Should you be required to pass a test, in order to vote?

[Joe Fields]

This is just food for thought, people. It is a question that was raised by Jonah Goldberg, (I know, I know...But I subscribe to the old adage that you should keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer) in a commentary this morning. link...http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/214966.html

I have no doubt about the level of political awareness with us du members. If we weren't politically active, in one way or another we wouldn't be here. But it's safe to say that a large percentage of the voting public aren't as aware. So, what do you think? Even though it is a constitutional right, would this country be better served if...

disclaimer...(I realize it would open up a can of worms, and present a host of problems.)

second disclaimer...I loathe Jonah Goldberg, but I think for the first time I've read him he did make an interesting point. I'm interested in what all of you think.

[RB TexLa]

1. Like the old literacy tests?

[mojowork_n]

4. why not have tests

based on property ownership, like how many acres of cotton, or numbers of slaves?

Jonah Goldberg is one of the biggest douche bags in the punditocracy, right up there behind (often, literally) Victor Davis Hanson.

[TahitiNut]

8. Why oh why say "douche bags"?? Why not "enema bag"?

Just what is it about 'douche' that seems to be so attractive as an epithet? I just don't get it. It sounds so ... junior high school. (Sheesh!)

Here. This is an Enema Bag ...

[eggman67]

45. Less syllables

people are lazy :)

[mojowork_n]

90. I stand corrected.

Not to mention upbraided, chastised and reproved.

It is a pretty nasty (not to mention sexist) turn of phrase, isn't it?

I was on my lunch break and typing faster than I had time to think. My bad...

...However, I'm not quite ready to buy into 'enema bag'. Enema bags just hold hot water. If Jonah Goldberg was only full of overheated H2O he would not be the pestilential, oozing sore on the face of Print Journalism that he is.

So I think the proper comparison, referencing Jonah Goldberg, should be "colostomy bag", or for accuracy's sake (using that old "suspension of disbelief" trick, even though it presents a chronological discontinuity), is "walking, talking, sauropod dropping".

[RB TexLa]

10. I was trying to think of the questions and correct answers to Haley Barbour's test

for voting in Mississippi.

[China_cat]

2. Tests in order to be qualified to vote were used at one time.

In order to keep minorities from registering. If allowed, it would be used the same way this time except that it would also be skewed to keep out liberals, progressives and anyone else who happens to think that people are more important than things and that corporations aren't people.

[Pyrzqxgl]

57. How about only Republicans should take a test, maybe pay a poll tax too.

[China_cat]

72. No. Citizenship and qualifying age should be enough.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. I would rather that candidates pass a test to qualify for the ballot

Basic information on the Constitution (and state constitution and local charter when relevant), duties and responsibilities of the office for which they are running, national history (and state and local history when relevant), etc. In short, a basic civics exam to show that they are not the traditional gaggle of ignoramouses we usually must choose between.

[_testify_]

7. Spot on

That's who needs to prove their competency - not the voters but the candidates.

[Breeze54]

9. I think candidates should take lie detector tests and drug analysis tests, for starters!

:P

[Faux pas]

27. My thoughts exactly! n/t

[Joe Fields]

31. Really, I would much rather see that put into place. n/t.

[porphyrian]

5. No, we should fund public education like it matters to us.

We can't expect citizens to be well educated but not fund education adequately to do the job.

[slackmaster]

6. I propose the same test the Navy uses to determine eligibility for promotion from O1 to O2

Ensign to Lt. Junior Grade.

It's called the "mirror test". They hold a mirror near your mouth and nose. If it fogs up, you get the promotion.

[DutchLiberal]

11. I'm opposed to a test. It reminds me of the old days when only white rich men were allowed to vote.

We don't want to go back to that, do we? Besides, I think a good number of people on DU would fail such a test, too. (I'm not saying this to offend anyone. DU covers a wide variety of opinions and ways of expression, and that's a good thing.)

[yella_dawg]

12. I'm 100% in favor of poll testing.

Just as soon as you can convince me the test is not biased against any demographic and that the testing itself will not become a disincentive to voting.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

56. I sort of agree. I think that before this could happen, we need a MAJOR education

reform. As in, so it doesn't suck. However, I don't know if that's possible outside of a utopian society, so currently I would say no, simply because there isn't any good way to keep it from discriminating.

[Clark2008]

13. Jonah may be shooting his party in the foot with that idea.

When one considers how misinformed viewers of Faux News are and how unlikely they are to pass any test, Jonah's idea may help liberals rather than conservatives.

[IndyOp]

14. If Rethugs come up with questions & answers - all Faux approved - then

it would not hurt conservatives.

I am opposed under any circumstance to testing to qualify to vote -

[kenny blankenship]

15. Not a new idea-that was the basis of polling place discrimination against minorities from 1870s on

[dkofos]

16. No, but there should be parental competency test.

[EFerrari]

17. Don't test voters, test the machines they vote on. nt

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

25. Bingo! nt

[lonestarnot]

87. No tests, just trash the fucking machines already.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. How about we start with history tests?

Like ones that cover Jim Crow era literacy tests.

I think it's laughably ironic that people advocate for this sort of thing, given that they're obviously not that bright.

[EFerrari]

21. WJ used this as one of their questions the other day.

Unbelievable.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. WJ?

[EFerrari]

29. Washington Journal.

[Joe Fields]

68. I'm not advocating anything, and, although I can speak toward

Jonah Goldberg's bias, it wouldn't be fair to speak toward his intelligence. Who else might you be talking about?

Just for the sake of discussion, why would you be opposed to citizens proving that they can vote, if a fair testing mechanism were in place for all eligible voters?

[Zywiec]

19. Of course not. n/t

[fasttense]

20. Do you know where the term grandfathering a law or clause came from?

"The original Grandfather clauses were contained in the Jim Crow laws used from 1890 to 1910 in much of the Southern United States to prevent blacks, Native Americans, and certain whites from voting. Earlier prohibitions on voting in place prior to 1870 were nullified by the Fifteenth Amendment. In response, some states passed laws requiring poll taxes and/or supposed literacy tests from would-be voters. An exemption to these requirements was made for all persons allowed to vote before the American Civil War, and any of their descendants. The term was born from the fact that the law tied the then-current generation's voting rights to those of their grandfathers."

If your grandfather could vote, you didn't have to pass the literacy test.

Remember when property owners were the only people who could vote in the US? Well this is what Benjamin Franklin had to say about limiting who gets to vote: "Today a man owns a jackass worth fifty dollars and he is entitled to vote; but before the next election the jackass dies. ... The jackass is dead and the man cannot vote. Now, gentlemen, pray inform me, in whom is the right of suffrage, in the man or in the jackass?"

I guess you can tell I am absolutely against tests to vote. The repukes want it because as the number of voters voting decrease, the likelihood of a conservative or repuke being voted in increases.

If someone is honestly concerned that uninformed and ignorant people are voting, then they should ensure all American citizens are fully and completely educated. If the jackass in Benjamin Franklin's example could vote (if indirectly), then any American citizen should be able to pull it off.

[mainegreen]

22. There is a test: can you register to vote?

You pass that test, you can vote.

[Throwing Stones]

23. How about just a simple question?

Like name the CJ of the Supreme Court

or find Iraq on this map

If a putative voter can't answer either of those questions he or she shouldn't be voting.

[mondo joe]

33. Why?

Seriously?

[Throwing Stones]

34. If someone can't be bothered to find out that minimal amount of knowledge

is he or she making an informed decision or reacting to a negative campaign ad?

My guess is it's the latter and I'd prefer to have the elected chosen by people who are paying attention - and even single-issue voters are not really informed. Look how many lower and middle income people vote against their own interests.

[mondo joe]

37. That's rather undemocratic, IMO.

It assumes you know more about what makes a worthwhile vote than another voter does.

IMO, it's their vote, andthough I may disagree with other voters or eventhink they are uninformed idiots, the principle of equality says they havethe same right to vote asthey see fit that I have.

[Throwing Stones]

42. yup, and that's how we end up with 8 years of *

well, that and cheating, of course.

If a voter can't find Iraq on a map, then it's a pretty safe assumption that he or she isn't very informed and yes, therefore, that person's vote isn't as worthwhile as the vote of someone who takes the time to understand issues. Would you want your congressperson voting on legislation that he or she doesn't understand? I don't, and if my congressman is doing that, then his vote is not as worthwhile as the vote of his colleague who did take the time to study the issue (or at least have his staff provide him enough key information to cast an informed vote).

I'm not advocating a test, but I think this country would be better off if the clueless stayed home on Election Day.

[Pyrzqxgl]

63. You know, back in the 60s I spent time in Mississippi teaching people how to

read enough so that they could pass a literacy test and vote. I'm not sure many
of those folks knew where Iraq was and I know they didn't know where Viet Nam
was except that their sons were being sent there to fight for a country that
wouldn't let them vote. Those were scary times and those people that stood
up for their right to vote meant that everyone should have that right for all time.
If you think different, you don't sound like a Democrat to me (more like a early
60s Dixiecrat). I thought they'd mostly become Republicans.

[mondo joe]

69. I'd say that my grandmother, who had less than an 8th grade education and couldn't

find Iraq on a map to save her life, was a better person and a better voter than the considerably better educated GW Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney or Rove.

She'd be equally clueless about who was on the Supreme Court.

But those are some of the reasons she was a voter rather than a congressperson.

And as a voter she cared about the general welfare, about people living in poverty, and about basic fairness and equality.

I don't think any election has been better off for her absence since she died.

[Joe Fields]

70. I think that with rights also come responsibility.

How bothersome would it really be for citizens to be required to pay at least a little attention to civics? I, for one would appreciate a more well informed citizenry.

[mondo joe]

77. Citizens are already responsible.

They pay for the country, for their city, for their state.

I would appreciate a more informed citizenry -- hell, I'd appreciate a more informed DU.

But what I'd appreciate is not necessarily what should be required.

[LanternWaste]

44. Doesn't that make the assumption

Doesn't that make the assumption that what you may find important would have to be as or more important to another person?

Is there a non-subjective scale of "what's important" to all people in the nation? If not, who chooses the questions?

[Throwing Stones]

58. We make immigrants take a US history/government test to become citizens

The questions on that test are quite broad, but someone had to make assumptions about what is "important". My questions were simply for illustrative purposes, and yes the war in Iraq and the composition of SCOTUS are issues that are important to me and may be not so important to someone else. So how about broader questions, like "who is the Speaker of the House?" ... "How many branches of government are there?" ... "How many states are there?" ... "What does July 4th commemorate in the US?"
Those are questions that I believe a significant amount of mouthbreathing voters could not answer. And frankly, I agree with more with the Framers who intended to limit direct democracy. We talk about making it easier for people to vote or to register to vote in this country while people in other countries literally risk their lives and/or livelihoods to cast a vote. To hell with making it easier, it should be harder.

[LanternWaste]

66. I imagine historians made the assumption for the history tests...

I imagine historians made the assumption for the history tests.

Why should it be more difficult to vote? It does not make it any more or less valuable.

If you're angry about what you consider unintelligent people voting, that's one thing-- however considering voting restrictions because some people may find something unimportant yet you think it critical is simply more posturing.

[Throwing Stones]

76. So why can't political scientists make the assumption for a politics test?

You don't really think that drive-thru voting would produce better results, do you? People vote for a variety of reasons, but I disagree with your dismissing any correlation between the difficulties (perceived or real) with the physical act of casting a vote and the thoughtfulness of that vote, i.e., value.

I've worked as a non-partisan election monitor in tight races and I have seen people spend hours waiting to cast a vote, or go from precinct to precinct to find their polling place. Those people had a desire to have their voices heard. Often, the problems voters face is directly the result of nefarious rovian tactics, which I vehemently oppose, and I do think that any type of civics test, etc. would also be susceptible to similar abuses. However, my dismay with uninformed (which is significantly different than what you termed "unintelligent") voters is no more "posturing" than singing the praises of direct democracy. If it's more voting you want, you may as well get used to being governed by the guy more people would like to have a beer with.

[mondo joe]

83. And US citizens are required to attend school where they should be educated and

tested on all these matters.

[Sapere aude]

24. Only those with something at stake should be able to vote, that includes all of us!

The test should be that you are a citizen with the right to vote.

[Connie_Corleone]

26. Been there, done that.

How soon we forget the past.

:(

[annabanana]

30. If we're determined to "overtest" HS kids.. Could we please add Civics??

Why just Math & English? Why not Civics?

[enlightenment]

32. The first thing I ask each new class of students

in the semester is whether or not they:

read newspapers in print or on the Internet
read news magazines
watch the news on TV
read political blogs
participate in the political process in any way
vote?

These are college students. The VAST majority answer NO to all of those questions.

I don't ask them these questions in order to embarrass them or harangue - I teach history and I need to have some idea if they will be able to relate to comparisons and analogies.

The question that I would like to ask (and sometimes do) is WHY? Why don't they do any of these things? The answers, when I get them, are entirely unsatisfactory; lack of interest pretty much sums it up.

I understand the frustration that prompts the sort of questioning Goldberg presents. I think we would all prefer an informed electorate. Establishing a test isn't the answer though; figuring out how to get people interested is more important. After a while you start to feel like Sisyphus . . .

[Joe Fields]

35. Hopefully, Al Gore will be able to inject a larger feeling for the need to

get involved with civics, from local government to national.

[mmonk]

36. No testing for voting.

Things like this have already been tried with the intent of eliminating someone's right to vote.

[Joe Fields]

71. I wouldn't want that, either. But let's pretend that there were a way to

require those who could be eligible to vote to be more well informed. Suppose there were a method that could be fair to all? What would be wrong with having a more well informed electorate?

[Richard Steele]

38. The only "test" should be avoiding being declared INCOMPETENT to live your life.

Any citizen who's COMPETENT gets a vote.

[Ms. Toad]

84. One of the folks I rounded up to vote last election

would likely have been declared incompetent to live his life by many. He was an individual with Downs Syndrome severe enough that he probably will need a guardian all of his life.

I was not aware of this when I knocked on his door - he was just listed as a potential Kerry supporter. He was thrilled about the prospect of voting and knew who he wanted to vote for for president. He had been discussing the election with his parents, he didn't have a concept about the other races or issues on the ballot, but he had his mind made up about president. He had practiced voting so he would be able to cast his vote, it was clearly very important to him, and he was delighted that someone cared enough to come ask him if he was going to the polls.

He almost certainly couldn't find Iraq on a map or name the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court(as another poster suggested for a test) and by legal standards he is likely incompetent - but I wouldn't for the world deprive him of what was clearly for him a very important event - and his vote is every bit as valuable as mine (perhaps even more valuable, given the challenges he faced getting ready to cast his vote).

[LeftishBrit]

39. One of the biggest problems for democracy in both the UK and USA...

is that too few people vote.

Requiring a test would hardly help (many people are terrified of tests and wouldn't take it, even if they'd be likely to pass).

Also it could easily be used to discriminate against certain classes of voters.

[MrScorpio]

40. Maybe Goldberg wants to bring back Poll Taxes too

Gotta protect that election system against the ner' do wells :sarcasm:

[Katherine Brengle]

41. You are aware that this used to happen, right?

Excluding anyone from voting makes it that much easier to exclude EVERYONE.

No way in hell, as much as it pains me when people make uninformed decisions.

[Virginia Dare]

43. No, but you should be required to pass one to run for President..n/t

[fishwax]

46. Hell no. But it's no surprise to see a conservative trying to limit access to the ballot box

that's their MO, after all, by means legal or otherwise.

[Madspirit]

47. Wow....only the Elite can vote...

Yeah that would make for a good civilization. NOT. The elected serve everyone and effect the lives of everyone, ergo everyone should be able to vote. This is a crock of elitist crap.
Lee

[Boojatta]

50. The US affects the world.

Should everyone in the world get to vote in US elections?

[Madspirit]

55. "DUH" retort

No, just citizens. jeez.

Hey! Let's require testing and property ownership and poll tax....

Wait, why not just let all Americans of legal age, vote in our elections. Wow, what a concept.

...and in fact, as illiteracy is more a problem of the poor and the poor are the most directly affected by the elections....THIS IS STUPID AND ELITIST. Jeez, not allowing people to vote without taking a test would quickly create more of a slave class than we already have.

So let's leave it as it is. ...and keep crappy-assed effete snobbery out of it...

Lee

[mnhtnbb]

48. Does anybody think Bush could have passed an exam to qualify him as president?

[tom_paine]

49. No way, Too subjective. Too prone to abuse. WAY too UnAmerican.

:thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

[Boojatta]

51. How do you know that it's too subjective before you have seen the test?

Are tests that people need to pass to drive a car on public roads too subjective? Should all people over a certain age automatically get to drive regardless of whether or not they have passed any driving test?

[Left Is Write]

52. Driving is not a constitutional right. Voting is.

The analogy doesn't hold water.

[Boojatta]

53. I was responding to "too subjective", not to "constitutional right."

Of course, the constitution is amended from time to time.

[Left Is Write]

85. The subjectiveness of a driving test doesn't matter -

because driving is not a constitutionally protected right. Therefore, your analogy is faulty.

[tom_paine]

74. Comparing apples and oranges.

1) Unlike driving tests, there is a long and historical motive for wishing to supress or alter voting that simply doesn't exist for driving. Nobody ever got hanged to prevent them from picking up their driver's liscence.

2) And just WHO is going to create this test? What sort of questions will be asked? Multiple choice, or will there be written answers. How will it be written to alleviate people's fears about abuse.

3) We are discussing a larger issue about a hypothetical test that doesn't exists. Which makes you're "How do you know that it's too subjective before you have seen the test?" a non sequitur bordering on the ridiculous.

There mere concept of a "test" to be allowed to vote is repugnant and definitely against all the principles upon which this nation was founded. Although I would be mildly interested to hear your thoughts about how this test will be designed so as to eliminate bias and the potential for abuse.

[mondo joe]

78. Doesn't matter if driving tests are subjective - driving is not a right. NT

[Richard Steele]

88. Sooner or later, it would be. It always is. That's why we outlawed them in the first place. nm

[LWolf]

54. I have a better idea.

Let's do a major overhaul of public education.

Start by stating, blatantly and proudly, that the goal of public education is to guarantee every citizen an equal opportunity for a high quality education, and that the goal of said education is to raise the level of active participation in the democratic process. Not for the job market. For democratic principles, and for the health of our democratic republic.

Then, instead of funding infinite war, fund education. I don't mean fund tests, fund private trainers and tutors and other campaign donors. I mean fund what actually makes equal opportunity to a high education possible.

Start with funding enough school buildings and related infrastructure to keep schools small. Fund whatever it takes to keep them safe, clean, and in good repair. Then fund superb libraries, including an overabundance of books, periodicals, and technology. Then fund staffing. Enough teachers to keep class size at no more than 15, preK-12. You know. What research says works. Fund counselors, pe teachers, music teachers, art teachers, special ed teachers, and enough support staff that no school employee ever needs to take a shortcut to get done within a normal work day.

Increase the school year, and allow for flexible teaching and attendance schedules.

Fund parent ed.

Now move out into the communities, and rebuild the infrastructure that will serve a safe, vibrant, healthy community. Get adequate housing, food, health care, jobs, parks, and amenities to every community that our students live in. Rebuild the communities we have abandoned, the communities that too many of our children live in.

Now educate the general population. Begin a cultural shift that will urge them away from the tv and into the world. Into the real world, for real world experiences. Into great literature, into ideas, into multiple perspectives and experiences, into participation. This cultural shift will raise children better prepared to appreciate educational opportunities.

Finally, make sure that public ed starts with parent ed, then pre-school, and ends in trade school or college after high school, so that no opportunities are denied any citizen due to cost.

These are things that grow a vibrant, active, thinking, participatory population. I think this is a better idea than setting up a system that can then make sure certain people don't "pass" the test. <nclb...cough>

[DrDan]

59. yes - and the test is simple . . .

if there is an "R" after your name, then you are dumb as a fence post and will not be allowed to vote.

[BlooInBloo]

60. Certain people LOVE restricting the voting pool - no doubt about it.

[bigwillq]

61. No (nt)

[last_texas_dem]

62. No

History has shown how these sorts of tests would be used.

Besides, there are people who lack some basic knowledge about our system of government who are still conscientious and informed voters, while there are a number of "well-read" voters whose views are quite misguided.

[guitar man]

64. how about an IQ test?

must score 70 to vote. That should put an end to the Republican party....:rofl:

[rucky]

65. Question 1) How do you spell "Jim Crow"? n/t

[tammywammy]

67. No n/t

[ecstatic]

73. An ironic question. I was shocked at how many WJ viewers agreed there should be a test

But they clearly have forgotten history, thus casting doubt on whether they themselves are qualified to vote.

As others have said, test the politicians. They clearly don't understand the Constitution and what's required of them.

[dogfacedboy]

75. As long as you're not a stupid fucking Republican hillbilly, no test.

[Lilith Velkor]

79. Subtle

like a fucking brick. :eyes:

[Joe Fields]

80. Honest question. Why the eye roll?

A lot of snarkiness here in du. If you have something to say, then just say it. If not...

[pinto]

81. No. It would be akin to the outlawed poll tax. Citizenship confers the franchise.

No ifs, ands or buts.

[rug]

82. Yes, and penis detectors should be installed at each polling place.

[Ms. Toad]

86. I find it terribly sad that this is a serious discussion

on this board. But then again, I had the same feeling when proponents of requiring voter identification were making their proposals here.

Literacy tests, poll taxes, and all sorts of other barriers to voting have been used as tools of discrimination in the past - they have no place in a party which purportedly values equal rights.

[WindRavenX]

92. Yup

Truly disheartening :(

[WillyT]

89. Well Maybe A Blood Test...

to see if they in fact have a heart.

But otherwise, NO!

:shrug:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

91. Government by the test-passers will result in government for the test-passers

Government will, generally, not represent the interests of the disenfranchised, so the franchise needs to include all those whose interests the goverment is meant to represent.