Political Awareness Test for the vote?

Should people be tested on political awareness before they can vote?

  • Total voters
    37
I was in school with a guy once who couldn't find Ireland on a map of Europe or a Europe on a map of the world. He's also a complete asshole. My dad quite accuratly describes him as "The type of person who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing"
 
Everyone I went to school with was pretty smart. It was a downhill ride from elementary but I never understood where all these horror stories of people not able to find countries on maps came from. :|

That is, until the current generation of high schoolers..
What ****ing morons. :|
 
ríomhaire said:
My dad quite accuratly describes him as "The type of person who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing"
Click to expand...
That is Mark Twain's definition of a cynic, and I don't think it really applies to someone who doesn't know basic geography :p

I guess this idea was pretty securely shot down, but I still don't know why. All of the arguments against it are silly.
 
Why are they silly?

You're essentially proposing restricting the so-called 'uneducated' because you think they're messing things up for you, the so-called 'educated'.

Us vs Them

It's all a matter of perspective. It's essentially elitism.
 
Generally politically educated persons are more likely to vote than non educated.
It's fair that anyone can choose to vote.

Alll that should be done is educating those who are likely to make an uneducated choice.

As badger says, it's all a matter of perspective.
If i was part of a small soceity of 100 people, the 99 other people voted that they'd all like to smoke wherever they liked i would hate it, but it would be the democratic choice no matter how stupid i think smoking is, it would be my task to educate them.
 
ComradeBadger said:
You're essentially proposing restricting the so-called 'uneducated' because you think they're messing things up for you, the so-called 'educated'.
Click to expand...
But I am not SAYING that uneducated people should not vote. I am SAYING that voters should be required to demonstrate BASIC knowledge of WHAT THEY ARE VOTING FOR.
 
no, watch the whole thing ..it wasnt staged ..sure some of them might have been playing along but not all ..especially the politicians ..there's a segment with Governor george bush ..in a later visit (as president) he made a comment that proved it wasnt staged

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApWCdI5S9Xo&mode=related&search=talking to americans

..canada's prime minister at the time was Jean Chretien not John Poutine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCgbNhnfSBQ&search=talking to americans


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_to_Americans

although I will give credit where credit is due ..the host (Rick Mercer) is quite convincing


unrelated but while searching for the Rick Mercer show I found this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7-mHgXpE60&search=dumb american

interviewer: "what countries are in the axis of evil"
woman1: "Jerusalem?"
woman2: "<looks at friend> ...Jerusalem?"
interviewer: "there's more than one"
woman1: "...ummm all of them?"

:LOL:

interviewer: "what countries are in the axis of evil"
man on street: "ummm I'm a little bit mixed between Palestines and Israelis ..which ones is throwing rocks"


interviewer: "Star wars is based on a true story, true or false"
teen: "true"

:O
 
If I asked over 100 random Canadians on the street, I'm sure I'd get the same responses from some of them. What's your point exactly.
 
Well, we all knew George Bush was a dumbass already, so it doesn't matter. It's really easy to prey on dumb Americans and say "lol they must all be like that!!". Of course he's not showing everyone he interviewed, I'm sure there were plenty of people who saw right through his joke, but he's not going to show them because that doesn't support the stereotype he's trying to perpetuate. It is funny of course, just like it's funny to picture Canadians saying "let's all go play some hockey eh!", but it's just a joke, not the truth. Out of all the people I know only four of them ever supported Bush, and they are a family. And I don't know any fat people either. Much of America is very different than other countries think. I can't speak for the Bible Belt and stuff because I've never been there. And ironically enough, look what it says at the bottom of that wiki:

Wikipedia said:
Nightline, the American television news program, did a segment on Talking to Americans in 2001. It concluded by sending a crew to Toronto to ask Canadians about their national politics; ironically, very few interviewed by Nightline could identify Prime Minister Jean Chretien.
Click to expand...

Anyway, on-topic, not letting uneducated people vote is not the solution, educating them is.
 
watch the video ..he shows outtakes where people either catch him or he starts laughing

dont know why you're assuming I'm saying stupidity is exculsively american ..my point was that even educated people (the governor, harvard professors, congressmen) arent the brightest of people not that americans are stupid
 
This kind of testing might grow into something that will prohibit people with certain political idealogies from voting. Which might not so be bad, but still makes me disagree.
 
1) There have been always limits to democracy. This would be an extension of it.

2) We essentially condemn people on several threads. Call it elitism, but the truth is that competition for a working job is pretty much a standard throughout the modern world. Why not competition for a voting place. Whoever wants to vote, has to be informed. If the tests find you misinformed, then you're passed for the better applicant.

Of course in an essentially communist, perfect World, everyone would have a job, and everyone would vote. We don't live in that World.

____

For some reason i made those arguments above, but i still believe the problem is our (everyone's) education system. One thing I DO enjoy about my country is the following - not a single economy busting politician has ever survived a reelection here. That means we have a lot of change, yes, but it also means that it looks like people get voted for actual results.
 
Ultimately it all comes down to how representitive you want democracy to be.


This method is ultimately unrepresesntitive, government of the many by the few.

GRAWR. An essentially communist world is NOT a perfect world.. jesus.
 
15357 said:
This kind of testing might grow into something that will prohibit people with certain political idealogies from voting. Which might not so be bad, but still makes me disagree.
Click to expand...
Pure comedy gold Mr 15357, keep up the good work. :thumbs:
 
Badger and Stern, I think you are missing the point, all this test would do is test weather you know or do not know what the political party stands for, thats it. You could have a question like, is Bush pro choice or pro life, and if you anwser that wrong you are shot in the head. This doesn't ask you to put the policies in historical perspective or to be able to understand 3d generation links. You only need to be able to simply read, and have read the policies of the parties.

Now we do not allow people under 18 to vote, we also do not allow some hard criminals to vote, because it is beleived that allowing them to vote would do more harm then good, same thing with thease people. You two are arguing against something completly else.

Democracy is in essance worthless if people who vote do not even know the policies of the parties they vote for, that kind of people are a danger to democracy more then this test would be.
 
but what good is that?

if a party is pro-choice or pro-life ...does that mean they'll try to implement their ideology? what specifically is their platform: does it mean they're pro-life but only in late term abortions? are they pro-life in all cases or just elective abortions? how about same-sex marriage, are they pro-same sex marriage but only under specific conditions, are they anti-same sex marriage but pro-civil unions for all except the religious?

the point is you cannot expect people to understand issues based on a bullet list of terms that may or may not acurately describe their position ...what about the illiterate? the blind, the deaf, the handicapped? should they take the test too? what about recent citizens who may have a lot of catching up to do ..should they have to wait 5 years so that they can vote? Voter turnout is currentlly at around 62% for canada (high compared to our neighbours to the south) should testing be implemented I predict that number will be drastically reduced

I understand the rational behind the testing but it's not attainable/reasonable and is counter productive in terms of the democratic process ..it'll just come down to where the elite class will have the loudest political voice
 
CptStern said:
but what good is that?
is party a pro-choice or pro-life ...does that mean they'll try to implement it? does it mean they're pro-life but only in late term abortions? how about same-sex marriage, are they pro-same sex marriage but only under specific conditions, are they anti-same sex marriage but pro-civil unions for all except the religious?
Click to expand...
Those are things that you cannot test or it's to impractical to test, it does not mean that you can't test other things, like this. And the test does not need to go to deep, juts like in math tests you do not need to teste every little thing to make sure someone understands it, you just tests the main points and assume from that, that they know the rest aswel. Now it's not 100% jackass fullproof, but it's better then nothing.

the point is you cannot expect people to understand issues based on a bullet list of terms that may or may not acurately describe their position
Click to expand...
The test could be checked by all parties and agreed upon before beeing allowed to take place, that should avoid false desciptions.
This test does not expect you to understand issues, that can only be achived by years of studying history and beeing able to put it in a proper contextual perspectieve. This test only test basic knowledge, thats it. If you are to lazy to even learn what your party stands for, then you should not vote.
...what about the illiterate? the blind, the deaf, the handicapped? should they take the test too?
Click to expand...
Illiterate should not be allowed to vote, simple as that, No read=No vote. You want to vote, learn to read. Every modern western country provides enough opportunities to learn to read.
Blind and handicapped could be asissted.

what about recent citizens who may have a lot of catching up to do ..should they have to wait 5 years so that they can vote? Voter turnout is currentlly at around 62% for canada (high compared to our neighbours to the south) should testing be implemented I predict that number will be drastically reduced
Click to expand...
Quality over quantity stern, a vote form someone who does not even know the position of the party he/she voted for does more harm to democracy them good. Why shouldn't recent citizens wait, if they do not know the country, the politicians, what they stand for why should they be allowed to vote, whats the point?

Listen Stern you could easly counter me and provied many practical obsticals, to which i would prvovide simply practical solutions you could have come up yourself with. And sure there are countries where this could not be done, like countries that do not provide adequate opportunities to learn to read or to learn the policies of the parties. But this test is not impractical in a modern Western country, the issue is not weather or not it's possible or practical.

The issue is weather or not people who do not even know what a party stands for on certain issues should be allowed to vote, now you tell me why allowing these jackasses to vote would be positief for a democracy.
 
Show me 'these jackasses'.

If people generally don't care - they don't bloody vote - hence LOW VOTER turnouts.

Plans like this just turn people off voting - make voting easier, more accessable, not less so.
 
ComradeBadger said:
Show me 'these jackasses'.
Click to expand...
Thats an impossible request, I believe there are many of them because of personal experiences with talking to people, and also from watching TV's programs where they talk to people and ask them why they voted for a particular party, thease people just vote cause they voted in the past for them, many could not even sum the differances between them. How ever I cannot show you any of them like that. I don't know what you honestly expect from me?

If people generally don't care - they don't bloody vote - hence LOW VOTER turnouts.
Click to expand...
Well i believe there are to many people out there who vote ignorantly, and don't just stay at home when they know jack shit. This is something we simply disagree on.

Plans like this just turn people off voting - make voting easier, more accessable, not less so.
Click to expand...
So do age restrictions, registration requirments. It's done to guarantee the quality of the vote, this is just the next step.
 
ComradeBadger said:
Plans like this just turn people off voting - make voting easier, more accessable, not less so.
Click to expand...
"Wow, I actually have to know basic shit about what I'm voting on? The hell with that, I'm staying home."

...Why would you want people like that to vote anyway?

And if you want higher voter turnouts, why not make voting mandatory, or implement a tax for not voting?
 
ComradeBadger said:
Educate people, don't turn them away.
Click to expand...
I would always be more for that then for this test. That is obviously a lot more important then this test, but why not have both.
 
The whole idea of a test essentially DOES put people off, wheras simple voter education would be less expensive, create less red-tape..


I re-iterate, people who genuinely don't care about elections don't vote. EVEN if someone has rather stupid reasons for voting - 'well I've always voted for them in the past' , they will still vote for who they think is best.
 
Guys,

I read all the comments, and nothing anyone has said made me think there's any valid reason not to impose such a test.

Like grey fox said, uninformed voters are more dangerous to the democratic process than a low voter turnout.

/out of the box thinking ON
Picture ancient Greece. Imagine for a second how big the honor probably was to be able to vote back in those days. The responsability of choosing a new ruling class. What would those ancient Greeks say if they saw the mockery that democracy is today? (edit: think very long beards and a deadserious look in their eyes, also toga)
And everybody agrees ancient Greeks were superfly badass brothers and sisters.
/out of the box thinking OFF

I haven't voted for a long time now. I simply feel my vote is wasted on the masses of unaware or uninterested people. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone on this one.

Having such a mandatory test could also require all political parties to make a clear (let's say) 10 point list of their biggest priorities. Those lists would be the only source material for the mandatory voter test. Transparance of the political process would skyrocket.

Stern, Badger, other hl2 buds, please take a moment to reconsider. I know I waited long enough for comments to build up before I answered and I made up my mind only after reading them all. I think this is a pretty valid proposal. Practical problems could be solved with equaly practical measures. And the right to vote would regain prestige.
 
Creating a test opens up some very very unfair and undemocratic issues.

1.Who grades the test?- This just opens up so much room for error and controversy. If its machine graded, people will blame the machines for thier bad scores, if it's human graded, then they will accuse the graders of bias.

2.Who makes the test?-The test could easily be made to bias a certain candidate, or at least the public might think so.

3.What happens to people who didn't get a good score?- Okay, so you go to the polls, wait in line, vote and take the test, your candidate loses by a handful of votes, and the next day you get a letter saying your vote wasn't counted because they deemed your knowledge innaccurate. That would piss off more than a few people.

4.What's on the test?-Who's to say your candidate supports some issue? Who's to say you like every issue your candidate does? Do people really have to know every obscure detail about their candidate? In fact most people are apathetic to most issues thier candidate takes a stand on, but will vote for them on a few issues that they really care about. To include all the details that the candidate takes a stand on, the test would become enourmous, complex, and impossible for anyone to answer correctley. It opens up the possibility of ambiguous or biased questions that voters will most positevly sue over.

Even though it might not be corrupted to begin with, a test would open up so many avenues for corruption that it wouldn't even be worth implementing to begin with.

Implementing a test essentially makes the democracy into an aristocracy, an elitist society where only those deemed good enough can vote.
 
theotherguy said:
1.Who grades the test?-
Click to expand...
A compy. People don't need to know their scores, because that would break the tenet of anonymity.

theotherguy said:
2.Who makes the test?-
Click to expand...
I was thinking a unipartisan council. At the very least, the major parties have to have an agreement on public record that it's okay.

theotherguy said:
3.What happens to people who didn't get a good score?-
Click to expand...
Their ballots get thrown to the hounds and they never know it.

theotherguy said:
4.What's on the test?-
Click to expand...
The parties make it.
The parties make it.
The parties make it.
THE PARTIES MAKE IT.
And there is about a snowball's chance in hell that the creators would make the test too complex, because that would be elitist and would eliminate voters. I've had to reiterate the simplicity of the test so much that I really think you guys don't read any of my posts.

theotherguy said:
Even though it might not be corrupted to begin with, a test would open up so many avenues for corruption that it wouldn't even be worth implementing to begin with.
Click to expand...
Replace "test" with "democracy"..."executive-appointed Supreme Court"..."trial by jury"..."marriage"...

theotherguy said:
Implementing a test essentially makes the democracy into an aristocracy, an elitist society where only those deemed good enough can vote.
Click to expand...
Yeah, so you really didn't read any of the other posts in the thread.
 
Raeven0 said:
Their ballots get thrown to the hounds and they never know it.
Click to expand...

So you're gonna encourage people to vote by entering in a possibility that their votes might not even be counted :|

Voter turnouts are low enough as they are - this kind of thing is just going to put people off.
 
I'd like to see the removal of parliamentary democracy, at least to a certain extent.

Make voting a more regular thing, with big local issues being voted on locally. I'd also like to see trade unions become more involved with administrations, and being given a real power holding voice on a state owned business.

The best way to encourage people to vote is IMO to let them decide the things that really effect them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
RakuraiTenjin
Crossing the Line for Paul
Replies
23
Views
3K
Krynn72
Krynn72
Acurt1982
The Success and Failure of Silence: Gordon Freeman in 'Half Life' and 'Half Life 2'
Replies
1
Views
2K
Chowder
Chowder
leib10
Calif. court upholds in-state tuition for illegal immigrants
Replies
21
Views
2K
No Limit
No Limit
Sulkdodds
Brindle Blog Thread
2
Replies
48
Views
6K
Sulkdodds
Sulkdodds
Back
Top