NationStates Jolt Archive

okay, had a discussion with a friend who made an interesting point:

why do we allow people to vote if they don't understand the US Constitution? a recent Reuter's study showed that only 1 in 4 Americans can distinguish the Constitution from the Declaration of Independence when shown copies of both documents, so why are these people allowed to vote on laws that impact the rest of the country?

why do we acknowledge the votes of people who don't have a basic, rudamentary understanding of economics? only 1 in 6 Americans over 18 can correctly identify the difference between the deficit and the debt on a multiple choice test, yet all Americans over 18 can vote on economic measures that impact the country...is that right?

i know that, in the past, literacy tests were used as a means to deny voting rights to minorities and other "undesirable" populations. but, for the sake of argument, let's assume it is possible to use some sort of minimum test standard to issue a voting registration, and assume this test will be issued impartially. for instance, when a person first registers to vote they must pass a short test proving they have a basic, freshman-civics grasp of the Constitution, a rudamentary understanding of math and economics, and stuff of that sort. if they can't pass the test then they don't get to vote until they retake it and pass.

would anybody support such a program, or some other system of basic requirements for voting? what would be reasons to oppose it? should all American voices count as equal, even if many are uninformed or flat out wrong on their facts?

i'm not sure quite what i think on this subject yet; my gut reaction is that any attempt to restrict voting rights is going to be bad and biased, but part of me is horrified that people who think tax cuts automatically fix the economy are allowed to vote. anybody else have thoughts?

Thats a good idea.

okay, had a discussion with a friend who made an interesting point:

why do we allow people to vote if they don't understand the US Constitution? a recent Reuter's study showed that only 1 in 4 Americans can distinguish the Constitution from the Declaration of Independence when shown copies of both documents, so why are these people allowed to vote on laws that impact the rest of the country?

why do we acknowledge the votes of people who don't have a basic, rudamentary understanding of economics? only 1 in 6 Americans over 18 can correctly identify the difference between the deficit and the debt on a multiple choice test, yet all Americans over 18 can vote on economic measures that impact the country...is that right?

i know that, in the past, literacy tests were used as a means to deny voting rights to minorities and other "undesirable" populations. but, for the sake of argument, let's assume it is possible to use some sort of minimum test standard to issue a voting registration, and assume this test will be issued impartially. for instance, when a person first registers to vote they must pass a short test proving they have a basic, freshman-civics grasp of the Constitution, a rudamentary understanding of math and economics, and stuff of that sort. if they can't pass the test then they don't get to vote until they retake it and pass.

would anybody support such a program, or some other system of basic requirements for voting? what would be reasons to oppose it? should all American voices count as equal, even if many are uninformed or flat out wrong on their facts?

i'm not sure quite what i think on this subject yet; my gut reaction is that any attempt to restrict voting rights is going to be bad and biased, but part of me is horrified that people who think tax cuts automatically fix the economy are allowed to vote. anybody else have thoughts?

interesting idea and I might support it. I would have to see more debate on this idea first. See what pros and cons peopel can come up with.

I think that if they're going to be taxed, made eligible for a draft (if it ever happens), be full citizens, etc. then they should be able to vote even if they're not that educated.

I think that if they're going to be taxed, made eligible for a draft (if it ever happens), be full citizens, etc. then they should be able to vote even if they're not that educated.
the counter argument would be that they are able to work and to use public services, therefore they should be taxed, and they are able to serve in the military (which doesn't require much intelligence or education for basic foot soldier work), so they should be eligible for the draft. however, to use complete and accurate judgment about complex political issues they must demonstrate the ability to make those decisions, and the inclination to acquire the requisite education.

it's like how my uncle pays taxes on public roads even though he doesn't have a driver's license. he isn't allowed to drive just because he pays taxes, he still must pass the driver's test if he wants to use the roads he pays for.

You know, I used to think this idea was simply a proto-aristocracy, but I'm beginning to wonder. I think there might be some merit to it. The trouble is, in order to make it "fair", you would have to make a voting license as easy to obtain as a driver's license and also have to make it renewable (to prove that you're staying informed). So I'm not sure how much you would reduce the potential voting pool. I think general voter apathy reduces it more, whereas if you made it a lisensure situation, you might have an influx of people getting them as a sort of rite of passage or something.

Also, how do you make sure the testing procedures were unbiased? I know you didn't really want to consider this, but I don't think you can consider the idea without it.

After reading the comments by so many people on this board, my gut reaction is to agree with you, Bottle. I see so much utter bullshit that it drives me mad at times to think that these people are making decisions that affect me directly much of the time.

And then I remember that there's a reason we're a republic and not a democracy, so that in theory, the votes by a bunch of idiots won't affect me so drastically. And it largely works. Our system of governance is so complex and time consuming that in the long run, very little gets done and most of the radical programs get shunted aside. Occasionally, as we have today, the system gets a little out of whack, but I think we'll correct some of it in November.

I'll tell you this much, though--I'd be the number one proponent of your idea if we actually lived in a direct democracy, or even if the referendum system were more powerful nationally. People are stupid.

Also, how do you make sure the testing procedures were unbiased? I know you didn't really want to consider this, but I don't think you can consider the idea without it.

well, i first wanted to debate whether such a system would be okay even if it COULD be implimented correctly. once we cover that, i think we could move on to the sticky issue of how (or even if) it could actually be put into practice in an honest and effective way.

the counter argument would be that they are able to work and to use public services, therefore they should be taxed, and they are able to serve in the military (which doesn't require much intelligence or education for basic foot soldier work), so they should be eligible for the draft. however, to use complete and accurate judgment about complex political issues they must demonstrate the ability to make those decisions, and the inclination to acquire the requisite education.

it's like how my uncle pays taxes on public roads even though he doesn't have a driver's license. he isn't allowed to drive just because he pays taxes, he still must pass the driver's test if he wants to use the roads he pays for.
Without being able to vote, though, they wouldn't be able to chose the people who decide how much to fund social services, who control the military, etc. The system would lead to excluding mainly the poor, so the government would become even more tailored to the rich and middle class than it is now (Who needs to help out the poor if they can't vote?).

Two words....

Electoral College.

Without being able to vote, though, they wouldn't be able to chose the people who decide how much to fund social services, who control the military, etc. The system would lead to excluding mainly the poor, so the government would become even more tailored to the rich and middle class than it is now (Who needs to help out the poor if they can't vote?).
in a country where education is public and free, i don't think income level is any excuse for ignorance. i went to public school my whole life, and i passed my basic civics test in 9th grade...we all had to. i was shocked to learn that other people never have to do that, and that (according to Gallup) less than two out of five Americans know what the Bill of Rights is. why do they get to vote, if they don't know even the most basic facts about our legal structure?

if a person says they are ignorant of traffic laws we don't let them drive, no matter how much they pay in taxes or how much they say they need to be allowed to drive. i don't hear anybody claiming that licensing drivers is a system that biases toward the rich, and ensures that only people rich will be allowed to drive, because rich people can afford driving lessons and permit classes.

after all, the information one needs to pass a driver's test is available to the public for free from any library, DMV, or City Hall, just like information on the US government is freely available to all citizens. if somebody doesn't take the time to learn trafic laws we don't let them drive; why, then, do we let people vote if they don't take the time to learn the most basic facts about the government they will be electing and directing?

Two words....

Electoral College.

One word:

Broken. :)

One word:

Broken. :)

Not at all. It works quite well.

I think we're all forgetting a fundamental thing here. A majority of people who spew hateful crap on this board, from one side or the other, don't vote in the first place. Either they're too young (which is understandable) or too apathetic (which isn't) to actually go to the polls. Hence the dismayingly low voter turn out that is traditional. I'm not sure actually implementing a "voting license" system would make any difference. Additionally, I'm concerned it would become a status thing where people get it just because it's expected of them at a certain age.

The biggest worry, however, is still the fact that this just screams aristocracy and that's not what this country is supposed to be about. And just because people have knowledge doesn't make them automatically "better" when it comes to matters of government or "wiser." My great grandmother didn't have more than a sixth grade education, but she could spot a liar instantly.

Not at all. It works quite well.

Right. Different argument. Different thread. Not going there.

uh
we have a supreme court and federal reserve to take care of those issues

strangely enough people vote their own best interest, you dont have to be a rhodes scholar to know which side your bread is buttered on.

it all works best when the vote is as inclusive as possible.

As much as ending suffrage for the stupid and ignorant appeals to me on a personal level, doing so on a realistic level is contrary to our entire constitution.

I have no doubt there were stupid people during the time of the founding fathers but they decided on a compromise - the indirect democracy. If this were a direct democracy we as a people would vote on every single issue and the legislative and executive branches would be able to spend even more time on the golf course than they already do. But instead we elect representatives, the hope being that even if the majority of people is stupid hopefully they won't elect a stupid representative, and even if they do hopefully the other representatives from other states/areas won't be stupid and will nullify the stupid representative. More or less.

But the Presidential election is an exception, you say? In every case and for every state there is one delegate chosen for each electoral vote owed to the state. Technically speaking you don't elect the President, you elect the delegates that elect the President. State laws vary as to whether the delegate is required to vote according to the majority of the state, and there is no precedent (yes, pun intended) for voting the "wrong way".


Technical details aside, there's one good reason we can't end suffrage for even the stupid and the ignorant and it's the same reason we wanted our independance from England back in the day.

"No taxation without representation!"

in a country where education is public and free, i don't think income level is any excuse for ignorance. i went to public school my whole life, and i passed my basic civics test in 9th grade...we all had to. i was shocked to learn that other people never have to do that, and that (according to Gallup) less than two out of five Americans know what the Bill of Rights is. why do they get to vote, if they don't know even the most basic facts about our legal structure?

if a person says they are ignorant of traffic laws we don't let them drive, no matter how much they pay in taxes or how much they say they need to be allowed to drive. i don't hear anybody claiming that licensing drivers is a system that biases toward the rich, and ensures that only people rich will be allowed to drive, because rich people can afford driving lessons and permit classes.

after all, the information one needs to pass a driver's test is available to the public for free from any library, DMV, or City Hall, just like information on the US government is freely available to all citizens. if somebody doesn't take the time to learn trafic laws we don't let them drive; why, then, do we let people vote if they don't take the time to learn the most basic facts about the government they will be electing and directing?
I went to public school, but it wasn't in the inner-city. I have never gone to some of those schools where passing rates are regularly below 50%, and where people can't even read in the fourth grade, but, the majority of those people that do go there are poor and usually minorities.

Its my opinion that, while knowing what powers are reserved for Congress, what's for the President, what the first 10 Amendments are, etc. is nice, but it really isn't needed to make a sensible choice for elected office, whereas if you drive regularly without a license you'll probably end up crashing into something or severly disrupting traffic due to moronic moves.

I went to public school, but it wasn't in the inner-city. I have never gone to some of those schools where passing rates are regularly below 50%, and where people can't even read in the fourth grade

i did.


Its my opinion that, while knowing what powers are reserved for Congress, what's for the President, what the first 10 Amendments are, etc. is nice, but it really isn't needed to make a sensible choice for elected office, whereas if you drive regularly without a license you'll probably end up crashing into something or severly disrupting traffic due to moronic moves.

i'm just bothered by a recent study that showed 45% of Americans agree with the statements "politics and government are too complicated for somebody like me to understand." if somebody said that traffic laws were too complicated for them to understand then we wouldn't let them drive, so why do we let these people vote?

uh
we have a supreme court and federal reserve to take care of those issues

strangely enough people vote their own best interest, you dont have to be a rhodes scholar to know which side your bread is buttered on.

it all works best when the vote is as inclusive as possible.Except that there are millions of people in the US who regularly vote against their own self-interest in every election, because they've been gulled into believing that they're voting for their best interests or because they've voting on social issues.

i'm just bothered by a recent study that showed 45% of Americans agree with the statements "politics and government are too complicated for somebody like me to understand." if somebody said that traffic laws were too complicated for them to understand then we wouldn't let them drive, so why do we let these people vote?
Because driving licenses and the right to vote are two different things. Knowing high-school level civics isn't as essential to voting as knowing basic road laws are to driving.

Because driving licenses and the right to vote are two different things. Knowing high-school level civics isn't as essential to voting as knowing basic road laws are to driving.

oh, i'm not expecting that people know random historical trivia, or even that they know the term lengths for Senators or stuff like that. we don't expect people to know the history of driving laws in America, or Henry Ford's middle name, we just expect them to know the stuff that is essential for being a safe and responsible driver.

so when i talk about basic political understanding i'm talking about the fact that more than half of Americans don't know what the First Ammendment is. that's like not knowing what a stop sign is. Reuters had a survey out in 1997 that showed almost half of Americans think Karl Marx's principle of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" is in the U.S. Constitution. these are big, ideological and legal issues. if people don't understand them, then how can they be making educated decisions about who to vote for and what policies to support?

i don't care if people can name the members of the Cabinet, or if they know who all the Supreme Court Justices are. but i am bothered when so many people don't seem to have even minor knowledge about the laws we all live by. when people won't take the time to learn the name of the foremost legal documents in America it makes me doubt their ability to make informed decisions about anything else. after all, how sheltered do you have to be to reach 30 without knowing what the First Ammendment is? if you are being isolated from that sort of basic information, then how much other important information are you missing?

well if I am not mistaken you do take course in us government in the constitution while in school and should have to and at least get oh I dunno an 80% I'm in my early years of highschool I so far am managing an A 94% in government studies both US and world etc. and also am starting to study the constitution I would agree you should be required to have a highschool education and of course that education should include us government etc. perhaps a test before you are allowed to vote would be a good idea, this is actually an issue in a way in ns I passed it, damn voters were voting in dogs!

I at my academy (digital online distance learning academy) have to maintain an 80% or above to pass or I must redo my work until I do thankfully I get it right the first time about 90% or more of the time.

okay, had a discussion with a friend who made an interesting point:

why do we allow people to vote if they don't understand the US Constitution? a recent Reuter's study showed that only 1 in 4 Americans can distinguish the Constitution from the Declaration of Independence when shown copies of both documents, so why are these people allowed to vote on laws that impact the rest of the country?

why do we acknowledge the votes of people who don't have a basic, rudamentary understanding of economics? only 1 in 6 Americans over 18 can correctly identify the difference between the deficit and the debt on a multiple choice test, yet all Americans over 18 can vote on economic measures that impact the country...is that right?

i know that, in the past, literacy tests were used as a means to deny voting rights to minorities and other "undesirable" populations. but, for the sake of argument, let's assume it is possible to use some sort of minimum test standard to issue a voting registration, and assume this test will be issued impartially. for instance, when a person first registers to vote they must pass a short test proving they have a basic, freshman-civics grasp of the Constitution, a rudamentary understanding of math and economics, and stuff of that sort. if they can't pass the test then they don't get to vote until they retake it and pass.

would anybody support such a program, or some other system of basic requirements for voting? what would be reasons to oppose it? should all American voices count as equal, even if many are uninformed or flat out wrong on their facts?

i'm not sure quite what i think on this subject yet; my gut reaction is that any attempt to restrict voting rights is going to be bad and biased, but part of me is horrified that people who think tax cuts automatically fix the economy are allowed to vote. anybody else have thoughts?
I dunno, I'd need to see polling on which way the majority of stupid people vote.

good stuff bottle! That is pretty damn sad what you just pointed out though. That poll about marx and his teachings that makes me sick but I've said it before we are ourself a rather communist nation. Look at property rights and they way they are treated! Look at the income tax and property tax. Look at conscription, the state is out of control it started 100 years ago and has gotten constantly worse more people like you need to vote and you and I need to get out and educate, it doesn't help everyone is attending the public schools- also found in the communist manifesto. Give that a read.

(my school is private and I do alot of independent study as well along with electives)

Just curious who are you voting for or supporting bottle for president? And on the local state level as well? Local/state level I am a big backer of my local Libertarian party and some republicans. President however I am not sure, I lean towards lp candidate badnarik.

Because driving licenses and the right to vote are two different things. Knowing high-school level civics isn't as essential to voting as knowing basic road laws are to driving.
Your flaw is that you presume everyone has graduated from highschool. They have not.

Among minorities and low income high school education drop out rates are higher than for white and higher income.

If you required a license predicated by income, education, service or any other method it would exclude more lower income and minorities than anyone else. That would be anathema to the liberal party.

The idea is seductive, but also flawed.

As I reacall, when this country was founded voting rights were only given to land owners.

After the civil war there were literacy tests in the south - part of Jim Crow laws. It was a thinly veiled attempt to deny minorities the right to vote.
(ask a white voter "who was the first president?" ask a black voter "Who was the first supreme court justice?")

I've entertained the idea that voting should be qualified by taxes. Those who fund the system decide how it is run. It'd be even more fun if votes were weighted by how much a person pays in taxes. More taxes=more votes.

Maybe then tax shelters wouldn't seem so appealing!

Either they're too young (which is understandable) or too apathetic (which isn't) to actually go to the polls. Hence the dismayingly low voter turn out that is traditional.


Most anarachists dont vote because democracy is only adding to the control.

Most anarachists dont vote because democracy is only adding to the control.

Right. Okay then, or you're an anarchist and you're sticking it to the man. Whatever. Point still stands. The majority of, for lack of a better term at present, "stupid people" (which does not necessarily include anarchists) self-regulate themselves right out of the process. To institute any sort of licensing procedure to "qualify" people to vote would either not make a difference in the number of misinformed people who still vote or would turn it into some sort of social rite of passage and actually, potentially, increase the number of misinformed people who vote. While we make driving contingent on securing a licence, accidents still happen, even to the best of drivers. Many car crashes are also caused by carelessness or "stupidity" that comes with not following the rules one was supposed to have learned in order to get a licence in the first place. Where is there any reason to believe a voting licence wouldn't suffer from the same problem?

Just curious who are you voting for or supporting bottle for president? And on the local state level as well? Local/state level I am a big backer of my local Libertarian party and some republicans. President however I am not sure, I lean towards lp candidate badnarik.

i am voting for John Kerry this November, but i wouldn't say i am supporting him. i am a realist, and i believe it is more important to evict Bush than to show my support for a third-party candidate who might mesh better with my ideals but doesn't stand a chance of winning. we work with the tools we have.

on tests of political orientation i tend to come out as libertarian, but i don't mesh well with the American Libertarian Party on several issues. i don't identify with any particular party, though i tend to vote Democrat a bit more often because i agree with them on a few more issues. also, i am a fiscal conservative so i don't get along with today's conservative party; if they actually had conservative economics in mind then i probably would support the Republicans much more often, but they seem to have abandoned that whole sphere of conservativism in favor of focusing on social conservativism (which i think is stupid).

I dunno, I'd need to see polling on which way the majority of stupid people vote.
stupid is a subjective term. education and liberalism are positively correlated, but education doesn't equal intelligence.

The idea is seductive, but also flawed.

As I reacall, when this country was founded voting rights were only given to land owners.

After the civil war there were literacy tests in the south - part of Jim Crow laws. It was a thinly veiled attempt to deny minorities the right to vote.
(ask a white voter "who was the first president?" ask a black voter "Who was the first supreme court justice?")

just to clarify, i specifically was asking that people assume no corruption would twist whatever system we kick around in theory...i want to discuss whether it would be right to use such standards IF they could be implimented in a fair and ethical way. only AFTER we address that fully would i be interested in discussing how or if a practical application would be possible.

just to clarify, i specifically was asking that people assume no corruption would twist whatever system we kick around in theory...i want to discuss whether it would be right to use such standards IF they could be implimented in a fair and ethical way. only AFTER we address that fully would i be interested in discussing how or if a practical application would be possible.

That's the thing, though, Bottle, I'm not sure you can fairly separate the two. I'll try, though.

It would be wrong because it is the beginnings of aristocracy. Perhaps wrong is not the right term. It would require a major redefinition of US governmental principles and goals. Equality and fair representation would no longer be a primary focus, but instead it would immediately impose a "citizen" system, rewarding those who may have come by their education by luck while punishing those who may not have had similar opportunities. Immediately, those who were able to obtain licensure would have more power than those who weren't and it would furhter foster a cultural divide and, eventually, a full out war.

That's the thing, though, Bottle, I'm not sure you can fairly separate the two. I'll try, though.

It would be wrong because it is the beginnings of aristocracy. Perhaps wrong is not the right term. It would require a major redefinition of US governmental principles and goals. Equality and fair representation would no longer be a primary focus, but instead it would immediately impose a "citizen" system, rewarding those who may have come by their education by luck while punishing those who may not have had similar opportunities. Immediately, those who were able to obtain licensure would have more power than those who weren't and it would furhter foster a cultural divide and, eventually, a full out war.

but why would that be wrong? why would it be wrong to accord more control to those who demonstrate they are worthy of it? why would such a cultural divide be bad? since any person could gain the right to vote by simply showing a basic level of comprehension, the divide would only exist so long as the ignorant chose to remain ignorant; they would not be banned for life just because they failed the voter test once, they would be banned until they pass the test. if they want to vote they can, and all the necessary tools are already available to the public for free.

but why would that be wrong? why would it be wrong to accord more control to those who demonstrate they are worthy of it? why would such a cultural divide be bad? since any person could gain the right to vote by simply showing a basic level of comprehension, the divide would only exist so long as the ignorant chose to remain ignorant; they would not be banned for life just because they failed the voter test once, they would be banned until they pass the test. if they want to vote they can, and all the necessary tools are already available to the public for free.

It wouldn't, necessarily, although historically aristocracies don't have a very successful track record. It would be wrong in the context of the United States, however, because it would require a major principle shift and an abandoning of the Constitution of the country.

Again, though, to answer the rest of your questions and explain my objections to a very tempting ideal, I would have to argue into the future and I'm trying not to do that.

At the outset of this thread, my first instinct was to say hell yes, we should have a test for voters. Obviously they should have to be some sort of requirement!

Then, I thought, well - sure, it's a good idea in absolute theory, but it would never work in practice, would take away the rights of current citizens, and has to be unconstitutional. So I start going through the constitution and all the amendments. According to the Amendments, the right to vote cannot be abridged based on race, color, or previous servitude (15th amendment), sex (19th), failure to pay poll tax or any other tax (24th), age (as long as they are at least 18 - 26th), or religion (1st - although this is not expressly stated, it follows).

Another interesting part of the Constitution I never knew about is that, according to the 14th Amendment, if the state does reduce the number of eligible voters (perhaps by a required test of knowledge on the government), the number of house representatives for that state will also be reduced accordingly.

So, from what I can find, the constitution of the United States does not prohibit such a test. My boyfried tried to argue that using a test of governmental knowledge would be a badge of slavery issue, but I disagree. There are some state constitutions (such as Georgia's) that would prohibit a test like this. Many of them are probably Southern states where the Jim Crow laws were once prevalent.

Another interesting side note: We require immigrants to take a test that includes knowledge of how the government works, but do not ask our natural-born citizens to understand. I find this to be sad, although not a real reason to require any type of test.

I agree with you Bottle; I hate the idea of restricting voting, but if you can't tell the Declaration from the Constitution...

It's moot, though, because that Constitution has an amendment saying you can't restrict voting power of those over 18.

I agree with you Bottle; I hate the idea of restricting voting, but if you can't tell the Declaration from the Constitution...

It's moot, though, because that Constitution has an amendment saying you can't restrict voting power of those over 18.

Actually, it says you can't restrict voting power of those over 18 *on account of age*. So you can restrict it based on other things.

Amendment XXVI

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.


Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I do not agree with a license to vote.

It would be so easily corrupted, and anyway, in America, everyone has the right to voice their opinions.

Yes, everyone.

Even Nazi's, pedophiles, Communists, or just plain idiots, they all have the right to pitch their opinion in towards the government, which makes America (and all the other nation's that allow that) such great places.

Even Nazi's, pedophiles, Communists, or just plain idiots, they all have the right to pitch their opinion in towards the government, which makes America (and all the other nation's that allow that) such great places.

But we're not talking about Nazis, pedophiles, communists, or plain idiots. We're talking about people too lazy to find out how their government works!

((btw, I agree that we can't deny the vote on that basis, but I had to say that))

but why would that be wrong? why would it be wrong to accord more control to those who demonstrate they are worthy of it?

Because worth, like stupidity, is subjective. And it is wrong. It clashes harshly with the founding ideals of this country. The control given wouldn't just mean more control over themselves, it would mean more control over those being excluded. It would mean a new underclass, made up mostly of people who were already card carrying members of the current underclass.

I think there is a fundamental difference between people who simply aren't smart(and for the sake of this thread, the uninformed/ignorant) and people who are stupid. This proposed system would cut out all of the former and a great deal less of the latter, in my opinion. It's just a load of elitist bullshit, and like Berkylvania said, it screams of aristocracy.

Besides, if we are going to create an exclusive voting caste, why not have it be exclusive to people who have proven that they care about something beyond themselves, who have demonstrated a love of country and people by giving of themselves. Yes ladies and gentlemen, I am stealing this straight from Robert Heinlein. If we are going to create a voting elite, why not have the requirement be a completion of military service rather than a recital of the abc's?[/devil's advocate]

But really, the ignorance of the common man is one of the reasons why a republic is better than a direct democracy; we vote for congress, and congress, which is made up of better educated and hopefully wiser men and women, passes legislation. Yes, we still vote on some issues directly, but the lawmaking is left in the hands of the...well, the lawmakers.

Another flaw in the original concept is that literacy doesn't demonstrate an understanding of individual issues or candidates. If this system were to be put into effect, it would have to grant voting eligibility issue by issue; if you aren't able to demonstrate and understanding of an issue, you won't be able to vote on that particular issue. Plus, on top of all this, the sheer cost of implementing and maintaing the standards of this system would be astronomical. It's a bad idea and we can't afford it.

Playing devil's advocate.


But really, the ignorance of the common man is one of the reasons why a republic is better than a direct democracy; we vote for congress, and congress, which is made up of better educated and hopefully wiser men and women, passes legislation.

Except the majority of the members of Congress are neither better educated nor wiser than much of the general populace. They get in because people don't vote based on education and wisdom, they vote based on which guy says something in a way that makes them think that person might be better even though they have no idea how the country is run.

Another flaw in the original concept is that literacy doesn't demonstrate an understanding of individual issues or candidates. If this system were to be put into effect, it would have to grant voting eligibility issue by issue; if you aren't able to demonstrate and understanding of an issue, you won't be able to vote on that particular issue. Plus, on top of all this, the sheer cost of implementing and maintaing the standards of this system would be astronomical. It's a bad idea and we can't afford it.

No one said anything about literacy. Literacy tests went away with Jim Crowe. The mention was of a test that would question basic knowledge of how the government works. This knowledge would be available to anyone, for free, if they wanted to get it.

No one said anything about literacy. Literacy tests went away with Jim Crowe. The mention was of a test that would question basic knowledge of how the government works. This knowledge would be available to anyone, for free, if they wanted to get it.

Same idea. A basic understanding of how the government works doesn't demonstrate understanding of individual issues, many of which aren't based on how the government works in the first place. Nope, sorry, voter eligibility would still have to be granted on an issue by issue basis.

cons: abondoning democracy in favour of oligarchy.

First: Not everyone gets to vote. You have to be a citizen, and you have to have registered for the electoral roll.

Second: Not everyone is interested in politics... which is kind of crazy when you think about it... but it's true... ask people about the budget and they say "I don't know" or "I don't care", and yet they can still vote.

Third: All you vote for is a representative... so THOSE are the people that should definitely have to take a test.

Fourth: In order to become a citizen, foreigners have to take a citizenship test - to prove their 'interest' in America... why not just make those born IN the country take the same test those from OUTSIDE the country have to take in order to become citizens?

"Service gurantees citizenship"

-Starship Troopers