C'mon, admit it. You, too, support a voter's test and than a license.

[Stinky The Clown]

I know, I know ..... its a horrible idea. I agree. This post is as much one of humor as it is sardonic wishful thinking.

Wouldn't it be a MUCH better world if all voters had to pass ... I dunno ..... a 'critical thinking skills assessment test' in order to be given a license to vote?

Some people are just too stupid to vote.

(NO ... I DO NOT really support a voters test.)

[niyad]

1. still, it IS a tempting thought, isn't it? so long as I am the one to

administer the tests, that is!!!

[Mountainman]

2. How about only land owner men vote?

Well I fell into the way back machine again.

[DRoseDARs]

4. Oh look, a strawman...

:eyes:

Actually, passing a civics class at a publicly-funded school as a requirement before being eligible to vote isn't a terrible idea. We already have safeguards in place to defend against discrimination in public education (proper funding issues aside...that's a whole other matter), so discrimination in this kind of program for the post-public education crowd is avoidable at least as much. I don't care how much or how little education one has outside of basic civics, but if you don't know squat about how our government system works or why your vote matters then it's like handing someone who has never seen a gun firsthand - much less fired one - and saying, "Here, take this and cover me..." No good can come of an uneducated electorate; it's why we keep electing scum to office.

[FILAM23]

9. Actually

it is a very bad idea. It would violate the constitutional
right of every citizen to vote. It is no better then the poll
taxes of old.

[DRoseDARs]

14. Read post #6 why I disagree with your point and post#5's n/t

[Solon]

15. Actually, that is not the case...

The Constitution, before the Civil War, had NO mention as to who can vote and who can't, that was left up to the states(10th Amendment). Then, after the civil war, two specific amendments passed that said that you cannot forbid someone the vote due to Religion(14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable to state and local law), or Race(15th Amendment). This didn't change till the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920, when Women couldn't be discriminated against in regards to voting by the states. Then there are two other Amendments to mention, Amendment 24(1967), which forbade poll taxes, and Amendment 26(1971), which lowered the voting age to 18. Now, in NONE of these amendments to they state you have an ABSOLUTE right to vote, in fact, all states CAN revoke your right to vote IF you are convicted of a felony, that is in the Constitution, under Amendment 15.

Beyond this, the only thing protecting your right to vote is state and federal legislation that expand on these amendments. A state could, tomorrow, forbid all non-property owners from voting, just like at the beginning of this country, its perfectly Constitutional, as long as it applies to ALL non-property owners. Hell, they could add in salary requirements, whatever they want, really, that can restrict who can vote, as long as they stay within the requirements of the Constitution itself. Whether that is politically expedient is another question entirely.

[bananas]

3. No Voter Left Behind?

[ReadTomPaine]

5. I'd much rather have a mandatory holiday on election day...

or a mandatory obligation to vote, for that matter.

[DRoseDARs]

6. Have to disagree. Coercion TO vote is no different than coercion to BLOCK

...a person's right to vote. And before someone says it, right there in the USC anyone has the right to hold office but there are restrictions. To me, requiring a basic publicly-funded education in civics and our system of government before being allowed to vote is no different than having to meet basic requirements before being allowed to hold certain elected offices.

[The Magistrate]

7. It Is A Ghastly Temptation Sometimes, Sir

One of those ideas that sounds pretty good, but that no bureaucracy ever extant or conceivable could be trusted to administer fairly....

[Stinky The Clown]

10. I know that, Mag .... and you know I know that ....

.... this is just the late night musing of a semisenile clown .......

[The Magistrate]

11. Certainly,. Sir

Lord knows, though, the number of idiots voting does sometimes give one pause....

"I prefer the wicked to the foolish: the wicked sometimes rest."

[izzybeans]

8. I'd much rather fully fund the schools.

It's obvious some folks were left behind in civics class.

[skids]

16. What civics class?

Civics, a.k.a. Social Studies, a.k.a. the whole damn reason why we have public education in this country in the first place, is a ghost of a shell of its former self.

High school students should be required to pass the U.S. Citizenship exam given to new immigrants as a condition of graduation. At least it would be a start.

That solves that.

[welshTerrier2]

12. i am open to exploring "mandatory voter education"

just as a challenge, and to be honest i have NOT thought this through very far, ask yourself this if you are willing to dismiss any form of "minimum voter education" (not voter testing): what is the difference between giving jurors the option of whether they want to sit in the court and listen to evidence during the trial versus allowing voters to vote without at least having heard some information?

assuming you argue jurors have an obligation to at least "BE THERE" to hear the testimony, why would you accept a lower standard for something that potentially could have far greater impact?

having said that, i would never support any kind of testing of voters whatsoever ... voters should be free to cast their votes based on whatever criteria they prefer ...

HOWEVER, that does not mean we should not be concerned about voters who just don't know anything ... their friends told them candidate X was good so that's how they vote ... that seems like a recipe for money and lies and propaganda and slick media campaigns and all the other problems to carry too much weight ...

I'm not sure what the best way to address these problems is but i'm tempted to look at something like a film being shown at the polling stations for all candidates for national office ... the film might give each candidate only two minutes or whatever and could contain only a speech by the candidate with no special effects ... i'm sure they'll be objections to this for all kinds of reasons ...

still, voter ignorance is destroying the country and probably destroying life on the planet ... to reject this should require big reasons; not little reasons ...

to dismiss any kind of imposition on voters whatsoever is all very "democratic"; we cannot continue, however, to address our critical national problems under the dark cloud of widespread voter ignorance ... requiring voters to be "burdened" with a brief 5 or 10 minute video (with no test of any kind on the material) does NOT seem like too much to ask ...

[unkachuck]

13. you might be going....

....in the wrong direction....I think what we really need is our own internet-hacker-voting-machine-company that makes electronic voting machines that yield only Democratic victories....

....we then install them in the Blue states, sneak them into as many Red states as possible and then we challenge any and all repug wins in the courts....

....having our electoral success depend on 'thinking' Americans is going to be way too difficult....

[NMMNG]

17. In case you're not kidding

I think what we really need is our own internet-hacker-voting-machine-company that makes electronic voting machines that yield only Democratic victories....

....we then install them in the Blue states, sneak them into as many Red states as possible and then we challenge any and all repug wins in the courts....


I disagree. Stooping to their level and being dishonest is not the way to play, even if it means losing another election.

[baldguy]

18. Given the history of "literacy" tests & poll taxes in America

It would be a VERY BAD idea to reinstate them.