Should You Have to Pass a Test to Vote?
6 years ago in #dtube by davidpakman (77)
$60.59
- Past Payouts $60.59
- - Author $47.58
- - Curators & beneficiaries $13.01
- > dtube: $7.57
78 votes
- dtube: $45.20
- helikopterben: $8.86
- ausbitbank: $1.69
- geofftk: $1.03
- coinbitgold: $0.58
- davidpakman: $0.57
- rambogoham: $0.52
- mod-tamichh: $0.38
- jjcali: $0.32
- wanxlol: $0.28
- gikitiki: $0.13
- mooncryption: $0.10
- satoshibit: $0.10
- markkujantunen: $0.10
- waliafridi: $0.09
- tronthetechie: $0.05
- michaelwilshaw: $0.04
- bryan-imhoff: $0.04
- caroot: $0.03
- schrosct: $0.03
- and 58 more
yes something related to your iq should determinate the power of your vote .
in the US, that would not be constitutional
Yep. It could be manipulated too easily as a basis for some tyrant to maintain a grip on power.
IQ? You might as well allocate voting power based on penis size.
I think there should be a test to prove a candidate is sane enough to be president.
I think you are on the money with this comment. @robertchr
Spot on, brother. Of course as far as a test for the general population to vote ?? No, even for people who may be mentally challenged. I think as a human being in a Democracy ALL law abiding adults should not have to take any test to vote!!
The state should not be given the power to determine which adults vote and which adults don't vote. Such a test would be an opportunity for tyrants to abuse their power and perpetuate their tyranny.
ABSOLUTELY agree and that's more or less the point I made in the video. well said.
Yeah, I watched your video, let that video sink in, and then spat this out. :) Good quality in, good quality out. Or, stable genius in, stable genius out.
I think the votes should be weighted based on their expertise in certain topics. For example, if an area is looking to legalize marijuana, the doctors and scientists who actually had patients and studies of the use of pros and cons marijuana use should have a greater weight compared to the average Joe because they have better insight. What you think?
no ways should anyone have to pass a test. One voice= one vote!
To my own understanding ,passing a test before voting is necessory so that abuse of voting will be minimized.Abuse is inevitable when there is no strict law guiding a particular thing.
Who gets to decide what's in the test? Who grades the test? Too many opportunities for mass control this way. No test.
@resteem
Having to pass a test to vote just invites indoctrination and if you don't conform to that belief then you don't get a say.
How can that be democratic.?
There are a whole lot of assumptions going on here.
How so?
Also thank you for responding.
What your seeing is a backlash of people who have been forgotten about in the back country of America. The first person to give them a voice would win. Why? Because those who promised all and gave nothing to them have pushed it too far.
Look at the UK!
Benefit was a vote of no confidence more than a calculated choice. A call of desperation for change no matter how damaging in the short term.
You will find the exact same folk on the front lines, in your grocery stores, in your diners and even living next door.
I have strong opinions on politics!
The test hasn't been defined at all. Are you saying that there is absolutely no criteria that you would want for a voter? Zero, none?
That should come under citizenship. So in that sense yes a test must be sat for citizenship then free to vote.
Some people may need education on voting and constituents however restricting their access or taking that right away from said persons is kind of the same as the left hand not wanting to be on the same body as the right hand.
This would create a secular devide and education stricken areas would be left picking up the pieces.
All this because the deep South voted Trump in and the educated people blame the uneducated people for democracy.
Okay, I'll play the devil's advocate.
There already are barriers to voting. Can you name a few?
https://steemit.com/news/@howtosurvive/should-there-be-a-test-to-voting-usa
Absolutely not. Too easy to rig. Obviously.
I think there are two ways to look at the question.
The first being in a typical general election scenario. You should definitely not have to pass a test for this.
I've thought for quite some time though, that on a smaller scale, maybe various municipal scale decisions -- there should be some kind of qualifier to show that you have some background understanding on the subject. Vancouver BC recently had a plebiscite (I hope that's the right word) to determine if they should implement a small tax to pay for mass transit upgrades. There was a large amount of misinformation being spread around, and most people were voting based on their hated of taxes rather than the social benefits that could be realized. I still don't think you should have to pass a test, but maybe at least attend an educational information session geared towards expressing the pros /cons of what is being proposed (with importance placed on having credible, official sources of information).
Maybe there's a way that social structures in the world could start implementing a kind of "proof of stake" system such as we have here. No kids in school? You're not able to determine policy for children's education. Never been in a public school, and you're actively intersted in terring them apart? You're not able to be secretary of education. Etc, etc.
No. Not just no but FU*K no. Poll taxes and voting tests are simply one way the people in power stay in power. Not now, not ever.
Please call back later
Send me a memo!
Isn't USA considering allowing convicted felons to vote? Joe Arpaio who is one now wants to run for elected office again.
Ohh you guys are here too. Awsome.
Test to vote? Wasn't that used in the Jim Crow south? 😎
Certainly not, though I would say it should be mandatory for civics to be taught in school. At least in the UK, barely anything regarding how the government operates, your rights, which body provides what service, how laws are passed etc is taught unless you actively choose to study politics.
Then we had a referendum on a major part of our legal framework and people are still finding out now what they voted for.
An informed electorate is important but you get there through education and government transparency, not through restricting people's rights.
There seems to be a ton of no and f^ck no going on. Let's try this. Please read, it's suppose to be funny but with a point.
You live in a small corner of your state. Your county only has a few thousand people in it and it's time to vote for the county clerk and recorder to be elected. I guess you live in a state that votes on that sort of thing.
You are a dedicated voter and you believe it is an important role you play as an American. So you get to work researching the two main candidates. You set up Google alerts for them and read every single article with their names on it. you go to the local library and find microfiche of their high school paper. You make sure that your candidate is unwavering in his/her convictions and it matches your own. You are also sure that the other candidate is vile. They are generally a bad person. You found out through reputable sources that they steal their neighbors paper. They don't recycle and they never tip over ten percent.
Election day comes along and you show up slightly dressed up tot he only voting booth in town. You cast your vote and you are confident that your well qualified applicant is the best choice for you, the town, and your children's' future.
Ten pm rolls around and the Kroger you voted at is about to close, and so are the voting booths. The race is literally neck and neck with the votes perfectly tied. You are standing outside in the cold calling all of your friends asking if they voted, and who for. You can' reach out to anyone to flip this vote for right, liberty and justice.
Just then you hear the roar of a smoked out diesel engine. Coming up the road with one headlight out, blasting Creed is Derek. He drives across the parking lot paying no attention to lanes or traffic lines. He put's his hazards on and parks in the fire lane near the entrance to the store. Derek get's out of his truck and takes a long pull on his cigarette then places the pack into his jean jacket. He runs in and casts his ballot, on his way out you walk up politely and say "sir may I ask you a quick question?" Not used to being called sir for any reason he doesn't respond. You jog up to him an repeat yourself.
Derek spins around and you get hit with the tench of booze and low priced tobacco. You ask him, mind if I asked who you voted for? Normally you wouldn't ask that of a stranger but this is important dammit! He says "yeah bro, I was on my couch drinking and watching Doctor Phil re runs when my phone sent me a youtube video of (the other guy) right then I thought I'd have a beer with that (person).
That's how Kim Davis got elected. Probably.
Is it terrible to say that some bars to voting may be useful?
I'm kinda with some of your earlier commenters - do we need a test for fitness for office for presidential candidates? Again, I can't see a way to do that without elitism and other biases coming in. Perhaps a presidential hopeful should be able to pass the U.S. citizenship test that new citizens need to pass? I haven't seen the test, but I can't imagine it also leans toward to the biases of the dominant culture.
i'm kinda with a number of your earlier commenters - can we need a test for fitness for office for presidential candidates? once more, I can't see a manner to do this with out elitism and different biases coming in. possibly a presidential hopeful ought to be able to skip the U.S. citizenship take a look at that new residents need to pass? i haven't visible the test, however I can not consider it also leans closer to to the biases of the dominant lifestyle.