Should you have to prove you're competent to vote?
This is sort of a follow-up to an earlier question I asked about reducing the voting age. It seemed a lot of people were supportive of raising the voting age instead, because it would like to the possibility of more qualified voters.
So, I'm curious to know what you guys think of some sort of vetting tool as far as being allowed to vote. Whether it is an IQ test or a test on basic knowledge of the issues involved, or anything else that might prevent people who are ignorant or misled from influencing an election.
D you believe this would enhance the system or undermine it?
Could you imagine having to take a test to vote?? Wow, you missed your chance to make a difference in this country by that much... No one would vote, especially the youth of today. More than ever we need to not pigeon hole people into slots of ignorant or smart. Who is the judge of that anyway? My god, they are already trying to make it virtually impossible to vote if you don't drive; hence the youth and seniors. Freedom of speech, freedom to vote or we are no longer a democracy.
It is hard enough to get people out to vote, It would definitely undermine it.
Although "Uninvited Writer" is right, wouldn't it be nice? I think if teachers did their job in Jr. High and High School, then students growing up and becoming voters would know that they have to trust but verify.
Being shoved out into the world with a single idea: that authority figures are to be believed all the time, at all costs, is causing a group of politically illiterate voters.
Teach our children, if school won't then parents have to. The future voters are not our problem, it's the current product of education that was built on an agenda: "Barack Hussein Obama, mmm mmm mmm"
Teach. Teach well, teach kids to question authority when they don't make sense, teach them to do their own research. Teach them to fish, don't just give them something to chew on, get them something to bite into.
There seems to be an agenda and ideology that has the expectation of keeping people ill-informed. Media, talk show hosts, guests, politicians, all have their own way of making what they are saying sound the best.
Voters should be competent and it is up to us to help them get that way.
I think you should have to pass that test if you run for office and throw in a common sense test too. It'd be a great way to clean house!
I think you have to remember that the founding fathers had even more restriction on voting, somewhat with good reason.
Obviously I don’t agree that one should be of any certain race or gender. Nor do I believe that only property holders should be allowed to vote.
But we have serious problems with a population who hasn’t a clue electing leaders who are liars and cheats.
This includes many of our more popular ones.
JFK didn’t like the number of unemployed so rather than tackling the problem he changed the way the unemployed are counted. The result is that today we are told the unemployment rate is 9% when it is probably above 22%. We don’t know for certain because of the counting.
LBJ was facing a lowering GDP and the obvious costs of the Vietnam war so he came up with the idea of transferring all of the money from Social Security into the General Fund with almost no reporting. If that money had been left alone there would be trillions of dollars in the SS fund instead of IOUs and a SS crisis.
Clinton didn’t want to see inflation growing on his watch so he changed the way inflation is calculated.
The list goes on and on and in fact every administration since WWII as well as some before have cooked the books rather than deal with problems or even admit they exist.
Today honesty has no place in politics and that is a bad thing. The primary reason is that the voting public actually believes what the media tells them and that there is some required truth in what they are told.
So yes I do think there should be some sort of test. People don’t get out and vote because they don’t expect anything to change no matter who they vote for.
But if an educated public were voting on understood facts the country would be a better place for all.
Of course it would have to be a test that can't be scaled to fit any one position.
by ahorseback 8 months 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 ?
by GA Anderson 4 years ago
Listening to a couple political pundits discussing a local election result - I heard them agree that the low voter turnout for the election probably helped unseat an incumbent.Their logic was that the voters that did bother to vote were probably more-informed voters than would be the case when...
by tlmcgaa70 5 years ago
what do you think about them? plz keep it clean.
by Judy Specht 5 years ago
Why don't I have to show an ID to vote for president or anyone else?I have to show an ID to any policeman that asks, to get a prescription,see the doctor, get my blood drawn, board an air plane, get my taxes done, write a check, accept a job, withdraw money at the bank and sometimes when I use a...
by Holle Abee 5 years ago
http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2012 … _2012.htmlThis is the counter point to the interviews of ignorant right wingers,
by OLYHOOCH 7 years ago
That’s the message of the New Hampshire GOP, who is pushing a pair of bills that would prevent students from voting in their college town.“Voting as a liberal. That’s what kids do,” said state Speaker William O’Brien. Students lack “life experience,” and “they just vote their...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|