A civics test to vote?

[spitfire51]

This gentleman thinks there should be a basic civics test as part of voter registration, so that you at least have some understanding of what it is you're voting for.

Don't let ignorant people vote - CNN.com

Discuss

 

[cbseniour]

I believe you posted the wrong link.
However, Boortz has maintained for ever that you should pass a basic test at least be able to read and understand the ballot before being allowed to vote.

 

[BigMatt]

You shouldn't have to pass a test to vote. That is discriminatory.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

If you are a citizen, you should be able to vote. If you are not able to vote, I do not think you can be accurately described as a citizen.

I support no test of knowledge or "fitness" for voting except proof of citizenship.

On a similar note, I believe that it is unreasonable to deny incarcerated citizens the right to vote.

 

[E5RANGER375]

as much as I would personaly LOVE to see it happen, I would not support it as an American because it is against our founding documents.

 

[Plinker]

as much as I would personaly LOVE to see it happen, I would not support it as an American because it is against our founding documents.

I'm afraid I have to agree. Especially after receiving my property tax bill that broke down what my annual tax went to (besides schools, city, and county, there are separate line items for the city bus, library, etc...). I kind of understood why only property owners were originally allowed to vote. But, I too wouldn't support it, as it is against our founding documents.

 

[jbombelli]

that's no different than requiring training before someone is allowed to keep and bear arms. In fact - I usually counter that argument by telling people that support that requirement that they should be required to have a degree in either political science or public administration before they're allowed to vote.

That said, I'm very much against both.

 

[grimor]

I support the right of citizens to vote, but just like in starship troopers, not everyone deserves to be a citizen lol

 

[ATOMonkey]

Everyone should be educated by their parents and/or guardian such they'd already be able to pass such a test.

If parents and/or guardians don't feel that it's necessary to educate their children/dependants, then we all deserve the government we get.

As much as some might like it, America is not a class society.

 

[dross]

as much as I would personaly LOVE to see it happen, I would not support it as an American because it is against our founding documents.

Where is it in our founding documents?

 

[dross]

I'm not sure I have too much of a problem with this. I definitely think that anyone who derives more than half their income from the government shouldn't get to vote.

 

[level.eleven]

I honestly don't think we would see results any different than what we see now. The people showing up to polls currently would surely be able to pass any sort of examination because the bar would have to be set so low as to be inclusive enough. Most can drive, so they have proven they can read. Employment cannot be a condition for several reasons. When pundits wax for informed voters, they really are interested in informing them of their ideology and why the opposition is so evil. That's the root of guys like Boortz (who I like to listen to, fwiw).

This topic always makes me think of a Mencken quote.

Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good.

Sort of a tangent, just thought I would throw it up.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Voting restrictions were nothing new when the country was founded.

To be able to vote in the first elections you have to be a white man, who owned land, and was of voting age, and able to afford the polling tax.

I tend to waffle on this issue.

You don't want the fox guarding the hen house, but even the fox deserves some kind of representation.

I think that if we reformed the tax structure back to the original intent, the voting issue would fix itself.

As long as I'm king, I'd like to see a balanced budget amendment as well.

 

[level.eleven]

I tend to waffle on this issue.

You don't want the fox guarding the hen house, but even the fox deserves some kind of representation.

I think that if we reformed the tax structure back to the original intent, the voting issue would fix itself.

That's the problem and is why it easy to justify such an act. This would be a fix to a problem, that is a fix to a problem, that was a fix to a problem. Unfortunately, and this is for dross , it is impossible to strike the root of the problem.

 

[dross]

That's the problem and is why it easy to justify such an act. This would be a fix to a problem, that is a fix to a problem, that was a fix to a problem. Unfortunately, and this is for dross , it is impossible to strike the root of the problem.

Very, very few were once employed by the government. Now they're the biggest employer. The employees (and the benefits of various government programs, like SS) all vote for their own bosses and then form unions to negotiate with their bosses and PACS to get their choice for boss voted into office.

Why is it so unreasonable for people who are net recipients of government which equals taxpayers, which equals people who produce, which equals the private sector, to give up their right to vote? They get a liveliehood from those of us who produce, why should they get to vote themselves more of what belongs to us? I think that would strike the root of the problem, and better than a civics test.

 

[indykid]

I think it would be more important that the people we vote for would have to take a test, say on the constitution, on common sense, on financials, on current events, etc.

Maybe then we would have a better chance of voting for someone who would truly represent us as "we the people".

 

[spec4]

While it will never happen, I would like to see certain criteria met before you can vote. How about being a taxpayer for openers? And if you are a ward of the state, no vote. How many people do you know really don't know anything about who they are voting for. The comment I love is "I vote Dem because they look out for the little guy". In my experience, I have come across many who have no idea of how the govt works, yet they vote.

 

[level.eleven]

Very, very few were once employed by the government. Now they're the biggest employer. The employees (and the benefits of various government programs, like SS) all vote for their own bosses and then form unions to negotiate with their bosses and PACS to get their choice for boss voted into office.

Why is it so unreasonable for people who are net recipients of government which equals taxpayers, which equals people who produce, which equals the private sector, to give up their right to vote? They get a liveliehood from those of us who produce, why should they get to vote themselves more of what belongs to us? I think that would strike the root of the problem, and better than a civics test.

I could get on board with that. But, I still am unsure if there would be a significant swing in election results as the solution would lend itself pretty well to the bases of either major party. It would appeal to the fiscal conservatives of the Republican party while also strengthening the "some one is looking out for you/fighting for the little man/paternal mantra" of the Left. As a matter of fact, I could see it pushing all government employees and recipients of financial assistance firmly into the Democratic party line of thinking. Along with their financial support.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Where is it in our founding documents?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[72] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, "

I think that takes care of it.

consent of the governed. that means that all who are governed have the right to give their consent (vote) to who has derived power over them.

They might not have realized the full scope of these words at the time ...... but we are able to see the power and meaning behind them today. ALL American citizens have the right to vote.

 

[cosermann]

. . . . I definitely think that anyone who derives more than half their income from the government shouldn't get to vote.

Great minds think alike. There's a built-in conflict of interest in such cases.