Amazon.com Widgets

Should people in the US pass a political knowledge test before voting?

Asked by: Gaben11
  • Yes -They Need It

    Suffrage is all well and good, but an uneducated person should not receive the right to vote - if you want your vote, prove that your opinion is valid, and that your opinion can reliably be said to benefit the entire country, because the entire country will have to live your vote. A smaller number of voters that know who the better candidate is is much better than a large number of voters who have no idea who the better candidate is, and will probably vote based only on party, or personality, or speeches.

  • To Make the President Elected is the Right One

    People should have to pass a test to show they have some knowledge on voting to avoid ignorant people voting for a president for reasons unrelated to running a country, like race for example. If people are tested before voting, it shows they had to have put some thought behind their decision, or it will at least lessen the amount of votes cast for impure reasons

  • It is the right thing to do.

    This makes sure that people voting aren't mindless humans with no clue at all what they're talking about. It only lets the people who will make the RIGHT decision vote, which is quite helpful and helps us get closer to a more fair election, and therefore a batter choice for president,

  • Yes, there is no legal right to vote

    There is no legal right to vote

    Uninformed and uneducated voters help make our political process simpler, meaner, and dumber. If someone does not possess basic political knowledge, there is little reason to believe that he would be able to make an appropriate decision about the subsequent policies within his city, state, or country. If there is reason to believe he cannot make a good decision about policy, he has no business participating in an election.

    Amendments XV, XIX, XXIV, and XXVI to the Constitution only say that you cannot deny someone a vote on account of race, sex, failure to pay tax, or age after the individual reaches 18. There is no constitutional right to vote.

  • Yes it is beneficial to the people.

    If people took a political knowledge test to vote we could confirm that they actually know some background knowledge about the competing senators as well as the election in general. We can not have individuals blindly voting for senators that could prove to be a potential hazard to the well being of the people.

  • I'm for this

    I wouldn't want somebody voting for a leader unless they actually knew who and what they were voting for, as well as the opponent's stance. Some people's voting choices are swayed by pressure from family, friends, coworkers, etc. That being said, I probably wouldn't pass that test if I were given it, but I'm sure that if voting required a test, more people would do their research.

  • Knowledge equals freedom and liberty

    Only an informed and educated society can have the honest means to be truly free under the roof of our country. Therefore, it is necessary and essential that the voting population at a minimum should understand the framework of the United States government, the history of the US Constitution and US independence, how bills and thus laws are passed, and the core role of government and its place among the people for the people. To ensure that the voting population is educated to similar minimum standards, it should be mandated for eligible voters to pass a civics knowledge test and gain certification to have the clearance to vote. This certification would eliminate illegal votes, ensure the proper strength of the vote by reducing fraud and ballot errors, and eliminate the need for the electoral college which clearly fails to accurately represent the US population.

  • Duh! - Voting is not a Fundamental Right, Protection Against Mobocracy

    If you look at the Framers' intentions in the constitution, any American citizen would realize that they did not intend for every person in the country to vote. That was the reason behind property qualifications, income/education qualifications, and literacy qualifications. In studies in 2004 it was found only 39% of American Citizens could name the British Prime Minister. And you want the rest of the 61% to be electing Representatives, Senators, and Presidents? Does that even sound logical? Moreover this would serve as a protection against voter fraud, while ensuring no external pressure from socialist, communist, and anarchist immigrants.

  • The effort put into the decision is not equal so the votes should not be.

    This is a "political knowledge test" not an IQ test. You don't have to be the smartest person in the world to know about the candidate you are voting for so unless the person is incapable of learning then they could pass the test if they actually know what they are voting for.

    I don't understand how anyone could think it is okay to leave important decisions in the hands of people who don't even know what decisions they are making. If you are voting for a candidate based on his looks, race, gender, or political affiliation then you have failed at the true purpose of voting.

  • Here is why

    While yes it is a right for people to vote, why should someone who doesn't know why they're voting for who they are voting for or vote for someone because the other person spoke funny(dialect) or he was black like me or white like me or the other guy was black? Remember THIS ISN'T A LITERACY TEST, this a political test probably something simple like why did you vote for this individual, which is open ended so there isn't any easy way to cheat. This isn't testing whether you can read and write or not, which people can still be informed without knowing how to read or write. If you don't know why you shouldn't be voting. Democrat, Republican, or third party doesn't matter. Someone tell me why not. It doesn't infringe on the 15th amendment which says no excluding any race from voting, nor the 19th(women's suffrage), nor the 24th(poll tax). Someone tell me why not.

  • Dangerous to Democracy

    Only a little more than half or around 56% of the U. S population turned out to vote in the 2016 presidential election (Drew, 2018). The U. S when compared to other developed countries “placed 26th out of 32” in nationwide voting turnout (Drew).
    When we look at voting numbers in comparison to other countries, Researchers see a trend. Countries like Sweden and Germany who rank 2nd and 12th at 82% and 69% automatically register voters once they are eligible (Drew). The US on the other hand puts all responsibility of voting on the voter and has historically made it more difficult for minorities to vote. Michael McDonald of the University of Florida describes registered voters as “the voting-eligible population. ” According to McDonald, When we look at who is turning out to vote we are looking at a proportion of those who are registered eligible voters rather than the entire population.
    If the US hopes to increase voter turnout we can look to history to see that making voting harder inhibits the common wellbeing of the country. Before the Voting Rights Act of 1965, A common practice for suppressing the vote of immigrants and African Americans in the south was the use of literacy tests. Those who supported the test, Hoped it would prove a potential voter’s ability to read and understand English in an effort to “ensure an educated and informed electorate” (NHAM, 2018) In reality minority groups who as a whole were traditionally poor and less educated were successfully prevented in large quantities from voting because of their socio-economic background and race. When we look further back in history we are reminded that the majority of African Americans were slaves for hundreds of years making no income and lacking education, Thus placing white Americans with a head start. When literacy tests were then implemented it gave white Americans a further advantage in deciding which candidates were elected and what polices were implemented. Literacy tests are easily equated with political knowledge tests, Both efficiently discriminating against minorities and weaving the countries racist history into voting. During the time of literacy tests, Mississippi required transcription and interpretation of a section of the state constitution and a personal essay on the responsibilities of citizenship (NHAM). The registration officials selected the question and interpreted answers, Essentially picking and choosing who can and can’t vote and opening up a door where racism, Xenophobia, And classism decided who had power. An introduction of political science knowledge test would serve as a new vessel for this same kind of bigotry and hate. This is not only intolerance, But an attack on democracy itself. The fourteenth amendment of the U. S constitution declares “equal protection of the laws” and tentatively links political knowledge tests with a constitutional violation. Implementing a national voting test would impose restrictions that violate each individual’s ability to democratically elect their representatives and disregards the founding document of our nation.

  • Too easy to manipulate

    If these tests were used, Politicians would rig the tests so that the correct answers would require bias, Thus restricting who could vote. It would be manipulated to create voter suppression. Alternatively, They could ask about obscure, Unnecessary knowledge so that only elites could vote and not the average person.

  • It's called the Jim Crow Laws

    It doesn't matter how you INTEND the laws to be, Its how they actually WILL be implemented. This EXACT idea has been used before, And it ended up just being a way to discriminate minority groups. There's no real way to prevent this from happening under the test system, And the fact this is even up for debate is appalling. I understand that people on the "yes" side want logic based voting, But you need to understand that that's not what will happen. A very brief study of history should tell you just how bad an idea this is.

  • A good idea in theory. Who will make the test?

    Everyone thinks the other side is incompetent for one reason or another. I think this is the reason some of us want there to be a test. So who will make the test? A bipartisan committee? This may end up being another vehicle for corrupt election practices like gerrymandering. Will the committee be bipartisan or will it actually include all schools of thought? This has been done before in the form of a literacy test which prevented black people from voting. Who will be targeted next? The so called alt-right?

  • An election is put in place to gather everyone's opinions on how they want to be governed.

    Some groups may be unable to take part in the election as they either could not take the test or fail the test. This group of people will most likely be the poorer class, the group of people that are rejected and discriminated against. As such, the majority of votes will come from the higher class, the more educated and more intelligent. What about the lower class? Why can't they take part? Should elections be based on intelligence? Well, I think NO! Everyone should have an equal opportunity to vote for what they want. Which is why an election is put in place for! If we have this test, we might as well not have an election!

  • Discrimination against certain/most people

    Because some people are born into this world with mental medical conditions like Autism or Down syndrom or even people who are very conscious about their self esteem, this general knowledge whatsoever bull crap might affect how they feel about themselves. They might not know how to do it, they would feel stupid or too dumb for this world. This might hurt their self ego. Also, civics and politics are not commonly taught in most schools, even if it is, it discriminates people suffering from poverty, they would have to send their children to school just to learn about the law and all that poppycock and they would become even more poorer, so their children could prepare to face the general knowledge test, as everybody above 18 must vote.
    So this general knowledge acquiring motion must fall.

  • Everybody has knowledge

    Some people watch the debates and pay attention to what they are saying and start to understand everything and have there opinions. Some people might not know about our history but when we are focusing on the future no one is worried about the past and we fought for our rights against the Jim Crow laws and I dont think that they should come back.

  • Not democratic in nature

    It is against the philosophy of democracy that some voters are more worthy than others. What kind of test would we use to root out ignorance? "Where was Barack Obama born"? Who would develop such a test? Who would ensure that it wasn't designed to create a tailor-made electorate? One person, one vote - that is the core of democracy.

  • A Test Promotes Voter Suppression

    In the past, there have been tests such as the literacy test that were used for systematic voter suppression. Any type of requirement for voting is illegal as these tests were overturned in court. A political aptitude test would be used to keep lower class citizens from voting, a fundamental right of United States citizens.

  • We citizens should not have to pass a civics test in order to vote.

    Of course not. No, what's the reason for that? I think we can agree there are more politically involved people in the country than not, and their votes will outweigh the rest. Not to mention this definitely goes against the constitution. One of the things about being an american is that you born with the right to vote.
    It is our constitutional right to vote, a right we fought for for many years to have. If only certain 'educated' people are allowed to vote it undermines the whole system we have. Our government is 'by the people, for the people', not 'for the people with political knowledge'
    Firstly the decisions made by the political machine affect everyone regardless of political intelligence. By barring someone from voting based on that political intelligence you are requiring that a person continue to submit themselves to the rule of law without allowing them any say in how or what areas it is enforced. Why should any person in that position continue to submit to the rule of law?


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

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.