Should people have to take a competency test to be allowed to vote?

Question

I think that it would be a good idea. I think that people who are voting in this country should at least have an idea as to what is going on.

You could go take a test and get a liscense like you would to drive a car.

Answer 1

The sad part about voting for a president is that most middle class poeple are to busy raising families to worry about lieing politicians,it is really hard to vote when you get to pick from the 2 lesser evils. So the American tax payers that really make America work dont vote enough.

Answer 2

In theory, absolutely! Only qualified aware voters should be making the most important decisions of who should run the country. However, I would be very suspicious of any competency test to vote program.

A couple reasons for it are that the test could verify a basic understanding of English, which is a requirement for legal immigration, and that it could ensure only politicians with real credentials and a solid platform get elected.

The downside is simply who makes the test, and who decides what a voter should be required to know. I would suggest a test similar to the immigration exam, but, sadly, most Americans would probably fail that. Perhaps they shouldn't be voting though? Also, I could see a case being made for a section of current events being included in the exam. This part, especially, has the potential to be abused by whoever is in control at the time. By selecting specific issues, wording questions differently, and deciding what the "correct" answer is, this could be used to legally invalidate legitimate and educated voters from either side of the aisle.

So should voters be required to be competent prior to voting? Definitely! Do I trust the government to establish a fair test to judge competency? Not so much...

Answer 3

I see where your concern is and I´m right there with you.
I do feel that if every citizen was fully aware of all the going ons in government, what decisions are being made and for what reasons, I think we would see a very different outcome of votes.
I´m not sure that a voter competency test is the answer though, it is a system that could be exploited by the same people who don´t deserve to be in government.
If only the government could endorse more education on television and in schools. But with government happy with the current situation and most people not bothered to really dig much deeper than what they are exposed to by the media anyway, it´s certainly an uphill battle.

Answer 4

This would be a lot like the literacy tests that had to be passed before a person could become a voter. Its stated goal was to ensure that the voter had the proper ability to read and write in a English. That way they could understand the voting.

However, it was used to restrict certain groups from voting. The tests were designed to prevent immigrants and sometimes certain groups were even given different tests. There were provisions to allow illeterate people of certain groups to avoid the tests altogether.

Literacy tests were banned by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. So, your idea of a compency test would be viewed in the same light as the literacy tests. It is a test designed to prevent certain people from voting. This test would be too easily abused to limit certain groups from voting and thus disenfranchising them. I do not think that this test will ever work nor do I think it is a good idea.

Answer 5

No, there are people who are incapable of processing language, but much better than most at figuring out the emotional intent of the speaker. Those who don't get language are termed- aphasic.
Those who don't get the tones of voice or facial expressions are agnosics, and they tend to analyze the language only.
Well, the agnosics on the neurology ward (see book below, chapter "The President's Speech") analyzed the speech via TV, and were in agreement with many things said.
THe aphasics laughed and laughed- this guy was so FULL of it!
And you must know, that the aphasics were the only ones on the ward that the nurses and doctros bsolutely could NOT get away with lying to, for they'd be discovered!
All the testing that we could do would be based on language, and it would utterly lead us astray!!!

Answer 6

Anyone who has been declared incompetent by a court automatically loses their right to vote. There is no 'competency test', because that was already determined when the conservator or guardian was appointed. Richard

Answer 7

You know, this actually used to be used. In order for a black person to vote, they had to pass a test. If they had the courage to take the test and vote and were able to protect their own lives and the lives of their family, sometimes their church as well...then we would let them vote. Of course, no one knows whether their vote was counted.

Sure, we should go back to that, it worked so well, only white males could actually vote.

NO ITS A REALLY BAD IDEA.

LIB

Answer 8

Emotionally, this sounds great. In practice, this goes back to Edmund Burke's saying: "The occupation of a hair-dresser, or of a working tallow-chandler, cannot be a matter of honour to any person - to say nothing of a number of other more servile employments. Such descriptions of men ought not to suffer oppression from the state; but the state suffers oppression, if such as they, either individually or collectively are permitted to rule. In this you think you are combating prejudice, but you are at war with nature."

In other words, this line of reasoning goes back to the idea that society should have classes and orders, and that people should know their place, and mobility between classes should be restricted. The fundamental right to vote and decide upon the fate of one's country is a freedom that is admirable to destroy only for those who would create an order of tyranny upon their fellow man. In all cases, the tyrants justify their despotism in arrogance of their superior abilities to those whom they would put upon; in all cases, they are simply tyrants.

I pity those who think otherwise out of ignorance; I condemn those who think otherwise out of maleficence.

Answer 9

Who defines what's required to be a good voter? Politicians who are involved in the issues all the time turn out to be incredibly corrupt and sometimes evil. People that are farther away from Capitol Hill bring different perspectives that can help balance those that have been there too long.

Although, I wish illegal aliens would stop voting. That's just irritating. Intelligence shouldn't necessarily be required to vote, but citizenship should!

Answer 10

You have lost your mind. This is old Jim Crow Laws that were outlawed by the supreme Court. You must have silver spoon up your nose or somewhere else. You sound incompetent by not knowing that such laws would kick half of the red states out-- rural eduction verge 8Th Grade. Then who would have voted for Bush.,