Schizotypic

I have to write a persuasive speech on why we should instill a test for voting, and I want to hear what Musicbanter has to say it about.

I say that it might be a good idea that before someone votes, they take a fairly easy quiz on the subjects they are about to vote for- just so we can say that they objectively know the arguments for both sides before voting.

Here are some problems:
People who are illiterate may still have an understanding of both sides.
The people in charge of making the test may be biased.
More people would be inclined not to vote.

At this point I could either be for or against it, but I have to decide before tomorrow morning. What are your positions on it? Is their anything I'm not considering here?

Freebase Dali

Um... the entire voting system is based on individuals having the personal freedom to vote for whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. Whether their vote is based on some kind of political knowledge or ignorance is irrelevant.

Anyway, I think it's bad enough that we're flooded with political media to influence our votes... I doubt adding in an educational requirement is going to do anything but single out a lot of citizens (a lot of votes) and provide easy targets for subversive political education campaigns as well.

Arya Stark

I wish there was a better way to educate voters, but I don't think there should be a way to test them.
I think it would definitely cause people to be less inclined to vote.

Also, as I'm sure you're aware, some people just aren't good at taking tests, and there would be a lot of pressure to pass the test. If they were to fail it, they wouldn't be able to vote, and they probably wouldn't vote for a while after that.
There's enough pressure as it is, to vote, to choose the correct person, to make sure we're being properly represented... It's just too difficult to incorporate a test into that.
It was also be a lot of extra time and pressure, it's difficult to fit just the voting into our busy schedules.

__________________

MB Journal.
Azucar y Especia. My blog.

Freebase Dali

It's not really about whether people would be inclined to vote or not if there was a test. I think all the voters that actually get out there and do it, do it it based on strong enough convictions about the candidates themselves, the political landscape that gets them interested in the candidates and their policies, or simply being supportive of their party or ideals.

Requiring citizens to prove their aptitude at making a personal choice regarding their own ideals and vision for the future of their country based on some predefined political knowledge baseline would not only limit the the entire idea of choice of representation, but limit the demographic as well. To even implement something like that before ensuring that your educational systems and standards were up to par (which they're totally not) would reek of discrimination and would certainly provide a means of outright manipulation.

Paedantic Basterd

It seems to me that those with 0 knowledge whatsoever don't even bother voting anyways.

Janszoon

In my country they seem to vote in droves actually.

That said, I don't agree with having a test either. I just wish was a good way to make everyone more informed.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

Schizotypic

So what you're saying is the voting process should have no way to filter out blaring ignorance? I will admit their are some problems with having a basic test. For one, in the past tests which are supposed to be objective across all ethnicities, culture, class, etc. (like an IQ test) have failed miserably in most regards. A good example of this is the literacy test in 1917, made by the white man of the southern states to keep blacks from voting- obvious tool of oppression. In response to that, we should have the availability of a spoken test for the illiterate, and some sort of accommodation for every handicap with the exception of blatant ignorance.

The test would not be long, it would be more like a quiz. If you chose not to vote for a particular subject, you wouldn't have to take the quiz. For example, you go to the poll and before you vote on, say, Prop 123, you have to answer maybe five or ten quick questions about who is for what, what the arguments basically are, etc. Theoretically to pass this test, you could have a IQ of 90, be deaf and illiterate, and could still pass the test if you knew what the prop was about.

Find a reason to disagree with that.

VEGANGELICA

Exactly. In a democracy we have a right to cast our vote for whatever reason we want and however we want. If I liked Obama because I think he has a nice family, that could have been my reason for voting for him. (I do feel his family is nice, by the way.)

If there is a fear that a lot of people will vote without knowing about an issue, then it is left up to those who truly care to try to educate and persuade voters to vote in a particular way. That is the burden and a challenge in a democracy: the people who care have to try to organize to get some measure passed. And you fight against big money and business interests.

A democracy would not be a democracy if people weren't allow to demonstrate blaring ignorance while voting...much as I'd *like* to stop all Republicans from voting for that reason!

So, yes, I'd say the voting process should not screen out ignorance. People have a right to be ignorant.

Sometimes all a person will know about Prop 123 is that a neighbor says it is a bad idea. You trust your neighbor, so you vote against the Prop. Maybe the neighbor really is very knowledgeable; maybe not. The reality is that many people may not have or want to take the time to educate themselves.

Even I sometimes cast a "mom" vote: in other words, my mom is up on all the local news and issues, and I trust her judgement, so if she says, "Vote for X, Y, and Z," and I have found no reason not to do so, I'll probably vote for them. Even though I know nothing about them other than they have my mom's endorsement.

Also, if there is a Democrat running against a Republican, even if I know nothing about their individual views, I will vote for the Democrat. I vote straight party ticket. So, I am voting while being ignorant of specifics, though I generally know that Democrats are for the little people and for labor and for helping people in need, and Republicans want to make sure that businesses and rich people can get even richer, and screw the environment because it is too costly to protect.

And here's another issue, Schizo: people may not have access to the educational material. How would you propose educating the people? At the voting center the day of the vote? That won't give people enough time to read, digest, understand, find counter-views. Via the newspaper? Not everyone gets the newspaper. Via mail? Phone? Not all people have those.

And do you think you'd get the different political parties to agree on what the arguments basically are? I doubt that. So that is an added layer of complexity: who decides what information the government should give people about an item up for the vote?

Rather than create a voter test, I feel we should ensure that the federal government and states are distributing accurate information about items or people up for the vote, reflecting a variety of viewpoints of different groups of constituents.

__________________

Connair

I think that no voter should have to take a test to show they are educated. To me a test is only half of a whole that shows you are educated on that specific subject. You can do horrible on your math test but when it comes to having to use those principles in real world scenarios it might come clearly to you. That being said I know it doesn't have much similarity to a math test.

Just in short I would want a voter to educate himself and not have the worry of just passing the test when the essential worry should be about the right canidate. To me I could see the test taking away from the critical decision of the vote.

Also on a side note I personally don't think anyone should vote straight party. To me that almost takes away our right and gives a certain party power. To me that seems illogical. But thats just me.

Schizotypic

It just seems to me that we, the people, are getting most of our facts about the candidates from our social groups. Perhaps we don't have easy enough access to the material, or perhaps there isn't enough pride and propaganda spread to get everyone involved in research. In any case, the anxiety is that were being taken advantage of.

For instance, what if those in charge of running the campaigns say something like, "Vote to clean-up the streets" and what the law is really about is making it really hard for people to get paroled out of prison. It's misleading. After thinking about it though, I think my debate is falling apart. In the end, if a third of the middle class knows what the argument is, then they pass that information on to others and the population gets a somewhat decent idea of what they're voting for and why.

I suppose the biggest obstacle isn't blaring ignorance, so much as denial. For instance, I know someone with a lot of money who always votes republican; he loves Sarah Palin's miniskirt, and her traditional values. He could understand the concepts of post gender households, of social equity and equal opportunity, of why welfare isn't communism (he gets a little ridiculous), but he wants to have the acceptance from his family and social group instead. Not a wise choice in my opinion, but it isn't blatant ignorance and my test idea certainly won't fix it. Perhaps Prop 123 is best in the form of word of mouth, after all it takes large groups of people time to come to a reasonably majority agreement. It's my guess on the reason that real social change happens so slowly, but in the end I suppose it does happen.