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.

  • No they shouldnt

    A a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

  • No no no.

    If only a select number of people were eligible to vote, politicians would target their policies at those few (as seen already by politicians’ favour of pensioners who regularly vote) and would inevitably exclude those who do not. Those who could not vote, most probably those disadvantaged and in need of political attention, would therefore have no voice.

  • Who is the Vice Predent?

    I'm not saying you have to be a political junkie but you should be required to be able to recognize the Vice President of the United States and know what century it was when we gained our independence and who we fought to do so. We don'have to back to the 1700s, many of these geniuses don't know who our adversaries were in WW 2.

  • Voting is not a legal right! It is a human right!

    No one should be able to tell you if you can or cannot vote based off of test results! This is fascism! We are all born equal and all have the equal right to to choose our leaders!!! Voting is a human right! This is essential to our liberty !!

  • It may make sense on the surface, but requiring Political knowledge is a bed of thorns.

    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?
    Secondly how do you enforce a test on political intelligence? What should be in it??? If a man decides he wants to vote for Politician X because she is the only politician guaranteeing that she will keep open the school that the man's daughter attends should he be allowed to vote knowing only that? Or should he be excluded from the vote based on the fact he only wants to vote on that issue?
    This is to completely ignore the logistical concerns one would have in setting up such a system.

  • It's hard but... I have to say NO

    Democracy is the right for everyone to vote...
    No matter if he is good educated, rich, poor, black, white,a woman or a man.

    It's sometimes hard to accept that people which have no knowledge have the same right to vote then other, but that is how a democracy works!

    And we can be proud that we have one!

    Posted by: timC
  • What the heck

    This makes no sense. 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'.

  • 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.

    Posted by: bete
  • Intelligence has nothing to do with our goals and opinions about the world.

    Just because someone doesn't know a lot about politics does not mean that they can't make decisions and understand which political party they agree with. Knowledge has nothing to do with someone making goals or choosing which way they like the world to work. Voting is all about someone's opinion, not knowledge.

  • Amounts to Poll Tax

    Verifying the education of someone before voting is like charging a poll tax. Plus, as long as someone can read and understand a ballot, one assumes they are intelligent enough to vote in an election. Although the electoral college was created to prevent illiterate masses from voting in elections, modern technology has remedied that situation.

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

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