The test should be very difficult, in my opinion. It should test a person's general intelligence and their knowledge of American and World history. It should be a test that would challeng an honors graduate of Harvard. If only one person in a thousand could vote, voting would become an honor. Think of how much the debates would improve. Education would become more valuable.
2007-01-27 04:47:25 · 21 answers · asked by sal 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Har...I love the question, Sam. I've thought it all along.
Your standards are pretty stringent, though. I think we could make a big difference if voters all had to have an IQ test that fell within the "normal" or above range.
The same test should be applied to presidential candidates too, to eliminate the likes of Bush running for office.
2007-01-27 04:54:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Apparently you are a college graduate. There are two smarts, one in school and one in life. I would rather have smarts in life then know all the information anyone can learn in school. What makes you think that just because someone has a high IQ or goes to Harvard is any better then an average Joe on the street or a homeless person who has the friggen right to vote! Oh yeah by the way if you would know your American history you would know that voting is a privilege and right that was bestowed on us by our founding fathers who were not all that educated.
2007-01-27 08:02:18 · answer #2 · answered by LJD 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, I agree with the posters above that said it is undemocratic. There is no way for a test to be properly created that will not create a bias toward one party or the other. Gerrymander is the same way and should be banned. In 25 words or less: No. Voting is a right, not a privilege. And to the person above - These people can't directly affect these things, but they do have a strong influence on them. The president cannot make laws, but if he proposes a law to congress, and congress is a rubber stamp like it has been for the past six years, he just made a law. Congress and the president don't directly control oil prices, but their economic and foreign policies do affect prices. There are also laws on the books that should prevent the anti-trust actions of big oil, but are ignored in favor of campaign donations.
2016-05-24 05:39:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
To a certain extent, you're right, but then we would not have a democracy. If you know so much about history, then you would know that what you're suggesting is exactly what the south did to keep black people from voting. At that time, we were more of a hypocracy than a democracy. How can we expect people to pass a test when we did not even allow them to learn? But we needed black people to vote for who they believed could better their life. After black people were given the right to vote, men like Strom Thurmond started to pay more attention to them because he wanted to get their vote. Before then, all he cared about was the white people's concerns and therefore he was against the upward mobility of the black community. What I'm basically saying is that if we do not allow the common man to vote, nobody will care for that person and that person's family will not be able to advance. If you know anything about voting patterns in the United States, you know that it's usually only educated people who vote anyways, only about 50% of eligible voters vote in presidential elections and only 30% vote in midterm elections.
2007-01-27 05:01:43 · answer #4 · answered by Steve Z 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
N O, That would keep over half of the people
from being able to vote, due to the fact that
the liberal school systems of this country teaches the revisionist brand of American and
World History and not the real stuff!!!!! That also includes Harvard and the rest of "higher"
levels of "education" in this country!!!
2007-01-27 05:54:25 · answer #5 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It would definitely keep the liberals and the many republicans from voting. Conservatives would be the only ones allowed to vote. The world would be saved.
The test should only be on issues. Most people vote using false or no information. With the right to vote comes the responsibility to know what you are voting for.
2007-01-27 04:55:01 · answer #6 · answered by Tropical Weasel 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Once upon a time it was thought that a voter at least should be able to read the ballot. The Supreme Court declared this unconstitutional.
It seems that the stupider a voter is the more advantage for the politicians.
2007-01-27 06:31:15 · answer #7 · answered by John H 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Stupid people live here too, and they have the same rights as everyone else to decide who they want to be in charge. It is the job of the smart people to explain what is going on to the stupid people so they know who to vote for. Unfortunately the stupid people are too stupid to know who is smart, so many of them listen to other stupid people and vote Republican. It is very sad but if we want to have a democracy we have to let everyone vote.
2007-01-27 15:53:24 · answer #8 · answered by Alan S 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, ask two questions each about the candidates major positions. The correct answer provided by the candidate in question. If you don't know their position you shouldn't be allowed to vote in that particular race.
2007-01-27 06:42:14 · answer #9 · answered by barry c 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not a smart test, a moral test. There are millions of people in America who could not pass a smart test, but know what their moral convictions are and vote for the right candidate.
2007-01-27 04:52:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋