Do you think democracy would function more efficiently if voters required licenses to vote?

Question

If you don't have a college degree, for example, you'd have to take a test evaluating your knowledge of law, economics, international affairs, public adminstration and political science. If you don't know your way around these issues, you can't vote. Wouldn't having an educated, certified electorate improve the democratic experience for the better? Should voting be seen as a responsibility first rather than an unqualified right?

The license and examination would be free, as would education, to make it equitable the responsibility of the citizen to step-up and be informed before they cast their vote.
This could eliminate so much of the political manipulation that politicians engage in to exploit the ignorance of the electorate. It can also, potentially, make the narrow-minded, single-issue voters think about the big picture.

Answer 1

An uninformed vote is just as bad as not voting at all. Maybe worse. I think people should take the time to learn at least some of the issues they're voting on and form an opinion. I don't se that licensing would do any good.

Answer 2

We have done this before in our history and it was used for exclusionary purposes. The big issue is that electoral laws are left to the states under our constitution. That leaves open the potential for lots of abuse, which is exactly what happened with the literacy tests of the past.

Having licenses also decreases the diversity of interests that are represented when people vote. In other words, people with low levels of education still have distinct political interests that would tend not to be articulated if licenses were required.

Finally, as terrible as it sounds, it is emiprical reality that richer and smarter people tend to vote while poorer and/or less educated people (the two are not the same of course) tend not to vote. In other words, elections tend to be determined by the type of people who would get licenses under your system without the free education component.

Answer 3

I think parenthood would produce less mixed up adults if it required a licence to have kids.
Would you get to vote in later life after you have completed the OU course and got the degree that you never got in your younger years because your parents unwittingly ruined your self-esteem and therefore the foundation of your adult life?
What about politicians? Should they have some form of humanitarian educational background rather than all come from a bussiness, law or economy education? They ain't got a clue on people needs most of them and all they see is the £££ or $$$$$.

Answer 4

This is a dumb question.

The "issues" aside, everyone (once in the voting booth) goes with their gut feeling on how the politician presents themself. People vote out of vanity and appearances. They vote for the guy who is best at making the lies believable.

Licensing voters wouldn't provide better candidates or change anything. That would only be another self destructive act of limiting liberty

Answer 5

It might function more efficiently, but not as justly, in my opinion.

I often get frustrated at what I see as the ignorance of the common voter. But ultimately, I think everyone has a right to vote. If everyone is going to be subject to the laws and to taxation, they should have some say in how they are written. It's the only fair way to do it.

Answer 6

Seems good idea but you cant apply for all people coz there are GREATER NUMBER OF PEOPLES IN THIS WORLD WHO ARE POOR & CANT EVEN BEAR THE COST FOR ONE TIME MEAL so how they can afford the cost of EDUCATION ofcoz there are scholarship offered but itz not for all right?

How about this? We dont have rules set for the candidates who are elected...So

Candidates who run for election shall be a degree holder and should be expertise in the choosen field before they are given to handle those sections (It would be nice to have agriculture degree holder to handle agriculture department affairs and choose an all around expertise when you choose someone in education department-especially those with Doctor rate)

You know what? South asian politicians are least educated and i can remember we had an Education Minister who vomited in the Five Star swimming pool after fully drunk and there was another sports minister who forced a sports woman(Married) to have sex with him and another used his position to send peoples to abroad charging 10-12 lacks per head....Do u think people like this will serve any better for the future of country...

We dont have expertise in choose field rather we have gangsters and our people alwayz prefer to vote for these gangsters..

Answer 7

The Civil Rights Act of 1965 outlawed those..

Answer 8

That would be a way to exclude black people and poor people from ever voting, I think it is a good idea, just a second let me load my gun, I feel another civil war coming. I will be the one shooting at you, now don't you wish that you had taken my gun away before you tried anything as stupid as excluding me from voting.

Answer 9

Well, at least it would have kept Bush from being voted in....

But, it unfortunately has to be equal across the board. So that is why the dumb can vote because they are cute, or says the right things to them...amazing isn't it?

Answer 10

Then it becomes exclusive instead of inclusive.

And, let's be honest, who really understands economics?

And does a college degree in Mediaeval Literature count?