One needs a license to drive a car, or an academic certificate to be hired for a certain job. Should it be required to pass some test to be allowed to vote? If so, how would you arrange it (test, rules, etc.)?

Yes No see voting resultssaving...
10 opinions, 5 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
100
4 votes
Apr 28, 2015

No. Everyone needs to have a voice in a democracy. Would those who were not allowed to vote still have the "privilege" of paying income tax, sales tax, property tax, tobacco and alcohol taxes? Because if you create a voting and non-voting class, the voters could vote to tax the crap out of the non-voters. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. If you can vote and I can't, you could vote to close the public school that my kids go to. Maybe whoever invented the test thinks I'm not smart enough to vote, but don't I have a right to try and make things better for my kids so that they'll be smarter than me?

And who would come up with the criteria for this test? I could see that becoming very partisan. Someone on the test development committee might decide that if you profess a belief in Creationism that you can't vote, or atheists might decide that if you believe in a Supreme Being who created the universe that you're too stupid to vote, or Christians might decide that atheists are too stupid to vote, or your opinion on abortion, capital punishment, or any number of other controversial topics might become a litmus test for your voting rights.

And above all, if a person is to be bound by the laws of a government, should not he/she have a voice in that government?

If there should be a test for anything, it should be a test for whether or not you qualify to hold public office. If a politician can't win on the game show, Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? he/she should not be allowed to run for Congress or the Presidency.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted Yes.
main reply
1 vote,
Jun 7, 2015

What about a test not to prevent voting, but to ensure people understand what they are voting on?

Something simple, a few true/false questions on each item, which people must score 100% to vote, and can take multiple times. It would make sure people understand what they are voting on so they aren't tricked by intentionally confusing or misleading wording. There is constant problems with misleading and confusing wording on ballots.

Example: New Mexico had a confusing one recently, which implied that school and partisan election were held at the same time currently, something untrue.
      Proposing to amend article 7, section 1 of the constitution of New Mexico to provide
      that school elections shall be held at different times from partisan elections.

Questionnaire, or Test might go something like:
   True or False, Amendment 1 seeks to change that school and partisan elections are at different times.
   True or False, voting "No" on Amendment 1 will have school and partisan elections at the same time.

Example: California's Proposition 40, where voting 'No' meant agreeing to change; whereas normally voting 'Yes' is change and 'No' is to keep things as they are.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
1 vote,
Jan 5, 2016

I think you've misidentified the problem. If ballots as you say have "intentionally confusing or misleading wording" (my italics), then we should make sure that such intentional confusion in the wording is not allowed.

subscribe
100
2 votes
Apr 28, 2015

On the surface, the idea has merit. Why should we allow someone to vote for our political leaders if they do not know basic facts about our political system. That the president and the Supreme Court do not MAKE laws. That it is Congress who is charged with producing a budget. That the Constitution actually CAN be changed. That just because the Supreme Court strikes down a law doesn't mean that Congress can't pass a modified law on the same subject. Etc.

However, we are human and humans cheat, lie and steal for personal gain. The test would be used for someone's political gain at some point. There is no way to guard against that.

The best way to get the best possible politicians is to educate our citizens from an early age on the political process, the laws, the history of our country and the Constitution, then clear the way for everyone to vote. The higher a percentage of eligible voters who actually vote, the more likely the right candidates will filter into our system.

subscribe
100
2 votes
Apr 28, 2015

It is not the voter that needs to be to be tested before being allowed to vote, it is every citizens right to participate in electing our government. It is the candidates that need a test before being allowed to hold office. The number of Congressmen that exhibit an ignorance of the Constitution, the intent of the Bill of Rights, Civil Rights, exhibit ignorance of the subject of the committee they are sitting on (such as science), is appalling.

A test for potential candidates covering American History, the Constitution, US Government, and at least High School level Science may be a good idea.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Apr 28, 2015

The number of Congressmen that exhibit an ignorance of the Constitution, the intent of the Bill of Rights, Civil Rights, exhibit ignorance of the subject of the committee they are sitting on (such as science), is appalling.

I'm curious as to who would be some of the worse cases of ignorance in your opinion.

subscribe
100
1 vote
Apr 28, 2015

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Same with working,- another privilege, not a right.
Getting a degree in higher ed? Definitely not a right....another privilege, based on merit.

However, Voting is a right, one of the very most basic civil rights. Voting is also an inherent part of representative government, so I don't think it is in the same category as things the questioner compares it to.

subscribe
100
1 vote
Apr 28, 2015

If people voted (by District, City or State) and agreed by consensus to require education and training in civics in order to live as residents in that voting region, then people could be screened out who do not agree to follow the laws, and follow procedures (such as cooperating with due process and police, and paying restitution for crimes).

In this way, similar to immigration and naturalization, training and tests could be required to be a resident in certain areas who agree to such standards as part of their local civics association or homeowners/neighborhood ordinance.

I would recommend civics education (including conflict resolution training and assistance) for all citizens in order to reduce crimes, abuses and violations, legal expenses and other costs to taxpayers -- by requiring residents to sign agreements accepting legal and financial responsibility for knowing and pay costs of procedures and restitution if convicted of premeditated offenses, in order to live in that District. But would expect such a policy only to be Constitutional if all residents in a District AGREE to enforce such ordinances as their local standard.

If such policies proved effective in reducing crime and costs to taxpayers, this could be opted into statewide or nationally. Because of civil rights arguments against discrimination, I believe it would have to be voted by consensus. If any part of the population disagrees, these kind of policies get stuck down on Constitutional grounds.

subscribe
100
opinion
1 vote
Apr 28, 2015

I have a neighbor who lives with his family & has the mentality of at most an 8 year old, but he votes. He votes the way his family tells him to. They give him a list that he takes into the voting booth, so he can match the names. He's a nice person, but I don't think he should be able to vote.

subscribe
100
User voted Yes.
1 vote
Jun 7, 2015

Yes, there should be a test, but it shouldn't be incredibly difficult. The test should be to determine that people completely understand the details of what they are voting on.

How I think the test should be set up:

  • Every question is True/False.
  • Every item to be voted on has a few questions, covering all major aspects.
  • Voters must score 100% to vote.
  • Test may be taken multiple times, but there is a brief wait.
(Brief wait: Like, 15 minutes for them to spend reading over their test results and the things they are voting on)

Doesn't that sound fair enough? It wouldn't be designed to prevent people from voting. Only to prevent people from making mistakes. It would help prevent mistakes caused by intentionally confusing wording meant to trick voters.

subscribe
-1
1 vote
Apr 28, 2015

No. Military service should be required. Hell why allow you to vote on something your not willing to defend.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Apr 28, 2015

Dick Cheney was allowed to be VP and he did not serve. In fact he was a 5 time draft dodger. Yet he made the decision to send troops to Iraq and wants Obama to send them back. Most members of Congress on both sides have not served.

Maybe to keep your US citizenship and right to vote we should have to pass the same test non citizens have to pass to become citizens and graduate from high school.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Apr 28, 2015

So was Obama and it is still questionable like Clinton said that he may have not even been born in America

subscribe
0
User voted No.
0 votes
May 3, 2015

Does the Constitution say there's a test needed to vote?

Then there isn't a test needed to vote.

subscribe
0
User voted No.
0 votes
Nov 11, 2015

The only requirements, in my view, to be able to register to vote should be citizenship of the country first, and that the prospective voter is not currently serving a sentence in prison. I would not consider either of these to be 'tests', but rather base requirements for people to have the privilege of choosing the political future of their nation.

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: