Should "literacy tests" be reinstated?

[politicophile]

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?

[Charlatan]

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.

[noodle]

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.

[Seaver]

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.

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.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by Seaver

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

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?

[Elphaba]

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

[Gatorade Frost]

1. Who is your current U.S. Representative?

Just one of them?

2. Who is your current U.S. Senator?

Just one of them?

3. Who is the current President of the United States?

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.

4. Who is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?

5. How many people are currently members of the Supreme Court?

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.

[daswig]

Originally Posted by samcol

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 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.

[maleficent]

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.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by daswig

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.

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.

[Rekna]

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.

[Cynthetiq]

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.

[Elphaba]

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?

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

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.

[martinguerre]

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.

[jonjon42]

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.

[alansmithee]

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.

[aKula]

Originally Posted by alansmithee

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).

[politicophile]

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

Originally Posted by aKula

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).

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.

[ubertuber]

Originally Posted by politicophile

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.

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.

[RusCrimson]

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.

[alansmithee]

Originally Posted by aKula

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).

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).

[Xazy]

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...

[politicophile]

Originally Posted by Xazy

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.

[joshbaumgartner]

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

[joshbaumgartner]

Originally Posted by politicophile

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.

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.

[Charlatan]

Originally Posted by alansmithee

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).

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.

[AVoiceOfReason]

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.

[Ustwo]

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.

[politicophile]

Originally Posted by joshbaumgartner

Democracy is strengthened by open participation and weakened by limited participation.

Can you offer any evidence to back up this statement?

[Charlatan]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

...at this point as there is a major political party which sees a major advantage in having as many uneducated people vote as possible.

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

[politicophile]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

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...

[Charlatan]

Originally Posted by politicophile

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.

[alansmithee]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

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.

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.

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).

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]

[Ustwo]

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.

[Charlatan]

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.

[Charlatan]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

(snip) These people historicaly vote for them and as such they would not slit there own throats politically, reguardless of the merit.

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.

[boatin]

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.

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.

[politicophile]

Originally Posted by boatin

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.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

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.

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?