Should you be allowed to vote?

[Goshin]

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

A reasonably well-informed electorate would be nice. Certainly paid-for voters should be illegal... well IS illegal but I don't doubt it happens.

Not sure if this is the best way to achieve that, but it is one possibility.

 

[Goshin]

I rushed though it and got 10 of 12 right. Had only a vague notion what the female Senator in question looked like. Not sure what the other one I missed was.

 

[joG]

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

I did not recognize ms Warren.

 

[joG]

I got 11/12 xD

I put 2 woman supreme court members instead of three... I forgot

Shame! !!!

 

[pbrauer]

lol I got 6/12 right, that doesn't mean I am not knowegeable about the issues. In a couple of questions I didn't recognise the pictures and on another I clicked the wrong box. It's a dumb quiz and should never be used to qualify voters.

 

[OrphanSlug]

lol I got 6/12 right, that doesn't mean I am not knowegeable about the issues. In a couple of questions I didn't recognise the pictures and on another I clicked the wrong box. It's a dumb quiz and should never be used to qualify voters.

Being a member of these forums, you should have accidentally guessed more correct than 6 of 12.

 

[pbrauer]

Being a member of these forums, you should have accidentally guessed more correct than 6 of 12.

I made some mistakes as I said. I could have lied or taken the test over again. I decided to tell the truth.

 

[pbrauer]

Aw, flunked the test did you? Well don't feel too bad. You have a lot of company.

What a despicable thing to say.

 

[natsb]

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.

I got 12 of 12 in about 15 seconds. I am not sure how that relates to liking what Trump is doing. I think it is more of an indicator that I watch and read too much news. Maybe I need another hobby.

One year, my mother asked for a ride so she could vote. I said sure and asked who she was voting for. When she told me she didn't really know the names of any of the candidates, I stopped believing everyone should vote.

 

[AlbqOwl]

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 had to think about that a long time too. I think most think of Kagin and Sotomeyer as they were the most recent and sort of forget about Ginsburg who is rarely mentioned in the news these days. I did get it but I had to list all nine in my mind to figure it out.

 

[Helix]

11/12. missed the female SCOTUS justices because i could only think of two. should i be able to vote? yeah, because that right is guaranteed. should someone with a much poorer score be able to vote? yes, because that right is guaranteed.

 

[AlbqOwl]

A reasonably well-informed electorate would be nice. Certainly paid-for voters should be illegal... well IS illegal but I don't doubt it happens.

Not sure if this is the best way to achieve that, but it is one possibility.

Well I don't think it is necessary for instance to know the Pope's home country or even the members of the Supreme Court since we don't vote for them. And certainly unless Elizabeth Warren is a candidate, that shouldn't be on a 'voter's knowledge' test or who a Nobel prize winner was. But certainly an informed voter should know who is running and something about the offices they are running for. And at least rudimentary knowledge about the most important issues could be included.

We all know that this is highly unlikely to happen in our lifetime, but I sure get tired of getting stuck with incompetent or wrong headed people leading our nation and states because people without a clue of why they should vote for somebody are herded to the polls to vote.

 

[Goshin]

Well I don't think it is necessary for instance to know the Pope's home country or even the members of the Supreme Court since we don't vote for them. And certainly unless Elizabeth Warren is a candidate, that shouldn't be on a 'voter's knowledge' test or who a Nobel prize winner was. But certainly an informed voter should know who is running and something about the offices they are running for. And at least rudimentary knowledge about the most important issues could be included.

We all know that this is highly unlikely to happen in our lifetime, but I sure get tired of getting stuck with incompetent or wrong headed people leading our nation and states because people without a clue of why they should vote for somebody are herded to the polls to vote.

Not to derail the thread, but I'd also look at the flip side... look what we've got to CHOOSE FROM this time around... ugh. Dear and fluffy Elders of Reason, what a clown parade.

 

[natsb]

I had to think about that a long time too. I think most think of Kagin and Sotomeyer as they were the most recent and sort of forget about Ginsburg who is rarely mentioned in the news these days. I did get it but I had to list all nine in my mind to figure it out.

I went the opposite route. My thought was "Ginsburg, and the two new chicks." Yes, I know I lose PC points, but I got the answer right with only a second of thought.

 

[AlbqOwl]

11/12. missed the female SCOTUS justices because i could only think of two. should i be able to vote? yeah, because that right is guaranteed. should someone with a much poorer score be able to vote? yes, because that right is guaranteed.

The question for this thread though is not what the law is re our privilege to vote. There is no question about what the law is.

The question for this thread is what the law should be and if that should include an informed electorate instead of folks without a clue of why they are voting for somebody or something being herded to the polls to vote.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Not to derail the thread, but I'd also look at the flip side... look what we've got to CHOOSE FROM this time around... ugh. Dear and fluffy Elders of Reason, what a clown parade.

All the more reason for having an informed electorate. There are almost certainly some valid candidates who would do a decent job in there. But I am guessing that well over 50% of the folks who vote next year won't know who those are.

 

[Helix]

The question for this thread though is not what the law is re our privilege to vote. There is no question about what the law is.

The question for this thread is what the law should be and if that should include an informed electorate instead of folks without a clue of why they are voting for somebody or something being herded to the polls to vote.

informed? who makes that call? i'm sure a test could be constructed to stump voters from either side depending on who is in charge. if a partisan strategy relies on voter suppression in any way, that's a problem.

if we're making constitutional changes, though, perhaps presidential candidates should have to take a blue book exam on the history of empires, as well as on Sun Tzu's "The Art of War." that might actually be very informative.

 

[Goshin]

All the more reason for having an informed electorate. There are almost certainly some valid candidates who would do a decent job in there. But I am guessing that well over 50% of the folks who vote next year won't know who those are.

I don't see many candidates worth voting for this time around. Dr. Ben Carson, on the Republican side, seems like a reasonable sort. Of the dems, Bernie seems like he might not be a total dip****.


Thing is neither has much hope of anything better than Veep, maybe, and they're still just the best of a bad lot.

 

[Cephus]

Got 11 out of 12, only because I accidentally clicked on the wrong answer and it doesn't let you go back. Would have been 12/12 otherwise.

 

[Lovebug]

informed? who makes that call? i'm sure a test could be constructed to stump voters from either side depending on who is in charge. if a partisan strategy relies on voter suppression in any way, that's a problem.

Very slippery slope. Some people work all day to feed a family instead of watching the latest, sometimes nicely peppered, news. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have part of making a decision concerning their future.

if we're making constitutional changes, though, perhaps presidential candidates should have to take a blue book exam on the history of empires, as well as on Sun Tzu's "The Art of War." that might actually be very informative.

Great idea. Standards for all candidates would be very refreshing. Money shouldn't matter. White washing and buttering up is not allowed. No changing your strategy depending on polls.

 

[AlbqOwl]

informed? who makes that call? i'm sure a test could be constructed to stump voters from either side depending on who is in charge. if a partisan strategy relies on voter suppression in any way, that's a problem.

if we're making constitutional changes, though, perhaps presidential candidates should have to take a blue book exam on the history of empires, as well as on Sun Tzu's "The Art of War." that might actually be very informative.

I am not looking for a test that would stump anybody of average knowledge about who or what they are voting for. But is it unreasonable that a voter know who the candidates are he/she will be voting for? Know what party they represent? Know something about the office or job they will be expected to do? Know what the referendum vote or bond issue they are voting for would do? Simple things like that?

 

[AlbqOwl]

I don't see many candidates worth voting for this time around. Dr. Ben Carson, on the Republican side, seems like a reasonable sort. Of the dems, Bernie seems like he might not be a total dip****.


Thing is neither has much hope of anything better than Veep, maybe, and they're still just the best of a bad lot.

Sounds pretty jaded. Or maybe just discouraged. I guess I am a bit more optimistic about that because there are several running who I think could be really good at the job. And I hope they stay focused on the issues themselves and sell their positions on those issues instead of trying to discredit or damage each other. I just want those who vote to know about those candidates and their positions instead of just voting with their gut and emotions based on negative hype and spin.

 

[Captain Adverse]

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

I got 11/12. The only one I got wrong was "Which is Elizabeth Warren," because I didn't care enough to know who she is.

But to answer the original question, no I don't think people should have to take any tests to vote. That's smacks of both elitism and the old Southern Test/Tax laws that prevented minorities from voting.

IMO people may often vote the party line, but many other people vote for what they think they agree with.

What more can you ask from an electorate when most are only exposed to sound and video bites...most often overwhelming propaganda flurries from candidates who have the largest war chest.

 

[Helix]

I am not looking for a test that would stump anybody of average knowledge about who or what they are voting for. But is it unreasonable that a voter know who the candidates are he/she will be voting for? Know what party they represent? Know something about the office or job they will be expected to do? Know what the referendum vote or bond issue they are voting for would do? Simple things like that?

it would be ideal if voters were perfectly informed, but most aren't. i don't support cutting them out of the process. i'm fine with the eligibility rules the way that they are.

 

[AlbqOwl]

it would be ideal if voters were perfectly informed, but most aren't. i don't support cutting them out of the process. i'm fine with the eligibility rules the way that they are.

Understood. Myself I would like an informed electorate. That wouldn't require anybody to be perfectly informed--I'm certainly not perfectly informed--but I think if you have to pass abasic a test to prove you have basic understanding of the traffic laws to get a driver's license or pass a test to carry a concealed weapon, it would not be unreasonable to require those who vote to at least have a bare minimum of knowledge of who and what they are voting for. And never mind that it isn't going to happen. This thread is about what should happen, not what is. But I'm sure a number of great folks will agree with you that the system is fine as it is. And maybe it is. I'm open to be convinced.