Maggers

Should People Have To Pass A Test Before Voting?

110 posts in this topic

Just wondering if it isn't time to change our voting procedures...

Edited by Maggers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. You should have to name at least three stances from each candidates platform. If you have no idea what you're doing, then just don't, I say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voting is a right not to be messed with, criminals can loose their right to vote, I think they can get it back if their crime is pardoned. A person should be well informed about the people running for office, but who is going to quize them? This could turn into another government bureauracy. In spite of it's flaws our system most of time works pretty good. Most voters are better informed than many people think. No doubt there are places where the system can be improved. But no test before hand. PD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People used to have to pass a test before voting. Remember? They were used to discriminate against people, primarily African Americans, to keep them from voting. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and the like were extremely discriminatory practices that allowed people to control the vote by controlling WHO could vote. How quickly we forget history, and how extremely ironic that the same kinds of people who are "outraged" at the mere percieved threat of losing THEIR rights have no problem with the prospect of snatching them away from others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My "franchise earning fantasy" is not a test but rather Heinlein's approach (you have to be a veteran to vote).

In his approach, however, anyone who wishes to enlist may do so, regardless of physical disability. In the original novel Starship Troopers it's well explained, as is are some of the administrative processes for handling the disabled soldier. In the movie the rational and administration are completely absent.

G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the way schools today are cranking out semi-illiterates, we would soon run out of people eligible to vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there should be a test to vote... a test every couple of years to be able to drive.. a test to have children... a test to breed animals...

But then again I also think the world is being run over with stupidity...

Will these things happen? Probably not, but I can hope. :confused0024:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are perfectly capable of making sure someone knows what they're voting for without making it some kind of discriminatory, "only me and my buddies" club. Send questions out months before so that people can prepare, make them ridiculously simple, etc. With the exception of the last election, I don't think that most people are going to drive to the polling station blind anyways.

Or, we could skip this whole nonsense where you have to wade through speeches that really don't say anything and have candidates send out pamphlets with an simple outline of what they stand for. They send out the census, they can surely send out a "I am pro X, anti Y" type of deal. At least then it may be read before being tossed in the trash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm. But we do have those who in a recent poll thought we gained our independence from China, with Mexico being a close second. Of the dates given in the multiple choice question of what year we gained our independence 1922 was the year most chose. Yes, they vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ellie for bringing up a little bit of American history as to why we do not have to pass a test to vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People used to have to pass a test before voting. Remember? They were used to discriminate against people, primarily African Americans, to keep them from voting. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and the like were extremely discriminatory practices that allowed people to control the vote by controlling WHO could vote. How quickly we forget history, and how extremely ironic that the same kinds of people who are "outraged" at the mere percieved threat of losing THEIR rights have no problem with the prospect of snatching them away from others.

You took the words right out of my fingers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How quickly we forget history. The cycle repeates and repeates all through time....Someone has this in their siggy...

The historical cycle seems to be: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more.

We are clearly in the apathy to dependancy stage as a whole where ignorance abounds. I dont know if we are strong enough to rise over the coming tide. I would hope, but history isnt on our side.

Edited by Trinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, the argument that testing would be discriminatory does not fly. As someone suggested up thread, the questions could be sent out months in advance. No matter how poor or how ignorant, opportunities to improve upon one's knowledge abound, many funded and/or volunteered by those who ARE educated and wish to give that opportunity to everyone.

We are all born with certain advantages and disadvantages. Most of us learn to overcome them. Some choose to scream unfairness and give up. That's not how our country became great. The opportunities are there. They just have to be found and utilized. It's not like people haven't spent plenty of time and money trying to help those who are uneducated. But, you can lead a horse to water .... perhaps it is time to MAKE them drink.

If people can come to this country without a penny, learn the language and pass the citizenship test, then those who have lived here all their lives can certainly become informed of the political issues facing their country. Besides, if the disadvantaged WOULD learn what is going on politically, perhaps they would vote for someone who is not corrupt, someone who could actually do something to help them better their plight.

I vote for the test. It's the most humane thing to do for everyone. Sorry, I don't see forcing people to know the basics before they vote as limiting anyone's rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People used to have to pass a test before voting. Remember? They were used to discriminate against people, primarily African Americans, to keep them from voting. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and the like were extremely discriminatory practices that allowed people to control the vote by controlling WHO could vote. How quickly we forget history, and how extremely ironic that the same kinds of people who are "outraged" at the mere percieved threat of losing THEIR rights have no problem with the prospect of snatching them away from others.

[Not Worthy]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In some ways I do think their should be a screening process.... to weed out the voters who acctually know more about the canidates than just their name and party.. I find it really annoying when people just vote along party lines and never care to look into who their voting for or what the canidate stands for..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you REALLY think that being able to fill in the blanks on a piece of paper makes you a citizen capable of casting a well thought out, rational vote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you REALLY think that being able to fill in the blanks on a piece of paper makes you a citizen capable of casting a well thought out, rational vote?

I think being a citizen gives you have the right to fill in the dots if that's what they want to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People used to have to pass a test before voting. Remember? They were used to discriminate against people, primarily African Americans, to keep them from voting. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and the like were extremely discriminatory practices that allowed people to control the vote by controlling WHO could vote. How quickly we forget history, and how extremely ironic that the same kinds of people who are "outraged" at the mere percieved threat of losing THEIR rights have no problem with the prospect of snatching them away from others.

Just because something was done wrong once, doesnt' mean that it can't be done right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many so-called intelligent people, that don't informed themselves very well when making choices about who to vote for. Some black people voted for Obama, because he was black, must be why I voted for McCain, because he has a thinning hairline like I do. Some peopled vote on trends & not on issues, I try to vote for the person that bests represents the heart of the people, not just my issues. Campaigning has become a media circus, & creats more confusion, than what any canidates really stands for. I think that is where the problems are. Campaigns should be shorter, & funded with public money, with more townhall meetings, where canidates met the voting public. PD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maggers, I think I love you. I think perhaps we are long lost sisters!

I think I love you too! [Huggy] Are you busy friday? *hehe* JK!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are many so-called intelligent people, that don't informed themselves very well when making choices about who to vote for. Some black people voted for Obama, because he was black, must be why I voted for McCain, because he has a thinning hairline like I do. Some peopled vote on trends & not on issues, I try to vote for the person that bests represents the heart of the people, not just my issues. Campaigning has become a media circus, & creats more confusion, than what any canidates really stands for. I think that is where the problems are. Campaigns should be shorter, & funded with public money, with more townhall meetings, where canidates met the voting public. PD

Yep, this would be a good start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't want to hear a lot of rhetoric and mud slinging. If they're already in office, I want to know what they've done already. Were they there for important votes? How did they vote? How did they spend MY money. Where do they stand on the issues? And, if they're a newcomer, where do they stand on the issues? As someone else said, why not just have something that you get in the mail that shows all of that instead of the ton of mail you get now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why have the voters take a test?

they pass the test.unfortunately the candidate they voted for president.turne out to be not who they beleived him /her to be, due to their false statements, ect. Not the voters fault , for the way the candidates present themselves, and thier issues , .

After the voters are just trying to vote who they think would be best... In order to be able to that,. they do need to more well -informed by receiving everything in the mail as mentioned above.

all we ever got was flyers, and mudslinging...

nothing else... trying to find out about their issues, ect. was like digging for a needle in the haystack...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should voters have to pass a test? NO, but presidential candidates sure as heck should.

A Pee Test

A Lie Detector Test

A Morals Test

An Apptitude Test

An Ethics Test

An American History Test

A World History Test

An Economics Test

And any other test(s) that we, the voting public deam necessary to "vet" any presidential candidate.

Edited by pdavissmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should voters have to pass a test? NO, but presidential candidates sure as heck should.

Now THAT is the best idea I've heard in years!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I can think of when I see this type post is...

Who would have the power to make up such tests?

Who would make up the scoring system?

Would those that want such a test in place get all bent out of shape when the very thing they wanted to begin with keeps them from doing the very thing they think should be restricted?

I could go on and on with the questions, but I think we all get the gist of it. I can't see any upside to having voters pass a test. I can see a whole lot downside.

I don't have to agree with why someone votes. I don't have to agree with the way someone votes. I do support and I will fight to keep that right available for all those that should vote and do if they choose.

Regardless of intent, when one right is restricted or taken away it opens the door to others being restricted or taken away. We all fuss and fume now when it happens, yet testing for basic rights is thought of as a good idea? I don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the candidates should be the ones tested! A lie detector test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maggers,

You just stated on another thread that you thought Obama was trying to change our Constitution and you thought that was a bad idea.

Now which is it?

The Right to vote is not like a drivering PRIVILEGE where you have to know the rules of the road before you can participate in it.

It's a right and you don't have the right to judge who is or is not competent to exercise that right by testing them to see how much they know or don't know about the candidates. It would NOT be Constitutional to require that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now