NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, last night I watched Jaywalking on Jay Leno's Tonight Show. He interviewed and showed off the stupidest people who knew absolutely nothing about the American Judicial system.

Jay: How many members on the supreme court?
Lady: Uhh...100?
Jay: 100...hmm...and how many needed for a majority?
Lady: ....10?

Jay: Name a Supreme Court Justice.
Guy: ...I don't know...
Jay: Name a T.V. judge
Guy: Oh, Judge Judy!

Previously he showed off people who knew as much about the American government...

Jay: Name the three branches of government
Woman: Oh...uh...Judicial, Legislative, aaaannnddd....Executive? (As in capital punishment)



Now, I know Jay Leno is simply showing the funniest people for good laughs. All well and good. But it scares me to death that these people are the ones voting for our future as Americans. And it ticks me off that minors like me cannot vote for a future I have to pay for when I know more than way too many voters.

Is it just me, or should a simple test be given to voters when they register to vote? Just when they register.

It would ask simple and basic questions. Questions like what are the three branches of government, who is the President, what does the Senate represent, what does the HoR represent, name a Presidential power, name a Legislature power, and name a Supreme Court power. Nothing that a kid in 8th grade U.S. History wouldn't know. And it's not like they'll even be required to have a 100% score.

And maybe even a couple of questions on current issues. Such as which country's regime have we kicked out, and what terrorist organization attacked the U.S. on 9-11-01. Simple questions that anyone worthy to vote can answer.

And make the test available to minors. It's our future your deciding and not so much the adults. If we know as much or more than adults and we're worried about our future, don't we get a say in the matter?

Though I don't know. It DOES go against our freedoms as Americans where every voice is equal (and to you picky people, where every voice is SUPPOSED to be equal).

I've always wanted the voting age in britian to be lowed to 16.

I don't think there should be a test before being "allowed" to vote, I just think there should be a test before allowing your vote to count.

Just put 2 or 3 multiple guess Civics questions at the start of each ballot (in Spanish even - I don't care). If you don't get 100% your vote doesn't count. Simple and non discriminatory.

I don't particularly feel comfortable with any restrictions on voting rights. While such a test would probably be good for the intelligence of America's voters, I'm afraid that it is too likely to be used to prevent people from voting for other reasons...


And yes, voting age should be lower. 16-year-olds can serve in the military, why can't they vote?

Now, last night I watched Jaywalking on Jay Leno's Tonight Show. He interviewed and showed off the stupidest people who knew absolutely nothing about the American Judicial system.

Jay: How many members on the supreme court?
Lady: Uhh...100?
Jay: 100...hmm...and how many needed for a majority?
Lady: ....10?

Jay: Name a Supreme Court Justice.
Guy: ...I don't know...
Jay: Name a T.V. judge
Guy: Oh, Judge Judy!

Previously he showed off people who knew as much about the American government...

Jay: Name the three branches of government
Woman: Oh...uh...Judicial, Legislative, aaaannnddd....Executive? (As in capital punishment)



Now, I know Jay Leno is simply showing the funniest people for good laughs. All well and good. But it scares me to death that these people are the ones voting for our future as Americans. And it ticks me off that minors like me cannot vote for a future I have to pay for when I know more than way too many voters.

Is it just me, or should a simple test be given to voters when they register to vote? Just when they register.

It would ask simple and basic questions. Questions like what are the three branches of government, who is the President, what does the Senate represent, what does the HoR represent, name a Presidential power, name a Legislature power, and name a Supreme Court power. Nothing that a kid in 8th grade U.S. History wouldn't know. And it's not like they'll even be required to have a 100% score.

And maybe even a couple of questions on current issues. Such as which country's regime have we kicked out, and what terrorist organization attacked the U.S. on 9-11-01. Simple questions that anyone worthy to vote can answer.

And make the test available to minors. It's our future your deciding and not so much the adults. If we know as much or more than adults and we're worried about our future, don't we get a say in the matter?

Though I don't know. It DOES go against our freedoms as Americans where every voice is equal (and to you picky people, where every voice is SUPPOSED to be equal).
I'm reminded of the farmer in France who was asked by a reporter how he managed to cope during the war ( Meaning WWII ). The farmer responded by asking which war the reporter meant. Turns out he hadn't even known there was a World War II.

The moral of this story is: Don't expect everyone to be as well informed as you are. You're bound to be disappointed.

I'm reminded of the farmer in France who was asked by a reporter how he managed to cope during the war ( Meaning WWII ). The farmer responded by asking which war the reporter meant. Turns out he hadn't even known there was a World War II.

The moral of this story is: Don't expect everyone to be as well informed as you are. You're bound to be disappointed.
I'm not going to forget that. :D

I don't particularly feel comfortable with any restrictions on voting rights. While such a test would probably be good for the intelligence of America's voters, I'm afraid that it is too likely to be used to prevent people from voting for other reasons...


And yes, voting age should be lower. 16-year-olds can serve in the military, why can't they vote?
Minimum age to enlist, even with parental consent, is 17.

I don't think there should be a test to vote. There should be, however, a very tough test before being allowed to run for office.

Or at least a reality show. If we're going to get screwed over at least make it entertaining.

I don't think there should be a test to vote. There should be, however, a very tough test before being allowed to run for office.

Well, if you want to test politicians, might as well get rid of the whole system.

Politics is the field for everyone who can't succeed in anything else but are too wealthy to work for minimum wage.

I don't think there should be a test to vote. There should be, however, a very tough test before being allowed to run for office.

Or at least a reality show. If we're going to get screwed over at least make it entertaining.
Only thing missing that could've turned the 2004 elections into a reality show was cameras watching them have sex with their wives.

All it will take is one person to say the voting test is racist or politically skewed and the test, perhaps even the whole election, gets tied up in court for months.

I don't think it's workable.

If someone can find a way to make sure that the test is accurate and unquestionably fair I'd back it all the way.

All it will take is one person to say the voting test is racist or politically skewed and the test, perhaps even the whole election, gets tied up in court for months.

I don't think it's workable.

If someone can find a way to make sure that the test is accurate and unquestionably fair I'd back it all the way.
What's unworkable about my Idea (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9246447&postcount=3)? The way I mention it it would not be a Poll Test but a Civics competency quiz. Totally unbiased and non intimidating since it is done in the booth. Iff all your votes are random stabs anyway (because you can't read) then of what value would it be to count your vote?

What's unworkable about my Idea (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9246447&postcount=3)? The way I mention it it would not be a Poll Test but a Civics competency quiz. Totally unbiased and non intimidating since it is done in the booth. Iff all your votes are random stabs anyway (because you can't read) then of what value would it be to count your vote?
If either party starts losing too many elections they'll complain that the test is skewed towards people who have expensive educations, ie the Republican fatcats that can afford good colleges and the Democrat liberal elites in their ivory towers of academia.

If either party starts losing too many elections they'll complain that the test is skewed towards people who have expensive educations, ie the Republican fatcats that can afford good colleges and the Democrat liberal elites in their ivory towers of academia.
Well, since I'm talking about Jay Leno Level Civics Questions, I hardly think they could be considered too edjumakated.

Now, if I was asking about Plessy v. Ferguson....

If either party starts losing too many elections they'll complain that the test is skewed towards people who have expensive educations, ie the Republican fatcats that can afford good colleges and the Democrat liberal elites in their ivory towers of academia.
It can be solved by a Supreme Court order making it mandatory for U.S. government to be taught to children as early as possible for all schools of every state. Thus only those who would have a bigger chance of missing out on voting are drop-outs, immigrants (because they weren't here for the education), and those that do not bother to keep themselves informed so as to forget all their knowledge.

Well, since I'm talking about Jay Leno Level Civics Questions, I hardly think they could be considered too edjumakated.

Now, if I was asking about Plessy v. Ferguson....
:D

Jay: What does the "v" in Plessy v. Ferguson mean?
Lady: Uh...victor?
Jay: Plessy Victor Ferguson. Well done.

It can be solved by a Supreme Court order making it mandatory for U.S. government to be taught to children as early as possible for all schools of every state. Thus only those who would have a bigger chance of missing out on voting are drop-outs, immigrants (because they weren't here for the education), and those that do not bother to keep themselves informed so as to forget all their knowledge.
Except that would be promoting the culture of DEWMs and their religio/patriarchal/racist way of thinking. :rolleyes:

It can be solved by a Supreme Court order making it mandatory for U.S. government to be taught to children as early as possible for all schools of every state. Thus only those who would have a bigger chance of missing out on voting are drop-outs, immigrants (because they weren't here for the education), and those that do not bother to keep themselves informed so as to forget all their knowledge.
The Supreme Court is the Judicial Branch of the US government, not the Legislative Branch. :)

It can be solved by a Supreme Court order making it mandatory for U.S. government to be taught to children as early as possible for all schools of every state.
Yup. They could start by teaching that the Supreme Court can not make laws :)

Ahhh....bugger. Ya got me. :D

Personally I think that anyone who wants to vote should be required to write an essay, minimum 300 words, on why they are voting the way they are.(Which policies of the candidate they agree with, etc.) If anywhere in that essay they mention voices in their head, that they picked randomly, that they picked the best looking of the candidates, or demonstrate a glaring lack of knowledge about the current political situation or the political system in general, their vote should be immediately disqualified. You can submit it in English or Spanish, just staple it to your ballot and put it in the damn box.

Then have groups of trained readers around the nation pick a certain number of the essays at random and weed through them for the above criteria. Withhold from these individuals knowledge of the age, sex, national origin, sexual identity, race, etc. of the writer of the paper. And severly beat any reader who is caught throwing out votes based on politics.

It's Fool-proof, in more way than one. :D

-snip-
I always thought it would be a good idea to have a test beforehand.
One could have a test with a 100 points, and depending on how many points you get, that is the weight assigned to your vote.
If you get 100%, you get a full vote, if you get 50% you get half a vote. Everyone is still represented, but based on merit and knowledge.

Problems with implementing it remain ("You there! Yes, you! Stop looking at your neighbour's paper or you're gonna get zero! Is that clear?")

There once were tests - literacy tests. They we nixed fast.

The idea of testing for a general understanding of government is tempting, but then, there are other issues of importance too; economic, scientific, social, environmental, etc. Should people demonstrate a knowladge of these things too before voting on issues pertaining to them?

I feel a better method would be to base the weight of a persons vote upon the amount of taxes they pay. Federal tax for federal elections, state tax for state elections, etc. 50% of voters do not pay taxes - that is like giving some stranger your credit card and still paying the bill yourself. The people who pay the bills should have a greater say in how it is spent than those who are not paying a dime. Everyone has a voice, but those paying the bills have a voice proportional to the property confiscated. A simple shortcut would be to make the votes proportional to the tax rate (not tax paid) That would create a ceiling to limit the super-rich from cornering the vote while still giving enough representation to the people paying the bills. It would likely result in more awareness of government wast as well as a more evenly distributed tax burden.

This would also be non-discriminatory and it would allow the people who's money is being spent to have a fair voice over HOW it is spent. The probability is that they will take the time to educate themselves - and if not - it is their loss.

There once were tests - literacy tests. They we nixed fast.

The idea of testing for a general understanding of government is tempting, but then, there are other issues of importance too; economic, scientific, social, environmental, etc. Should people demonstrate a knowladge of these things too before voting on issues pertaining to them?

I feel a better method would be to base the weight of a persons vote upon the amount of taxes they pay. Federal tax for federal elections, state tax for state elections, etc. 50% of voters do not pay taxes - that is like giving some stranger your credit card and still paying the bill yourself. The people who pay the bills should have a greater say in how it is spent than those who are not paying a dime. Everyone has a voice, but those paying the bills have a voice proportional to the property confiscated. A simple shortcut would be to make the votes proportional to the tax rate (not tax paid) That would create a ceiling to limit the super-rich from cornering the vote while still giving enough representation to the people paying the bills. It would likely result in more awareness of government wast as well as a more evenly distributed tax burden.

This would also be non-discriminatory and it would allow the people who's money is being spent to have a fair voice over HOW it is spent. The probability is that they will take the time to educate themselves - and if not - it is their loss.

Brilliant idea, why not just rename the poor "those who we fuck over".

Better yet, what's to stop people from raising the floor on the income tax, so that say, only those who make 100,000$+ pay taxes. So anyone who makes less then that doesn't vote. Bye bye OSHA, USDA, etc...


One person, one vote, period. Anything else is a violation of civil rights.

<snip> One person, one vote, period. Anything else is a violation of civil rights.
Nice thought, but here is the logical extension:

One Alzheimer's Patient, one more vote for my candidate. :rolleyes:

Executive? (As in capital punishment)but that is one of the three branches of the federal government. Check Article 2 of the Constitution. Execution is what has something to do with capital punishment. If your poll test idea became reality, your vote wouldn't have counted

Brilliant idea, why not just rename the poor "those who we fuck over".

Better yet, what's to stop people from raising the floor on the income tax, so that say, only those who make 100,000$+ pay taxes. So anyone who makes less then that doesn't vote. Bye bye OSHA, USDA, etc...


One person, one vote, period. Anything else is a violation of civil rights.

Well, first of all, sticking someone with your bill qualifies as 'fucking over' a person - and that is already being done to 50% of voters. You don't even have to make a tome of money - just pay a little tax and that's you who is bent over.

As fart as raising the floor on income tax to $100,000 - where are you from? $100 bones is hardly even close to rich these days. Regardless, even at zero tax every citizen would still have a voice. (And a helluvalot more money) Since votes are allocated by rate and not dollar it would require a considerable plurality to create a corner on votes - one made up of more than just those taxpayers.

As far as civil rights go - the definition has changed considerably over time, and likely will continue to. meanwhile - "taxation without representation" should ring a bell or two for you. It certainly rang the one in Boston.

No thank you, the US has struggled to give the vote to as many people as possible throughout its history from only white male land owners to damn near everyone 18 and over.

Of course I do like the fact that most native born Americans would probably fail the civics test given to those immigrants looking to become naturalized (Something I'm looking into now for the future).

B0zzy, I disagree about the taxes, you would be excluding many young people from voting (and we already have a problem with that), they would probably not form a habbit of voting later on if that was the case. Personally I agree with the rational that if you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to vote.

The rest is up to you.

Personally I think that anyone who wants to vote should be required to write an essay, minimum 300 words, on why they are voting the way they are.(Which policies of the candidate they agree with, etc.) If anywhere in that essay they mention voices in their head, that they picked randomly, that they picked the best looking of the candidates, or demonstrate a glaring lack of knowledge about the current political situation or the political system in general, their vote should be immediately disqualified. You can submit it in English or Spanish, just staple it to your ballot and put it in the damn box.

Then have groups of trained readers around the nation pick a certain number of the essays at random and weed through them for the above criteria. Withhold from these individuals knowledge of the age, sex, national origin, sexual identity, race, etc. of the writer of the paper. And severly beat any reader who is caught throwing out votes based on politics.

It's Fool-proof, in more way than one. :D

Yeah Except there would be around 50,000 votes.

but that is one of the three branches of the federal government. Check Article 2 of the Constitution. Execution is what has something to do with capital punishment. If your poll test idea became reality, your vote wouldn't have counted
No, no.. "Executive" as in capital punishment means she pronounced it wrong. Hence "Execute"-ive.

Another problem with the poll test would be outdated answers on the answer key.


poll tester: What are the three types of subatomic particles?

me: Leptons, quarks, and exchange bosons.

poll worker: You only had to get one right in order to vote, but all three of those guesses were wrong.



poll tester: What are the three types of subatomic particles?

person who doesn't know the answer: Uh oh. Um, does it have anything to do with proton torpedoes?

poll tester: One of the answers is proton so you get to vote

Is it just me, or should a simple test be given to voters when they register to vote? Just when they register.

It would ask simple and basic questions. Questions like what are the three branches of government, who is the President, what does the Senate represent, what does the HoR represent, name a Presidential power, name a Legislature power, and name a Supreme Court power. Nothing that a kid in 8th grade U.S. History wouldn't know. And it's not like they'll even be required to have a 100% score.


Sorry, but voting tests are racist. Illegal. Verboten. Forbidden. Can't do it even with the most neutral of wording. Sorry, end of topic.

Well I mean, the DMV requires you pass a test in order to get a drivers license to assure the safety of the road and that you are less likely to kill anyone in needless accidents. This is pretty much the same thing.

Well, first of all, sticking someone with your bill qualifies as 'fucking over' a person - and that is already being done to 50% of voters. You don't even have to make a tome of money - just pay a little tax and that's you who is bent over.

As fart as raising the floor on income tax to $100,000 - where are you from? $100 bones is hardly even close to rich these days. Regardless, even at zero tax every citizen would still have a voice. (And a helluvalot more money) Since votes are allocated by rate and not dollar it would require a considerable plurality to create a corner on votes - one made up of more than just those taxpayers.

As far as civil rights go - the definition has changed considerably over time, and likely will continue to. meanwhile - "taxation without representation" should ring a bell or two for you. It certainly rang the one in Boston.
If we set a floor of 100k, more then 3/4ths of the nation would be disqualified from voting. Not fair. Taxation isn't forcing you to bend over, no one is forcing you to stay. The door, by the way, is that way. I assume you use the roads (state DoTs, Federal DoT, interstate system), breath the air (EPA), eat food (USDA, DoA), work (OSHA), and intend to use social security. You're tax dollars aren't going to waste. Hell, over 1/2 of them go just to defense alone.

Well I mean, the DMV requires you pass a test in order to get a drivers license to assure the safety of the road and that you are less likely to kill anyone in needless accidents. This is pretty much the same thing.
Voting is a right. Driving is a privilage.

I truly wish that there were tests that must be taken before one was allowed to vote, but the problem is that people bitch about them being prejudiced. Apparently, expecting urban kids and immigrants to live up to the standards of everyone else is racist, because we all know they're just not smart enough. I'm sure there are twelve-year-olds that know more about national politics and history than my mom does, and they should definitely be allowed to vote, but the only way to do that would be with a test for all. The alternative, to test no one and allow minors to vote, would result in hicks and crackwhores driving their children to the polls by the dozen to vote "the right way," so that's out.

The whole idea behind Democracy is the idea that we should be able to pick just wh is the best [rich white] guy for the job. The reason or, unfortunately, lack of a reason, as is often the case] should not matter to other voters; your thought and your reasons are your own and they're not for other people to fuck with or impinge upon. If you want to start talking about testing, you need to ask yourself just who gets to decide upon the criteria for passing, you need to account for losses in freedom attendant with a change like this. Testing all of us to vote means the government all of a sudden knows who is politically competent and who are idiots , it creates a caste system where one didn't previously exists, and it makes a [i]significant percentage of our populace very unhappy with ttheir sudden inability to vote.

In a lot of cases, people probably wouldn't notice losing a a right that they never took advantage of, but not something like this. Making someone pass a test to vote is the kind of idea I hear from people in their early to middle teens: for most of us the practicailty of the idea erodes as we see how things work.

The more corrupt a State, the more numerous the Laws. Laws generally do not create Freedom, by nature [and especially by volume] many are Freedom's enemy.

The whole idea behind Democracy is the idea that we should be able to pick just wh is the best [rich white] guy for the job. The reason or, unfortunately, lack of a reason, as is often the case] should not matter to other voters; your thought and your reasons are your own and they're not for other people to fuck with or impinge upon. If you want to start talking about testing, you need to ask yourself just who gets to decide upon the criteria for passing, you need to account for losses in freedom attendant with a change like this. Testing all of us to vote means the government all of a sudden knows who is politically competent and who are idiots , it creates a caste system where one didn't previously exists, and it makes a [i]significant percentage of our populace very unhappy with ttheir sudden inability to vote.

In a lot of cases, people probably wouldn't notice losing a a right that they never took advantage of, but not something like this. Making someone pass a test to vote is the kind of idea I hear from people in their early to middle teens: for most of us the practicailty of the idea erodes as we see how things work.

The more corrupt a State, the more numerous the Laws. Laws generally do not create Freedom, by nature [and especially by volume] many are Freedom's enemy.

Though to be fair, that tends to be a counterfactual argument. Look at the history of England. The only periods of the English Parliament wherein there was a distinct antipathy towards legislating on principle happened before the general expansion of the electoral franchise.

Further, if one can wrap one's head around the argument of "virtual" representation, there is indeed no reason that the franchise should be unlimited in order to ensure that the rights of all the "commons" are adequately guarded. And, in fact, we do limit the francise today in some respects, and very few doubt that those who cannot vote are not protected by our elected government.

We could always change my system so that if a US voter failed the basic US Civics quiz at the start of the ballot (self administered, computer graded), instead of the vote not counting, the vote automatically goes to the Monster Screaming Looney Party... :eek:

Might be the best way to make Government interesting in England again. :D

Well, how's this for a simple, non-descriminatory test? (Sorry, I'm Canadian if I get anything wrong!)

1. Name the current president of the United States.

2. Name the three branches of government.

3. State the number of states in the United States.

4. State the number of justices on the Supreme Court.

4 questions, can be either multiple choice or write-in. No person could possible take offence to those questions, or else they're really dumb.

And now, the Canadian version:

1. Name the current prime minister of Canada.

2. Name our current head of state. (Wording intentional)

3. State the number of provences and territories in Canada.

4. Name the three branches of government.


Both of those test can accuratly judge the compitance of the voter and whether or not to include there votes.

Setting up a nationwide and mandatory test to determine voting eligibility is going to be both a waste of time and a waste of money. Even tacking on a simple Civics quiz onto a ballot seems wasteful, both in paper to print the useless ballots and the time to count and sort them. As mentioned earlier in the topic, someone only has to sue that the test is unfair to tie up an election. Another reason quizing is impractical is that it goes against the fundamental principle of this country that all men and women are equal under the law.

A simpler and much easier solution would be to implement a nation-wide requriement for all high school students to take one class in Contemporary American Government. This is already a requirement to graduate at my high school, and as far as I know, the requirement has not hindered anyone in my school from graduating on time. Simply tack the requirement as a "No Child Left Behind" standard, and your set.

Waste of time and money, and could lead to a whole shitstorm of problems later on...In the Reconstruction-Era South, the southerners made blacks (who had just been freed) take a literacy test...Guess what happened?

Most blacks were disqualified from voting because they did'nt have a support system when they got out of slavery and did'nt have the money to get an education...Nice, huh?


The only restriction on voting I would add is that 1st generation immigrants can't vote ever, and only the people born to them on United States soil may vote when they come of age...This will help prevent an immigration invasion from tearing the country apart from the inside.

The only restriction on voting I would add is that 1st generation immigrants can't vote ever, and only the people born to them on United States soil may vote when they come of age...This will help prevent an immigration invasion from tearing the country apart from the inside.

While your concern on an immigration invasion (I'm assuming Mexico or Asia here, but w/e) may be valid, banning naturalized citizens from voting in elections can cause an even bigger "shitstorm." Expect every lobbyist and political activist to come at this kind of measure with knives and guns, since a measure of this type would kick chunks of the U.S. population into a second-class status.

Also considering how Arnold Schwarzenegger, a naturalized citizen AND Governor of California, has enough appeal to motivate Democrats and Republicans to call for changes in the Constitution itself (allowing naturalised citizens (like him) to run for president), your proposed restriction would be completely unrealistic.

The whole idea behind Democracy is the idea that we should be able to pick just wh is the best [rich white] guy for the job. The reason or, unfortunately, lack of a reason, as is often the case] should not matter to other voters; your thought and your reasons are your own and they're not for other people to fuck with or impinge upon. If you want to start talking about testing, you need to ask yourself just who gets to decide upon the criteria for passing, you need to account for losses in freedom attendant with a change like this. Testing all of us to vote means the government all of a sudden knows who is politically competent and who are idiots , it creates a caste system where one didn't previously exists, and it makes a [i]significant percentage of our populace very unhappy with ttheir sudden inability to vote.

In a lot of cases, people probably wouldn't notice losing a a right that they never took advantage of, but not something like this. Making someone pass a test to vote is the kind of idea I hear from people in their early to middle teens: for most of us the practicailty of the idea erodes as we see how things work.

The more corrupt a State, the more numerous the Laws. Laws generally do not create Freedom, by nature [and especially by volume] many are Freedom's enemy.

Exactly. Imagine if this guy got to make up the test:

poll tester: What are the three types of subatomic particles?

me: Leptons, quarks, and exchange bosons.

poll worker: You only had to get one right in order to vote, but all three of those guesses were wrong.



poll tester: What are the three types of subatomic particles?

person who doesn't know the answer: Uh oh. Um, does it have anything to do with proton torpedoes?

poll tester: One of the answers is proton so you get to vote

So we have to have an understanding of physics to vote. What? Maybe those question were metaphorical, but there are people who think you should have to understand those things to vote.

However, a system where people prove their worthiness to vote and hold public office, that I approve of. For instance, serving in the military, doing community service, working for a non-profit company for a living. What’s more, with so many people volunteering, taxes can be lowered. :D

Why does the US government have a judicial branch? In Britain its the House of Lords sitting in it's judicial capacity - surely the US doesn't have that?

Its also scares me how the US government can appoint judges - they obviously haven't heard of seperation of powers. Judges can never be truly independant if they're going to be appointed by politicians. There should be no bias or appearance of bias.

Does which politician you vote for really make a difference anyway? If Yes, Prime Minister is anything to go by, it's the Civil Service that runs the country :p

Is it just me, or should a simple test be given to voters when they register to vote? Just when they register.
That would open the door for some major voting fraud in my opinion.

they obviously haven't heard of seperation of powers.

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

Ours is one of the oldest such systems that exists.


Judges can never be truly independant if they're going to be appointed by politicians. There should be no bias or appearance of bias

Other than being elected by constituents there is no other way. It will be always be political.

And anyway...isn't the House of Lords based on inherited titles? :rolleyes: From what I read, ya'll are changing over to a national Supreme Court and tranferring to it judicial functions of the HoL in a few years :p

Wonder how many people in public office don't know the answers to some of these questions. I think you should have to pass a test before you are allowed to run for office. Voting on the other hand, we should not restrict. Once you start restricting voting it's to easy to start restricting for other reasons

Why does the US government have a judicial branch? In Britain its the House of Lords sitting in it's judicial capacity - surely the US doesn't have that?

Its also scares me how the US government can appoint judges - they obviously haven't heard of seperation of powers. Judges can never be truly independant if they're going to be appointed by politicians. There should be no bias or appearance of bias.

Does which politician you vote for really make a difference anyway? If Yes, Prime Minister is anything to go by, it's the Civil Service that runs the country :p
We have a different system from Britain, one that stresses checks and balances. (Although it was more effective back when political parties weren't as important as the states themselves)

There are three branches.
Executive - The President, Vice President, and his cabinet (Secretary of State, Defense, etc.)
Legislative - Senate and House of Representatives
Judicial - Supreme Court

Each branch has its own unique power in the U.S. Each branch has its own power over other branches. Each branch has its own weakness from other branches.

For instance, appointance of Supreme Court Justices.

The President (Executive branch) chooses a judge to be nominated. Congress (Legislative branch) votes whether or not to allow this judge to be nominated. If Congress does not vote in favor of the judge, the judge is not appointed and the President must find a more favorable judge. If Congress is in favor of the judge, then the judge is appointed.

It would be a LOT more effective if we didn't have political parties and Senators and Representatives worried MORE about their own states rather than their political party's agenda.

No thank you, the US has struggled to give the vote to as many people as possible throughout its history from only white male land owners to damn near everyone 18 and over.

As you can see from the topic at hand, that it not necessarily a good thing.

Of course I do like the fact that most native born Americans would probably fail the civics test given to those immigrants looking to become naturalized (Something I'm looking into now for the future).
Regrettably true.. Umm. The part about natives, not you. If you become a citizen I will be the first to offer congratz.

B0zzy, I disagree about the taxes, you would be excluding many young people from voting (and we already have a problem with that), they would probably not form a habbit of voting later on if that was the case. Personally I agree with the rational that if you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to vote.


This is probably the most rational case against the idea I've see yet. That is a fantastic observation. Age demographics play an important role in income distribution which most people are ignorant of. However, it still does not negate the relationship between taxation and representation. In fact, a good case could be made that more mature citizens SHOULD have more weight in decision making.

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

""Judges can never be truly independant if they're going to be appointed by politicians. There should be no bias or appearance of bias ""

Other than being elected by constituents there is no other way. It will be always be political.




Did you REALLY just say that???!!!

LOL ROFLMAO!

Yeah! It works so well for those politicians who ARE elected by their constituents!

LOL!!!

It would be a LOT more effective if we didn't have political parties and Senators and Representatives worried MORE about their own states rather than their political party's agenda.

You make an important point. Especially since one of the checks on power in the US is that states have powers that the federal government doesn’t. This is, unfortunately, gradually disappearing.

Now, last night I watched Jaywalking on Jay Leno's Tonight Show. He interviewed and showed off the stupidest people who knew absolutely nothing about the American Judicial system.

Jay: How many members on the supreme court?
Lady: Uhh...100?
Jay: 100...hmm...and how many needed for a majority?
Lady: ....10?

Jay: Name a Supreme Court Justice.
Guy: ...I don't know...
Jay: Name a T.V. judge
Guy: Oh, Judge Judy!

{snip}


If you think those were bad... look for the game show "StreetSmarts"

shows a picture of Condalizza Rice... and people are saying that's Janet Jackson. :rolleyes:

shows a picture of Condalizza Rice... and people are saying that's Janet Jackson. :rolleyes:when Janet Jackson was a guest on Saturday Night Live, her Condoleeza Rice inpersonation was so good, I thought Rice was the guest and playing herself in a skit until they announced Jackson

when Janet Jackson was a guest on Saturday Night Live, her Condoleeza Rice inpersonation was so good, I thought Rice was the guest and playing herself in a skit until they announced Jackson
Ripping off her shirt WASN'T A hint? :D

Though to be fair, that tends to be a counterfactual argument. Look at the history of England. The only periods of the English Parliament wherein there was a distinct antipathy towards legislating on principle happened before the general expansion of the electoral franchise.
Can I get a reststatement of this? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, I must not be thinking straight today.

Further, if one can wrap one's head around the argument of "virtual" representation, there is indeed no reason that the franchise should be unlimited in order to ensure that the rights of all the "commons" are adequately guarded. And, in fact, we do limit the francise today in some respects, and very few doubt that those who cannot vote are not protected by our elected government.
I can only suppose you're alluding to children and aliens here, since they're the only ones that can't vote in this country [assuming you're in the US]. Unfortunately, I'm not too sure I care about children's rights beyond the obvious really bad stuff; and I for damn sure don't give a shit about aliens' rights either. There is much legitimacy in the comparisons you draw, but I'm still not thrilled with the idea. It's one thing to restrict the electorate to natives and adults, it's something else altogether to categorize based on the contents of your mind.

I don't particularly feel comfortable with any restrictions on voting rights. While such a test would probably be good for the intelligence of America's voters, I'm afraid that it is too likely to be used to prevent people from voting for other reasons...
There used to be testing allowed before voting...and it was abused...then overruled.

However, ideally, I'd say "Well, voters should at least be able to pass the same test that immigrants have to pass in order to be naturalized," because that test has to do with simple basics of the American government, and some other stuff dealing with the nation, such as the name of the national anthem...

Except I've voted before, and waiting in line is a bitch. If they instituted a test...line time would be quadrupled, and I wouldn't vote.


And yes, voting age should be lower. 16-year-olds can serve in the military, why can't they vote?
16 year olds can serve in the military? But either way...despite the fact that there are very informed 16 year olds (like me when I was that old, and most people that age that are interested in that sort of stuff and hence play NS), the fact of the matter is, there is a higher percentage of uninformed 16 year olds and so lowering the voting age would really just mean increasing the percentage of the vote that is uninformed..., I mean, really...

Plus, I can only imagine how pissed I would've been when I was 16 when there started to be a HUGE interest in "Young Democrats" and "High School Republicans" on high school campuses...because high school kids are ESPECIALLY PRONE to peer pressure and fitting in...

The drinking age...however...should be lower to 18...if I can vote, pay taxes (by the way, anyone who is 16, and has a job, and pays FEDERAL taxes should be able to vote in federal elections...that means...you're not a dependent and the government takes 70% of your paycheck. If you have a job, you're automatically paying state taxes, so you should be able to vote for state and local elections), serve in the military...and even drafted if that is reinstated, and completely be held responsible for all of my actions with claiming "oh he's a minor, he gets away with that," and even get in trouble for having sex with a consenting minor (not pedophilia...like a 17 year old) then why can't I legally drink?

People keep talking about pre-vote testing to determine eligibility - something that has been proven to be arbitrary, manipulable and wrong.

What I want to know is what is (conceptually) wrong with the idea of the "vote negation quiz" I mentioned.

Since it would be

(A) a blind test,
(B) equally (non arbitrairly) distributed,
(C) use only non-arbirtary basic civics questions (like those on the Naturalization test) and
(D) "graded" by machine along with the vote itself

it would both weed out the incompetent vote and provide a "by district" statistical basis for establishing Public Service Civics refreshers (replay "Schoolhouse Rock" during Oprah, WWF, Larry King and The O'Reily Factor maybe?) to educate the voting public.

How would that be unfair?

People keep talking about pre-vote testing to determine eligibility - something that has been proven to be arbitrary, manipulable and wrong.

What I want to know is what is (conceptually) wrong with the idea of the "vote negation quiz" I mentioned.

Since it would be

(A) a blind test,
(B) equally (non arbitrairly) distributed,
(C) use only non-arbirtary basic civics questions (like those on the Naturalization test) and
(D) "graded" by machine along with the vote itself

it would both weed out the incompetent vote and provide a "by district" statistical basis for establishing Public Service Civics refreshers (replay "Schoolhouse Rock" during Oprah, WWF, Larry King and The O'Reily Factor maybe?) to educate the voting public.

How would that be unfair?
Because in order to get that done, you'd have to make a law allowing testing before voting, and frankly, the chances that a certain party will not jump at the chance of disenfranchizing thousands of voters in that case makes it unlikely that your proposal would make it. It's better not to try and get anything of the sort done, cause it can go wrong too badly.

16 year olds can serve in the military? With parental consent. It's one of the reasons the US doesn't support international initiatives to ban child soldiers, because this actually violates it.

Because in order to get that done, you'd have to make a law allowing testing before voting, and frankly, the chances that a certain party will not jump at the chance of disenfranchizing thousands of voters in that case makes it unlikely that your proposal would make it. It's better not to try and get anything of the sort done, cause it can go wrong too badly.
No, no, no. You are missing the point. What I am suggesting is NOT "testing before voting" it's "testing while voting". The test is a part of the ballot. The test validates the ballot. Failure on the test invalidates the vote. The vote is tallied for statistical purposes, but does not count towards election of a candidate. Nobody knows whether they passed or failed the quiz. Nobody knows WHO passed of failed the quiz. The ballot quiz is basic and non arbitrary civics (naturalization) questions. The vote is opened to any Citizen. Period. Only those ballots with positive quiz results are used to elect government officials. Period.

How is that discriminatory or disenfranchizing?

No, no, no. You are missing the point. What I am suggesting is NOT "testing before voting" it's "testing while voting". The test is a part of the ballot. The test validates the ballot. Failure on the test invalidates the vote. The vote is tallied for statistical purposes, but does not count towards election of a candidate. Nobody knows whether they passed or failed the quiz. Nobody knows WHO passed of failed the quiz. The ballot quiz is basic and non arbitrary civics (naturalization) questions. The vote is opened to any Citizen. Period. Only those ballots with positive quiz results are used to elect government officials. Period.

How is that discriminatory or disenfranchizing?
It makes it possible to ask questions that would require an opinion. I'm personally against it because it would make it easier to get testing before voting done and that should be prevented at all costs.

It makes it possible to ask questions that would require an opinion. I'm personally against it because it would make it easier to get testing before voting done and that should be prevented at all costs.
While all voting is about opinions, questions based upon the naturalization test are not, and I don't see how somthing included on the ballot could lead to an pre-vote arbitrary testing scheme.

Economically, the cost would be minimal as the questions are included as a few extra lines in the printing of standard ballots, and the go/nogo subroutine in the vote-tally computers.

It would be a LOT more effective if we didn't have political parties and Senators and Representatives worried MORE about their own states rather than their political party's agenda..


ROFLMAO.

Yeah, Robert C. Byrd (http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_byrddroppings) is such an esteemed example of that! (clicky)

With parental consent. It's one of the reasons the US doesn't support international initiatives to ban child soldiers, because this actually violates it.

No, it's 17 w/ parental consent. I went in when I was 17.