Voting: Why shouldn't there be a test/minimum requirement?

[NDallasRuss]

There are SO many unintelligent people in this country. I mean a LOT! And it's certainly not right vs left, as there are PLENTY of dumb people on both sides. Why do we let these people have a say in who leads our government? Why do they get a hand in deciding who makes the decisions that impact our lives? You wouldn't let most of these people do anything else that has an impact on you, why this?

I think we change the constitution to require some kind of minimum competency exam in order to vote. Nothing that is based on color, sex, land ownership, etc., but something that assesses a minimum level of brainpower needed to make important decisions like this.

We require tests for a lot of things - some of which are far less important than our government. You have to take a test to drive a forklift. If you work for a utility you have to take tests for things like climbing a ladder. Why wouldn't we have some kind of testing mechanism that weeds out the dumb people, and leaves the decision-making to the rest of us? They can still vote for other things, like their favorite Kardashian, or the next flavor of Doritos, but not this.

Instead of Getting Out The Vote, I say we Take Back The Vote! Who's with me?!?!?!

 

[ping72]

While I’d prefer uninformed voters stayed away from the polls, I’ll fight tooth and nail for every American’s right to vote.

 

[ConvenientParking]

I mean, I don't like dumb people either, but I don't know how you agree on these criteria other than picking an age of majority. No taxation without representation. I say you gotta eff up to lose that right.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

If the right tried to suggest that it would immediately get thrown out for POC not having access to the same educational advantages. What you are really trying to say russ is dumb white people shouldnt vote, and that my friend is racism coming full circle.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

No test. It should be mandatory to vote.

 

[hawkland14]

Here we have a known leftist advocating for a Jim Crow era type literacy test in order to vote. In some ways, The Democratic Party really hasn't changed much in the last 150 years.

 

[ConvenientParking]

Here we have a known leftist advocating for a Jim Crow era type literacy test in order to vote. In some ways, The Democratic Party really hasn't changed much in the last 150 years.

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think Russ is a leftist. I am. We both don't like Trump, but he's not a leftist.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Here we have a known leftist advocating for a Jim Crow era type literacy test in order to vote. In some ways, The Democratic Party really hasn't changed much in the last 150 years.

link?

 

[NDallasRuss]

If the right tried to suggest that it would immediately get thrown out for POC not having access to the same educational advantages. What you are really trying to say russ is dumb white people shouldnt vote, and that my friend is racism coming full circle.

You seem to be one of the people I'd put at risk.

1) I specifically say it can't be based on color.
2) I'm not a leftie/lib/dem/whatever.
3) I'm saying that ALL dumb people shouldn't vote - and yes, that also includes whites.
4) It wouldn't be like a version of the SAT, where having gone to an elite private school, or having access to tutors would make a difference. Just some kind of basic competency exam to weed out people that really shouldn't be living on their own. It could encompass the young, the old, anyone who isn't mentally fit to be around sharp objects.

 

[TJ8869]

It should be mandatory to vote.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

freeloaders are worthless.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

While I’d prefer uninformed voters stayed away from the polls, I’ll fight tooth and nail for every American’s right to vote.

Including mine?.......

 

[NDallasRuss]

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think Russ is a leftist. I am. We both don't like Trump, but he's not a leftist.

Yeah, that's kind of weird. "A known leftist" - that's not something I get said about me often. There are some things I'm fairly liberal about - like people having the right to be happy regardless of their sexual orientation, and abortion - I do like abortion. There's also a lot I'm pretty far right on - like government size/spending, most immigration, and the death penalty - I really do love me some death penalty. Really though I'm just REALLY strongly anti-Trump. Blame it on my strong sense of right and wrong. He's not a good person - by any measure.

 

[TJ8869]

freeloaders are worthless.

 

[Huey Grey]

No test. It should be mandatory to vote.

For me, I want automatic registration, ballot requests mailed the everyone, even beyond pandemics, and most importantly for the elimination of the EC.

 

[SoDakHawk]

I mean, I don't like dumb people either, but I don't know how you agree on these criteria other than picking an age of majority. No taxation without representation. I say you gotta eff up to lose that right.

Bingo, with a twist. Those that don't pay taxes and receive all sorts of government benefits shouldn't get a vote. You see what's happening now, that slow trickle of more and more people on government assistance (all sorts of government assistance) and voting to keep it that way. The freeloaders in this country shouldn't have a say in how much those who contribute to this country pay in taxes. No representation without taxation. Everybody should have some skin in the pot.

 

[NDallasRuss]

Alternatively...

What if we legally outlawed political parties?

People could run for office, but they'd have to rely on their positions on different issues. Their stances on things like immigration, military spending, etc. may identify them as being "liberal" or "conservative", but they couldn't rely on "I'm a Republican" or "I'm a Democrat" to draw in segments of voters. When you went to vote you'd have nothing but the candidates names to pick from - so you'd have to know enough about them to know who you wanted to vote for.

 

[Huey Grey]

Bingo, with a twist. Those that don't pay taxes and receive all sorts of government benefits shouldn't get a vote. You see what's happening now, that slow trickle of more and more people on government assistance (all sorts of government assistance) and voting to keep it that way. The freeloaders in this country shouldn't have a say in how much those who contribute to this country pay in taxes. No representation without taxation. Everybody should have some skin in the pot.

Looks like Trump and his family won't be voting then.

 

[hawkedoff]

link?

Pick up a history book.

 

[SoDakHawk]

Looks like Trump and his family won't be voting then.

A whole bunch of rich grifters who have rigged the system in their favor wouldn't get a vote under my system. You seem to think I'm only talking about poor people on welfare who sit on their butts all day. Well, yeah, they don't get to vote either, but neither do the "rich" grifters.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Pick up a history book.

The point was who is the leftist you are talking about ITT

 

[ConvenientParking]

Alternatively...

What if we legally outlawed political parties?

People could run for office, but they'd have to rely on their positions on different issues. Their stances on things like immigration, military spending, etc. may identify them as being "liberal" or "conservative", but they couldn't rely on "I'm a Republican" or "I'm a Democrat" to draw in segments of voters. When you went to vote you'd have nothing but the candidates names to pick from - so you'd have to know enough about them to know who you wanted to vote for.

How do you do this (the ballot part makes sense)? I imagine it'd have to do with altering campaign finance. I'd be okay if there was a way to do this that didn't quickly revert back to parties after the parties figured out the new system.

 

[NDallasRuss]

How do you do this (the ballot part makes sense)? I imagine it'd have to do with altering campaign finance. I'd be okay if there was a way to do this that didn't quickly revert back to parties after the parties figured out the new system.

I'm not sure. Maybe you could change the rules so people (and corporations, because apparently they're people too) can only donate to individual candidates - not to the RNC, DNC, PACs, etc. Make it so the money couldn't got through a third-party aggregator. You want to back a candidate? Then back a candidate. Maybe that encourages people to support local candidates more.

 

[hexumhawk]

I like the idea that there is a scale and where you score on the scale, the more weight your vote has.

 

[ATLNole1]

Alternatively...

What if we legally outlawed political parties?

People could run for office, but they'd have to rely on their positions on different issues. Their stances on things like immigration, military spending, etc. may identify them as being "liberal" or "conservative", but they couldn't rely on "I'm a Republican" or "I'm a Democrat" to draw in segments of voters. When you went to vote you'd have nothing but the candidates names to pick from - so you'd have to know enough about them to know who you wanted to vote for.

I kind of like this idea. We don't need to completely outlaw parties but at least not have candidates run under a party affiliation. Here in GA, judges do not run under a party affiliation so I am forced to research their positions/past decisions to find out if they are conservative or liberal. At least people would have to know the name of the person they are voting for and not just go straight party vote. I don't know if people are just dumb or uninformed but it is amazing the amount of people who can't name at least one of their Senators.

 

[NDallasRuss]

I like the idea that there is a scale and where you score on the scale, the more weight your vote has.

I like that. It would motivate people to learn more and improve themselves if they want to be a "super voter".

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

You seem to be one of the people I'd put at risk.

1) I specifically say it can't be based on color.
2) I'm not a leftie/lib/dem/whatever.
3) I'm saying that ALL dumb people shouldn't vote - and yes, that also includes whites.
4) It wouldn't be like a version of the SAT, where having gone to an elite private school, or having access to tutors would make a difference. Just some kind of basic competency exam to weed out people that really shouldn't be living on their own. It could encompass the young, the old, anyone who isn't mentally fit to be around sharp objects.

Your intentions may be good but your on crack if you think this country is moving towards less people having a say not more.

 

[FSUTribe76]

Alternatively...

What if we legally outlawed political parties?

People could run for office, but they'd have to rely on their positions on different issues. Their stances on things like immigration, military spending, etc. may identify them as being "liberal" or "conservative", but they couldn't rely on "I'm a Republican" or "I'm a Democrat" to draw in segments of voters. When you went to vote you'd have nothing but the candidates names to pick from - so you'd have to know enough about them to know who you wanted to vote for.

So the only problem with that (and trust me I’m 100,000% on board with you about how both parties blow and need to be limited) is that you’d end up only wealthy individuals who could afford to essentially self-fund their campaign.

 

[Bulldogs1974]

maybe you should have to pass a fake news test. If you can't understand actual facts.... maybe.....

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

These tests have a history that you can't just wish away though. They have been used to discriminate in the past.

And realistically I'd be careful as they could be used for that again.

I think we need to look elsewhere to get a better informed voting block.

 

[BelemNole]

I like that. It would motivate people to learn more and improve themselves if they want to be a "super voter".

A major problem with ideas like this is that people still have to make the test. And where people are involved bias is involved.
Another major problem is that you would need to provide the test in every language found in the US in order to be impartial. Remember, we have no official language. Are you not considered smart enough because you don't know english? Or because you're blind? Are you ineligible because you're illiterate? Blind?

 

[NDallasRuss]

So the only problem with that (and trust me I’m 100,000% on board with you about how both parties blow and need to be limited) is that you’d end up only wealthy individuals who could afford to essentially self-fund their campaign.

Or maybe it would work out like kind of a "league promotion" system where a candidate starts local and gets more and more name recognition as they move up through larger roles/positions? A City Councilperson is elected to the County Board of Supervisors, then the State House, then Lt Governor, then US House, etc.

 

[hawkifann]

There are SO many unintelligent people in this country. I mean a LOT! And it's certainly not right vs left, as there are PLENTY of dumb people on both sides. Why do we let these people have a say in who leads our government? Why do they get a hand in deciding who makes the decisions that impact our lives? You wouldn't let most of these people do anything else that has an impact on you, why this?

I think we change the constitution to require some kind of minimum competency exam in order to vote. Nothing that is based on color, sex, land ownership, etc., but something that assesses a minimum level of brainpower needed to make important decisions like this.

We require tests for a lot of things - some of which are far less important than our government. You have to take a test to drive a forklift. If you work for a utility you have to take tests for things like climbing a ladder. Why wouldn't we have some kind of testing mechanism that weeds out the dumb people, and leaves the decision-making to the rest of us? They can still vote for other things, like their favorite Kardashian, or the next flavor of Doritos, but not this.

Instead of Getting Out The Vote, I say we Take Back The Vote! Who's with me?!?!?!

I'd be more interested in testing candidates for office.

 

[naturalmwa]

Stupid lives matter.

 

[NDallasRuss]

A major problem with ideas like this is that people still have to make the test. And where people are involved bias is involved.
Another major problem is that you would need to provide the test in every language found in the US in order to be impartial. Remember, we have no official language. Are you not considered smart enough because you don't know english? Or because you're blind? Are you ineligible because you're illiterate? Blind?

There's got to be a basic set of information/facts that could be included in a test though.
- How many voting members in the US House of Representatives?
- Who's 3rd in line for presidential succession?
- Which was the first state to ratify the US constitution?
- Who breaks a tie in the Senate?
- Who was the 16th US President?

And I'd want them printed in different languages, accessible to the differently-abled, and free to take - in person or via some kind of mobile testing bus that could come around. I wouldn't want it done online because someone could have their smart cousin take it for them. I'd also mix up the order of the questions and the answers so people couldn't memorize the order of the right answers.

 

[BelemNole]

There's got to be a basic set of information/facts that could be included in a test though.
- How many voting members in the US House of Representatives?
- Who's 3rd in line for presidential succession?
- Which was the first state to ratify the US constitution?
- Who breaks a tie in the Senate?
- Who was the 16th US President?

And I'd want them printed in different languages, accessible to the differently-abled, and free to take - in person or via some kind of mobile testing bus that could come around. I wouldn't want it done online because someone could have their smart cousin take it for them. I'd also mix up the order of the questions and the answers so people couldn't memorize the order of the right answers.

I get what you're saying, but none of those questions help a person decide who will help them access healthcare, or get clean water, or keep their kids safe.
It would just end up skewing the voting block even further to the wealthy/privileged class. There's been enough of that already in our history.

 

[William Bonney]

Only tax paying US citizens should be allowed to vote.

 

[NDallasRuss]

I get what you're saying, but none of those questions help a person decide who will help them access healthcare, or get clean water, or keep their kids safe.
It would just end up skewing the voting block even further to the wealthy/privileged class. There's been enough of that already in our history.

My goal wouldn't be to help them decide who to vote for. Only to identify a population of voters who have the capacity for making sound decisions (whichever direction they go) that will impact all of us - rather than mindless warm bodies that go and check a box because their parents always checked that same box, or their neighbor/pastor/buddy told them that was the right box to check, etc.

 

[SSG T]

No test. It should be mandatory to vote.

I wouldn't go that far, but we should make it as easy as possible to vote. Anything that limits legally registered voters to vote should be removed.

 

[sober_teacher]

You seem to be one of the people I'd put at risk.

1) I specifically say it can't be based on color.
2) I'm not a leftie/lib/dem/whatever.
3) I'm saying that ALL dumb people shouldn't vote - and yes, that also includes whites.
4) It wouldn't be like a version of the SAT, where having gone to an elite private school, or having access to tutors would make a difference. Just some kind of basic competency exam to weed out people that really shouldn't be living on their own. It could encompass the young, the old, anyone who isn't mentally fit to be around sharp objects.

If you're trying to base it on some sort of intelligence exam, there isn't one that fits your criteria. Heck one's IQ will change to some extent throughout your life.