Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It might be a good idea in theory. In practice this will be corrupt beyond imagination with tests rigged to pass certain voters and screen out others.
Agreed -- whichever party is in power would write the test in such a way so as to guarantee its voters passed, and the other party's voters fail. Bad idea.
Knowledge of what, specifically? Do you have an idea yet for what kind of test you would like to see?
oh, I don't know, maybe an understanding of the Constitution, specifically, as it relates to the Seperation of Powers, the role and responsibility of an informed electorate, the legislative process, which entities are governmental and which aren't, the role and constitutionality of political parties in the political process, you know, general stuff that isn't particularly subjective and would serve to identify people who's only knowledge of politics is rumour and rhetoric.
There's no point in letting an ignorant person's vote equal the same as a knowledgable person's vote.
Just as we have SATs to measure a person's likely success during college and FICA scores to measure a person's credit worthiness, we should have scores which give a value 0%-100% of what our vote is worth.
A "smartocracy"....knowledge determines class and one's level of competency to make informed decisions and to govern those less smart.
We all want informed voters, but I have no desire to return to the Jim Crow South. As a northerner, I have no desire to see to something so barbaric in my country. I would seriously consider expatriating myself if that ever happened here.
Location: The bustling, world-renowned downtown of Pataskala, OH
188 posts, read 197,927 times
Reputation: 129
If you receive more in direct benefits than you pay at the federal or (if they so choose), state, local level, you should not be permitted to vote at that respective level of government. For exam. if you collect federal unemployment all year, you may not vote for federal issues but would not affect voting priviledges(which are what they are, not rights) for local matters.Also kick the voting age back up to 21, there was a reason it wasn't 18. I wanna hurl when I hear people argue it should be 16 (Really?)
If you receive more in direct benefits than you pay at the federal or (if they so choose), state, local level, you should not be permitted to vote at that respective level of government. For exam. if you collect federal unemployment all year, you may not vote for federal issues but would not affect voting priviledges(which are what they are, not rights) for local matters.Also kick the voting age back up to 21, there was a reason it wasn't 18. I wanna hurl when I hear people argue it should be 16 (Really?)
If you can die for your country at age 18, you get to have a say at age 18. Period.
We all want informed voters, but I have no desire to return to the Jim Crow South. As a northerner, I have no desire to see to something so barbaric in my country. I would seriously consider expatriating myself if that ever happened here.
What does race have to do with it? Are you implying that blacks wouldn't pass?
If you receive more in direct benefits than you pay at the federal or (if they so choose), state, local level, you should not be permitted to vote at that respective level of government. For exam. if you collect federal unemployment all year, you may not vote for federal issues but would not affect voting priviledges(which are what they are, not rights) for local matters.Also kick the voting age back up to 21, there was a reason it wasn't 18. I wanna hurl when I hear people argue it should be 16 (Really?)
Yeah, 18 yr olds are really missing an opportunity to impact deficit spending by not voting. Maybe the voting age should be lowered to 16.
What does race have to do with it? Are you implying that blacks wouldn't pass?
No. What I'm saying is that like Jim Crow, it would be used to deny certain people the right to vote. Which ever group--ethnic, social whatever--it would essentially be as discriminatory as Jim Crow. Literacy tests while aimed, at poor blacks, also applied to poor whites in the South. People tend to forget that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
