Should there be an intelligence test for the right to vote?

[Lancer]

Exactly!

Math knows no race, no religion, no political crapola!

[Jon Miller]

I am glad you trust I and KH and Ramo and others so much.

JM

[Lancer]

Jon, name me 10 OT posters that you would trust to elect the next US government.

[Jon Miller]

Everyone but the ones who posted that they were Randians in my Randian thread.

JM

[Lancer]

That was too easy!

[Bill3000]

Absolutely. At the very least to understand the basic issues. People should have legitimate reasons to vote.

And in my defense, I don't like democracy that much anyway.

[Lancer]

That's a hell of a defense.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=ZKribbler]Silencing people, even dumb ones , by taking away their vote is not a way to make the government better.[/q]

Ditto. We should be finding ways to make voting (an important civic duty of all citizens) and the political process more appealing to the populace. This, of course, starts with making people want to learn about parties and their issues. One of the problems is that people know about the Republicans and Democrats, but for a lot of people they don't think they care about their concerns (and for most people they don't). And our system is very biased against third parties.

Perhaps proportional representation in the House, direct election of the President, keep the Senate as is. I think the PR in the House, throwing a few third parties in the mix will cause a lot of people to left their heads up and pay attention to the process once again.

[DaShi]

They should be presented options from past elections. If they vote the candidate that lost, then they can't vote in the current election. Because no one wants someone to vote for a loser.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Should there be an intelligence test for the right to vote?

Do you really want to end the GOPs chances of ever winning another election?

[Zkribbler]

Is this a trick question?

[chequita guevara]

[GePap]

I doubt a satisfactory definition of intelligence could be reached.

At best, like Cali said, it would be a basic test of civics knowledge.

That said, I say absolutely not. The administration of such a test would created huge political pressures, since it would be invariably used to disfranchise the unwanted, but whom classified as such would change with the politics of the time.

That, and of course such a measure is inhenrtly anti-democratic and would cause political upheaval, with the masses eventually overthrowing such a system.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
We can make it based on ones understanding of Topology!

JM

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
The remedy for an uneducated electorate is to better educate the electorate, not to use some arbitrary line to cut off some people from their right to vote.

There are two main reasons why this is a bad idea.

First--even assuming the test won't be purposefully rigged--the plain fact is we all see people who agree with us and being more intelligent than people who don't. This phenomenon of human nature would result in the test reflecting the test writers' biases'. Indeed, just the type of question asked would reflect the test-writers' biases.

For example, someone above quoted American's ignorance re: the USSR's non-membership in NATO. While international issues are important to many, other people stress economic issues ("It's the economy, stupid), others stress moral or character issues.

Second, the proposed rule ignores the central tenet of our republic: "that all men are created EQUAL, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness." Liberty includes the ability to participate in the choosing the nation's leadership.

(BTW: The above quote is by a member of the liberal elite [me] of something written by a member of the liberal elite. The liberal elite is a good thing )

When the American republic was founded, monarchists gleefully predicted its quick demise. There was logic in that prediction: Farmers, shopkeepers, silversmiths and other common people just didn't have the training or experience necessary to run a government. For that, you needed someone trained from birth--a king!

What these doom sayers overlooked was the fact that common people are far better than any king at figuring out what their wants and needs are. Once they got their hand on the levels of governmental power, government because much more responsive to the needs of the populous, and republics were thus proven to be a much better systems than monarchies.

Silencing people, even dumb ones , by taking away their vote is not a way to make the government better.

100% reasons for lowering the voting age.