a test before one can vote

[dogs4thewin]

Again who decides the match and the terms used?

Let's take abortion.

Does one get to label the other as pro death or anti choice?

What about environment vrs economics. And lets make it a bit more complicated. We have a bought and paid mouthpiece of developers, a tree hugging wingnut who would rather human babies dies than speckled frogs and a moderate who wants balance.

Do the stooge and wingnut get to portray him as indecisive?

Words matter and words are what has to be used to tell positions, and those for and against someone often cannot agree on the word to use.

A third party could come up with the wording, so as neither side would be able to be "mean" and both sides would have a say in the term used.

 

[Bedford]

Would it be wise to have a test requiring people to match political views with the canident that holds them before they were allowed to vote?

No, it has been proven to be a form of voter disenfranchisement.

You can take a test if you want and abstain from voting if you fail.

 

[dogs4thewin]

No, it has been proven to be a form of voter disenfranchisement.

You can take a test if you want and abstain from voting if you fail.

How is that disfranchisement ( assuming I understand what the heck that is).

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

What does race have to do with ensuring someone is voting on what matters? I do not care if you are black white or green the issue would be were you paying close enough attention to know what you were asking for by voting for a particular person.

I am pointing out that test to "prove your worthiness" of voting is a flawed idea and it will backfire. Instead of creating tests we should be learning how to educate the public at large on issues on the local level and above, who is addressing it and how, and what is at risk.

 

[Inkfingers]

Would it be wise to have a test requiring people to match political views with the canident that holds them before they were allowed to vote?

Not specifically, but voting should not be universal - it should be a privilege of good character, and not a right to all and sundry. Giving out the vote to all is giving out the vote to the mob (who will then out-number the decent).

 

[DaisyDay]

How is that disfranchisement ( assuming I understand what the heck that is).

If someone is disfranchised, that means he is not allowed to vote. If someone were to not be allowed to vote because he didn't pass a test, then he would be disfranchised. Even if you say he is only not allowed to vote for a particular candidate, having failed the knowledge test for that particular one, you are still depriving the voter of his choice.

 

[Bedford]

disenfranchised.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Not specifically, but voting should not be universal - it should be a privilege of good character, and not a right to all and sundry. Giving out the vote to all is giving out the vote to the mob (who will then out-number the decent).

How do you judge that? Felons cannot vote; in some states never and in states until they have completed their full sentence parole and fines included. I am on this side I support ex-convicts) There are people who are of bad character and either have not been caught or have not done anything to rise to level worthy of long or in some cases ANY incarceration and there are Ex-convicts who have honest to goodness changed. Particularly if addictions led to their crimes.

 

[dogs4thewin]

If someone is disfranchised, that means he is not allowed to vote. If someone were to not be allowed to vote because he didn't pass a test, then he would be disfranchised. Even if you say he is only not allowed to vote for a particular candidate, having failed the knowledge test for that particular one, you are still depriving the voter of his choice.

They match the person to the view they can vote for whomever they please.

 

[Bedford]

They match the person to the view they can vote for whomever they please.

If people can vote for whomever they please, then why require some test?

Are you trying to waste taxpayer dollars on purpose?

 

[Bedford]

Not specifically, but voting should not be universal - it should be a privilege of good character, and not a right to all and sundry. Giving out the vote to all is giving out the vote to the mob (who will then out-number the decent).

Not fond of democracy, are we?

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

I honestly don't get how in the "age of Information" that we live in.. so many voters are so uninformed on who their candidates are or what[who?] they are working for. The even bigger problem is the abuse of this flow of information with deceitful propaganda and not truth. If your PR guy spends a lot of campaign money making the other look bad, obviously your stances on things are weak to begin with.

 

[Inkfingers]

How do you judge that?

In a similar way that many professions have a "fit and proper person" requirement.

I would use the designation "godly" but you could say "wise" or "decent" as well.

What is Godly?


Are they chaste? Sober? Civil? Prudent? Patient? Graceful? Measured? Constant? Serious-minded? Having gravitas? A settling and constructive influence? Faithful? Given to propriety? Giving honour to God? Wholesome? Living orderly lives? Stable? Mild in their appetites? Conscientious? Disciplined? Recognising absolute morality?


Do they affirm and promote those things in others?


What is Ungodly?


Are they lewd? Indulgent? Foul-mouthed? Profligate? Impatient? Crass? Prone to overkill? Fickle? Trivial? Flippant? A disruptive influence? Promiscuous? Letting it all “hang out”? Taking honour for themselves rather than giving it to God? Sordid and unsanitary? Living chaotic lives? Unstable? Violent of appetite? Careless? Undisciplined? Following whichever appetite experienced at the moment as the “authority” for them?


Do they affirm and promote those things in others?

There are people who are of bad character and either have not been caught or have not done anything to rise to level worthy of long or in some cases ANY incarceration and there are Ex-convicts who have honest to goodness changed.

No system is foolproof. Should we drop driving licences on the grounds that some drive without a licence anyway?

If your character changes from good to bad, you should lose the privilege. And if it changes from bad to good, you should gain it. But such would need to be earned, not handed-out for a brief failing or a one-off good act.

 

[dogs4thewin]

If people can vote for whomever they please, then why require some test?
Are you trying to waste taxpayer dollars on purpose?

So people will KNOW what they are voting for. People vote and then they complain, yet they complain when they voted not based on promises, but based on race or a letter.

NOT saying ALL people are like that.

 

[Bedford]

So people will KNOW what they are voting for. People vote and then they complain, yet they complain when they voted not based on promises, but based on race or a letter.

NOT saying ALL people are like that.

Pick up a paper, watch TV, attend a debate.

Don't waste more taxpayer money.

 

[kermit]

No this would be to ensure that a person was not just voting for a particular party based on the letter by their name or being pressured. This would be to make sure people were actually voting on the issues and knew who they were REALLY voting for what they were getting in other words.

This would mean that if you did not keep up and stay informed you could not vote.

First of all I fail to see how any can be pressured to vote for someone. The ballot is secret and there's no way to know how someone voted.

Secondly, what gives anyone the right to dictate the criteria someone uses to decide who to vote for? If I choose to vote based on issue, party or "I like his hair"... that's my choice. The value of a vote is not only that we get to decided who to vote for, but also that we get to decide why we vote. The issues/things that are important to me can lead to to vote for the same person as my neighbor even if he has drastically different issues/things that are important to him.

 

[dogs4thewin]

First of all I fail to see how any can be pressured to vote for someone. The ballot is secret and there's no way to know how someone voted.

Secondly, what gives anyone the right to dictate the criteria someone uses to decide who to vote for? If I choose to vote based on issue, party or "I like his hair"... that's my choice. The value of a vote is not only that we get to decided who to vote for, but also that we get to decide why we vote. The issues/things that are important to me can lead to to vote for the same person as my neighbor even if he has drastically different issues/things that are important to him.

Maybe I am really out there, but I would think that people would WANT to vote on the issues?

Pressured being if you have a person whose stuff is EVERYWHERE or if someone feels pressured based on the views others have shared.

 

[2B4gotN]

People don't always know what candidates are trying to sell the masses. But then again, once voted in sometimes these guys change their stance on things.

No, people should not be tested. Educated through better ads/info, yes.

 

[bhsmte]

Would it be wise to have a test requiring people to match political views with the canident that holds them before they were allowed to vote?

Nope.

 

[TerranceL]

I'd love to see a general competency test for politics.
But no, we can't put a test that would limit a persons constitutional rights. People are allowed to vote for whoever they wish for whatever reason they wish, yes even if they are voting for someone because the other guy is a lizard person.