Poll: Should You Have To Pass A Test To Vote?
- Thread starter IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life
- Start date
My guess is my grades in the likes of government, economics, and history in high school and college far surpass that of whatever you needed for your GED.
If you eat 5 pounds of shit a week you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
You haven’t even made it through 6th grade doorknob.....
Where in the Constitution does it say the voter has to be informed, educated or even smart?
How does one like you feel it necessary to change the Constitution and the basic rights of Americans?
I suppose you would write the test, too?
How does one like you feel it necessary to change the Constitution and the basic rights of Americans?
I suppose you would write the test, too?
What like: Should I eat shit? Should I **** my cousin? Are those normal?
I would be in favor of that but historically that was used to supress minority votes.
We should actually make political candidates pass a test on the US Constitution for federal office, and US Constitution and State Constitution for State and local office.
The problem with any test is who gets to write it.
The problem with any test is who gets to write it.
Almost impossible to even ask the simplest of question without shouts of bias coming up.
While we’re at it, let’s raise the voting age to 30 and not allow women to vote. Does that help your narrative, OP?
Even though I lean towards one party, I feel we need at least two strong political parties in the US, otherwise our democratic republic doesn’t work.
Requiring a test to vote would completely obliterate the GOP. And I don’t trust any party with unbridled power, including the Dems.
Requiring a test to vote would completely obliterate the GOP. And I don’t trust any party with unbridled power, including the Dems.
Yeah, study those they used to use in the south to keep blacks from voting.
Of course, the answer is no, but considering we elected a reality TV host president, maybe we should consider it.
I definitely agree with you on the age requirement. ... the other part; not so much.
Thirty does sound about right for entry-level voting.
Always about 100% control with this guy.
Yes. A test on who can show proof of identification in the form of drivers license, passport, or free voter registration ID. Should also show proof you filed taxes last year.
Unless the questions are about what to do in a tornado if you live in a double-wide, the career of John Cena, or about the ways in which white people are the most oppressed people in America, Trump supporters are going to have a hard time getting the right to vote.
I would suggest a loyalty test as in;"Do you support Russian backed candidates?"
In addition to a test I would fully support a persons voting power being reduced if you are not a tax paying property owner or not employed. And eliminated all together if you receive welfare.
Dock them a certain percentage on each category.
Dock them a certain percentage on each category.
Welp, that takes out about 90 percent of Trump Supporters. I am in favor of this then.
Higher percentage of the public owns property than votes currently.
Would be neat from a sociological experiment perspective (akin to East and West Germany) to see how several States doing this would affect legislation.
I always like Bastiat's take on this in The Law:
"What I wish to observe is this, that this same controversy (in common with the greater part of political questions) which agitates, excites, and unsettles the nations, would lose almost all its importance if the law had always been what it ought to be.
In fact, if law were confined to causing all persons, all liberties, and all properties to be respected — if it were merely the organization of individual right and individual defense — if it were the obstacle, the check, the chastisement opposed to all oppression, to all plunder — is it likely that we should dispute much, as citizens, on the subject of the greater or less universality of suffrage? Is it likely that it would compromise that greatest of advantages, the public peace? Is it likely that the excluded classes would not quietly wait for their turn? Is it likely that the enfranchised classes would be very jealous of their privilege? And is it not clear, that the interest of all being one and the same, some would act without much inconvenience to the others?
But if the fatal principle should come to be introduced, that, under pretence of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law may take from one party in order to give to another, help itself to the wealth acquired by all the classes that it may increase that of one class, whether that of the agriculturists, the manufacturers, the ship owners, or artists and comedians; then certainly, in this case, there is no class which may not pretend, and with reason, to place its hand upon the law, which would not demand with fury its right of election and eligibility, and which would overturn society rather than not obtain it. Even beggars and vagabonds will prove to you that they have an incontestable title to it. They will say:
"We never buy wine, tobacco, or salt, without paying the tax, and a part of this tax is given by law in perquisites and gratuities to men who are richer than we are. Others make use of the law to create an artificial rise in the price of bread, meat, iron, or cloth. Since everybody traffics in law for his own profit, we should like to do the same. We should like to make it produce the right to assistance, which is the poor man's plunder. To effect this, we ought to be electors and legislators, that we may organize, on a large scale, alms for our own class, as you have organized, on a large scale, protection for yours. Don't tell us that you will take our cause upon yourselves, and throw to us 600,000 francs to keep us quiet, like giving us a bone to pick. We have other claims, and, at any rate, we wish to stipulate for ourselves, as other classes have stipulated for themselves!"
How is this argument to be answered? Yes, as long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true mission, that it may violate property instead of securing it, everybody will be wanting to manufacture law, either to defend himself against plunder, or to organize it for his own profit. The political question will always be prejudicial, predominant, and absorbing; in a word, there will be fighting around the door of the Legislative Palace. The struggle will be no less furious within it. To be convinced of this, it is hardly necessary to look at what passes in the Chambers in France and in England; it is enough to know how the question stands."
^ A Trump supporter uttering (very) thinly veiled racism. BAU.
At least you are honest about your intentions with this now.
Well,,,,,,when the constitution was written you had to own property to vote. So you had to be smart or industrious enough to acquire land or a slave.
Then we went and let women vote, JFC has that been a mistake.
Hell, up until 1974 a woman could not get a loan from most banks without a male co-signer. Plus, when they did get approval, they could only get the loan based on 50% of their wages. This is how much the world has changed.
This is where our fathers and grandfathers screwed up, they gave women too much power, and now they tell us what to do. So the next time your wife or girlfriend is bossing you around, just remember at one time we had the beasts under control, and we messed up. Maybe it is not too late to go back, I dunno?
Last edited:
Similar threads
