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.
There should be about 250 questions or so about basic history of the relevant country and its constitution. The questions and answers are made publicly available to allow people to study for the test and to prevent bias on the part of those grading the test. The test is conducted in a private setting and will contain 25 of the 250 questions. You need to score 80% to pass the test and are allowed one retry until next year.
This will get rid of low information voters who are just voting based on party affiliation, race, ethnicity, gender, or whatever. And since answers are publicly available; you cannot accuse it of being biased or secretive.
To be fair with you.... From the beginning, only the rich white men that owned land/property got to consent to be governed.
That really didn't change until the 1920's.
It was the 1820s. I'm hoping that was a typo.
As much as such a law would be too funny in that it would probably prevent the Buffoonanator from being able to vote, I can't sacrifice principle for comedy. I'm a democrat (as well as a Democrat) who believes that there should be very limited restrictions on voting. The only ones I am in favor of are:
proving that you are a citizen when you register the first time in your state, either through a birth certificate or naturalization papers or drivers license; if you proved it once, you don't have to keep proving it again and again. It's the 21st century ... we have computers to keep track of voters.
proving that you live in your voting district when you register for the first time in that voting district through a driver's license, utility bill, etc. Again, in the 21st century, there's no need to pretend that moving from one neighborhood to another or across a municipal boundary requires all new proof that you're a citizen over the age of 18.
excluding individuals convicted of crimes and currently incarcerated or on parole. People who have served their time should have their voting rights restored, no matter the seriousness of their crime.
There should be about 250 questions or so about basic history of the relevant country and its constitution. The questions and answers are made publicly available to allow people to study for the test and to prevent bias on the part of those grading the test. The test is conducted in a private setting and will contain 25 of the 250 questions. You need to score 80% to pass the test and are allowed one retry until next year.
This will get rid of low information voters who are just voting based on party affiliation, race, ethnicity, gender, or whatever. And since answers are publicly available; you cannot accuse it of being biased or secretive.
To be fair though, knowing history and about current issues does not actually guarantee people will vote on those issues, and not just go with the woman because she's a woman, or the black guy because he's black, or the Christian because he's Christian.
There should be about 250 questions or so about basic history of the relevant country and its constitution. The questions and answers are made publicly available to allow people to study for the test and to prevent bias on the part of those grading the test. The test is conducted in a private setting and will contain 25 of the 250 questions. You need to score 80% to pass the test and are allowed one retry until next year.
This will get rid of low information voters who are just voting based on party affiliation, race, ethnicity, gender, or whatever. And since answers are publicly available; you cannot accuse it of being biased or secretive.
Are employers going to give their employees paid time off for this quiz? Or should we expect people to take it on their own time?
I'm amazed at how many people are ok with infringing on personal liberties and constitutional rights. It's no wonder the country is ok with big government, high taxes and more restrictions on civil liberties.
In reference to the republican form, it would make no difference.
In reference to the constitutionally limited indirect democratic form, it imposes the wrong prerequisites.
The franchise, like public service, is a privilege earned - not a right endowed. Nor can one use the franchise to vote themselves a living without dire consequences. Public service, and citizenship, was and is a step DOWN in status, as one surrenders endowed rights, accepts mandatory civic duties, in exchange for political liberty - voting and holding public office. However, once all are tricked into consensual subjugation, the servant becomes the master, and the world turns upside down.
A restoration of original prerequisites (before 1820) would drastically change the electorate.
Imagine if citizenship had to be knowingly asserted by someone about to turn 17. And he would then go off and spend 4 years in military training / active duty. After that, at age 21, can exercise the full privilege of citizenship, while returning to civilian life (though liable to be recalled to active duty if need arises).
Failure to complete the training or inability to serve is grounds for immediate loss of citizenship privileges.
I wonder how many would jump at the chance for that kind of citizenship.
(Nod to Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers").
“I'll state the obvious: Under our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage.”
"And that is the one practical difference."
"He may fail in wisdom, he may lapse in civic virtue. But his average performance is enormously better than that of any other class of rulers in history."
- - - Major Reid, from “Starship Troopers,” by Robert A. Heinlein
This is very close to the ideal of the Founders, but still not quite what the republican form entailed. As to the indirect democratic form, we know that Militia duty did require all male citizens (17-45) to train, fight, and die, on command of the government. But the original republican form of government made citizenship a step DOWN in status, and imposed obligations and duties, such that only those who placed the welfare of the group (his nation) ahead of personal advantage, would be inclined to be citizens and public servants bound to a higher standard of behavior.
Instead of rulers, the government officers would be servants, and those voting or serving in the government would be composed of veterans of at least four years of militia service (17-21). . . . and be liable to be called up until age 45.
In the republican form, the people who did not consent to be governed, retained their sovereign status (“equals with no superior” and "sovereigns without subjects").
“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves. . .
“... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.”
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
America was not founded upon universal, unconditional voting rights.
But it grew into it.
Quote:
The state in this country, right NOW, is that humongous swaths
of the population have absolutely no idea why they are voting for
any particular candidate or issue, other than superficial assessments
of personality they see on television in controlled environments.
Many know nothing about the world, economics, history, science,
or even general geography.
They couldn't even describe how the governments, Federal, State, City,
etc function. They lack the ability to make informed decisions.
Solution:
A fairly simple, rudimentary quiz that would only take about 10-15 minutes
to complete, done at the polls, same for everyone, of which the prospective
voter would have to score a passing grade before being allowed to choose
our leaders. What do you think about this proposal ?
Poll tests have been declared unconstitutional.
Of course, you're free to take up your cause with the courts.
Keep us informed.
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.
