NationStates Jolt Archive

Disclaimer: I have not yet read the entire thread.

Not only does any voter qualification test have a potential for abuse, there is a long and nasty history of such abuse in the United States and any proposed tests must be evaluated in that context.

Try taking the Alabama Literacy Tests (http://kpearson.project.tcnj.edu/interactive/imm_files/test.html) and read about how they were administered. See, e.g., link (http://www.crmvet.org/info/lithome.htm).

Given this historical context, no. I don't support any voter qualification tests.

Maybe I'm blind because I can't find it, but what score qualified you? It took me 80 attempts to get all 67 questions.

...and it may not change anything at all.

It may. It may not. We have centuries of precedent for when all citizens may vote in numerous countries, so we can reliably predict that barring some massive upheaval, current accountability, which is practically nil, won't increase.


Voting is a process by which the government is held accountable. Therefore, limiting voting will limit accountability.

Accountability only works when the voters are actually intelligent enough and motivated enough to hold the government accountable, rather than hand them a blank check to do whatever they want.

The past few decades have provided plenty of evidence that the vast majority of the populace would allow, in fact, support, the government acting in gross violations of its own laws, on its own citizens, so long as they, personally, are not affected.

Allowing that majority to vote has the opposite affect on accountability.

In fact, I would argue that the more people who are allowed to vote, the greater the resistance the voting bloc will experience in taking action to hold the government accountable.


Since it seems to be the crux of your argument, I don't think it's an aside.


The crux of my argument relies on two things. Popular support for unaccountabiliy of the government, and lack of interest in actual historical fact in regards to government actions. Voting track records and public sentiment at the times of law violations seem to bear this argument out.


An abortion clinic bomber is very motivated, and has educated himself because of his particular stance on that specific 'political going-on'. Would you claim that this has reduced his ignorance in such a way as to make our society better or government more accountable? Of course not. therefore, you can't claim that motivation will necessarily help.

This is a strawman. I was referring to motivation to hold the government accountable for its actions, not someone who intends to create their own laws.


It may seem that way to you, but I don't think we should disenfranchise a majority of the population based on what you think things seem like.


Because you do not see the majority of the population as largely irresponsible when it comes to holding the government accountable, and only interested when it may affect them directly, and most times not even that.


Unless you elaborate or otherwise attempt to show how you're answering those questions, we're not having a debate. We're having a situation where people are avoiding debate.

Neesika/Sinihue's second question was to ask what made someone qualified to vote. I gave the conditions that would make them qualified by my reasoning. If there is something you did not understand about it, ask, and I will elaborate.

I freely admit that such conditions will be hard to objectively test for, but it's really the only way I can see the voting bloc being actually capable of looking at the government and saying "Hey, that's not right."

that's a matter of opinion I am more likely to blame the fed reserve and the president the dumb masses elected as president.

Blame nothing! I was talking about the idea that rich people are smart because they made the money. There are LOTS of smart people that don't, and there are lots of dumb people that DO.

No income is a measure of success in this country.
Few people making a high income are dumb.

hahah, you must be joking. This is what stupid semi-wealthy people often tell themselves to live with their own aimless little lives of indulgence and narcissism. And you make it sound as if nobody inherits entitlement.

99% of the richest 1% in the US inherited their position in one way or another, their merits being all but irrelevant. One often finds challenge to this fact but it boggles my mind as to why when the famous poster boy for this trend stuttered himself into 2 presidential terms.

Disclaimer: I have not yet read the entire thread.

Not only does any voter qualification test have a potential for abuse, there is a long and nasty history of such abuse in the United States and any proposed tests must be evaluated in that context.

Try taking the Alabama Literacy Tests (http://kpearson.project.tcnj.edu/interactive/imm_files/test.html) and read about how they were administered. See, e.g., link (http://www.crmvet.org/info/lithome.htm).

Given this historical context, no. I don't support any voter qualification tests.

Wow... I tried the test, and got half the answers wrong. Now, I'm not a US citizen, and English isn't even my native language, but it's still a freakishly scary test. And not at all what I had in mind with my proposal.
I don't want to set any standards about who is or isn't fit to vote, so the test wouldn't have any questions on who gets to legislate and how often is the vice president allowed to use the toilet during one session of congress.
What I would want is 10 minutes before casting the vote where the voter is given the party programs of all possible candidates, or gets them read to him/her, in any language they choose. Followed by maybe 5 questions on the politics of each candidate. At maximum.
It shouldn't be prohibitive, all I would wish to accomplish is make people aware of what POLITICS they are voting for, rather than what face or personal history.

Alternatively, the suggestion has been made not to put the name of the candidate on the voting sheet, but a short summary of their politics. I think that would very much accomplish the same thing.

It's the glory of specialisation. You can be incredibly educated in a very narrow field, and not know simple things, like how to inflate a tire.
...
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

You've heard of this thing called inheritance, right?

Which is why I said Income and to further clarify trust funds and inheritance wont count only a job you currently hold making money. Not to mention estate tax makes even the largest fortunes difficult to maintain for more then 3 or 4 generations without adding money back in.

Which is why I said Income and to further clarify trust funds and inheritance wont count only a job you currently hold making money. Not to mention estate tax makes even the largest fortunes difficult to maintain for more then 3 or 4 generations without adding money back in.

Nice theory. And '3 or 4 generations' worth of posers would also run the country, nice system. Yes, we have a nice system. And don't kid yourself that plain inheritance money is the only form of birth entitlement. The children have a greater opportunity to succeed the more money their parents have, more buffers for miserable failures, and more likely to be insiders.

personally im in favour of high inheritance taxes for large inheritances! why should someone be well off and have more opportunities in life just because there parents were wealthy?

and as for limiting who should be allowed to vote its too easy to corrupt a system like that, oligarchy will always result in a privileged over class or just pave the way for totalitarian government and to quote a famous american maxim no taxation without representation.

but then you do have a good point with the general stupidity of the average voter - I cant vote for Obama because he is Muslim?!? what is with that

has anyone else seen that video on youtube with Mccain at a rally talking to an elderly woman who promptly admits she knows nothing about Obama but cant vote for him because he is an "arab" then Mccain having to publicly defend Obama from his supporters calling him a fellow citizen and an adequate candidate for president

who gets to vote would be limited differently according to different people, i mean i would stop religious extremists and, for lack of a better word, idiots. certain people may put a wealth limit on who can vote, none of this is essentially fair so whilst democracy is flawed by ignorance its the best system we have developed so far

Prehaps there should be a blank voting paper for all of thoes who are currently elected in your electorate. For example if you cant name your leader who has been in office for the last however many years you cant put his name down thus vote for him at all.

Where I live in the I can name the two senators Kate Lundy and Gary Humphries and upper house member Bob MucMullan

This would force people to actually learn who they are voting for in Australia. I was shocked at the last federal election when a male roughly my age asked me "where is Kevin Rudd's name?"

i just replied "You idiot" and walked off.