I'm calling for a voter competency exam prior to the 2020 election.
To function properly, a democracy needs a well-informed electorate. The 2016 election patently demonstrates that this is not the case in America. I support your proposal in theory, although we would no longer be able to call our system democratic if not everyone had equal opportunity to obtain the education to pass the exam. You would absolutely see fewer voters from lower socioeconomic strata if you implemented this now. Until that is accounted for....
Be an American citizen. Qualifications not being honored by either party: 1) voter must be alive, and votes not submitted in the name of the deceased; 2) voter must have proof of citizenship; 3) voter can only vote once at the assigned precinct. Oh...and hey...how about going back to the manual voting style? The electronic machines are a fraudulent joke.
Agreed... would also like to have a law insuring campaign promises are kept, or a damn good reason why not.
As mentioned in previous comments, minimum requirement for candidates, such as, working knowledge of US Constitution, working knowledge of governing, of law, with NO influence from Citizens United. ... I’m just dreaming...
In theory, democracy is not the rule of the majority of a mob, but the wise decision reached by informed citizens. In practice a large part of those who vote is indistinguishable from a mob, easily manipulated by spin doctors and advertisement experts who use click-bait and attention whoring to manipulate opinions.
So in theory, a competency exam sounds like a good idea: before somebody votes they should probably know about the political system, the institutions and at least the basics of the laws and regulations proposed etc.
The problem is that in practice, the exam will immediately be abused to skew voting in favour of some of the powers and even if not, there will be the accusation that this is the case. There is no practical way to do this, so our only hope is the basic education everyone should get in a civilised country. If we look at the current state of affairs, doesn't look too good on that front either.
But in case, in practise there appears to be no alternative to the free and universal ability to vote for every citizen in a democracy
I want people to vote for a de-identified questionnaire. You don't pick a candidate, you pick a person who answered 10-100 questions the way you wanted. That'd remove so much money from politics and weed out retarded votes...
that is brilliant. it wouldn't weed out uneducated voters but at least you would vote for a like minded person with out having to know what they looked like
I have said this many times myself. Totally take the identity bullshit out of the entire process. Issues only. Candidates' identities would only be revealed at the very end when voting is finished. Only if....
That sounds a little like anti-voter legislation. What’s next? Voter legislation based on skin color?
Wow, right for the throat, huh? Not at all, as that would be horrible. I think informed voting would be beneficial to all of us, call me a monster.
No, the comparison is ludicrous. One can easily argue that in order to participate in the democratic process, people should know about the things they are participating in or helping making decisions about. Here in Britain, for example, people voted about EU membership, but not a single person supporting leaving the EU I talked to knew just the bare minimum about how the EU is organised, what the Lisbon treaty is or what the difference between a EU regulation and an EU directive is. Shoule people vote on issues they have no clue about? At least that is a point worth debating while skin colour obviously and definitely has got nothing at all to do with it.
education is KEY
I think educating voters is important. However, keying a test for voters allows the poor to be dusinfranchised.
No. It’s not ludicrous. What’s ludicrous is assuming that the working poor will have the necessary education to pass the test. That’s defacto discrimination. @josmi6699
Here in the UK, this would be very simple to achieve. All you'd have to do is replace the people who hand out the voting slips at the polling station with a computer running a small program asking them which newspaper they read. If they answer the Daily Mail, The Sun, the Daily Telegraph or The Star, the computer does not print a voting slip and advises the would-be voter that they are ineligible.
(Note to non-UK people: the Daily Mail, Sun, Telegraph and Star are the sort of newspapers you can't even use as toilet paper because you'd wipe more on than off.)
You forgot the Express. And probably a couple of others. Actually, almost all of them here in in the UK ...
@josmi6699 every single one of them
If anyone needs to be qualified, it is the candidate for any political post.
no, the voter must understand the question at hand. don,t you get that ?
@markdevenish -- I get a great deal more than I suspect you can comprehend in a single sitting. I suggest to you that an incompetent and ignorant electorate is inevitable in any society numbering more than the double century mark. I would prefer that they have only competent and at least moderately rational candidates to choose from, rather than what I've seen recently here in the United States.
The only way to raise voter competency is through education and a cultural change geared towards celebrating civic duty on par with how we view voluntary military service.
I wouldn't glorify the poverty draft at all. stop killing people please
@markdevenish; I'm not, but it exists and that is a fact. If we can get more people to respect civic service over military service, that would do a lot to eliminate a lot of the false beliefs about "bad" government.
Sounds like a trumpster move to me. Everyone has the right to vote.