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

Asked by: Gaben11
  • This is about BASIC COMPETENCY.

    This is about basic basic competency. Voting is a privilege NOT a right. Like driving a car or owning a gun. In this case you will be asked to cast a ballot based on your understanding of basic government functions and social issues. If you are unable to understand and thoughtfully apply available information in regards to your vote. Then you should have none. There should be a basic civics course and test. And a social responsibilities course... And test! I believe this to be a very realistic goal with limited cost. .....Unlike the ultimate cost of electing an idiot for president.

  • American-born Citizens Should Take the Same Test as Naturalized Citizens

    To become a naturalized citizen (and a legal voter), one is required to “Demonstrate a basic knowledge of U.S. history, government, and civic principles” and “Demonstrate an ability to read, write, speak, and understand basic English”.

    Native-born citizens are allowed to vote no matter how illiterate or ill-informed. It seems reasonable that native-born Americans be required to demonstrate the same rudimentary understanding of the Constitution and civics as naturalized citizens.

  • Your future decided by a mass of ignorant, brainwashed fools? Hell no!

    Regardless of your party affiliation, you should fear the masses of morons who have been effectively brainwashed by the media, depending on which channel broadcasts their favorite reality TV show. JFK won votes during his debate against Nixon because he was rested and tanned...And the women ate it up. Whether you agree with the outcome is irrelevant. The example illustrates that people will vote for reasons which have no place in deciding the future of our country. We have amended the Constitution many times before to allow it to adapt to changing times.

    The hordes of idiots are descending upon our political system and twisting it with their ignorance and religion, which has absolutely no place in politics.

    A test of basic knowledge of current events could be administered alongside the ballot and if you don't pass the test, your ballot is shredded.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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.

  • Yes, it is for the rule of reason!

    Do people, having no idea what consequences their decision will have on their own life and the life of other people, have an irrevocable constitutional right to influence the life of others? I doubt. The situation gets worse, as this sets selection rules that favour politicians, appealing to the voters' feelings rather than their minds. Long-term, gradual improvements in economy and legislature are sacrificed to short-term populism, just because the majority of voters do not care to understand what these improvements are and how they work. I believe, only people who can prove their ability to make justifiable choices shall be given that right. So, test is a fair way to prove it.

  • Yes plus a logic test!

    I think people should not only have to pass a test that shows a basic understanding of politics, but also a test of their ability to use pure logic. Basically you should to be able to reason well and be knowledgeable enough to make an informed decision. One without the other is not enough.

  • No's take a step back from your opinions

    First off this is not an iq test or some five hundred question test, it is simply something that keeps people that just vote democrat because they are democrat same with republican. People who do not have a clue on what their candidate is running for should not vote because they are ignorant of it all. The test should just be a basic thing that questions on the simple views and reasons the candidate is running. Our nation is an education based system. They do not let some random person from off of the street with little knowledge become president, why should they let one vote for a president?

  • They have to know what they are talking about.

    I believe that people should take a political knowledge test before voting because they have to know what they are voting for. I don't want politically illiterate people voting on policy that governs people who make rational political decisions. If these people want to vote, they should know about political system and different aspects of it before they vote.

  • 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.