U.S. citizens should be required to take a test before voting.
Debate Rounds (4)
- The first round will be accepting the challenge only.
- The final round will be our closing arguments, and no new evidence will be brought up.
- We will not personally attack each other or resort to ad hominems.
- Data must be backed by credible sources.
I believe voters should have to take a political knowledge test before they vote. Not a literacy test. Just a test to see if your vote is blind or educated. I'd like to start off with a quote.
"It seems that present-day elections are no longer about the candidate or proposition with the most appealing content, but rather the candidate or proposition with the best-edited commercial, the brightest colors or the most memorable slogan. In essence, ignorance and superficiality have taken a stronghold on our voting system. People, more than ever before, are voting without knowing what they're voting for." - Isaac Mohr 
An example of voter ignorance: Only 38% of Americans know that the Republican Party controls the House of Representatives. There is a similar percentage of Americans who are aware of Democrats currant control of the Senate.
The votes of ignorant U.S. citizens can be detrimental to our system. It's one thing if people don't vote at all, but if Americans blindly vote for someone in their party, or even someone whose name sounds good, they are polluting an election.
The test world be a simple and easy test. It would test the voters' political knowledge knowledge, such as the candidates' parties, stated goals and plans, etc.
I await your reply.
I see, so this has essetially become a debate about which is worse: voter ignorance or low voter turnout. Very well.
I would first like to address that low voter turnout is not objectivly a bad thing, but can lead to underrepresentation, and there are ways of fixing that. The poor vote less, as well as young adults and minorites.   A way to increase voter turnout and to lessen voter ignorance would be to pay voters for voting.  If voters are to be paid for voting, this will give the poor (and everyone) an incentive to vote, and an incentive to become more politically knowledgable.
If you pass the test, you get money, and your vote was fairly educated. It's a win-win.
Paying voters and giving them a relativly easy political knowledge test work well together, but just paying voters without the test (which would increae voter turnout) is a bad idea.
This is because many people who would not vote begin to vote, ignorantly. Higher voter turnout with increased voter ignorance is detrimental. Ignorant, misiformed, irrational votes affect the lives if politically informed people. 
Therefore, I believe voters should have to take a political knowledge test, and to make up for less voters, the voters who pass can be paid.
I am not suggesting paying voters at all.
But to further illustrate the flaw in paying individuals to show up to vote. You have to consider that many of them are at work and cannot lose the 1-4 hours of work. So in order to incentivize them to show up to vote you have to at least meet their requirement for work. So assuming everyone who voted was payed minimum wage, and there were 126 million people who voted in the 2012 election. so with simple math (126 million x 7.25 minimum wage) =913.5 million dollars. And assuming this process worked you would have higher voter turnout meaning that this price would be higher. By offering a billion dollars in incentives to vote, you are basically bribing for votes. The cost of the 2012 presidential election was 6 billion, so we would have a massive increase in the cost of a presidential election.
corporealbeing forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.