I don’t know what to prioritize but a couple of other things I’d add to the list:
-Make voting day a holiday. Or allow workers time off to vote.
-Make polling places accessible to everyone.
The latter is a particular point for me. The main polling place for me is a church in a suburb at least three miles from the nearest bus stop. That doesn’t affect me personally but some people rely on public transportation.
Dismissing people you disagree with for being “emotional” brings up another kind of image.
[First name of a candidate]! and pre/2 [last name of a candidate] w/7 bush or gore or republican! or democrat! or charg! or accus! or criticiz! or blam! or defend! or iran contra or clinton or spotted owl or florida recount or sex! or controvers! or racis! or fraud! or investigat! or bankrupt! or layoff! or downsiz! or PNTR or NAFTA or outsourc! or indict! or enron or kerry or iraq or wmd! or arrest! or intox! or fired or sex! or racis! or intox! or slur! or arrest! or fired or controvers! or abortion! or gay! or homosexual! or gun! or firearm!
I vote NO on the proposal.
History being what it is…
Already the law in Canada. I’m amazed it isn’t in the US!
I am confus!
I think it’s a great idea. We just need to ensure that the people writing the test are properly qualified so that they write a good and fair test.
To that end, I propose a test.
This example is about an immigration test rather than a voting test, but I think it still applies.
The Strathaird arrived in Sydney Harbour on 16 November 1934. The Federal Government now attempted to exclude Kisch using the Immigration Restriction Act. The Act provided that “Any person who when asked to do so by an officer fails to write out at dictation and sign in the presence of the officer a passage of fifty words in length in a European language directed by the officer” would not be admitted.
This was primarily intended, and used, as a means to exclude non-whites from entering Australia under the White Australia Policy, but it could be, and occasionally was, used to exclude other undesirables. Kisch demonstrated his fluency in a number of European languages, and he was then asked to write the Lord’s Prayer in Scottish Gaelic
I wouldn’t trust people far less dangerous than Trump to fairly run to such a test. Actually I wouldn’t even trust myself, so I have to say no to this idea.
Monica Goodling’s LEXIS/NEXIS search strategy used to purge US Attorneys during the GWB administration. It struck me at the time as absurdly baroque
And who gets to define who gets the vote? Do you? Me? Some experts somewhere? The rich? The elite? Racists? Anti-racists? Antisemites? Islamophobes? Atheists? Theists? Given that we’re in an age when people can’t agree on basic facts of reality, who gets to make these decisions? In other words, how does this work exactly and where does it end and who gets to make these decisions? How do we swing our fists and not endanger others?
Again, I maintain that participating in how one’s life is run is a human right. As long as you can create a structure where one group can’t take away the rights of the others (maybe through some sort of constitution or some such), then you moderate the more extreme outcomes of democratic practices.
From your list, I’d take “Some experts”, because I believe in science. Experts will need to measure what is in someone’s head, rather than how they look or dress, or what their name is. Hence, the original idea of “the test”.
So, purely for reference, these are the kinds of questions I, not-an-expert, had in mind for the test:
True or false: The Supreme Court chooses the Speaker of the Senate.
True or false: The House of Representatives appoints the federal court judges.
True or false: The president appoints Supreme Court judges.
True or false: The First Amendment empowers the President to declare martial law.
The Republican party’s VP candidate in 2016 was: Jeb Bush; Mike Pence; Bernie Sanders
The US Senate is a part of which branch of government: Executive or Legislative or Judicial or Politics
True or false: The speaker of the House is appointed by the Catholic Church
The number of political parties in the US: two / three / four or more
The US Constitution starts with the words: We the People / Once upon a time / I pledge allegiance
The US civil war was fought by: Patriots and Redskins / Celtics and Texans / The Union and the Confederate States
The US capital is: Mt Washington B.C., Washington DC, Washington PA
Those questions are hopefully not biased against any particular group.
Some bad questions:
True or false: Christianity is the only valid religion
True or false: Canada is the best country in the world
True of false: It is OK to punch fascists
The 2017 Adult Video News award winner in the Female Performer of the Year category was: Monica Lewinsky or Adriana Chechik or Ann Coulter
The first few are an opinion, and the last one is fringe / sub-cultural / not common knowledge, even though the answer is obvious to most by method of elimination.
This is a great and noble idea in theory. In practice, it depends on the participants being largely informed, engaged, non-selfish, and be able to see through the bullshit that the politicians serve during the campaign. And that just does not happen, yet.
Label me elitist, but I don’t think it is right that someone with a PhD in rocket science has the same vote as some of the morons featured on Jerry Springer or Dr Phil. Because they invoke images of President Camacho.
(no, I don’t have a PhD in rocket science, and Dr Phil does not return my calls).
True or False. The “Speaker of the Senate” is a real office.
Most likely problem: If you make the questions too difficult, then there’s a bias towards people with money (who can afford the time and materials to study to make sure they pass, and can afford to spend that time/money just for the ability to occasionally vote).
It would be a much better idea just to push for more civics education in public schools, and ditch the idea of forcing a test for the vote.
I was going to ask about the effect of these questions being asked at the voting station, where people may have been waiting for hours in the rain (and will wait longer if everyone has to take a test) - and the effect of being put on the spot for people, plus the ‘walk of shame’ if you fail (especially due to anxiety, which isn’t there when you choose who to vote for at home).
But then I wondered: The questions have to change each year, or the answers can be learned by rote, not understanding, so how do (you folks) ensure that the level stays constant? (Especially given that some parts of the US are already fighting to make voting more difficult [and unevenly so] already).
And then it boiled down to the question underlying all exams: aren’t you just rewarding rote learning, when what you actually want is the people who have understanding. Even though they can’t remember how many people are in the Supreme Court right now, while damp, stressed and weary.
Even if you’re happy with disenfranchising people on grounds of ‘understanding’, I honestly can’t see how this could be made to work reliably, only disenfranchising the people you want to reliably. Even with the idea of disenfranchising people in the first place.
[Edited to fix typos]
This is the thing you are not allowed to do.
What an interesting example you have chosen.
You have that choice. It’s up to you, though.
Exactly right. If the educated want a better electorate, then the educated must choose to promote low-cost education for everyone. You can’t instead choose to limit the freedom to vote, because every time this has been tried in the past, power corrupts and the disenfranchised never get that vote back without revolution.
It’s like this forum. We don’t only let “the educated” post here because 1) that restricts the marketplace of ideas and 2) who decides the criteria?
Sometimes very smart people get things very wrong, often because their position in power has corrupted them. The single best way to have an informed electorate is to have an educated one.
Beyond the history of the idea, and its deeply racist roots. I never really thought much about this until my best friend started dating a Mexican American who didn’t speak English very well. She encouraged him to vote, and I think she got his brother to help him (he’s in the military and speaks much better English), but here’s the thing:
He wouldn’t pass an intelligence test given in English, and you know English-only intelligence tests would be a thing.
Meanwhile, this same friend works with people with intellectual disabilities. Guess what? They can vote, too. They can do a lot of things that people don’t think about, but the fact is that they are adults who have a stake in our democracy, and in how our country is run. Their interests are on the chopping block as much as anyone else’s.
I think that if you think that people should be forced to fend for themselves for healthcare, that’s not an issue of intelligence, that’s an issue of values. Most voting is really about values, not about intelligence. Voters don’t micromanage the government, they direct it to fulfill their bidding. Most Americans, including college graduates (which is a shitty criterion for intelligence, but I’m playing along with that presumption) can’t explain and don’t understand our financial system, but they have a good idea of what they want.
Ultimately, if you created an intelligence test for voting, it would either be basic and quick to administer (and therefore study for–the people who voted for Trump can retain some basic information), or it would be a laborious and intensive process that ultimately decides what you want for you… because republican government isn’t about citizens managing the government, but selecting people to work for their interests in government. Once you understand the distinction between citizens running the government and citizens assigning goals for government, you start to approach what the entire point of voting is. Incidentally, this is why elections don’t equal democracy. Elections may be part of a democracy, but they don’t guarantee one.
For myself, I’m also aware that in the UK, at each stage of suffrage, the belief was that the currently excluded wouldn’t be intelligent enough/educated enough/‘The right sort of person’ enough to be trusted with the vote. And yet, it turned out that giving the
(Sequence simplified, there was overlap on some of this, and other intermediate steps. Contents tend to settle during transit. Terms and conditions may apply.)
…was a great positive (to say the least) and the right thing to do despite the many other failings and imbalances in our system. A well educated population is a crucial part of a well-functioning democracy, but without that universal suffrage, you don’t have (modern) democracy to try to make function well.
So yes,‘How do we exclude the insufficiently-educated?’, puts that cart precisely before that horse. ‘How do we raise and improve and widen education?’ (related: ‘how do we bullshit-proof people?’), is absolutely the question.
I get this funny feeling people here don’t think my idea can work… Time to toss it to the “fail” pile.
On the bright side, the results of the last election are getting more people engaged and caring, so perhaps the education approach won’t take uncomfortably long.
A thank you goes to those that showed me the error of my ways and helped me learn a few things.
And to those that only offered insults and snarky comments: I hope every beer you drink tastes like a warm Bud Light.
