would you guys pass a bill for a political quiz?

Question

the quiz would be hard enough to show that the person had some political understanding but easy enough to not discriminate any ideas for what should be asked on the test

the quiz would be hard enough to show that the person had some political understanding but easy enough to not discriminate any ideas for what should be asked on the test. it wouldnt be discriminatory in the least, it would simply be to make sure that citizens are not voting for frivolous reasons. we're just trying to figure out if this would be a good subject for a civics project.

Answer 1

Ok, lets see if I can help here... if you're looking for a bill that may have the opportunity of passing you need to take the quiz option out. As you can tell from the past answers on this topic it's a heated issue. There is no way you can make a quiz such as this non-discriminatory because the purpose of the quiz is to discriminate against people who are voting frivolously.

Besides, what most voters do not know when they are voting for the President of the United States (and I'm assuming that is the main focus of your project) is that their vote merely counts as a recommendation. The electoral college makes the final decision and they do not have to vote in the same direction as the popular vote (although they usually do). Putting forth a bill to request this information be put as the first line of the voting ballot would stir some interesting conversations. "Please acknowledge that you understand your vote is only a recommendation for the electoral college and does not in any way affect the actual outcome of the presidential election." This occured in the 2000 presidential election, where George W. Bush received fewer popular votes than Albert Gore Jr., but received a majority of electoral votes. Perhaps your bill should be to remove the electoral college?

Even then however, I don't believe there is anyway to turn an election into something more than a popularity contest. Many uninformed voters simply choose a party line which I believe is also improper. Especially when one can only choose the single party option for the two major parties. (Keep in mind that when our forefathers set up the system there were 8-12 parties depending on which history book you read). My motto "vote for a person not a party!" So, perhaps that could be your bill - to remove the all in the party option.

Also, another idea could be to require people be shown what the candidates have stood for in the past - how they voted on what bills that way they have an opportunity to learn about the candidates beyond the propaganda.

Oh, and my favorite and final suggestion - ban mudslinging ads. This is supposed to be a group of professionals.

I hope that helps, I know you were just looking for questions here, but I don't think a bill like that would ever pass - especially after the abuses that followed the passage of the civil rights act.

Answer 2

I think a basic intelligence requirement would be a good idea. When I go to the polls, I find it insane that people wait to get into the BOOTH before even LOOKING at the choices! It was actually painful watching them struggle through the choices as the line of voters behind him grew and grew.

I'd also like to see a basic intelligence and character test given to every political aspirant.

[edit] When this country was first formed, only landowners were permitted to vote. They were responsible because they had a stake in good government. Giving the vote to welfare recipients is the kind of thing that destroyed the Roman Empire. But did we learn anything from that? Nope. Modern Liberals are smarter than ANYONE who EVER lived before us. NOT!

Answer 3

That would be wrong. However, testing shows that very few Republicans would pass compared to Democrats. A test was done on where you most got your news, and Rush Limbaugh's audience did worse on the political quiz than any other. Crazy enough, Jon Stewart's audience did best! It may sound absurd, but he's not lying like the corporate-Republican media is.

Answer 4

Not if you have anything to do with the questions. You don't know how to formulate one for YA, let alone for politicians of the voting public, with the proper elements that compose a question.

In response to Mark' post, are you the one that will determine what you mean by 'responsible voting'? If that is the case, all the votes for W would have been eliminated in both elections.

Answer 5

How do you vote irresponsibly?Why would we need a test to vote?Even a mentally challenged persons voice should be heard.I do not think there should be any sort of test to vote.People can vote for whoever they want for whatever reason they want.

Answer 6

i've got seen this assistance provided, too, yet you do no longer look to take in it, the two. If by "authored" you advise "grew to become it over to lobbyists and enable them to place in writing the bill they needed handed," then no. He would not try this, and he hasn't accomplished that. lots of the Senators and Representatives have team that help them with the info of th expenditures. McCain, Lieberman, Obama, all of them. whilst human beings use the expression "subsidized," they advise merely that. somebody on the staff or a mix of staffs from distinctive workplaces easily type the factor up. Sponsorship isn't comparable to authorship, yet interior the U. S. Congress, it means virtually a similar factor. The prognosis isn't mine, by the way. that is from the Washington positioned up. considering you ask, right here you bypass: From her speech: PALIN: "there's a lot to love and know approximately our opponent. yet listening to him communicate, that is user-friendly to forget approximately that that is a guy who has authored 2 memoirs yet no longer a single significant regulation or reform _ no longer even interior the state senate." THE data: in comparison to McCain and his 2 many years interior the Senate, Obama does have a extra meager checklist. yet he has worked with Republicans to bypass law that larger efforts to intercept unlawful shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to assist destroy customary weapons stockpiles. The law grew to become regulation final 3 hundred and sixty 5 days. TO DEMEAN THAT paintings might additionally be TO DEMEAN THE paintings OF SEN. RICHARD LUGAR of Indiana, a respected distant places coverage voice interior the Senate. In Illinois, he grow to be the chief on 2 massive, contentious measures in Illinois: interpreting racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in means dying penalty circumstances. Obama additionally effectively co-subsidized significant ethics reform law. (The caps interior the passage are added as an edit for emphasis, and are my doing, no longer the paintings of the unique author.)

Answer 7

I would approve of people having to take the test before they are allowed to vote. Just to make sure people aren't voting irresponsibly.

Answer 8

If you mean a voting test that is not legal.

Answer 9

No I would not.