If people have to take tests for driver's permits then why not issue a quiz before someone can vote?

[mtnsnake]

People have the right to vote, regardless of whether they know anything or not, so even if they fail the quiz they could still vote, of course, but at least it would be an eye opener for them.

IMO, if everyone had to take a very basic political quiz before they walked into the voting booth...and find out what the correct answers were...then Democrats probably wouldn't lose another election for decades. Most ignorant people who walk into a voting booth and pull the level for "R" don't even know who or what they're voting for or what those people stand for. They vote "R" because their parents brought them up that way. They don't know the first thing about the issues or the candidates, NOTHING.

My point is that we keep complaining how America elects idiots for Presidents because people in this country are so stupid. I don't think it's so much that people are stupid, but they're just ignorant, at least most of the ones who vote Republican are.

For example, my first 4 questions on the voter's quiz would be:

1) Barack Obama used to be a Muslim. True or False
2) Under Obama's economic plan, he is not going to raise taxes on the middle class. True or False
3) John McCain was a POW in WWII. True or False
4) John McCain and Sarah Palin both agree we should drill in Alaska for oil. True or False

If all voters had to take a basic quiz about current political affairs, then the USA would be soooo much better off for it. At the very least, millions of previously ignorant might learn a few important facts before they could walk into a voting booth again.

*** Just in case....for any lurking freepers, the correct answers are 1)F, 2)T, 3)F, 4)F ***

[The Blue Flower]

1. Because it's too much like Jim Crow literacy poll exams

nt

[Jamastiene]

11. That's the first thought I had.

Some areas of this country cannot be trusted to issue a quiz to everyone. Some places would try to abuse it and only give the test to some people.

I still remember hearing about some places trying to make black people tell them how many bubbles a bar of soap produces before they'd let them vote. Bullshit like that is what some places would try to pull.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Congratulations, you just failed the intelligence test to vote.

You just demonstrated an appalling lack of knowledge when it comes to history, democracy, and civil rights.

Please take your own advice and refrain from voting.

[mtnsnake]

17. You have failed the most basic edition of Reading Comp 101

Issuing a quiz, a quiz that prevents NO ONE from being allowed to vote, no matter how they score, is not demonstrating an appalling lack of knowledge. Tough shit for you if you don't like the idea of educating the voters on the issues. Cry baby.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. Again, thanks for demonstrating another issue with literacy tests.

They only apply to the other uneducated ignoramus, not the uneducated ignoramus issuing the test.

[mtnsnake]

23. Nice try. Next time read the entire OP carefully before you make a fool of yourself

AGAIN.

[yodoobo]

35. If theres no outcome of the test, then why give it?

I would find it infuriating to be asked to waste my time with a stupid test.

I'd answer A to all them just so that the test taker would get the hell out of my way so I can go vote!

Back in my high school days we used to be forced to spend 2 whole days doing a stupid test. Remember those the standard fill in the bubble tests? Well I was a good student, but once I learned they had ZERO effect on my grades or record, I learned to complete those tests pretty darn fast. (The test was used the district level to determine all sorts of things, but nothing occurred at the student level)

Some of the lines in Ohio in 2004? they would be even longer and discourage more from voting.

[MiniMe]

3. Voting is a right, driving is considered a priviledge

[mtnsnake]

6. Exactly, that's why I said people could still vote regardless of a quiz. n/t

[bluestateguy]

4. If the tests are applied to everyone, no exceptions, then I could support that

There would be nothing unconstitutional about it if all Americans had to take the test, no exceptions.

[JackintheGreen]

15. Ever been to a small-town DMV

and seen a kindly clerk "assist" some dim-witted family friend pass the exam? Yeah...I have. Same thing here. I have to agree with the inalienable right to vote, as much as it pains me. If America wants better presidents, America needs better schools.

[The Hope Mobile]

5. Wouldn't it be great if they HAD to do a factcheck before voting?

[mtnsnake]

20. Yes, That's basicly all that I'm proposing because they could still vote no matter what the results

of their answers.

[The Hope Mobile]

26. I understand. I'm just saying that I would frame it as a quick brush up on the facts

similar to the little blurbs they write about local propositions and they sometimes even break it down to dollars and cents. eg What are the candidates tax structures? Who benefits? Who gets higher taxes and who gets lower taxes? Pop in your age, marital status, # of dependents and income bracket. What does this mean for you?
Where does each candidate stand on education? On health care? On social security? Drilling? The economy? The unemployment and mortgage situations? Russia? The middle east? Religion? Veterans' issues (with voting record). (Maybe even . . . What is the true state of their health? Finances (including ever late on payments, etc.?, tax problems, income, then maybe add in college GPAs and/or standings, religious beliefs, place of birth, age, military experience (or beliefs about military service) (I'd love it if they included # of crashes in this election), marital status.
Anyway, I'm saying a relatively brief synopsis of the candidates positions from a known objective source in simple, straight forward everyday vernacular comparing the two candidates on the issues and their personal status, not personalities.

Your idea is good, in that it increases awareness of accurate information. But if it didn't feel like a hoop to jump through, and they knew that the source was 100% objective it could be an incredible tool that both parties SHOULD agree to. If one party or the other said they didn't want informed voters it would be pretty clear what their agenda was.

[mtnsnake]

27. Good post. Thank you!

[The Hope Mobile]

36. You're welcome. Love to see people being innovative!

:hi:

[Subdivisions]

7. Voting is supposed to be an "inalienable right", Driving a motor vehicle is not. n/t

[mtnsnake]

9. It is, just like I said. Failing the quiz woudn't prevent anyone from being able to vote

I already went over that part.

[Naturyl]

8. This example test isn't great

But I have always favored the idea of a *basic non-partisan* voting test that would have simple multiple-choice questions like "what does the Senate do," "what is the constitution," etc.

The trouble, of course, is that it would be hard to ensure the test remained truly non-partisan.

[MadHound]

10. Two reasons,

First, you can't expect the state to do the job of the campaign. It is up to the campaign to inform voters and refute lies, don't expect the state to. Second, having an intelligence test was tried and declared unconstitutional.

Sorry, but that's a stupid, irrational and unconstitutional idea.

[Orsino]

12. When you create a class of people without representation...

...you are cruisin' for a revolution.

We want politicians to have to try to make ours a better nation for all--including the low-information or just plain stupid voter. It ain't perfect, but history says that it beats the alternative.

[cali]

13. nope. no tests. no thank you.

[Marrah_G]

14. .................

[jayfish]

16. Really?

Jay

[JackRiddler]

18. They used to have tests...

And these were used to keep blacks from voting.

Let's have Ken Blackwell and Katharine Harris oversee a bureaucracy that administers voting tests, that should really get better results!

This is about power, pure and simple. Suffrage is universal, or it is guaranteed to be partisan.

[WheelWalker]

19. Breathalyzers! No more drunk voting!

[TomInTib]

21. If it was as easy as the CA tests, my dog could vote.

Hell, the State of California gave me a Drivers License without requiring me to take a driving test.

And I had not had a license for the past ten years.

[meowomon]

24. Yep, Jim Crow

[Broadslidin]

25. Testin' Amurikans...? Obviously, a 'coloring book' test paper will be required.....

Awaiting further orders from :nuke: my :patriot: T.V. :nuke:

[MH1]

28. Wait, question 4 is unfair!

How in the heck do you expect anyone to keep up with McCain's positions on anything? I mean he's changed them all at least once. Except you found the ONE he didn't change? (Except honestly, I thought he did!)

Edit to add: seriously, terrible idea. For all the reasons many posters have already stated. You want better educated voters, do better education.

[Obamanaut]

29. Here's one: "Congressional approval is at an all time low, so I'm

voting for any incumbent available so he or she can have lifetime job security despite low approval ratings."

[slackmaster]

30. There were quizzes just like that before the Voting Rights Act

:argh:

[RB TexLa]

31. Yeah, let's see what kind of test Haley Barbour comes up with in Mississippi

[AngryAmish]

32. Jim Crow agrees with you

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. Question number two is a subjective question

It depends on what people consider to be "middle class."

[yodoobo]

34. literacy tests are not a good idea

Political opinion tests are even worse.


No you know the answers to that test, and I know the answers. I bet 50% of the population does.

But what if the test was devised by someone else with different ideas of what is correct? What if a member of the other 50%, or shudder, the 29% writes the test? What if the test writer thinks that Obama's plan would raise taxes? Guess who doesn't get to vote then?

No - the risks of stupid people voting is a risk we just have to bear.

Everyone gets a vote, even stupid people.

[mtnsnake]

38. Where did I say someone can't vote if they fail the quiz? I said everyone can vote regardless

of how much they know or even if they fail the quiz. It's right there in my OP. Geesh, you act like I'm trying to change the Constitution or something.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

37. Umm... because it's bullshit? n/t

[LeftishBrit]

39. Because it would be so easy for someone to use such a test corruptly...

Already there appear to be huge scandals concerning exclusion of minorities from the voter rolls and rigging elections to favour Republicans. Someone like Katherine Harris in charge of a voters' test = Bad idea ('Is George Bush God?' 'No'. 'Right, you've failed the test!')


As I understand, literacy tests were used in a corrupt fashion to exclude African-Americans from voting in the past.


ETA: Of course, if people are going to be able to vote anyway, it's a different matter; but then why associate the test with voting (even if it isn't used to prevent people from voting, it's one extra hassle associated with voting, and people who have 'test phobia' or are just suspicious of tests might choose not to vote)? Why not just have more independent 'public information' about basic political issues on TV/radio/ internet, as well as compulsory school lessons on such issues?

[mtnsnake]

43. My OP said NO ONE would be excluded from voting as a result of this quiz

As I understand, literacy tests were used in a corrupt fashion to exclude African-Americans from voting in the past

Well, just like I already said in my OP, nobody would be excluded from voting, whether they failed this quiz or not.

I can't believe that some posters on this thread are actually thinking that I am trying to exclude stupid people from voting. Education is my goal, not exclusion. It's right there in my post.

[LeftishBrit]

47. I edited my post to take this into account...

The problem is that if the test needs to be taken *before you vote*, it's still another hurdle to be undergone before voting, and may turn people away (just like waiting in long queues, etc.). Even if people are not actually denied a on the basis of their performance on the test, it could make them choose not to vote if they know that means they'll be tested.

Also a corrupt official could use the occasion to give false info: "Did you know McCain is God and Obama is the Devil?"

I would have far fewer problems with some sort of 'refresher course' that people were given every few years, that was not directly linked to their going to the polls.

[riverdeep]

40. It's an interesting thought experiment.

The way it stands right now, someone who religiously reads the papers, scours the internet, goes to both candidates rallies, talks to friends and family about the issues, in short does all the right things someone who takes citizenship seriously is supposed to do, is considered exactly equivalent to someone who glances at Fox news while passing out on the couch the night before the election.

[Sheets of Easter]

41. I've known farts in church that went over better.

That's not a competency test, that's a push poll.

[HEyHEY]

42. There is WAY too much room for abuse with such a system.

The question could easily be skewed.

What there SHOULD be is a "None of the above" in the voting box.

[TexasObserver]

44. 1 unconstitutional, 2 subject to abuse, 3 used by those in power to stay in power

[eppur_se_muova]

45. Hey, we used to have those!

Great for keeping those "uppity" folk in line. :sarcasm:

[LanternWaste]

46. Why not simply teach...

Why not simply teach civics/government courses in the public education system?

But, if you think a pre-vote pop-quiz would be more effective at making and maintaining a more enlightened populace, then by all means...