Should voting be restricted to people with at least a basic knowledge of current affairs?

Asked by: guy_incognito
  • You can license a drivers' and gunmen

    You can license a drivers' and gunmen. Completely allegorical but why is the same logical not applied to voting? Something that fundamental to life as a democratic citizen. Why would you want the ill-educated, easily manipulated and misinformed to vote?
    The logic behind the current voting system is much more dangerous than a gunman or a one-armed driver behind the wheel. It effects your life and the country around you in every way possible.
    It almost seems like the democratic systems in place are designed to subjugate and placate the masses.

  • Voting should be restricted to only people who can pass a current affairs test.

    I hear many people talking about how the right to vote should be essential in a democracy, but what they don't understand is that a democracy only works when the knowledge of voters overpowers the knowledge of the politicians. For an example of this we can look to the obamacare law , which many voters thought would mean inexpensive healthcare but since most U.S. voters do not care much for politics they will most likely vote a politician into office because that politician promises the voter "handouts".

    Posted by: MB17
  • Yes this only makes sense, it is the best thing to do

    Why would you allow complete morons to vote
    then people will vote obama for the simple fact that he is black
    we want thinkers to vote
    thinkers are knowledgable and in most cases wise they want change
    morons want whatever they think looks better but thinkers think it through m

  • Restricted voting? Yes.

    Thomas Jefferson wrote that a well-informed electorate is a prerequisite to democracy. If voters don't take the time to find out what the issue is about, how can they possibly intelligently vote on it? This doesn't mean that I am expecting a well informed public to all vote the same way, just that they have given it some thought.

  • Idiots shouldn't vote

    America is a democracy, yes. But if someone isn't able to tell you anything about who is running and what their views are then they shouldn't be allowed to vote. It's one thing to have equal participation but if a large portion of America's very low voter turnout is people that have no clue what they're voting on then yes we should only give the right to the educated.

  • This would mean elections could be fought more on policies rather than personalities.

    Many people, especially women, vote on the basis of personality rather than policy. This means rich, good-looking, articulate politicians with beautiful families – but with properly dodgy political views – often get elected ahead of less glamorous, but more suitable candidates.

    So, a basic test on politics, economics and current affairs would eliminate voters who base their selection on what they have seen and read in magazines such as Celebrity Tittle-Tattle, Banal & Inane Gossip and Idle Chit-Chat Weekly.

  • It saddens me, but...

    The point of a democracy is that everyone can vote. Otherwise, it quickly becomes very intense and restricted. Limiting peoples' rights on this would
    a) Cause uproar and
    b) Limit the voting of the government to the people in government.

    No, although I wanted to agree, it seems that this option would not go down well, at all.

  • Voting is inalienable right.

    If a person has all the requirements to vote, then he must not be deprived. Depriving a person from voting, even he is qualified, is not a principle in a democratic society. In a democratic society, people are allowed to vote regardless of their color, literacy, religion, so long they possessed all the qualifications. Imposing a voting restriction based on not having knowledge of current affairs violates this fundamental right to vote.
    Practically, it is hard to determine if a person don't have a knowledge of the events, thus the proposal to impose voting restriction to few updated people is not really that practical.

  • It is undemocratic

    If people are not allowed vote without a basic knowledge of current affairs who decides what constitutes a basic knowledge of current affairs. Such a system would be very hard to implement and with the government deciding what a basic knowledge of current affairs is it could easily be abused against people with opposing views.

  • There is no reason to disenfranchise voters just because they disagree with politicians.

    If you limit voting rights to folks who watch the news that politicians think is important and accurate you disenfranchise people with valuable insight.
    Right now for example, this test would pose a question about Syria, because, as Kerry has told us, "We know" what happened. But someone skeptical the administration would surely answer wrong. Politicians would have a brand new platform for Gerrymandering and disenfranchisement. Test makers could leave out information important to minority communities and include information only important to the upper class. Tax policy for example is not an event that any poor person would ever have to pay great attention too, whereas camping bans are policies the affluent can afford to miss.

  • Voting is a right

    To have a say in how our country is run, all a person needs is to have a functioning adult brain (and be a citizen) . Anything past that is not necessary. Voting is a human right that one does not have to qualify for: it is allotted to all United States citizens.

  • No, it shouldn't.

    Part of me wishes that we could do this. I would like to see a test taken and passed so that someone could vote. It would make me feel a little better about the state of our country. I think that it is a bad idea though. It is a system that could too easily be corrupted. Also, dumb people have the right to be represented too, even if they don't know why they want someone to represent them.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.