Serious Discussion - What should voting requirements be?

[12th Doctor]

It think that you should have to take a nationally standardized test that contains a few, faily easy questions, that, if a perspective voter doesn't know them, then they will when they look them up.

Questions:

1) What are the three branches of government

2) Who is your Congressman

3) Name your Senators

4) How many members are there of the U.S. House of Representative?

5) How many members are there of the U.S. Senate?

6) Who is you current governor?

7) How many Electoral Votes is the winner of a Presidential race required to have?

If they could answer basic questions like that, then they would at least know something about the government.  If not, then they arent fit to vote.

[12th Doctor]

Literacy. Preferably a base level of intelligence but that's hard to test.

So, a literacy test before being able to vote?

Alabama used to do that.  However, they used it in conjuction with Grandfather laws to massively suppress Black voting.

See, that is the problem.  You mention a voting test and everyone flips out and because of that, there is no way to solve the "idiot voter" problem.  I'm sorry, but if a person knows nothing of the functions of government, then they should not vote.

[12th Doctor]

It think that you should have to take a nationally standardized test that contains a few, faily easy questions, that, if a perspective voter doesn't know them, then they will when they look them up.

Questions:

1) What are the three branches of government

2) Who is your Congressman

3) Name your Senators

4) How many members are there of the U.S. House of Representative?

5) How many members are there of the U.S. Senate?

6) Who is you current governor?

7) How many Electoral Votes is the winner of a Presidential race required to have?

If they could answer basic questions like that, then they would at least know something about the government.  If not, then they arent fit to vote.

Only allowing voters who could name the incumbent would be a huge advantage for incumbents in Congress, who already get enough breaks as it is.  And math questions like #7 are questions that I'll bet less than 20% of people could answer...and I don't blame them: you can make a completely well-educated decision about who to vote for President without knowing this answer.

In fact, people can make educated decisions about candidates in individual races without knowing ANY of these answers.  Moreover, a person can usually know which party best represents them just by knowing the party's general principles, not the mechanical details of our government.  

Let me get this straight:  You think that someone can not know the three branches of government and thus, we assume, not know there function, and still make an educated decision in voting?

[12th Doctor]

The Bill of Rights was limited democracy.

Yep, and so was the first 3 Danish democratic constitutions (and those preceding wasn't even democratic). The first country to have a full democracy was New Zealand in 1901.

How would you define "full Democracy".  Since the word "Democracy" is way over used, I must ask.

[12th Doctor]

"There's too much leaking in Washington. That's just the way it is. And we've had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch."
- George W. Bush

Even President Bush doesn't seem to know what the three branches are.

You are comparing a slip of the mind to acctually not knowing the answers.  Give Bush a written test and he would get it right, I'm confident of that, or specifically phrase the question to Bush and he would get it right, don't use these little nitpicking gaffes as ammunition to defeat my argueements.

[12th Doctor]

"There's too much leaking in Washington. That's just the way it is. And we've had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch."
- George W. Bush

Even President Bush doesn't seem to know what the three branches are.

You are comparing a slip of the mind to acctually not knowing the answers.  Give Bush a written test and he would get it right, I'm confident of that, or specifically phrase the question to Bush and he would get it right, don't use these little nitpicking gaffes as ammunition to defeat my argueements.

Anyway, you people are missing the point.  You are treating this like a pop quiz.  It wouldn't be.  Everyone would know the questions in advance, they would simply have to know or look up the answers.  The test would acctually increase awareness because those who don't know would have to look it up.  How is that cruel or unfair?  If anything is unfair, it is the fact that people who know nothing about anything are going into the voting boths and pulling the lever for a person when they have no idea what is going on.  That is unfair.

[12th Doctor]

I always get answers wrong in protest.

Like if they ask who the 40th president is, I'll answer George Bush because that one guy is being counted twice under the current line of thinking.

Test = Crap

What are you protesting?  Cleveland is counted as having had two different administrations.  Makes sense, because he did.

If you answered differently, you would be in error and hence, not be able to vote.  I have no problem with that.

[12th Doctor]

But he's not a different president.

I would answer it "correctly," and then vote out anyone who supported the test.

Please, explain.  Why is Cleveland not both?

P.S.  I find it rather fickle that you have choosen to take a stand on this issue, but hey, whatever.  

Also, what would this question have to do with the questions that I possed for the test?

[12th Doctor]

Uh, "taking a stand" is fickle?

I'm not really serious. I just think it could be a pain to take the test.

What I have proposed is very basic.

[12th Doctor]

Uh, "taking a stand" is fickle?

I'm not really serious. I just think it could be a pain to take the test.

What I have proposed is very basic.

The type of questions you are proposing would disqualify 95% of the American public.  In order to make an educated voting decision, you just need to know the basics about the party positions on the main issues.  You don't have to know about the mechanics of government, and you certainly don't have to know historical trivia.

Then they should find out!  They aren't forbidden from finding out!  That is the point!  Who your Governor is is not privilaged knowledge!  Just find it out!  Look is up!  What the Hell is the issue!?

[12th Doctor]

Uh, "taking a stand" is fickle?

I'm not really serious. I just think it could be a pain to take the test.

What I have proposed is very basic.

The type of questions you are proposing would disqualify 95% of the American public.  In order to make an educated voting decision, you just need to know the basics about the party positions on the main issues.  You don't have to know about the mechanics of government, and you certainly don't have to know historical trivia.

Did you acctually read my proposal?