Should you be allowed to vote?

[Cephus]

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.

That's actually a good point. Who cares if you can identify any of these people on sight? How does that affect whether you know anything about them, or if they are worth knowing anything about?

 

[Greenbeard]

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?

How does a test on history or current events or whatever prevent vote buying or ensure people pick "the right candidate"?

 

[AlbqOwl]

How does a test on history or current events or whatever prevent vote buying or ensure people pick "the right candidate"?

I don't know since I haven't even suggested that the test was to prevent vote buying or ensure people pick the 'right candidate'.

 

[Verax]

Oh the irony, many right-wingers want a test to exclude voters but lefties dominate in academics...

You better bias it hard to the right with questions like "What is more important in a survival situation? a) Food b) Shelter c) Water d) Bible... and make d the correct answer

 

[Rentoc]

Oh the irony, many right-wingers want a test to exclude voters but lefties dominate in academics...

You better bias it hard to the right with questions like "What is more important in a survival situation? a) Food b) Shelter c) Water d) Bible... and make d the correct answer

Who has really proposed a test to exclude voters? I have heard of mandating a State issued ID Card, but I have never heard of anyone proposing a test.

 

[Verax]

Who has really proposed a test to exclude voters? I have heard of mandating a State issued ID Card, but I have never heard of anyone proposing a test.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/232966-should-you-allowed-vote.html

 

[Chagos]

I should be allowed. I'm of the legal age and have been for quite some time.

Don't need no stinkin' tests.

:2razz:

 

[radcen]

I got 12/12 right, but I thought #7 showing the unlabeled unemployment graph was unfair. I also somewhat guessed on the breakdown of the Senate. I knew roughly what it is and guessed the closest to that. I didn't know the exact number off the top of my head.

Be that as it may, I would strongly oppose ANY type of test to vote. It is my opinion that people who want to put restrictions on voting are really only hoping the people allowed to vote would vote like them.

 

[radcen]

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.

This. Like I said already, I oppose tests, but I also oppose "get out the vote" campaigns. Leave the people who care to do it, and leave those who don't care alone.

 

[radcen]

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.

Right. I have left some races completely blank if I didn't know any of the people or didn't like the only candidate.

 

[radcen]

I got 11/12 xD

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

To be fair, one of them we're not sure.

 

[radcen]

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.

To me, the problem isn't an uninformed electorate, the problem is we keep re-electing the same schmucks who are screwing us over time and again. And as long as Reps and Senators "bring home the bacon" I don't think that would change regardless how informed the electorate was.

 

[radcen]

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.

That's another issue I have with the concept. Who writes the test? How do we ensure the test isn't partisan-biased?

 

[Helix]

That's another issue I have with the concept. Who writes the test? How do we ensure the test isn't partisan-biased?

the same way we make sure that the party in charge doesn't gerrymander.




























wait

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

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

Do I get to vote anyway?

Yup, me too. Couldn't recall a couple of the justices off the top of my head, one of which was Kagan.

 

[Mithrae]

I got 12/12 right, but I thought #7 showing the unlabeled unemployment graph was unfair.

There was basically only the one answer it could be. If they weren't multiple choice there were probably only two answers I would've actually known. Never really seen a picture of Kim Jong-Un before, or didn't pay much attention, but who else would it have been? 50/50 guess as to your Senate breakdown. Complete guesswork as to the number of women in your Supreme Court, or the identities of the black guy and white girl. Missed the MLK one. Thought he'd look a bit older by now :lol:

But with 11/12, I should be allowed to vote in your elections, damnit!

 

[radcen]

the same way we make sure that the party in charge doesn't gerrymander.

wait

Excellent comparison. I'm going to use that.

 

[Bob N]

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 know that this is a hypothetical situation but consider this:

Why would anyone rely just on the media to gather up every detail of how you think and feel about an issue or a candidate? Consider also that at night if you're watching MSNBC or Fox News, I'm sure one will be inundated with a full left or right wing point of view of today's important issues. Next if you're bored of that you could go over to CNN and watch Anthony Bourdain eat a cricket. That should prepare one for superb election preparation. :roll:

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

Do I get to vote anyway?

I, too, did the same. But don't worry. Whoever made this test probably had to look up all the answers to find out if he/she has the right to vote. :roll:

 

[radcen]

I, too, did the same. But don't worry. Whoever made this test probably had to look up all the answers to find out if he/she has the right to vote. :roll:

:lol: Probably.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I know that this is a hypothetical situation but consider this:

Why would anyone rely just on the media to gather up every detail of how you think and feel about an issue or a candidate? Consider also that at night if you're watching MSNBC or Fox News, I'm sure one will be inundated with a full left or right wing point of view of today's important issues. Next if you're bored of that you could go over to CNN and watch Anthony Bourdain eat a cricket. That should prepare one for superb election preparation. :roll:

I, too, did the same. But don't worry. Whoever made this test probably had to look up all the answers to find out if he/she has the right to vote. :roll:

Whoever made up the test took the time to find the appropriate pictures to include for the questions though. In that sense I thought it was pretty good and was completely non partisan which an ethical voter qualification test would have to be. I would have chosen mostly different questions myself, but it was a fun exercise. And again, I suspect the most missed question was the Supreme Court one, but that is one that I think would not necessarily be on a voter proficiency test either.

But yes it is purely a hypothetical. It is highly unlikely to happen in our lifetime. But there definitely is a good argument for it. I was discussing this elsewhere with a person who said he stopped believing everybody should vote when his mother asked for a ride to the polling place. When he casually asked her who she was voting for she said she didn't know because she didn't know who any of the candidates were.

 

[Rentoc]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/232966-should-you-allowed-vote.html

Okay, so you link me back to this thread where one person post a hypothetical question and then YOU state that "..many right wingers want a test to exclude voters..". Talk about political hype!! Have a great day!:doh

 

[AlbqOwl]

Okay, so you link me back to this thread where one person post a hypothetical question and then YOU state that "..many right wingers want a test to exclude voters..". Talk about political hype!! Have a great day!:doh

Isn't that the political hype that we usually get these days though?
The temptation is so strong to point to one example and say "See? That's who and what they are." And in all honesty, the hyper partisans on the right do that almost as consistently as those on the left.

The one thing I've noticed that most conservatives can do somewhat better than most on the left, however, is to focus on and discuss the pros and cons of a concept or principle without having to say that is the point of view of everybody on the left or right or even the person who put it out there for discussion.

In other words, it is interesting to see who can actually discuss the pros and cons of a hypothetical proficiency quiz for voters without feeling the need to demonize something or somebody in the process.

 

[Diving Mullah]

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

So those people who are not allowed to vote are also exempt from paying taxes?

Also just to be fair, national elections hardly matters. Local elections are far more important and have far more riding on them. Are you proposing for each county, State and city every two years have proficient exams for every person who wants to vote? And who will pay for these? Not all cities, states can afford it, also who will designe the test and how do you take the people bias out?

Food for thoughts!

Diving Mullah

 

[AlbqOwl]

So those people who are not allowed to vote are also exempt from paying taxes?

Also just to be fair, national elections hardly matters. Local elections are far more important and have far more riding on them. Are you proposing for each county, State and city every two years have proficient exams for every person who wants to vote? And who will pay for these? Not all cities, states can afford it, also who will designe the test and how do you take the people bias out?

Food for thoughts!

Diving Mullah

Again, I am really interested in those who see this as a concept or observation instead of an actual proposal. And I was hope for those who would discuss the idea on its own merits rather than try to make it into some sort of plot or political maneuver or assault on somebody's rights etc. So the problems or dynamics or issues of implementation are relatively unimportant.

Have you ever taken a comprehensive management class? A competent instructor would never have the class go through the dynamics, methodology, process, issues, problems etc. in order to arrive at a goal or figure out what the problem is. You first state the goal you want to achieve and/or identify the problem and THEN you figure out how to get there and/or fix it. So who would devise a voter proficiency test or at what levels or what kind of elections it would be used are really irrelevant at this point.

So the first step here is to decide whether it is or is not a good thing or a problem that people vote who don't have a clue who or what they are voting for. The hypothetical quiz was just to start the conversation and demonstrate how little some people actually are paying attention or know about some of the things they vote for. And just about everybody who thinks voters should be better informed agrees that the sample quiz provided in the OP is probably not the best sort of test that could be rendered.

And THEN if it is identified as a valid issue or problem, THEN we can figure out the best way to go about fixing it if such a way exists.

 

[humbolt]

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.

Hmmmm. How much money? Not that I would do anything like that or anything, but just for the fun of it, exactly how much are we talking here? I mean, just supposing mind you, how much would my vote be worth? I realize I wouldn't be getting a Jaguar F-Type or anything, but a bottle of Basil Hayden and a couple of cigars? That much? Bear in mind we're only talking about $60 or $70 for that. Not really a big, big deal. Just an evening with an old friend type of thing for a vote. I absolutely wouldn't do it...