• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should you be allowed to vote?

AlbqOwl

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
23,581
Reaction score
12,389
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
If I released a genie from a bottle and was granted my wish to be uncontested dictator of the USA for a month or whatever, one thing I would be sorely tempted to do is insert a Constitutional Amendment requiring some kind of proficiency test before people were allowed to vote in federal elections.

I know that goes against all the politically correct mindset these days, but honestly, don't you think people should have some idea of who or what they are voting for when they vote? What does it profit us that people can be paid a $1 or $5 or whatever to go in and vote for the name provided them on a slip of paper? When people just go in and pick a name they like better than the others? Do you think such people are likely to vote for the right candidate?

I am not convinced that the current Pew Research quiz is the right test to administer, but it is interesting. Can you get more than 50% of the questions right? If you score under 50%, would you consider not voting?

THE QUIZ:
The News IQ Quiz | Pew Research Center
 
Getting 12 out of 12 was easy, and then I even got my gender and age range right - and I'm just a lowly Canadian.

I'm willing to bet that less than 50% of the current Donald Trump supporters in the US could pass the test, let alone get 12 out of 12.
 
AlbqOwl said:
If I released a genie from a bottle and was granted my wish to be uncontested dictator of the USA for a month or whatever, one thing I would be sorely tempted to do is insert a Constitutional Amendment requiring some kind of proficiency test before people were allowed to vote in federal elections.

I know that goes against all the politically correct mindset these days, but honestly, don't you think people should have some idea of who or what they are voting for when they vote? What does it profit us that people can be paid a $1 or $5 or whatever to go in and vote for the name provided them on a slip of paper? When people just go in and pick a name they like better than the others? Do you think such people are likely to vote for the right candidate?

I am not convinced that the current Pew Research quiz is the right test to administer, but it is interesting. Can you get more than 50% of the questions right? If you score under 50%, would you consider not voting?

THE QUIZ:
The News IQ Quiz | Pew Research Center
Click to expand...

I got 11/12. I missed the one on number of female chief justices.

Do I get to vote anyway?
 
Gardener said:
I got 11/12. I missed the one on number of female chief justices.

Do I get to vote anyway?
Click to expand...

Oh yeah. You did very well. You would be surprised at how many don't know the answers to most of those questions though.
 
Gardener said:
I got 11/12. I missed the one on number of female chief justices.

Do I get to vote anyway?
Click to expand...

If you're a leftist and you got the number of female supreme court justices wrong, you're disqualified from life.
 
Voting is tied to freedom of expression. I'm against aspects of the right being violated.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Getting 12 out of 12 was easy, and then I even got my gender and age range right - and I'm just a lowly Canadian.

I'm willing to bet that less than 50% of the current Donald Trump supporters in the US could pass the test, let alone get 12 out of 12.
Click to expand...

I think you might be wrong about that. Those I read on Facebook, Twitter, and on the message boards and focus groups who are supporting Trump are pretty much news junkies and very knowledgeable on the political scene. I am not willing to be classified as a 'Trump supporter' but I am not against his candidacy either and I got 12 out of 12. But then I am very definitely a news junkie. :)
 
AlbqOwl said:
I think you might be wrong about that. Those I read on Facebook, Twitter, and on the message boards and focus groups who are supporting Trump are pretty much news junkies and very knowledgeable on the political scene. I am not willing to be classified as a 'Trump supporter' but I am not against his candidacy either and I got 12 out of 12. But then I am very definitely a news junkie. :)
Click to expand...

Good afternoon AO,

You're definitely an atypical, on the fringes, Trumpette - far too intelligent and personable. But hey, we all have our guilty pleasures and vices.
 
ecofarm said:
Voting is tied to freedom of expression. I'm against aspects of the right being violated.
Click to expand...

Do you think it is good to give the voter a slip of paper with a name on it and send that person in to find that name on the ballot and vote for it in return for a cash award? It is perfectly legal and an aspect of a right to vote.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Good afternoon AO,

You're definitely an atypical, on the fringes, Trumpette - far too intelligent and personable. But hey, we all have our guilty pleasures and vices.
Click to expand...

LOL. Yeah we're usually on the same page, but according to the polls I am not at all atypical. This is just one of those rare occasions you and I strongly disagree on something. :)
 
CanadaJohn said:
If you're a leftist and you got the number of female supreme court justices wrong, you're disqualified from life.
Click to expand...

LOL. Too funny. (I gave him a pass because that was one I really had to think about before answering.)
 
AlbqOwl said:
Do you think it is good to give the voter a slip of paper with a name on it and send that person in to find that name on the ballot and vote for it in return for a cash award? It is perfectly legal and an aspect of a right to vote.
Click to expand...

All rights have criminal aspects, such as murder. One cannot refer to fraud as the genuine article without themselves committing intellectual fraud.

Nonetheless, I wish to limit encroachments. I find doing so to be best for society.
 
CanadaJohn said:
If you're a leftist and you got the number of female supreme court justices wrong, you're disqualified from life.
Click to expand...

I imagine it's a good thing I'm not a leftist, then.
 
AlbqOwl said:
If I released a genie from a bottle and was granted my wish to be uncontested dictator of the USA for a month or whatever, one thing I would be sorely tempted to do is insert a Constitutional Amendment requiring some kind of proficiency test before people were allowed to vote in federal elections.

I know that goes against all the politically correct mindset these days, but honestly, don't you think people should have some idea of who or what they are voting for when they vote? What does it profit us that people can be paid a $1 or $5 or whatever to go in and vote for the name provided them on a slip of paper? When people just go in and pick a name they like better than the others? Do you think such people are likely to vote for the right candidate?

I am not convinced that the current Pew Research quiz is the right test to administer, but it is interesting. Can you get more than 50% of the questions right? If you score under 50%, would you consider not voting?

THE QUIZ:
The News IQ Quiz | Pew Research Center
Click to expand...

I think everyone has the right to vote- but I prefer people not bother if they truly don't care about what they've voting on - or if they really don't know or fully understand an issue.

A good middle ground would be to have a 'no vote' option for every measure that can be chosen. Thus if someone is going along and realizes they don't know about __ measure but are all very concerned about local taxes (etc) then they can just 'no vote' and move on - leave it up to the others to vote on a decide.

This would also prevent people from being forced to vote for an only candidate - I hate having to 'support' someone when I don't like them just because they're the only one.
 
Looks like they let me vote with 12/12, although I feel pretty stupid for clicking on the images instead of the numbers at first.

Testing before voting? No. That should never happen. Why would we want to discriminate?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I think everyone has the right to vote- but I prefer people not bother if they truly don't care about what they've voting on - or if they really don't know or fully understand an issue.

A good middle ground would be to have a 'no vote' option for every measure that can be chosen. Thus if someone is going along and realizes they don't know about __ measure but are all very concerned about local taxes (etc) then they can just 'no vote' and move on - leave it up to the others to vote on a decide.

This would also prevent people from being forced to vote for an only candidate - I hate having to 'support' someone when I don't like them just because they're the only one.
Click to expand...

I think all people of integrity would agree that we prefer those who don't know why they are voting for this or that person or issue or whatever should not vote at all. When I see a judge up for reconfirmation or whatever and realize I don't know a thing about that person and/or his track record, I just don't vote in that case. That way I don't damage somebody unfairly or affirm somebody I would really object to if I did know his/her track record.

But the fact is, hundreds if not thousands vote in every election because somebody corralled them and got them registered, and then drove them to the polling place on election day, and provided them with the name or names they were expected to vote for. And I simply cannot intellectually justify that as a moral or ethical situation.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I think everyone has the right to vote- but I prefer people not bother if they truly don't care about what they've voting on - or if they really don't know or fully understand an issue.

A good middle ground would be to have a 'no vote' option for every measure that can be chosen. Thus if someone is going along and realizes they don't know about __ measure but are all very concerned about local taxes (etc) then they can just 'no vote' and move on - leave it up to the others to vote on a decide.

This would also prevent people from being forced to vote for an only candidate - I hate having to 'support' someone when I don't like them just because they're the only one.
Click to expand...

A no vote is easy, just don't punch that chad or click on that choice if electronic, just hit next. As far as I've ever voted (chads to date) I've never been forced to choose. I've often left choices with no punch for either/any option.
 
I'm going to vote in the next election and every one after that whether you like it or not.
 
shrubnose said:
I'm going to vote in the next election and every one after that whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

Aw, flunked the test did you? Well don't feel too bad. You have a lot of company.
 
I got 11/12 xD

I put 2 woman supreme court members instead of three... I forgot
 
I also did 11 of 12, similar story with others. I answered two female supreme court justices, forgot the third. At the time I took the test the results showed only 10% of the population got them all correct.
 
I got 11-12. Meh, I don't care about the Pope. :2razz:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom