Voters should have to be politically tested to vote ?

1. 0

   ahorsebackposted 6 years ago

   Why can't there be a basic political pre- test to actually  vet all voters.   That way  there can be no , "free cell phones ", "Ride to the polls " or  "polling  at the doors" influences ?

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Are you an authoritarian or what? There are laws against literacy tests and poll taxes and such. This crazy hair brained scheme of yours is dead on arrival. If this is some attempt to restrict Democratic leaning voters, you should know that it will not be tolerated.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Mr. Happyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         This is not a ludicrous idea. There are indeed clueless people (regarding politics) out there who go out and vote then, we end-up with Mr. Orangutan-in-Chief in the Oval Office.
         And I know Mr. Ahorseback leans quite a bit on the right side but I'm so far off on the left that I might have fallen off the political spectrum so, I am not saying this to restrict Democratic voters. On the same note though, if Democratic voters are not well informed, they should not vote. Same goes for Independants, Greens, Republicans or any other type of voters who want to exercise their voting rights. 
         
         There should be some level of responsibility amongst voters, should there not?

         replyreport
         1. 94

            wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Not ludicrous?  Considering the enormous fights of re-districting, how much could we expect in designing a test to indicate knowledge of political reality?  WWIII?  I can see proposals now:
            
            As health care is a basic human right, is it necessary to fund free health care?
            As food is a basic human right, must we fund food stamps?
            As a home is a basic human right, must we provide housing for all?
            As illegal aliens just want to work, should we not provide citizenship for anyone in the country?
            As God is guiding all that happens, is it unwise to prohibit prayer in schools?
            As human life begins at conception, is all abortion murder?
            As slavery was accepted in the bible, should we not return to God's way and enslave people?
            
            And let the war begin!

            replyreport
         2. 78

            Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Greetings, Mr. Happy, before I let politically motivated sorts screen who can vote and who cannot, I will live with a dork like Donald Trump. It is the price we pay for democracy.
            
            The only people that are not authorized to vote are non-citizens, non-residents, minors, and felons.
            
            As I said earlier, there has been an ugly history in this country regarding literacy tests and such. I am not willing to visit the very thought of this again.
            
            We cannot talk about testing people's literacy to vote while they still have to pay taxes and live with the politicians that control their lives. Does not matter if you cannot read or write, you have the right to have a say in selecting the people that are ruling over you, regardless.
            
            I will acknowledge and accommodate the most deplorable rightwing types having access to the ballot before I can abide any kind of litmus test for the franchise, which could easily turn into a way to disenfranchise. In my opinion, to keep the tyrants at bay and to prevent political manipulation at the ballot box, every un-incarcerated adult citizen has the right to vote.
            
            The only responsibility among voters should be their obligation to participate in the process.

            replyreport
2. 59

   Live to Learnposted 6 years ago

   Sorry, this idea will never gain traction.

   replyreport
3. 70

   Aime Fposted 6 years ago

   What kind of test? What would the questions be? Who would decide on the questions? How would you ensure that all tests were distributed and graded fairly?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Just like a driving test , a well designed set of answers to prove a knowledge of current political reality  , the government could ask basic current event questions .
      I am amazed at how so many don't even know basic current events , time to stop voting because you don't like  the color of ones hair ?

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Aime Fposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Political reality according to whom? It’s very clear based on these forums and the Q&A section that some people cannot agree upon what the definition of a “fact” is, how to determine a credible source, or how to think critically about every piece of information that passes through their eyes and ears whether it appeases them or not.
         
         You cannot form a “knowledge test” with right or wrong answers in regards to politics like you can for a driving test.
         
         If it was a no-pressure quiz to help people determine where they fall on certain issues and give them an idea of how each platform jives with their point of view, that’s a good idea. But I still don’t think you can force people to take it in order to vote and there’s still no guarantee it would have any real effect on anything. Some people have one issue that they feel is non-negotiable and will vote for a party that supports/rejects that issue regardless of anything else. You can inform them on every single aspect of a party’s platform and they could completely reject 99% of the information in favour of that 1% they feel really strongly about. And it’s not for you or I to tell anyone if that’s good enough.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Not a political view test  but a political IQ test ,  anyone who doesn't know George Washington was the first US president and that Abe Lincoln was president during the civil war  shouldn't be voting to begin with or perhaps the basic branches and design of the US government .
            
            Yes , It would affect elections , there wouldn't be people voting for a new smart phone or  because the driver stopped at Wendy's and bought dinner on the way to the booths
            as you voted for Hilary  . If one doesn't know a stop sign from a railroad crossing sign they then fail the drivers test . That same reasoning would grossly effect election outcomes for the better .
            
            I'm not talking ideology tests but basic  IQ  government knowledge stuff .   It amazes me how few , especially younger American's don't know basic US history.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

               "I'm not talking ideology tests but basic  IQ  government knowledge stuff .   It amazes me how few , especially younger American's don't know basic US history."
               
               Who says that they have to be scholars to have a say in who is controlling their lives. Who says that they have to know anything beyond pulling the lever to cast their ballots?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Well , for starters how about common sense ?

                  replyreport
                  1. 70

                     Aime Fposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     But you’d be arbitrarily picking and choosing which facts are important enough to test on. If you’re taking a driving test you’re asked questions that directly help you do that particular task now, not the history of cars and past driving laws. If you want to test someone on something wouldn’t it make more sense to test on how much someone knows about the current party platforms that they’re currently voting on?

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        No , not a party test , but a test about the system of government , offices of government , the reasons for voting ,the  electoral college, basic   systematic knowledge  , not ideological partisanship .
                        
                        Not hair color ,  not gender differences ,not  obstructionism  101 .

                        replyreport
                        1. 70

                           Aime Fposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                           Man, you really cannot just write a reply without throwing in a quick dig, can you? It’s like you have a tic.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                              Are you admitting I'm sort of right ?.......:-]

                              replyreport
                              1. 70

                                 Aime Fposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                 You’re right in that it would be nice if everyone was active in learning about/aware of how the government works. But not right in saying it should be a pre-requisite for voting.
                                 
                                 Sort of like it would be nice if everyone who was about to have baby knew about normal infant behaviour, childhood psychology, etc. but to make it mandatory would be a whole big ugly thing.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                    What we have now is a" big ugly thing "....................for instance .
                                    " I won't vote for a man with  orange hair "
                                    " I won't vote for a woman in pant suits "
                                    " I got my free Obama phone "
                                    Or Joe Biden saying ......."I mean what's not to like , he's {Obama] " clean , he's articulate he's smart  "...............

                                    replyreport
                  2. 89

                     GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     ahorseback, would that be the same type of common sense that originally thought only property owners could vote, because only they had the knowledge and "common sense" to vote intelligently?
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 78

                        Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        One man's 'common sense' could well be another man's nonsense.
                        
                        This sort of stuff ALWAYs come from the position of those that want to extend the ballot only to those that would think and vote as I would. There is the formula for tyranny if I ever saw it, deceptively clothed having the appearance of being reasonable.
                        
                        Let consign this idea to the rubbish bin, where it properly belongs.

                        replyreport
               2. 89

                  GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Amen brother!
                  
                  "Who says that they have to be scholars to have a say in who is controlling their lives?"
                  
                  The Constitution, its processes, and our Judiciary have answered that question.  And if you follow the demand that only informed voters be allowed to vote - down to the roots, you will find a reasoning that only voters that 'think like me' should be allowed to vote.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
4. 0

   ahorsebackposted 6 years ago

   Of course along with that test should be another to actually run for a political office !
   This one more about ethics and morality .

   replyreport
5. 72

   VanessaJanesposted 6 years ago

   I'm thinking that if "common sense" and "political IQ" were required to be demonstrated  in order to vote , then ahorseback would be a nonvoter. He doesn't seem to have a good understanding of the Constitution and demonstrates an authoritarian bent that runs counter to the ideals upon which this country was founded.
   
   Just my opinion, of course. I want to be on the commission that creates the test.  ;-D

   replyreport
6. 0

   ahorsebackposted 6 years ago

   Don't worry , I can take the insults when  people are losing the debate and know I have  a point ,  That seems to be a very newly designed liberal argument . When you can't offer debate -  call names and cry out the usual  insults . Did you all take a test to drive a car , a big truck , to get your HS diploma ,  to get your government job , to  join the military  , to get out of grade school ? Why is it that a suggestion that might eliminate ,     for instance , non-english speaking people from  voting  irritates liberals so much ?

   replyreport
   1. 72

      VanessaJanesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      You have to be the most self-unaware forum poster I've ever encountered. Your posts are littered with both overt and thinly veiled insults toward liberals, the college educated, Hillary voters, city dwellers, and more. So, by your own logic, you are always losing the debate.
      
      By the way, from what I see, it isn't just liberals who consider your idea to be anathema to a free society.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Like I said , attacking the intelligence of the opponent  is your newest debating style of the alt-liberal , congratulations . It proves most of my points all around , when you have no alternative to common sense thought and solution , use slander , names and throw them all in the "deplorable basket" .   That worked for your candidate didn't it ?   It proves the  points that I have made before .   Try not to be sophomoric .
         
         Why don't you try offering solution to an issue outside of  you party imitations?
         I offer this as well , There should also  be a voter , national ID card .

         replyreport
   2. 89

      GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      ahorseback, I will offer that your suggestion for a "test" requirement to qualify to vote is irritating to more than just "Liberals."
      
      Regarding whether or not you have a point - a valid point - depends on which point you mean. I agree that you do have a point that uninformed voters might not make the best choices, but to think you have a valid point advocating a "test" for voter qualification is a thought that seems to be solely yours. Just as is your determination of who is "losing the debate."
      
      GA

      replyreport
   3. 70

      Aime Fposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Uhhh... because there are citizens who don’t speak fluent English and you can’t just pick and choose which citizens are qualified enough to vote.
      
      Actually, no. Here’s my suggestion: people who don’t know English well enough to realize that you don’t insert spaces before punctuation shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Really , always the personal attack for liberals ?   We pick and chose who should drive , fly ,  get a car loan ,  go to college ...........

         replyreport
         1. 70

            Aime Fposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I’m not attacking you, I’m implementing my own random rules based on absolutely no evidence just like you are.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               In that response I think your refusal to consider anything out of the way of very predictable responses based on you ideology is below your supposed intelligence ,  especially given  that there are allegations of voter fraud  even on both sides  . Even if unproven the conversation and mindset should prevail towards solutions , not a usual and 'group think 'snide remark.
               
               Got anything substantial to offer or are we done conversing ?

               replyreport