PDA

View Full Version : Conditions on voting?



CaughtintheMiddle1990
02-11-2010, 08:35 AM
Do you think there should be certain conditions on which one can vote? To be specific, I mean test which would prove one is able and knowledgable enough about one's government to vote?

I posted this in another thread, but here would be my rough idea for a test to vote in a Presidential General Election. Perhaps it should be tougher or easier.

The Prospective should be able shown via the the test:

1) The prospective voter understands and can read and write English.
2) That the prospective voter be able to list (if not in Amendment order, then at least the content/limits on government of the amendments themselves) the Bill of Rights.
3) That the prospective voter is be able to name at least three of the Founding Fathers.
4) That the prospective voter should be able to name at least five or ten previous presidents.
5) (Perhaps) The prospective voter should be able to the name of the current of House Minority and Majority Leaders, and the Speaker of the House and name which party currently holds power in Congress, and the Speaker of the House.
6) That the prospective voter be able to correctly identify via some multiple choice questions some campaign promises/policies of each candidate.
7) Be able to correctly the name three branches of Government and in brief their most basic functions. Could be a multiple choice answer or a few multiple choice answers to simplicy or shorten the test.
8) Be able to correctly identify each candidates' Vice Presidential pick.

Perhaps also a multiple choice question as to the cause of the Revolution--IE, what the Founders were fighting for/over.

Perhaps also the prospective voter could also correctly identify the correct gaffes/statements of each Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate. For example and what led me to this idea was, I saw a video from the 2008 campaign wherein a prospective Obama voter was read the ''57 States'' gaffe made by Obama and asked who they thought said the gaffe; many of the prospective Obama voters wrongly believed that Sarah Palin had made the 57 States Gaffe. Other Obama voters believed Joe Biden was McCain's VP pick and vice versa. Many Obama voters also wrongly guessed that the GOP had majority status in Congress.

If the prospective voter doesn't answer a certain number of questions correct (like say 14 out of 20 at least) sorry, you can't vote. Learn more about your country, candidates and government and try again next time.

Maybe an even harder version of the test would require the prospective voter to at least name 20 of the Constitution's amendments and briefly summarize them. This could also be a multiple choice question of some sort.

What do you guys think of the idea? Is it Democratic? Do you think the Founders would've approved? Any additions/additional questions you'd like to add? Less? It think the Founders would've agreed as they originally intended for limitations on who could vote--Land owning white males. While I disagree with their criteria, I believe in the idea that voters should met a certain qualification; not a race baed or land owning qualification but one's knowledge of their land and government. That's part of the reason the Founders put the Electoral College in place, as it was a safeguard against a majority of what was then mostly uneducated farmers electing a truly unsuitable candidate.

linda22003
02-11-2010, 08:47 AM
What do you guys think of the idea? Is it Democratic? Do you think the Founders would've approved? Any additions/additional questions you'd like to add? Less? It think the Founders would've agreed as they originally intended for limitations on who could vote--Land owning white males. While I disagree with their criteria, I believe in the idea that voters should met a certain qualification; not a race baed or land owning qualification but one's knowledge of their land and government.

The idea is, of course, not democratic (no capital "D" needed); the founders didn't envision anyone but people like themselves voting, which is why they constructed the criteria the way they did.

While I think it would be admirable for people to understand how their government works, I don't see us returning to restrictive voting tactics, as was attempted to keep black people from the polls.

Who sets the criteria? If people were disenfranchised because they didn't know when to use "fewer" instead of "less" in a sentence, for example, you'd be totally screwed.

Jfor
02-11-2010, 08:56 AM
How about this, if you pay income taxes then you can vote. If you receive government handouts, you don't. Pretty damn simple to me. Would get a lot of liberals out of congress. The looters would not have a say anymore.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
02-11-2010, 09:04 AM
How about this, if you pay income taxes then you can vote. If you receive government handouts, you don't. Pretty damn simple to me. Would get a lot of liberals out of congress. The looters would not have a say anymore.

So veterans who served their country, maybe even got injured serving it, and might've received GI Bill funded education, or later in life perhaps had VA Hospital care or insurance, shouldn't be allowed to vote? Retired people who don't receive income? Disabled in any way and unable to work? What about Social Security recipiants?

AlmostThere
02-11-2010, 09:12 AM
To legally drive a car down the street, you have to take a test. No, 2 tests. Written and driving. For a multitude of jobs that people commonly have, you have to pass a test to show you are proficient before you can perform the job. Why is it so incredulous to think that for someone to perform one of the most important acts a citizen is called on to perform, they should have some idea what the hell it is they are voting for and why? IMHO, an ignorant electorate can easily have a more negative effect than if there hadn't even been a free election.

linda22003
02-11-2010, 09:21 AM
So veterans who served their country, maybe even got injured serving it, and might've received GI Bill funded education, or later in life perhaps had VA Hospital care or insurance, shouldn't be allowed to vote? Retired people who don't receive income? Disabled in any way and unable to work? What about Social Security recipiants?

See? You don't like those criteria; there are other criteria others would hate. It's not going to become more restrictive.

FlaGator
02-11-2010, 09:41 AM
So veterans who served their country, maybe even got injured serving it, and might've received GI Bill funded education, or later in life perhaps had VA Hospital care or insurance, shouldn't be allowed to vote? Retired people who don't receive income? Disabled in any way and unable to work? What about Social Security recipiants?

Which validates the point that voting criteria can't be come less inclusive. It would open the door for congress to start using voting priviledges for social engineering much like it uses federal income taxes.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
02-11-2010, 09:46 AM
How about this, if you pay income taxes then you can vote. If you receive government handouts, you don't. Pretty damn simple to me. Would get a lot of liberals out of congress. The looters would not have a say anymore.


See? You don't like those criteria; there are other criteria others would hate. It's not going to become more restrictive.

Understable, it's just I felt that the criteria I laid out was rather reasonable...Why shouldn't a voter have to at least know SOMETHING about who he's voting for?
It's like that other poster said, you take tests in order to drive. You take tests to determine eligibility for most jobs. You have to meet a certain criteria to join the army. Why shouldn't you take a test to determine whether you should vote? It's a job like any other except in our country it's one of the most important jobs/duties one can fulfill--for he or she who votes is he or she who determines his nation's future and the future his or her countrymen. That's a pretty big responsibility, and it shouldn't be in the hands of those who know don't even know the basic facts about the government or candidate they're voting for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8 A product of the non-educated voter.

OT but: The VA, imo, is a worthy program and the users of that program deserve it--Particularly those veterans who were injured in combat. They served and gave more to their government and country than most, I think the government ''owes'' them a little in return. Say what you want about volunteer soldiers, that they knew what they were getting into, but those who were drafted and served (for example Vietnam and WWII vets) rather than running and shirking their duty, and who were hurt in the line of duty deserve some kind of compensation. The VA is also viable in my opinion because I consider the Military to be a division of government, answerable to Congress and commanded by the CoC and Chief Executive. Therefore, military officials are employees of the government; It's a government conpensation program for government employees, the same way most businesses have a retirement package or compensation.

Sorry for the OT rant.

Constitutionally Speaking
02-11-2010, 02:30 PM
I don't think we could constitutionally do this, but I think that you should not be allowed to vote on anything that does not directly affect you.


- not even sure I worded the above sentence correctly, but as an example: You should not be able to vote to raise any tax that you do not pay yourself.

Speedy
02-11-2010, 03:00 PM
In a word, no. Ballots should be printed in English and that is it. The right to vote is a right granted by God to every citizen and should not be restricted in anyway. I hate all of this, the ones who know better are the ones who should vote. And who would make the rules? Congress? That bunch of retards? I have more confidence in the PEOPLE who vote for a lousy candidate than I do in the candidate they vote for. Like the last thing we need is Congress putting more restrictions on anything.

AlmostThere
02-11-2010, 04:20 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8 A product of the non-educated voter.


Besides being uneducated voters, these folks are textbook examples of what we can expect when the press is on it's knees in front of one party or the other.

djones520
02-11-2010, 04:26 PM
In a word, no. Ballots should be printed in English and that is it. The right to vote is a right granted by God to every citizen and should not be restricted in anyway. I hate all of this, the ones who know better are the ones who should vote. And who would make the rules? Congress? That bunch of retards? I have more confidence in the PEOPLE who vote for a lousy candidate than I do in the candidate they vote for. Like the last thing we need is Congress putting more restrictions on anything.

You do manage to make some damn good posts every now and then.

FeebMaster
02-11-2010, 05:38 PM
oh, it's this thread again.

I'd keep things simple and only have one restriction at the federal level.

If you get a check from the feds, you don't vote.

djones520
02-11-2010, 05:43 PM
oh, it's this thread again.

I'd keep things simple and only have one restriction at the federal level.

If you get a check from the feds, you don't vote.

Yeah... no. I've given up a good number of my rights already wearing this uniform. The right to vote is not anyone I plan on giving up.

Jfor
02-11-2010, 06:38 PM
There is NO federal right to vote.

stsinner
02-11-2010, 07:46 PM
I'd be satisfied with merely having to show a photo ID. A radical idea, I know..

Troll
02-11-2010, 08:22 PM
Actually, I think everyone should be allowed to vote.

There should just be a 5-question political quiz on your ballot that decides if your vote COUNTS or not.

Miss 1 or less, your vote counts. Miss 2 or more, it goes into the shred box.

Our country is being destroyed by what we let into the voting booth.

patriot45
02-11-2010, 08:26 PM
There is NO federal right to vote.

Hear, hear! Alot of people don't know that!

Troll
02-11-2010, 08:26 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOZ-Etb0k0Q&feature=related

Just think - these people have their hands in your wallet! What a country!

http://jamespaulgaard.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/yakov-smirnoff.jpg

stsinner
02-11-2010, 10:00 PM
I want to punch somebody every time I listen to those ignorant ****s...

FeebMaster
02-11-2010, 10:02 PM
Just think - these people have their hands in your wallet! What a country!

http://jamespaulgaard.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/yakov-smirnoff.jpg


To be fair, everyone in this thread has their hands in my wallet too. I don't exactly find that any more thrilling.

Rockntractor
02-11-2010, 10:10 PM
To be fair, everyone in this thread has their hands in my wallet too. I don't exactly find that any more thrilling.
Last time I checked you were out of twenties, got any more?:confused:

FeebMaster
02-11-2010, 10:11 PM
Last time I checked you were out of twenties, got any more?:confused:

Not until tomorrow morning.

Rockntractor
02-11-2010, 10:13 PM
Not until tomorrow morning.

Thanks I'll check back later!:D

patriot45
02-11-2010, 10:30 PM
Conditions on voting? How about just 1 little condition?

Just name the 2 headliners on each ticket! If you can't do that, what are you actually doing at a voting booth!?!

Rockntractor
02-11-2010, 10:32 PM
Conditions on voting? How about just 1 little condition?

Just name the 2 headliners on each ticket! If you can't do that, what are you actually doing at a voting booth!?!
Just out hangin a chad man!:D

AmPat
02-11-2010, 11:22 PM
The idea is, of course, not democratic (no capital "D" needed); the founders didn't envision anyone but people like themselves voting, which is why they constructed the criteria the way they did.

While I think it would be admirable for people to understand how their government works, I don't see us returning to restrictive voting tactics, as was attempted to keep black people from the polls.

Who sets the criteria? If people were disenfranchised because they didn't know when to use "fewer" instead of "less" in a sentence, for example, you'd be totally screwed.

Nobody is suggesting so stringent a test as to exclude or alienate specific groups. That is specific groups who don't fall into the "too stupid to vote group."

Immigrants must pass a simple test to become citizens. Would it be too much to ask our citizens to have the same knowledge as our prospective citizens?

Would it be wise to let people who have no vested interest in our country a vote? I think no! The fat, DUmb, and lazy will soon vote themselves ever larger slices of a pie they never helped bake.

Look at the preponderance of You Tube videos (Jay walking or Howard Stern) of completely stupid and/or ignorant O Blah Blah voters. They gave us the most clueless, ill-prepared, narcissistic and arrogant moron ever elected to POTUS. (Move over Jimmy Carter).