as a prolonged consequence of breaking the law. If I commit a felony, I don't get to vote.

But in regards to a literacy test, I'm going to have to give a big resounding "No" because why should knowing random facts about the set up of the government give me a right to vote or not? I know who I support and I know why, and I'm 99% sure that even if I couldn't read or write I'd still be able to put 2 and 2 together and figure out who I should support.

Felons shouldn't vote because that's part of the penalty of being convicted of a serious crime. And they are more likely to vote for a certain party because that certain party considers felons to be a valuable constituency and panders to them. That's how we ended up with people serving an average of seven years in prison for murder.

Literacy tests, no, because they are elitist... (yes, I can name all the members of the supreme court, but I'll be damned if I could tell you the name of the acting governor of NJ... :( ... in my delusional maleficent world, I'd like to see an 'issues' test. That before you vote, you have to be aware of what you are voting for, if nothig else it would get rid of the problem of voting across party lines, and it would also make the candidates, I would hope, more accountable for getting their platforms out to the public rather than just saying what the other candidate isn't doing.

Can this statement be backed up with any supportable documentation? An average of seven years in prison might represent negligent homicide, but I doubt that it represents aggrevated homicide. Also, we might be going of the track off the topic's intention.

i'd have to give a resounding no to this. it could be abused way to easy to favor one party over another. Questions could be easily skewed to one side or biased against a specific culture. What I do support is every canidate getting a couple paragraph summary of their platform and removing any mention of what party they belong to. This prevents people from voting for someone based on party lines when they know nothing about the canidate.

one doesn't need to know how to spell their name for a signature on a contract.

Signing with X is still binding and legal.

If that's enough, then just having to punch a hole, pull a lever, scratch a box is enough to vote.

I would be willing to entertain the idea that before applying for a voter's registration card, that the citizen's test required of immigrants be required. A likely approach would be to make it a required course in high school, where this information has/should have been taught already.

If we can require driver's training in high school, why not voter's training?

I thought that's what Civics was supposed to teach. I had a Civics class, which abutted the information I learned in my American History class the year before.

it's not like people vote once and then they die. these election things happen on a regular basis. an instance of an uneducated ballot being cast is not the worst thing that can happen to a democracy.

under-educated voters being seen as "the problem" to be limited and legistlated against and not a call for educating the voters who are already involved...

that might just be the worst thing that can happen to a democracy.

Another problem with anything like this is that these things would be drawn up on I believe the state level, that makes them ripe for inconsistancies, and bias. If you can punch a hole you can vote. it's better to work on educating the populace then ignoring them. For better or for worse that is the way it's supposed to work.

I also see no problem with felons voting after they have served their time. I see no good reason to punish them repeatedly for something they have already been punished for. I also see no real difference in bias then let's say a gun collector. They want what they thinks is best for them.

I would wholly support some sort of literacy/civics/whatever test to vote. If voting is supposed to be a great priviledge and something seen as important, those who vote should be qualified to do the task in a somewhat able manner. Anything that decreases the number of people who vote (at least those who lack basic understanding of politics or the issues they vote on) is something that can only do good.

So would you be in favour of requiring a certain IQ to vote? How about that you must own land?
It just seems like a wrong path to go down for a modern democracy. I mean democracy is meant to be about what the people want, even if it may be unwise at times (which is also subjective, so it is difficult to judge).

This debate is going very well, but I feel the need to stir the pot a bit.

The United States is not "a modern democracy". We are a constitutional republic, and for good reason. Publius argued that having elected representatives serving multi-year terms would help to insulate the decision-makers in government from the passions of the electorate. In so many ways, the United States was designed for the ground up to prevent the majority from having its way.

This can lead one to two very different conclusions, I think:
1. Checks and balances, seperation of powers, federalism, non-elected judiciary, long Senate terms, etc. already safeguard us against idiocy in the population, so literacy tests are unnecessary.

2. Our government is founded on the principle that, although the rulers should serve at the consent of the governed, the governed should not get their way when they are not representing their own best interests. Therefore, disenfranchising the least educated voters would be in keeping with the spirit of the United States.

In any case, let's stop using the "democracy" rhetoric, as the United States is not a democracy. I wouldn't have it any other way.

If this is your reasoning, then I assume you would be favor of those who fail your little test getting a free pass on taxes too... After all, we live in a constitutional republic that exists because people thought they shouldn't be taxed without representation in parliament. The reasoning went that if you couldn't vote for a parliamentary representative then taxes should not be levied. THAT is the spirit of the founding of the United States.

I'm frankly worried that I would somehow be disenfranchized. I can't think that the folks who would come up with the test would design it such that folks like me are weeded out from voting.

I would be in favor of a certain IQ (if there's some accurate measure) for all voting, and land ownership for some. I honestly don't want to have decisions left up to the will of "the people" simply because many of "the people" are idiots. Generally, "the people" have no idea about anything, and are too easily swayed by shiny objects (in the form of political campaigning).

You can blame IQ, knowladge etc.. I know smart people who vote party, without knowing anything about the candidate. To me I think those individuals should not be allowed to vote. But the power of the US, is that we are not an elitist country (well not supposed to be) and everyone has a voice. While I do think some people are stupid and should not be allowed one, I feel that any form of censorship of the voice of the people can lead to another and another group...

Well, there is one group worth noting that is universally denied the right to vote: minors. Those unfortunate persons under 18, even those who pay taxes, are not permitted to vote. I'm pretty sure the reason that minors aren't allowed to vote is that they are not well-informed enough to affect national elections. Sooo, wouldn't it be a good idea to administer a political test to potential voters to weed out the uninformed? While we're at it, we could allow informed teenagers to vote. That way, voting rights would be dependent upon knowledgeability, rather than age.

I'm interested to see if someone can actually quanitfy the harm done by voter ignorance. I mean sure if one loses an election, one may complain about all the dummies who voted for the other guy, but really how is the democratic process hurt by some percentage of the voters not knowing the answers to your questionnaire?

Democracy is strengthened by open participation and weakened by limited participation. That is why improved suffrage has strengthened it by allowing women, minorities, etc. to participate in the process. You need to demonstrate a compelling case for why an individual's participation will harm the process before you can contemplate a means to undertake such limitation.

While we may debate whether it is appropriate to expand voting to felons and minors, the fact that we have yet to do so is not sufficient to warrant contracting the currently eligible voting group.

Josh

Not really. Adulthood has long been recognized as a basic requirement for full-fledged access to the privledges of citizenship. The reason is not ignorance so much as the recognition under the law that a minor can not fully take responsibility for actions that will be life-altering. This is why they are denied the ability to join the military without parental consent, to consume drugs such as alcohol or nicotine, or to willingly have sexual relations with an adult. Now we can discuss whether it is proper to impose these restrictions on minors, but it is off-topic. The point is that it is not just pure ignorance that is the basis for denying minors the vote. No competence test is required to buy beer or cigs.

If political campaigning is so deleterious to the public's ability to make a clear and reasoned choice, why not ban campaigning. OK, too far, correct? Perhaps there is something to be said here.

Why not ban all ads and not just the ones paid for by the candidate. Also ones by organizations like moveon.org and Swift Boat types... Allow, all the stump speeches, debates, campaign signs, etc. But ban all other forms of advertising.

In addition to this, increase spending on Education of the people. A democracy (or whatever sort of system you wish to call the American one) requires a well informed populace. Part of this comes from the schools system, the other part of this is supposed to come from a free press. Sadly, our informed populace is at the mercy of spin doctors and modern advertising. We are all subject to this, no exceptions (see Art's thread on this here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...t=mind+control).



The only thing I can see that will come of limiting the vote to those who can qualify is that it will likely end up with a higher percentage of higher income earners, property owners and educational elite deciding the fate of the nation and excluding those who don't have the time to take the test or the inclination to study for it.

All this talk is interesting and futile; there won't be any restrictions on voting, as desirable as it may be to some of us here.

Me, I'd not do a test of the names of current office holders or restrict the voting rolls to landowners, but rather make the only eligible voters taxpayers (and I don't mean gasoline tax or sales tax). Those with an actual financial stake in the outcome--much like shareholders in a corporation. But even that is fraught with problems--those retired may still care about their country/state/locality, and those ineligible because they aren't earning enough money to pay taxes would remove a disproportional share of minorites.

It's still interesting to dream of ways to make a good system better.

One of the more amusing Robert Heinlein characters was a monarchist because he was a democrat.

He felt only someone with the power of a king could protect people from themselves.

I'd be all for changing the voting requirements to something beyond the ability to mark an X, but any real change would require a revolution at this point as there is a major political party which sees a major advantage in having as many uneducated people vote as possible.

Can you offer any evidence to back up this statement?

Now why would you go and say such mean things about the Republicans...

Actually, contrary to the insinuations being made here, there is very little correllation between income level and political orientation. Race and religion are far more accurate predictors. I'll try to find some numbers to back up this claim...

I wouldn't be surprised by this... There are probably just as many "uneducated" types in the red states that vote republican as there are in the blue states that vote Democrat.

Why is banning campaigning too far? It takes up elected officials time (espeically for House members who only have 2 year terms and are essentially constantly campaigning). I would agree with what you propose.

A republic doesn't require an informed populace. Also, many people either have no desire or aren't able to be educated.



The only thing I can see that will come of limiting the vote to those who can qualify is that it will likely end up with a higher percentage of higher income earners, property owners and educational elite deciding the fate of the nation and excluding those who don't have the time to take the test or the inclination to study for it.[/QUOTE]

Having looked this up myself in past elections for board purposes.

The Democrats have a majority of the less than highschool educated, and the PhD's.

The Republican base is in the highschool-college educated range.

I found this to be consistant with what I have run into 'on the street' while at various Universities and other life experiances.

Race and religion are also very good predictors of black and Jewish voting. It is less of a predictor for the various Christian secs, whites, and Hispanics.

This does not invalidate my statment about a major party wanting the uneducated to vote early and often. These people historicaly vote for them and as such they would not slit there own throats politically, reguardless of the merit.

I would argue that banning campaigning completely eradicates any opportunity a candidate has to let the people know what his or her platform is... I would suggest that stump speeches, debates, town hall style meetings (ones that *anyone* can attend rather than the staged events we now see), etc. are the types of events that should continue.

Anything else should be done away with as they seem to be rife with corruption and obfuscation.

It is also good to note that it is this party that would also like to see these voters get a *better* education and higher wages... it isn't all that surprising to see which way they vote.

Yes, I know... "trickle down!!!", "no child left behind!!!" Regardless, it appears that certain portions of the populace don't buy that particular brand of rhetoric... they choose another. :p

This topic tickles my funny bone - particularly the last few posts between Ustwo and Charlatan.

If one of the questions was "how many Iraqis were involved in the 9/11 attacks", and we didn't let anyone vote who said more than zero, we'd have a different president now.

The tenuous connection between knowledge and education always amazes me. :D

To the general question, I say nay. I see no practical way to do anything like this successfully. I can appreciate the desire, but I'd vote for universal suffrage every time.

That, sir, is the correct answer to my original question.

Ummm really. Support of the teachers union has nothing to do with wanting children to have a better education, not in the least. Which party is for vouchers again so that students from failing inner city school get a chance to escape the crappy education system? :rolleyes:

I don't think a test would do much good. The winner of almost all elections would still probably be a professional polititian from the Democrat or Republican party so nothing would change. They are the only ones with enough special interest money to win and there's not much difference between them.

With every civic duty comes a corresponding civic responsibility.
Requiring voters to be literate is not too much to ask of any citizen.

Anything that would reduce the imbecile vote is okay by me.

The issue of vouchers does not seem to me to be the "clear cut" positive that you are projecting. I would find it suspect if a group of well educated teaching professionals did not organize themselves into a body that takes advantage of their legal right to form a union to negotiate salary and benefits from a position of better co-ordinated and financed strength than any of them could, individually. Teachers who belong to unions seem to be the rarer group today who do not "vote against their own best interests", as so many other wage and salary earners seem to be doing lately.

Success of vouchers for private schools seems mixed, at best, in Florida.

Well, we disagree on the teacher's union bit. My take is that if we don't take care of the teachers, the good ones go and do something else. Now, we could argue the merits of whether a union is the best way to do that (in another thread), but please don't be silly and say there is no connection.

There is for those in the unions. It's that casual dismissiveness of other's opinions that drives the forum into flame. rolleyes, indeed...

While i don't disagree with the thought, how do you do it?

Do what? Think?

Is this flamebait? Assuming you really didn't understand my question, I'll try again:


How do you test for literacy on a national level? Create a multiple choice test? In every language? Or do you start by creating a requirement for knowing written English before you can vote? Do you mandate an essay portion? Who grades that? If you go with Q&A, what kinds of questions do you ask?

Many of those issues were spelled in this thread already. The point is there are some significant logistical hurdles for this idea. Not the least of which is: who do you put in charge of creating this process? Find someone that wouldn't create a "Bush nominates Bill Clinton for the Supreme Court" sized controversy and I'll be surprised/impressed. :D

More clear?

Literacy/knowledge tests... totally. Woulda definitely changed the results of the last election too :P

Some might consider that elitist, but stupid people who don't know what they're doing shouldn't be voting - period. There's just too much at stake for someone to be sitting there going, "Gee, I like Bush's tie and I recognize his name. Ima vote for him. I don't know anything about the other fellow."

You need to take a test to get your driver's license, so at the time you register to vote, you should be quizzed on current political events. Names of people who represent your district, their stance, etc.

Flat out, if you don't know about what you're voting on, your vote shouldn't count.

I guess I still haven't seen a compelling case made as to what harm so-called stupid voters do to the process. Besides partisans on both sides that somehow feel their supporters are 'smarter' than their opponents' supporters, the only argument is that people don't like the idea of their thoughtful vote being cancelled by some dummy that picks the guy with the funny name. So I'd like someone to really demonstrate how someone's ability to pass a test will improve the public safety.

I find the thread title confusing. You speak of literacy tests, but seem to be advocating a civics exam.

As to the question you ask, I favor universal suffrage for all citizens. Our republic, as you correctly point out, does insulate the decision makers from the whims of the populace.

While it is true that not all of the electorate votes in each election, that is no indication that those who vote are any more or less informed than those who do not. Nor is it any indication that those who do vote make better decisions than their non-voting counterparts.

What I find infuriating is this: During my service in the Army, I went to places where people are KILLED for trying to vote. They keep trying. And yet our non-voters can't be bothered to go to the polling place.

Well said, Lance, I couldn't agree more. That so many Americans can't be bothered to stake their claim and participate at the most basic level in ensuring that they get governance that best reflects their will is a constant irritant. However, for me it is tempered by the fact that those who do go to the polls are doing so of their own will without any coercement beyond their own desire to participate in the process.

As far as any kind of test, the fact that these people take the time and effort to go to the polls, often enduring hurdles to do so, is enough for me. When I see people standing on line for hours, eduring the elements, overcoming harrassment, tracking down bureaucratic mix-ups, and otherwise dealing with numerous hassles just to ensure their one anonymous vote, which they know isn't enough to sway things one way or another, is counted and goes into the pool correctly, I have to say that those people have earned their right to vote, and I would have to see a very compelling case to warrant putting yet more hurdles in front of them.

You just did.

I'm into politics. I know each candidate's stance on sisues. I know my representatives and senators as well as their position.

I care about how things are run.

My vote, or anyone else's, shouldn't be cancelled out by the person who voted simply based on "president with the familiar name."

It's kinda self explanitory. Why should someone that doesn't know what they're doing have a say in how this country is run? Makes no sense.

Fair enough. Let me ask a more fundamental question to better understand you: What is the purpose of an election? I don't mean to elect a candidate, but why make it an election for the general populace to participate in, versus simply having a 'Council of Wise Men' or some such to review and select candidates for positions of authority?

I have an even better idea - let's make the test harder, so then only the REALLY smart people can vote. In fact, let's make it stupid hard and have 15 people vote. Surely that would be best. Of course, you figure out who makes the test, what's on it, and who grades it.

I think everyone here that thinks any part of this thread is a good idea also ASSumes that they'd pass the test.

Amen, brother Tuber! It's a tough line to draw...

Nah, I think it should be really easy common sense questions that apply for that particular district (ex: senator, representative).

You'd be surprised at how many people hate the candidates just because their friends/family/neighbors do. Those are the people you wanna weed out.

This seems to be a slippery slope fallacy. Asking people know WHAT they are voting for is far different than a meritocracy. So yes we all expect to pass this test since we assume the test to be quite easy.

It may be a slippery slope, or it may be an analogy that simply magnifies the original concept to show that the acceptability of this idea depends on your perspective. Which way you label my post probably correlates to which perspective you have. I'd also point out that since our legal system operates on precedent, not all slippery slope arguments are invalid in politics.

Personally, I only favor restricting the right to vote based on voluntary things - like committing felonies. Since dunder-heads are represented the same as you and I (assuming neither of us is a dunder-head), they should be allowed to vote. I'm most especially reminded of the thoughts last November that anyone who voted different from (insert your own party ideolodgy) must have been ignorant, bigoted, out-of-touch, or not paying attention. This came from both sides. Restricting the right to vote is a slippery slope in itself - perhaps that is a possibility that bears consideration.

Yes, I'm for literacy tests. Not just yes, but HELL YES. I'm not advocating a civics test. Literacy means the ability to read and write at a minimum level.
It is bullshit trying to "get out the vote." What a load of rubbish. If you're not interested or responsible enough to get your own self "out to vote," then you have no business being enticed into it by some self-serving political party or politician who doesn't give a shit about you anyway.
The honest truth is, I want fewer people to vote, not more. I want to make voting more difficult. If literacy tests result in a smaller turnout--fine, lets put them in place. Making it easier for people to vote only encourages the less engaged and informed citizens to cast a ballot. If I have to beg halfwit Homer Jones and his alcoholic wife Claire to show up on election day, then they haven't been paying attention, and frankly, their ignorance isn't gonna add one wit of positive value to the election results anyway.
When a citizen casts a ballot, he could be making a life-altering decision for thousands of people. With the right to vote comes the responsibility to be, at a bare minimum, literate. If you can't manage to learn to read and write in today's society, if you are so lacking in responsibility that you need to be enticed to vote-- please stay home. Please.
There is no other serious decision-making process in life where the most uninformed, illiterate, and irrational among us are so enthusiastically encouraged to participate.

I guess the whole, taxation without representation doesn't mean anything to you, since you're basically saying that those that cannot vote are just your tax base fodder.And who's to say that they don't have a particular testing strategy that Omits you from voting... if you say that that's fare then too, then I'm all behind you.

Otherwise, sorry, no taxation without representation, it's what the country was founded on, and what I feel is only fair for tbose that do have to pay taxes which is each and everyone of us.

Cynthetiq - In all honesty do you think the illiterate are the ones paying the bulk of the taxes? I think a far fairer argument is why people who pay no income taxes can decide what happens with the money (by voting) and who gets taxed. You say no taxation without representation, I say no representation without taxation.

The bulk? no... I do get what you are saying about it in converse.

At some point in time should we not be paying income tax? or not as much? Since I'm slowly amassing retirement funds in different vehicles and careful as to what those income tax penalties are. Could I at some point in time have very little to no income and then suddenly not be represented?

edit: Everyone pays taxes, maybe not income taxes, but there's hidden taxes in bread, soda, manufactured goods, all passed onto the consumer built into the price.

purchasing almost any goods nets you some sort of sales tax. communications, TV, all these other taxes surround those... then gasoline... there's lots of taxes in that...

joke in NJ at one point in time was that you paid sales tax even to wipe your ass since toilet paper was a taxable item.

Ustwo are you suggesting that if someone doesn't pay taxes they shouldn't be allowed to vote? Or when you say bulk do mean that only those who pay taxes abouve a certain percentage or their income or a fixed dollar amount?


Either way you are either disenfranchising the poor (who are not neccessarily illiterate) or the wealthy who have tax sheltered their income (who are not neccessarily literate).

In the end everyone over certain age is, generally, responsible for paying taxes. I don't see that it matters who pay more. When broken down as a percentage of income (which income taxes generally are) we are all effected equally.

I am suggesting that when you have a disconnect from the system, it will lead to unfair policies. Somewhere I read that 30-40% of the eligible voters pay no income tax, and that the number is on the rise. Why should they care about fiscal responsibility, tax rates, or the like, they have no investment in the system?

Fair enough... are you suggesting that even those who make millions and pay no income tax (due to shelters or off shore havens) not be allowed to vote?

...and doesn't everyone have to pay sales tax?

as i edited into my last comment.

and social security and medicare/medicaid and state, and local (in my case, city)... and, and, and... excise taxes in cigarettes, gasoline... Arguing that there is anyone in the US that doesn't pay any taxes at all is silly - and it is the government that levies those taxes, so I think the taxation without representation argument is much more valid than its converse.

Most of those taxes are local not Federal, and as such have little do to with the question. Likewise I am not going to assume that paying the gas tax (which is hidden in the price) has any effect on people in question.

Ustwo, I think we crossed each other. I think local taxes do fit into the question. At least in NY, you vote for local, state and federal elections on the same day - so presumably being prevented from voting means you can't vote at all. I'm also surprised. In the past I have gotten the idea that many of your positions were based on principles - in some cases, practicality be damned. I may have been wrong about that, but it is surprising to me that on the issue of excise and sales taxes your response could be summed up as "well, they're really little taxes. People don't notice them because the effect isn't big enough." Am I missing something in your thinking?

First of all, when our ancestors used the rallying cry of "No taxation without representation," they certainly weren't advocating universal suffrage. In colonial society, only land-owning white males were permitted to vote.

For the sake of argument, let's not even discuss the early settler's view of Blacks, white women, and non-land owning white males. If for one second the leaders of the American Revolution would have thought that one day the illiterate would be allowed, no actually encouraged, to cast a ballot, they would've thrown the whole thing in. "No taxation without representation" was NEVER an argument for universal suffrage.

Unlike our American ancestors, I believe that all literate citizens, regardless of race, gender, or economic class, should have the franchise. But like the Founding Fathers, I understand that the survival of democratic government depends on an educated and informed citizenry.

Look, democratic governments spend billions on public education. If you are lucky enough to find yourself living in a democracy, you have very, very few duties or responsibilities placed on you by the society. The least that citizens can do, for the benefit of us all, is to learn to read and write.
Democracy is not a suicide pact. There's nothing in its theory or in its practice that says its survival is dependant on the bag-lady vote.

Aladdin Sane - First off, this thread is not about literacy tests. It is about 'literacy tests', or as you astutely pointed out, civics tests. Secondly, a literacy test wouldn't eliminate many people.The CIA world factbook lists a literacy rate in the US of 97%, while George Mason University figures 60.3% voter turnout in the 2004 presidential election. I respectfully submit that many of the 3% who can't read are part of the 39.7% who didn't vote. Of course, in the last election that 3% could have swung the result, if they had somehow arrived at polling places they couldn't read the directions to, after correctly filling out voter registration forms they couldn't read, and of course, managing to vote in a unified block on a ballot containing names they couldn't read. I think the difficulties built into the system for illiterate people pose enough of a barrier.

Secondly, on your points regarding the history of suffrage:
For the most part these were the only people paying taxes until the stamp tax, tea tax, and other excise taxes on goods were instituted. Secondly, I don't argue that we should create ONLY the system that the framers envisioned. I do think that we should not descend below the basic principles that were good. That means extending the right to vote as much as is practical and allowing people affected by laws the opportunity to select the representatives who make those laws. A common theme among those founders was that the independence was worth pursuing because the industry and worth of the American people was intrinsic and vigorous enough to sustain a nation. In other words, when they wrote "we, the people" they were indicating a certain substantial amount of faith in those people to negotiate their own futures after independence was won. That is how I still see this country, and I would not describe honoring a bag lady's vote as a suicide pact.

Ustwo, respectfully, I don't believe that for a second. Not to mention the fact that this ambiguous statistic also ignores social security, medicare/medicaid, sales tax, property tax, excise tax, etc... I suspect that asking for some documentation would send this thread veering off course though, as it is more about preventing people from voting than it is about who pays what kind of taxes. Suffice it to say that the percentage of people who escape ALL form of tax is low enough that I think the (alleged) evil of their participation in the voting process does not warrant compromising a fundamental right in this country.

A literacy test is a literacy test is a literacy test.

My central point still stands unmolested: If you are lucky enough to find yourself living in a democracy, you have very, very few duties or responsibilities placed on you by the society. The least that citizens can do, for the benefit of us all, is to learn to read and write.

And the fact still remains that not being able to read is besides the point. Someone can still be aware of all of the issues and still give a damn about who they elect even if they can't read. Amazingly, they might even pay taxes.

I rather doubt you have met such an individual :)

That's a very pompous statement. There are many individuals out there that cannot read but keep up on current events and work hard to compensate for their problem.

So you know these people then or are you just assuming?

If you want to see a fucking revolution, go and take voting rights from the poor who pay less taxes. They get fucked over by the rich enough as it is. That would likely be the last straw.

When the poor get upset in the US they burn down their own homes. The poor don't win revolutions, sorry.

Edit: Oh and saying they get 'fucked over' by the rich is silly but for another thread.

I happen to know quite a few..... in my line of work I meet people from all walks of life. The same way I know people who graduated from Ivy League schools, everyone deserves the same respect, dignity and rights and to assume that because someone can't read they are beneath you or cannot be solid, hardworking, taxpaying citizens; is pompous, self righteous BS.

As for revolution... don't be so sure that those in the ghettoes and the poor would just burn down their own......

Not everyone who can't read has a sign on them saying they can't read

I happen to know several like that, including my barber who came from another country, he watches the news all day, and talks about politics non-stop.

At the same time a girl who worked with me, she can read, she is a substitute teacher and scares me with her ignorance. She thought Giuliani was the vice-president; she thinks there are 53 states. And yes she can read, and somehow teaches!

Literacy does not equal intelligence!

Notably, sales tax in states that have it account for a good portion of state revenues. In Washington state alone the sales tax usually accounts for a quarter of the budget. That's pretty significant.

That said, I think voters who don't pay income taxes (such as myself, a student who doesn't make enough to pay taxes) have just as much or more stake in federal government. Those of us who live below the poverty line (yes, many of us college students do exist there) are dependent on government benefits of some kind to attempt and improve our existence, be it financial aid, food stamps, or health care programs. State-funded higher education regularly takes hits in the name of balancing the budget, and I get to watch my tuition rates go up. Yippee.

Universal enfranchisement is the only way to go. We've established that time and time again. The people have the right to be represented, and to choose their representation. In today's society, we have no other choice but to let everyone vote--and despite the fact that I may disagree with how some people vote, I strongly support voting rights and getting EVERYONE's vote out and counted.

So what you are saying is because you don't pay for the federal goverment, you should decide what other people pay to benifit yourself. Classic example of why the system is bad. As for sales and state taxes and the like, its a totally seperate issue from voting in Federal elections.

Um.. all other BS aside, why would you ask people to help CHOOSE something when they know absolutely nothing about it? In the end, you're taking a shot in the dark and are ultimately doing more harm than good.

I think that's half the reason why our country is becoming increasingly screwed up. Hell, even politicians try to pretend like they know what they're doing when they clearly DON'T, and it ALWAYS turns out ugly - worst part is, they get away with it!!

Take, for example, Hillary Clinton during this GTA fiasco. She knows nothing about the game and instead relies on what others tell her to draw her conclusions, which are so flat out WRONG it's sickening.

Most Judges know NOTHING about modern technology, but make rulings on it day in and day out.

Voting for a president is a pretty serious thing... please tell me WHY you would want to count the vote of someone who doesn't know one single THING about the thing they are voting for. Please please please, just explain that.

You know everything there is to know about your job?

NOONE in congress is ever going to know everything that is why they have aides and pages. A vast majority of congress (whether I like their politics or not) are damned efficient and do very good research.

And who would determine who knows enough to vote?

And what of the people who can't read but know more about politics then most who can read?

What of immigrants, who have become citizens but have trouble reading English?

I'm sorry the Constitution and the Amendments that follow guarantee EVERY CITIZEN the right to vote.....

Once you start adding requirements such as "literacy tests", you open the floodgates. Then you start saying only taxpayers, then only land owners, then grandfather clauses, then only people who pay this much or more in taxes, and so on.

The poor and underpriveleged will revolt, and unlike the poster above I wouldn't be so sure that they would just burn down their own buildings.... and when the vast majority of our military and police come from the poorer sections....

False. The Constitution prevents you from barring someone from voting because of:
-Their race
-Their previous condition of servitude
-Their gender
-Their failure to pay a poll tax
-Their age, if it is 18 or greater

If the country, or a state, decided to prevent people from voting for a different reason than the ones listed above, it would only be unconstitutional if the courts decided it violated Amendment 14. Otherwise, I don't see how it could be overturned.

If you want to bring the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and other legislation into it as well, though... things turn out differently.

I also wanted to say that the slippery slope argument above was very funny. "If you start requiring literacy as a qualification for voting, there will be a violent revolution!" :lol:

I did say the Constitution AND Amendments. You are wrong tho, the Const. did not bar anyone from voting. The individual states did.

Amend. 14 is the only place where it says "male" and thusly if females did vote it became illegal.

However, the 15th Amend. states: It also gave Congress the right to: And the 19th gave the right to women.

The 24th stated: the 26th stated: So the Constitution pretty much covers whoi can vote..... which is anyone over 18 and a citizen of the USA.

This was a power given to Congress by the many amendments and therefore impossible to overturn, unless it infringes on the rights.... which the VRAof1965 does not.

Laugh if you will but there are plenty of people who believe that government is too strong and if you took their right to vote away.... I think that may be the straw that breaks the back. I don't think a small revolt is too far away anyway. It's not a question of if but rather when.

None of those say that a person's right to vote can't be taken away for other reasons. Case in point: felons aren't allowed to vote. You could deny someone's right to vote as long as it isn't for one of the reasons you nor politicophile mentioned. The right to vote isn't constitutionally guaranteed for everyone 18+.



You are right, there are many people who feel the gov't is too strong and would revolt if voting rights were limited. Many of these people live in cabins in the middle of woods and shoot on sight anyone who tresspasses on their land. This is not the majority of people. There would be some mild outcry, but I don't think there would be the great outcry you predict, as many who lost their voting rights would go about their lives.

As for the revolt you speak of coming, I have seen no signs of this whatsoever. There might be some random kooks, but for the most part people realize the futility and senselessness of revolting at this point in time.

Don't confuse what you want to happen with what will happen.

I'm afraid there would be no revolt to speak of. If there is a revolt in the US it won't be from the poor, but the producing middle class.

pan,

Do me a favor and reread my previous post. I spelled out very clearly the provisions in the Constitution (and the amendments, for God's sake) that dictate how voting may not be limited. You won't find anything about literacy tests in there: trust me. As for race, gender, etc, no shit Sherlock: I already pointed out exactly those provisions.

That's very true felons do lose their right, but they did it to themselves by committing the crime. Otherwise everyone over 18 has the right and it cannot be taken away.

I would disagree, you take away a person's right to vote for no reason and there would be a revolt, it may take a year and be disorganized at first but I would bet there would be a revolt, and not from just random kooks.... I know if my right to vote would be taken away, I would organize with others and die fighting for that right to be given back to me.


But I add this disclaimer: If I fucked up and committed a felony, then I lost that right myself.

You mean the producing middle class that is paying for an illegal war and Haliburton contracts that don't deliver? You mean the producing middle class that will see jobs head to Central America and jobs sent overseas? You mean the working middle class that is one major illness away from losing everything .... while the CEO's and rich make more and more?

You mean those people?

I have reread you post and I humbly and deeply appologize. I believed at first you were saying the Constitution barred those groups. It was my mistake and I truly am sorry.

No there is no literacy testing provision, however, I would hope that it wouldn't stand. I think (and I maybe wrong) that literacy tests are covered in the VRAof1965 or a subsequent law.

Apology accepted. Thank you for rereading my post.

Yes, those people.

No thread is complete without the shrill cry of "HALLIBURTON' from our resident pack of cassandras on the left.

Well done, Pan. Well done.

You mean like our friends to the right who claim because a person can't read they can't contribute to society and shouldn't be allowed to vote?

Personally I'd rather yell about a company that gets paid billions to protect our men and pockets the money and doesn't do the job, then take people's rights away or belittle them.....

But alas I guess I'm just one of those lefties that will never learn.

Pan you don't understand the crux of it.

The poor are just that poor. They are uneducated. They have no resources. They are often in ill health due to lifestyle. They have nothing to unify them outside of being poor.

The poor don't win revolutions. They may get slaughtered in them, but they don't win. So I don't worry about them, they are ineffectual. If they had the ability to revolt they wouldn't be poor in the first place, being poor in the US is almost impossible if you have even a sliver of work ethic and self control.

And likewise we are talking about some pretty basic functions. I'm more for a civics type of test over a literacy, but regardless we are not asking for a lot. It is you who assume all the poor people are illiterate and do not grasp what they are voting for, but you also assume they will revolt for what they don't understand and can't read. At best they are used by others, with empty promises that things will be different when THEY are in charge.

Pompousity in it's purest form, gotta love it.

Tell the poor they had no chance in Russia, in France, in any number of countries.

The poor always find someone rich that will back them in revolutions, if only for that person's self gain, as you state. The US is very close to it and if the right person were to come along and people felt no hope (and the hope is dwindling), I firmly believe there would be revolution.

Will the right person come along? Possible, probable, but I think there is still hope and light....

Once you implement these b.s. literacy tests, no matter how "civic" in nature, you start a slippery slope.

I just don't see how people who say they want less government and less spending continue to want such extreme government control in our lives.

I've always thought of Napoleon and Lenin as champions of the poor...

...

...

:lol: :lol:

Wow...this question actually led me to more thought than I at first believed that it would.

Should there be a basic intelligence / literacy / civics test before voting...eh, that's a pretty slippery slope. There might be a person out there who can't read due to pervious life circumstances, but still has an intent interest in our nation. On the other hand, there might be someone who went through 11th grade Government class, knows that there's 9 people on the Supreme Court, but has no clue as to what type of person will be chosen should the president be forced to choose one.

~Side note: This was what scared me the most during the 2004 election. I knew for certain that the newly elected president would be choosing at least 1 Supreme Court justice in his term, and, most likely, the new chairman of the Federal Reserve. /end note

I believe that there should be a general association with the issues of the election. There are far too many people that choose a politician because he "looks honest" or "has a trustworthy face" or "seems like a down-to-earth type of guy". That's total crap, especially in today's news-oriented world. At the very least, there should be a little placard in the polling booth that gives some basic info on the politician's individual platform. I don't care what my president looks like, or whether he shakes the hand of a lot of people - I want a guy that agrees with me on the issues and can actually get things done. Imagine that...

Laugh if you want and what came of the revolution was not good but neither will be a revolution here. I didn't say that those revolutions provided model governments or were good for the people did I now?

I was simply illustrating that the poor are usually the ones who start revolutions.

You have 2 parties that preach hatred and you have a massive distrust and growing debt that will eventually have to be paid. We no longer have political debate, we have almost bloodlettings and hatreds and putdowns and fear mongering and finger pointing...... you want to tell me all that is healthy and should this type of behavior continue we're not going to see a revolt?