a test before one can vote

[dogs4thewin]

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?

 

[pgp_protector]

No.
Why should I have to "Match" the political views of someone I'm voting for?

 

[Liberasit]

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?

Why?

 

[dogs4thewin]

No.
Why should I have to "Match" the political views of someone I'm voting for?

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.

 

[keith99]

While appealing on the surface I'd say no.

Who decides what the matching is?

That is the problem with any such test, who decided the test. Though on that I'd be OK with having to solve a simply quadratic equation.

Mind you that means I could have voted at 8 (or earlier) and some here would never be able to vote.

Hmm I could have won office by 15. I could have done a get out the vote and bit of training for the 6-18 demographic. We could have had the kids running the city!

 

[dogs4thewin]

While appealing on the surface I'd say no.

Who decides what the matching is?

That is the problem with any such test, who decided the test. Though on that I'd be OK with having to solve a simply quadratic equation.

Mind you that means I could have voted at 8 (or earlier) and some here would never be able to vote.

Hmm I could have won office by 15. I could have done a get out the vote and bit of training for the 6-18 demographic. We could have had the kids running the city!

lol

On a serious note. I was thinking maybe to take the "hot button issues that both sides had on their platform and have been match the stance with the person.

 

[keith99]

No.
Why should I have to "Match" the political views of someone I'm voting for?

I think yuo are misreading the OP. I'm pretty sure the meaning was that yuo have to match the views to the candidate, not that your view have ot match the candidates views.

That a short statement like this can be read different ways also illustrates a big problem with matching things up in general. A different reading gives a different answer.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I think yuo are misreading the OP. I'm pretty sure the meaning was that yuo have to match the views to the candidate, not that your view have ot match the candidates views.

That a short statement like this can be read different ways also illustrates a big problem with matching things up in general. A different reading gives a different answer.

You are right that would be the point of the test.

 

[MachZer0]

A test I would accept would be whether or not a person had a net loss on their income taxes. If one has a net gain, they should not be allowed to vote

 

[Paulos23]

No, to easy to abuse. As history has shown.

 

[keith99]

lol

On a serious note. I was thinking maybe to take the "hot button issues that both sides had on their platform and have been match the stance with the person.

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.

 

[pgp_protector]

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.

I'm sorry is their a law or requirement that I'm not aware of that prevents me from voting for someone base on any condition I want? (Their Name, Party, what style of clothing they wear)

How informed do are we required to be before voting ?
Do I have to know what each person had for Breakfast?
What about what Church services they attended ?
Their full tax history ?

 

[grandvizier1006]

As much as I would LOVE some sort of test, it won't work. One word: race.

If I remember correctly, such an idea was proposed back in the "good" ole' South during the Jim Crow era to discourage African Americans from voting.

So if it was brought back again liberals would see it the same they do voter ID--it would be racist because no matter what the test was they'd make up some lie about how "minorities" (and if they're particularly daring, they'll say LGBT people and women even though I don't know how they'd be able to fudge numbers saying that these groups have "lower IQ on average) would be at a "disproportionate disadvantage when taking the test".

If it was a basic math problem (unfortunately I have forgotten how to do Quadratic equations, lol ) then at best they'd have people "assisting the minorities" (aka straight up giving them the answer so that they could go and vote).

If it was "match the candidate with his/her positions" then it would be easier for the "minorities with below average IQs" (ironically, to liberals it isn't racist to say that certain people groups are stupid if there's a way to gain from it politically ) to complete it. But how many questions would it be? Maybe one randomly generated question from a selection of issues? That would be great, but I think that any attempts to make sure that brainwashed people (of either party, I can think of people who blindly vote Republican because "their values align with the Bible's") from voting would be seen as bad, possibly by Republicans and VERY MUCH SO by the Democrats. If you took away every non-informed voter, who would win? I think the Republicans, but not necessarily by a large margin. (Lol, this is reminding me of my days as a straw conservative! )

And Keith, I think the best way to decide that would be to just carefully choose neutral words. Pro-life and pro-choice, for example. Maybe even a reminder definition for the truly ignorant

But I would love for this to be implemented. Candidates wouldn't get any "free boosts" from anybody, and given Obama having just permitted lots of Central Americans into the US this would be a low blow for the Democrats if this got passed, and even if a Spanish version of this test was available I think they'd still get upset. You'd have to really analyze the candidates and be forced to make an actual decision!

The only problem is that it wouldn't stop the "I'm just voting for him because I'd rather have him than the other guy" voting. So for that we'd just need more candidates, maybe 2 or 3 per party.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

We had something like this before. It was called the Jim Crow laws.. they first started off by testing for literacy which exempted a lot of recently freed slaves, who couldn't read or write, from voting. What they they didn't know was the number of whites who were also exempted from voting as they too couldn't read or write as well.

 

[humbleServant77]

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. If we did that, NOBODY would vote. EVER!!

But in the wake of recent killings by Muslims, maybe we should have a test for religion such that if you're Muslim you can't vote? Hey it's WAY more tolerant than "if you depict my leader I kill you"

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

No. If we did that, NOBODY would vote. EVER!!

But in the wake of recent killings by Muslims, maybe we should have a test for religion such that if you're Muslim you can't vote? Hey it's WAY more tolerant than "if you depict my leader I kill you"

or do a movie about them...

looking at you North Korea....

 

[Ana the Ist]

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?

There are lots of reasons why this wouldn't work. The main one is that most politicians don't run on their actual views...they run on what they think you want to hear.

 

[humbleServant77]

There are lots of reasons why this wouldn't work. The main one is that most politicians don't run on their actual views...they run on what they think you want to hear.

And then do what their boss wants them to do anyway but that's besides the point of the OP. she was just getting at people actually knowing who (or what) they're voting for, amIright?

I agree it wouldn't accomplish real change for the reasons cited, but at least it would be a refreshing change. Kinda like a Pepsi?

 

[dogs4thewin]

We had something like this before. It was called the Jim Crow laws.. they first started off by testing for literacy which exempted a lot of recently freed slaves, who couldn't read or write, from voting. What they they didn't know was the number of whites who were also exempted from voting as they too couldn't read or write as well.

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.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I'm sorry is their a law or requirement that I'm not aware of that prevents me from voting for someone base on any condition I want? (Their Name, Party, what style of clothing they wear)

How informed do are we required to be before voting ?
Do I have to know what each person had for Breakfast?
What about what Church services they attended ?
Their full tax history ?

There currently is no law. How informed would you need to be to vote? The basics which person say supports the pipeline. Where does a person stand on abortion. For example, if one says it should be legal in any and all cases vs one who is OK with it under strict conditions say only if the mother's life is in danger or only prior to a certain point. Someone who opposes abortion no matter the reason. How to handle taxes and tax breaks. Any number of issues.