justinsb
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-18-08 06:10 PM
Original message |
|
First of all I'm in Canada, just to be clear.
I was talking to someone from the local Green Party and she suggested that the voter registration process should change so that, say every 5 years, voters would have to re-register and as part of the process would have to take a simple test: Maybe 20 multiple choice questions to demonstrate that they had at least a basic understanding of what was going on. The questions would all be factual - no opinions or guesswork, but they might, for example have to show that they know where Afghanistan is or knew who their local Member of Parliament is and what party they belong to etc.,
Passing the test would be a requirement to vote - personally I think it has it's merits. Voting is (on top of being a right) a priveledge, and a duty but part of that duty is to maintain at least a basic understanding of what the hell you're voting on.
Thoughts?
|
NightWatcher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-18-08 06:11 PM
Response to Original message |
1. we cannot do poll taxes, nor poll tests. even complete morons get the right to vote |
|
it is their responsibility to be informed.
|
justinsb
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-18-08 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. I understand that that's the law |
|
but in theory, if that law could be changed - since it's not based on income and requires only a elementary understanding of what you're voting on...
As a hypothetical what do you think of the idea?
(It would require constitutional change to make it happen here as well)
|
DemVet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-18-08 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
Like someone else said, even complete morons get the right to vote.
What of the people that are no good at test-taking but have a good grasp of the issues?
Not to mention that certain activists would "go to war" once the first "____________put your preferred cultural group here________" has been denied the right to vote because they failed a test.
Besides, SCOTUS would never go for this.
|
Kittycat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-18-08 06:12 PM
Response to Original message |
2. That would disenfranchise voters. |
Johnny__Motown
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-18-08 06:12 PM
Response to Original message |
Kittycat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-18-08 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
That the OPs post actually caused a fire of anger in me? That makes me proud to know on instinct, that I believe that firmly in our constitution.
... OP - nothing against you, sorry... It's just one of our most basic rights.
|
justinsb
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-18-08 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
7. I'm not asking if it's legal |
|
as I mentioned in the post above, just asking about the merits of the idea
It would require constitutional change here as well.
|
islandmkl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-18-08 06:14 PM
Response to Original message |
6. kind of reminds me of poll tax, jim crow, etc.... |
|
designed to keep people out, not really qualify those who participate...
f*** with democracy, and it isn't democracy anymore...
we don't need some 'body' deciding who is qualified to vote...
i wish EVERYONE would vote...at least get us over 60% participation...
|
justinsb
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-18-08 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
8. But what if you could re-take the test |
|
you just had to go, if you failed, and study up and then try again.
|
islandmkl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-18-08 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
10. whose test? what test?.... |
|
look at it this way:
Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, the recent GOP Congress (you wanted a Constitutional Amendment) get this power in their hands...
to quote some good old boys i know:
"How'd that work out for you?"
"NOT TOO GOOD!"
|
mrreowwr_kittty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-18-08 06:19 PM
Response to Original message |
11. No way. Reminds me of literacy tests they used to have. |
|
Which were part of the Jim Crow era. It would be too subjective, and too liable to be deliberately designed to favor certain groups and exclude others. This is a big problem, IMO, with standardized academic testing. The SATs are proven to be culturally biased, yet they remain a huge factor in college admissions.
|
justinsb
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-18-08 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
13. But I'm talking about questions like |
|
1) Who is the current President a) George W. Bush b) Ronald Reagan c) Bill Clinton d) George Washington
no subjectivity, just simple facts that show you've been paying attention, even just a little
|
Nine
(472 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-18-08 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
14. There's no way it wouldn't be abused. |
|
And the reason we know this is that we used to have them and they were abused. They were used to discriminate.
This is one of those ideas that sounds good until you start thinking about it. Kind of like, people ought to have to get a license before they can have kids; you see awful parents and you're tempted to think that. You see people who don't bother to learn anything that's going on who still get to vote, and it kind of makes you wish for a poll test. But it's a bad idea, trust me.
|
Liberal Gramma
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-18-08 06:19 PM
Response to Original message |
|
It would destroy the Republican party
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 03rd 2024, 04:28 PM
Response to Original message |