Should Citizens Need to Show Political Knowledge to Vote?

Posted by: MakeSensePeopleDont

Let's be honest here: How many people vote one way or the other without knowing a single thing about the candidates except their skin color, sex, and MAYBE the lies in the media?

  • Yes: Although we have the right to vote, shouldn't we properly educate the voter first?

  • No: Who cares what I know about......OOO Look at the shiny thing.

60% 9 votes
40% 6 votes
  • Yes, I am tired of hearing "I don't know what he's for, he's black" and "I don't know what her policy views are, I just know she's gonna be the first woman president." Did our last two elections not wake us up to politicians and how the media purposely lies to the public in order to advance their own agenda? In fact, a large population of the voting crowd was polled before and after voting and it was found that most were either misinformed/misled about candidates, mixed up their candidates and policies, said they were voting for Obama because they would get free stuff, or said they had no idea what any policies were for any candidate but were voting for Obama strictly because he is black. I understand we have a constitutionally given RIGHT to vote, but what's the harm in properly educating voters before their selection? You won't rid the polls of morons wasting their votes on race or skin color but at least the wrongly informed and lied to voters would have a fighting chance. If we don't apply some kind of test, we are grooming the nation to be run politically by moronic voters as well as whomever can run the most widely accepted and viewed lie and smear campaigns.

  • If a voter cant pass a basic citizenship test, then they shouldnt be allowed to vote

  • We need to slow the merge of entertainment and information. It makes people less informed. But I think every citizen should be able to vote.

  • No. 1) Voting is a right stop trying to take it away from people 2) This would favor people woth access to better education and with more time on their hands (usually wealthier) 3) What defines political knowledge? Seems like it would be very easy to turn someone dowm for their political views.

    Posted by: Stefy
  • Not seen a good enough reason yet to remove a fundamental right, it's a slippery slope.

  • Otherwise, what counts as political knowledge. That sort of system would become biased quickly if it wasn't biased to begin with.

  • The process would be too political. Way too easy for politicians to abuse.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
TBR says2015-06-21T21:49:40.8806524-05:00
Who decides the limit? How much do you need to know? No, its not a good idea. It seems like a good idea, but it fraught with issues.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-06-21T22:06:14.4214744-05:00
@TBR The same way our new "awesome" schooling institution (common core) figures it out. Wait that would be extra stupid since every sane person without an investment in it hates it. Seriously though, use common sense. Each registered voter should be provided their choice of either a website or booklet containing information about each candidates voting history, personal history, economic review, and proposed policies, etc. when they receive their voter registration card. As for the score, what is a passing score? 50/50? Would you want a surgeon treating you with a 50% success rate? 100%? Do we want to eliminate people based on nerves or forgetting one answer? 33% verbal, 33% written, 33% reading, 60% QA? That's the naturalization exam for a green card. Do we really want the same low standards as the immigration exam to represent our voters? I think 75% would be more than fair. After all, we are the "exceptional" nation everyone wants to be part of. Why not make our voters prove time and effort enough spent on choosing their president that they can carry at least a grade of C (On an A, B, C, D, F scale) or average, on knowledge of the candidates?
TBR says2015-06-21T22:23:31.5018295-05:00
The question is, who and how would the "test" be made. If it disenfranchised YOU would that be acceptable? I'm sure I could craft a political test that you would fail.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-06-21T22:39:58.1208260-05:00
@TBR For readers, disenfranchised = Deprived; to take away. In this case, I believe we are talking about taking away a person's right to vote. 1) We take away felons rights from voting; is that fair? You commit a crime and all of a sudden you're not smart enough to vote? 2) Disenfranchise, deprive, or take away is completely incorrect here. Nobody is saying to "take away" a person's right to vote; we are simply talking about testing your knowledge of the subject matter prior to allowing you to make a decision. Think about this: While attending school, you are tested on numerous subject matter. If you choose not to pay attention and study and fail the tests, you don't graduate. Are we "taking away" your RIGHT to an education or the ability to graduate? No, YOU personally chose not to do anything or put in any work at all. We gave you the ability and materials to succeed, you decided laziness and ignorance were more important. As my grandmother always said; "You made your bed, now lie in it." As far as who would make the test, there are plenty of educational institutions that could put it together. It's simple actually, in the candidates paperwork to be declared a presidential candidate which they already fill out, you have a sheet asking them what their policies and views are on topics the President would need to deal with during their Presidency; today it would include terrorism, legalized and medicinal Marijuana, health insurance, immigration, unemployment, police/community relations, etc. You can directly copy the questions from there. Example: How would you handle illegal immigration? The candidate would fill in his answer. The test creators would directly copy: Question 1: How would you handle illegal immigration? Answer: (insert exact answer). There's your exam.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-06-22T11:27:11.5712421-05:00
@Stefy 1) Nobody is taking away your right to vote, simply testing your knowledge. If you fail out of school nobody took away your right to an education, you just failed to put in the effort required to graduate (which is sad) 2) What does education and time have to do with it? I mean if you don't know ANYTHING about what the candidate you're voting for stands for and you can't be bothered to take the time to research them, why are you even voting? Additionally, if you don't have the time to learn about the TWO candidates, why do you all of a sudden have the time to become a registered voter, stand in line at the voting booth, and cast your vote? Your point lacks thought and foundation. 3) My explanation of what a political knowledge test would be is listed earlier in the comments section. It's actually pretty simple and easy.
TBR says2015-06-22T14:53:20.7042518-05:00
"1) We take away felons rights from voting; is that fair?" NO
TBR says2015-06-22T14:54:13.4080658-05:00
" 2) Disenfranchise, deprive, or take away is completely incorrect here. Nobody is saying to "take away" a person's right to vote; " - You sure are. How about a look at the decisions of the SCOTUS regarding "testing"
TBR says2015-06-22T14:56:00.7169302-05:00
Testing is not smart solution. I would like voters to be more knowledgeable, that must be done in other ways.
Stefy says2015-06-22T18:11:46.5131266-05:00
Yeah like push more educational campaigns, better history and civics classes in our schools. Dont prevent people from voting that eont make people mroe motivated to elarn it will just stop people from voting.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-06-23T00:24:32.1112404-05:00
SCOTUS? Explain please.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

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