Should there be a literacy test in order to vote?

Question

Remember that half the population has below average intelligence. Do we really want those people deciding the fate of our country?

I once worked a the polls and saw a whole bus full of retarded adults pull up. They were instructed by their handlers to pull the lever with the donkey.

Answer 1

I would hate to call you a liar but,
IF a person working the polls sees someone instructing someone how to vote, not only will that person be asked to leave, the instucted persons vote is up for challenge and must be done on paper.
Although if a person has problems voting they can ask for assitance which would allow this on a one to one basis
BTW
I live in Indiana where dead people all vote republican
There is coruption in the systems and it is not one sided

Answer 2

I think there should be a literacy test to get a voter's registration card rather than one to participate in the actual voting process. As with a driver's test, accomodations should be made for those who have difficulty understanding. My grandfather couldn't read, but he had a driver's license. I thought this was the strangest thing that he would've even been given one. And then I learned that there is a special driver's test for people who can't read. Voter's registration should work the same way. The whole voting system sucks anyway because it makes no sense to me that a mentally handicapped or retarded person (who sometimes can't understand) can vote but a person who was convicted of a felony (who more than likely can understand) cannot. With regards to voting, there's nothing else to read except the names of the candidates. Even though the instructions can be read, they are usually given verbally. So no level of literacy skill should matter in the voting process. It seems that a question of a person's literacy skill should come about when they're reading the newspaper or some other printed material (like a flyer) that spells out the platform of the political candidate. A person can be literate and ignorant to the issues due to lack of interest. Or a person can be illterate and watch the news or attend debates or lobbying seminars to stay abreast of the issues. My point? Just because a person can read and get an understanding of issues that are important to me doesn't mean they'd have any sensitivity to those issues. Vice versa for the one who can't read- it doesn't mean that we aren't working for the same cause.

Then again, I'm one of those people who believe that many politicians themselves have below average intelligence. Maybe there should be literacy tests to run for public office. Those are the people who's literacy skill concerns me.

Answer 3

No. This line of "logic" was used in the past to keep the poor and specifically African-Americans (who were denied the right learn to read/write) from voting.

Every person counts in a Democracy. If they are citizens then they have the right to vote. A better way to "sift" voters may to be have a law that if you pay taxes then you get to vote. If you don't want to vote then you don't have to pay taxes.

As a side not that think about the population's intelligence is an urban myth. There has never been a nationwide IQ test to see what the nations collective/average IQ is.

Answer 4

Literacy (the ability to read and write) no. On the other hand, during the 2004 Presidential election, I observed voters who when told "press here for George Bush or here for John Kerry" asked "How do I vote for the (insert party here). If you don't know which candidate represents which party, particularly in that race, you really should not be voting.

As far as below average intelligence, half of any group is below average on anything. That is have average works. In other words, in a room full of PhDs, half will have 'below average intelligence' for that group. The least intelligent person in that group is probably more intelligent than most people on Yahoo Answers.

Answer 5

The effect on the vote these people have is minimal at best. You don't need to be able to read to vote. Anyone for any reason is allowed to take into the polling both with them an "assistor of choice" who is neither their employer nor a labor representative. An assistor of choice can read to them their choices. There is also a tremendous difference between intelligence and ability to read. Some very intelligent people are illiterate. This is a democracy, we are ruled by the people, if half the population is "below average intelligence" (and I take issue with that unfounded statistic) the more intelligent are technically in the minority so why should we be deciding for them?

Answer 6

Who do suppose is going to determine who is fit to vote? And if you are not fit to vote, does that mean you don't have to pay taxes anymore? I mean, why pay taxes if you have absolutely no say in how the money is used? Or do you just mean they (the illiterates) get the privilege of paying taxes for those who are more qualified to decide what they (the illiterates) really want?

That sounds like what you just said those caretakers did to the people on the bus. Also how do you know that group was not there specifically because they wanted to vote for the "lever with the donkey" maybe they had two buses, one for donkey and one for elephants?

Either way, this is taken care of in the constitution. Thank goodness. Being literate does not mean you are intelligent. Hey, look at politicians, most of them are literate.

Answer 7

Literacy tests were banned by the Supreme Court as being discrimitory. Theye were part of the Jim Crow laws of the American South and a few other states.

Where did you get the stat that half the population of the US is below average intelligence? What does that have to do with literacy?

Answer 8

What makes you think that the people who vote are not idiots?

When people place the welfare of their lives and country on the fact that their candidate has a pleasant face,--are these not idiots?

When voters vote because some well-dressed person ( male of female) tells them a tale of woe about the opposite party and scares them into believing that their home and pet-dog will be taken from them as Social Security goes down the drink,--are these not idiots?

Idiots come in all sizes, shapes and sexes. It's really hard to tell who is the real person or who is the idiot.

Answer 9

And how many billions of tax dollars would that take to test all Americans? Come on now. This nation needs reform with simple ideas and honest people to govern. The way to improve is all candidates profiles with backgrounds and their voting records are to be made public and even handed out to voters before they go vote including their major contributors and erase this two party system and not less than 4 candidates for the presidential elections. Four years max. in office for presidents and three years max. for congressmen.

Answer 10

Well, not nesaccarily, because the popular vote doesn't decide the president, the electoral college does. But, on the other hand if people do like what you spoke of the I belive there should, becuase seeing that everyone in their district was voting Democrate of Republican could cause the Representative to believe that they aren't fairly representing their constiuents, and skew the votes which could drasctically change the nation in a negative manner.

Answer 11

Let's face it - if government had anything to do with literacy, George W. Bush never would have gotten elected. Just look up some of the atrocities he has inflicted on the English language. He is the poster child for "stupid is as stupid does".

Let's try to stick to a more important issue, and that is - making sure that everyone who votes is a legal citizen. We need tamper-proof social security cards with photos on them, and voter registration workers who are subject to criminal charges if they register anybody without proper, legal identification.

Regarding your report of the bus passengers? Clearly, a person who would be dismissed from any ordinary court proceeding as being unable to understand that proceeding should not be put in a position where they are being used; however, I'm going to guess that incidents as blatant as the one you have described are not commonplace. Was it wrong? Definitely. Did it make a significant impact on the outcome? I doubt it. Rather than bring it up now, after the fact, think about why you didn't report it to election officials when you saw it happening - and what you will do differently if you ever see something like that again. This isn't a dig against you, only a reminder that we are all responsible when it comes to having a social conscience.