If You Needed to Pass an Exam to Vote
-
Heinlein gets shit on for this, but his "citizenship through service" idea always made sense to me. Yeah you have rights, can work a regular job, and have all the benefits we traditionally associate with "citizenship" by simply being a legal resident...but if you want to vote or hold office, you need to spend a few years contributing. Maybe that's military service, or maybe that's working as a teacher in a low-income area. Regardless, voting is a privilege that SHOULD be earned by contributing to the society you want to impact FIRST.
Nope, it's a terrible idea.
Who defines 'service'? Who assigns 'service'? Who decides you have done enough 'service'? Who decides who is capable or not capable of 'service'? What happens when two different officials have different ideas on the above? What happens when different administrative regions have different ideas on the above? What happens when different regions have different numbers of Voters? What are the health risks of 'service'? What the health risks of the jobs that aren't 'service'? What about people who are incapable of doing 'service'? What about people who choose not to do 'service'? How are resources distributed between Voters and Non-Voters? What about political issues that largely only affect Non-Voters? What happens when the Non-Voters vastly outnumber the Voters and rightfully decide this is a crappy system?
I suggest the game Shadowrun if you want a look at a world where the Certified Citizens are a small minority. It's not pretty.
-
Thank you for getting what I was trying to say. Spot on, I don't think the idea is wrong. It would be nice if there was a test to say "hey are you able to vote on these topics, have you researched, are you voting with your brain or with emotions?" - which is why I say the idea is fine. There isn't though. There isn't a single way to do that fairly or equitably.
Thank god the commenters immediately jumped down my throat to tell me what I already knew.
Exactly. The problem with having to meet certain criteria for being able to vote is who gets to set that criteria. We would end up with “black people have to guess the number of bubbles in this bar of soap” all over again.
-
No it's not.
Please explain
-
I think it's supposed to say "Cross out the digit necessary", so one digit, in which case cross out the 1 because there's enough 0's that crossing out one 0 isn't enough.
It's 10 that has me confused. Is it asking for the last letter of the first word that starts with 'L' in that sentence? It doesn't actually specify.
Compared to rest of questions, the one doesn't specify that the answer is contained in the sentence, By that logic, I'd say the first word is Louisiana.
-
Voting should be mandatory, punished by like a $200 fine for non voters.
Brazil does this I think & it's not going well
-
Yes, let's force everyone to vote whether or not they have any clue what's going on or who the candidates are, great idea.
It works in Australia. The main upside is since voting is mandatory the onus is on the government (or more precisely, an independent body called the Australian Electoral Commission) to make sure there are enough polling places, voting papers etc to accommodate the full turn out. Further, voting is done on a Saturday and there is plenty of opportunity to vote early/do a postal vote/vote from a completely different electorate etc.
My understanding from several US elections I've seen is there are a LOT of people who would like to vote but can't due to work, ridiculous waiting times, lack of facilities etc. Compulsory voting would mean all of this would have to be taken care of without the states mucking around with their own rules.
To address the issue you have, yes, people who have no clue turn up and vote BUT whilst voting is compulsory, submitting a valid vote is not. So long as you turn up and take your bits of paper you can just draw a dick on them or whatever if you don't feel you know enough to have a say.
-
Um fuck you? Being autistic doesn't mean we can't circle a letter or understand a sentence. Hell, this shit is incredibly literal minded and is easy as hell for us. Maybe you're the one with trouble.....
wrote last edited by [email protected]This test is clearly intended to be deceptive. For example, with Q1 should I circle the number '1' or 'a'? With Q4 how do you draw a line around something? 11 is clearly a trick question designed to put pressure on people.
I'm autistic and whilst I could confidently argue an answer for these questions, I'm pretty sure someone would disagree with the reasoning I use, and a single failure means I fail the test
-
You sure do love calling people fascist, you've done it multiple times today.
Just people like you, for some reason.
-
It works in Australia. The main upside is since voting is mandatory the onus is on the government (or more precisely, an independent body called the Australian Electoral Commission) to make sure there are enough polling places, voting papers etc to accommodate the full turn out. Further, voting is done on a Saturday and there is plenty of opportunity to vote early/do a postal vote/vote from a completely different electorate etc.
My understanding from several US elections I've seen is there are a LOT of people who would like to vote but can't due to work, ridiculous waiting times, lack of facilities etc. Compulsory voting would mean all of this would have to be taken care of without the states mucking around with their own rules.
To address the issue you have, yes, people who have no clue turn up and vote BUT whilst voting is compulsory, submitting a valid vote is not. So long as you turn up and take your bits of paper you can just draw a dick on them or whatever if you don't feel you know enough to have a say.
You can (and should) provide fair access to voting without making it mandatory. Most people would probably submit a valid vote anyway, there's a lot of no/low information voters already and refusing to vote, for example to boycott the election or for whatever other reason is also a valid political stance. Plus I'm not a fan of any financial penalties because they're basically an extra civil rights subscription for the wealthy who can afford to pay the fines, while a poor person who doesn't make it to the polling booth gets disproportionately screwed.
-
If I recall correctly, Aristotle proposed something like only the educated being able to vote. I think if everyone was guaranteed free access to both a high school and college education, along with all food and living costs covered for anyone studying, then I could see having at least any associates level degree being an okay barrier of entry to voting.
However, such a thing would need to be protected by some unremovable barriers. For instance, education would need to continue receiving appropriate funding, food and other living costs such as renting a room would need to be covered even as the cost for these things change. People with disabilities would need to receive proper accommodations.
A caveat I’ll add is that there would need to be more community colleges built and much more funding for pre-K thru 12th grade as well.
There'd need to be a massive overhaul of the education system. Most people who do graduate still make stupid-ase, self-sabotaging choices.
-
There is a general rejection of such a test. Obviously voting in its current form doesn't work. If everybody keeps being allowed to vote, what can be done to improve the quality of the outcome?
If everybody keeps being allowed to vote, what can be done to improve the quality of the outcome?
With you being the judge of what is the "quality of the outcome"? That isn't democratic.
-
If everybody keeps being allowed to vote, what can be done to improve the quality of the outcome?
With you being the judge of what is the "quality of the outcome"? That isn't democratic.
Right, who could make that judgement? And everybody voting under the influence of propaganda is also not democratic.
So what is the moral thing to do?
-
Just people like you, for some reason.
This is a bit reminiscent of Trump's "everything I don't like is fake news" routine.
-
It works in Australia. The main upside is since voting is mandatory the onus is on the government (or more precisely, an independent body called the Australian Electoral Commission) to make sure there are enough polling places, voting papers etc to accommodate the full turn out. Further, voting is done on a Saturday and there is plenty of opportunity to vote early/do a postal vote/vote from a completely different electorate etc.
My understanding from several US elections I've seen is there are a LOT of people who would like to vote but can't due to work, ridiculous waiting times, lack of facilities etc. Compulsory voting would mean all of this would have to be taken care of without the states mucking around with their own rules.
To address the issue you have, yes, people who have no clue turn up and vote BUT whilst voting is compulsory, submitting a valid vote is not. So long as you turn up and take your bits of paper you can just draw a dick on them or whatever if you don't feel you know enough to have a say.
I'd love to know how many people either draw a dick, or vote for the legalised cannabis party or whatever.
-
It works in Australia. The main upside is since voting is mandatory the onus is on the government (or more precisely, an independent body called the Australian Electoral Commission) to make sure there are enough polling places, voting papers etc to accommodate the full turn out. Further, voting is done on a Saturday and there is plenty of opportunity to vote early/do a postal vote/vote from a completely different electorate etc.
My understanding from several US elections I've seen is there are a LOT of people who would like to vote but can't due to work, ridiculous waiting times, lack of facilities etc. Compulsory voting would mean all of this would have to be taken care of without the states mucking around with their own rules.
To address the issue you have, yes, people who have no clue turn up and vote BUT whilst voting is compulsory, submitting a valid vote is not. So long as you turn up and take your bits of paper you can just draw a dick on them or whatever if you don't feel you know enough to have a say.
ridiculous waiting times, lack of facilities etc.
This is a big part of the GOP's strategy for maintaining power in a "democracy" despite not having the support of anywhere near a majority of the general public. Wherever possible, they ensure that voting in Democratic areas is as difficult as they can make it. In some places they've even made it illegal just to hand out water to people waiting in line to vote.
-
You don't. People have always said that about basically every country. What is "cultural decay"? Define "civic duty". Why is it a problem that people are content? Are we lazier? Are people on average more content now?
The key lesson is that you can't force people to care about what you do. Inspire people and they'll follow you, don't and they'll do something else. FDR increased a sense of civic duty by paying people to do civic works.
I think I might've come across incorrectly when I said cultural decay. I mean to convey the consequences of a cultures effect on politics. For example wars, pollution, or nuclear weapons. I think you'd have trouble denying those have effects that are inherently social and require civic cooperation to prevent. Doing otherwise seems to me to actually objectively be a problem, assuming you value living. That's actually what I meant about laziness as well, that we're less invested in the core responsibilities that now exist with how advanced our technology and societies have become.
I agree you can't force anyone, that's not freedom, but I also feel and fear we may be past the point where inspiration can handle the challenges. FDR never had nuclear war looming, the interconnected and chaotic nature of social media to contend with, or a bevy of other modern factors like llms that I get the gut feeling are insurmontable. I'd like to be convinced otherwise instead of subscribing to apathy but I feel like I'm living through the dawn of a new age.
-
This post did not contain any content.
They used to do that in the US during the Jim Crow era. It went predictably.
-
This post did not contain any content.
It's not working. We have relatively equal education in Germany, and we have plenty of intelligent, educated people voting far right.
-
The trouble is that barriers to voting will always be manipulated by the people in charge to exclude specific people.
That's just a statement and not necessarily true just because you say so.
Anyway, such a test would obviously not be about Nascar or illegal immigrants, but rather the structure of the government and the content of the constitution, testing whether the testee understands their nation, its values, and the democratic principles it is founded on. I don't buy the pseudo killer argument that the test would eventually and automatically be corrupted. Keep it on the subject matter, and as long as the constitution doesn't change, the test doesn't change meaningfully. Everything outside these topics is irrelevant to the test.
testing whether the testee understands their nation, its values, and the democratic principles it is founded on
It seems like you only want people with certain "values" to be able to vote. What even are a nation's "values" anyway? Most of the time I hear that it's just vague nationalist propaganda about how our nation and our people are wonderful. I will admit that's a bit of a specific nitpick though.
As for "the structure of government and the content of the constitution", I honestly don't think the details of how laws are passed or how many seats are in congress, etc, matter much when it comes to deciding which policies you support and which party you'll vote for.
By their very nature, laws like this exclude people who are less educated and have less free time and/or motivation to study for your test. These are almost always going to be also the most disadvantaged and poorly treated people in society.
-
Nope. The answer to number ten is 'a'.
Assuming you went with "last", but that starts with 'l', not 'L'. Each other question also specifies "one this line" where relevant, but not this one. The first word starting with 'L' is "Louisiana".
The trick of the test is that it's subjective to the person grading it. I could have also told you that the line drawing one (12) was wrong by just saying it's not the correct way to do it. Or that 11 was wrong because you didn't make the number below one million, it's equal to one million. Or if you crossed off one more zero I'd say you could have gotten fewer by crossing off the 1 at the start. Or that a long string of zeros isn't a properly formatted number.
Aww, my suffrage.
