• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do we need a requirement to Vote?

What Requirements should we Impose?

  • Minimum IQ Level

    Votes: 3 7.5%
  • Pass Basic Literacy test

    Votes: 4 10.0%
  • Be able to pay Poll Tax

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Be able to pass test about a candidates position

    Votes: 4 10.0%
  • No Requirements should be made

    Votes: 29 72.5%

  • Total voters
    40
I would support a simple, nonpartisan civics test if it could stand up to constitutional scrutiny...but that's questionable.

Maybe a better solution would be to make people take the test, tell them what their score is, then let them decide if they still want to vote. Maybe it would guilt-trip some of the dummies into not voting. Maybe part of the problem is that people overestimate their own knowledge of the issues, and a test would at least show them where they stand compared to their peers.
 
I would support a simple, nonpartisan civics test if it could stand up to constitutional scrutiny...but that's questionable.

Maybe a better solution would be to make people take the test, tell them what their score is, then let them decide if they still want to vote. Maybe it would guilt-trip some of the dummies into not voting. Maybe part of the problem is that people overestimate their own knowledge of the issues, and a test would at least show them where they stand compared to their peers.

would you surrender your right to a voice in how your country is run just because someone told you you weren't smart enough?
 
would you surrender your right to a voice in how your country is run just because someone told you you weren't smart enough?

No, because I know I am smart enough. Some people aren't though.

Some people may not be aware of how little they actually know about politics, and might choose not to vote after they found out. Giving them the option would certainly be less heavy-handed than banning them from voting entirely, and perhaps more likely to stand up to constitutional scrutiny as well.
 
No, because I know I am smart enough. Some people aren't though.

Some people may not be aware of how little they actually know about politics, and might choose not to vote after they found out. Giving them the option would certainly be less heavy-handed than banning them from voting entirely, and perhaps more likely to stand up to constitutional scrutiny as well.

Stupidity doesn't stop people from posting said stupidity online. I doubt it would stop people from voting.
 
Stupidity doesn't stop people from posting said stupidity online.

I disagree. There will always be some stupid people who run their mouths online about things they know nothing about, but most people don't. This forum is a good example. While there are plenty of morons here, I would guess that there are a lot fewer of them than there are in the general population. People who don't know anything about politics typically don't post on message boards about politics (unless they're trying to learn more).

E_Pluribus_Venom said:
I doubt it would stop people from voting.

I don't think it would need to stop all stupid people in order to be effective. Even if only 20% of the stupidest 20% of the electorate chose not to vote after they saw the results of the test, that would still be a considerable improvement IMO. 4% of votes, which were entirely worthless, simply wouldn't be cast at all.
 
It's fine now.
 
I disagree. There will always be some stupid people who run their mouths online about things they know nothing about, but most people don't. This forum is a good example. While there are plenty of morons here, I would guess that there are a lot fewer of them than there are in the general population. People who don't know anything about politics typically don't post on message boards about politics (unless they're trying to learn more).

Some current events are proof that one doesn't necessarily need to know a great deal about politics in order to actively go out and protest. Look at some of the "tea-party activists". "Keep Government out of my Medi-care"? "We've got an illegal in the WH"? I think you're attempting to create a big "if" where an atmosphere for that "if" doesn't exist. As we're currently seeing, passion is stronger than reason... and if people feel compelled to oppose or favor, a test will do little to stop that.
 
I would support a simple, nonpartisan civics test if it could stand up to constitutional scrutiny...but that's questionable.

Maybe a better solution would be to make people take the test, tell them what their score is, then let them decide if they still want to vote. Maybe it would guilt-trip some of the dummies into not voting. Maybe part of the problem is that people overestimate their own knowledge of the issues, and a test would at least show them where they stand compared to their peers.

Your idea would have an opposite effect. Telling people that they are too stupid to vote will just piss people off and encourage them to vote anyways.
 
Some current events are proof that one doesn't necessarily need to know a great deal about politics in order to actively go out and protest. Look at some of the "tea-party activists". "Keep Government out of my Medi-care"? "We've got an illegal in the WH"? I think you're attempting to create a big "if" where an atmosphere for that "if" doesn't exist. As we're currently seeing, passion is stronger than reason... and if people feel compelled to oppose or favor, a test will do little to stop that.

It won't stop the stupid and passionate people from voting, but it might stop some of the stupid and apathetic people from voting. Some people could care less about politics, but they vote anyway for whatever reason. A test that told them that they were ill-informed might be sufficient to get some of them not to vote.
 
Last edited:
I think the only requirement should be what it currently is. 18 years of age and a legal citizen. Even the less educated and politically uninformed have a right to their vote.
 
Your idea would have an opposite effect. Telling people that they are too stupid to vote will just piss people off and encourage them to vote anyways.

If they're taking the test then they're already at the polling place, which means they intended to vote when they walked in. So either the test will do nothing or it will reduce the number of worthless votes...but it definitely won't increase them. I doubt anyone who wasn't planning on voting anyway is going to waste their time driving to the polling place, taking the test, and then voting, just to spite some faceless bureaucrat.
 
Last edited:
It won't stop the stupid and passionate people from voting, but it might stop some of the stupid and apathetic people from voting.

If they're apathetic, they wouldn't vote anyway. Even if they did, that's too insignificant a number to actually matter in terms of what this threads OP hopes to accomplish.
 
If they're taking the test then they're already at the polling place, which means they obviously intended to vote when they walk in.

So why would poor test results discourage them from voting if they went through the trouble of going to their local polling place?

So either the test will do nothing or it will reduce the number of worthless votes...but it definitely won't increase them.

I believe it will not do nothing, as you say they are already at the polling place intending to vote. Saying hey your stupid is not going to guilt anyone, its just going to piss them off.


I doubt anyone who wasn't planning on voting anyway is going to waste their time going to the polls, taking the test, and then voting just to spite some faceless bureaucrat.
If might if someone is stupid enough to air commercials telling them that those with low scores shouldn't vote.
 
If they're apathetic, they wouldn't vote anyway. Even if they did, that's too insignificant a number to actually matter in terms of what this threads OP hopes to accomplish.

I disagree. There are millions of people who don't really know or care that much about politics, who ritualistically vote in elections nevertheless. Maybe they feel it's their civic duty, or maybe they're worried that people will frown on them not voting, or maybe their husband/wife is going to vote and drags them along. Whatever the reason, if a test showed them how little they understood about our government or the issues, maybe some of them would be a bit reluctant to vote.

The big problem is that the media has drilled into people's minds that it is their civic duty to vote. I think we need to change this mindset. I completely understand partisan groups trying to drive voter turnout for a specific candidate; that's OK. But the idea that people should just vote for someone is terrible IMO. A civics test like this would help correct it. It may sound OK to say "Make sure you vote tomorrow, whether it's for a Democrat or a Republican," but I think it would be much harder to defend "Make sure you vote tomorrow, even if you only score a 10% on the civics test."
 
Last edited:
So why would poor test results discourage them from voting if they went through the trouble of going to their local polling place?

Because not everyone votes for the purpose of influencing an election. Some people vote because they feel its a social norm. Merely taking the test and then deciding not to vote might fulfill the social obligations for some people.

It's an interesting area of behavioral economics. I'd compare it to some ethics experiments. Researchers found that if you give someone an opportunity to cheat on a test and a reward for doing so, they usually will. But if you remind them of the Ten Commandments first, they almost never do. I think the same kind of thing could be at work here. If you give someone an opportunity to vote without knowing anything, some of them will. But if you remind them that they don't know anything about the issues first, perhaps they are less likely to do so.
 
Last edited:
I think the best requirement would be to pass a gameshow like obstacle course. The obstacle course would be hosted each week in every state and the most entertaining of the individual state's shows would be nationally syndicated as "Who Wants to be a Voter?" If they pass that test, they can vote as long and as many times they want (state, local, national; stuff inbetween). If they fail... Well, deportation.
 
Last edited:
I don't think we have the legal grounds to impose an IQ test on voters or test them on the candidates' platform, but it wouldn't be too bad of an idea in my personal opinion.
 
I disagree. There are millions of people who don't really know or care that much about politics, who ritualistically vote in elections nevertheless. Maybe they feel it's their civic duty, or maybe they're worried that people will frown on them not voting, or maybe their husband/wife is going to vote and drags them along. Whatever the reason, if a test showed them how little they understood about our government or the issues, maybe some of them would be a bit reluctant to vote.

If they feel it's their civic duty, they're not apathetic. If they're worried about how people will view them for not voting, they're not apathetic. Someone who is apathetic just isn't concerned about a particular thing, in this case voting. If we're to go by your suggestion of tests at polling places, obviously he/she (who is allegedly apathetic) went through the trouble of leaving the house to vote. You think a test is going to sideline the objective they got up to accomplish (that they're so apathetic about)? You're issuing some strong theories... not much to actually base them on, either.
 
If they feel it's their civic duty, they're not apathetic. If they're worried about how people will view them for not voting, they're not apathetic. Someone who is apathetic just isn't concerned about a particular thing, in this case voting. If we're to go by your suggestion of tests at polling places, obviously he/she (who is allegedly apathetic) went through the trouble of leaving the house to vote. You think a test is going to sideline the objective they got up to accomplish (that they're so apathetic about)?

I mean apathetic about politics in general, not necessarily apathetic about voting. Someone who shows up at the polls and takes the test might feel they've fulfilled their civic duty, especially if showing them the results of the test helps change the mindset that people have a civic duty to vote no matter how ignorant they are.

E_Pluribus_Venom said:
You're issuing some strong theories... not much to actually base them on, either.

I'm not suggesting we roll out such a system nationwide starting tomorrow. It's just one idea that seems plausible to reduce the number of worthless votes without violating the Constitution. Obviously it would need to be tested first to see if it actually affected voter turnout. My hunch is that it would have a bigger impact than you might think, but of course I could be wrong.
 
Last edited:
The focus should be to get people more involved in electing people, not segregating the population based on IQ or tests. We need to educate people, not say that only the elite should have say in things. What about a child that grows up in a horrible household and dysfunctional family? Just because of the way they were brought up and the resources they lacked, should that child not be able to vote when they become an adult?
 
I mean apathetic about politics in general, not necessarily apathetic about voting. Someone who shows up at the polls and takes the test might feel they've fulfilled their civic duty, especially if showing them the results of the test helps change the mindset that people have a civic duty to vote no matter how ignorant they are.

I'm not suggesting we roll out such a system nationwide starting tomorrow. It's just one idea that seems plausible to reduce the number of worthless votes without violating the Constitution. Obviously it would need to be tested first to see if it actually affected voter turnout. My hunch is that it would have a bigger impact than you might think, but of course I could be wrong.

Then it's essentially a non-threatening method meant to discourage the voting process Americans are rightful to participate in... and any attempt to do so (mild or not) is inherently wrong. It also assumes voters pick candidate based on a variety of positions and ideals, when it's not always the case. Often 1 singular issue is all a voter may need to pick a candidate, an example being abortion or economy. A test would, no doubt, ask that participants show basic understanding of a plethora of positions, when in reality that's not what they showed up for.
 
Then it's essentially a non-threatening method meant to discourage the voting process Americans are rightful to participate in... and any attempt to do so (mild or not) is inherently wrong.

Why?

E_Pluribus_Venom said:
It also assumes voters pick candidate based on a variety of positions and ideals, when it's not always the case. Often 1 singular issue is all a voter may need to pick a candidate, an example being abortion or economy. A test would, no doubt, ask that participants show basic understanding of a plethora of positions, when in reality that's not what they showed up for.

I don't think you'd need to ask about any specific policy positions at all. Here are a few sample questions I can think of:

1. Who is the current Vice President of the United States?
2. Who is the current governor of your state?
3. What document establishes our system of government?
4. What is the highest court in the nation called?
5. How many states are there?
6. What are the two houses of Congress called?

I think it's easy enough for any smart 7th-grader to ace...but, sadly, there are lots of voters who can't answer some of those. Furthermore, it wouldn't ban them from voting if they failed the test. If they wanted to vote for a certain candidate because of his/her stance on abortion, they'd still be able to do so. I don't think it would have much impact on voters who felt passionately about an issue. The main targets are voters who don't really know/care about any issue at all.
 

Why is something that is meant to discourage an American right inherently wrong? I think the question itself answer that.

I don't think you'd need to ask about any specific policy positions at all. Here are a few sample questions I can think of:

1. Who is the current Vice President of the United States?
2. Who is the current governor of your state?
3. What document establishes our system of government?
4. What is the highest court in the nation called?
5. How many states are there?
6. What are the two houses of Congress called?

I think it's easy enough for any smart 7th-grader to ace...but, sadly, there are lots of voters who can't answer some of those. Furthermore, it wouldn't ban them from voting if they failed the test. If they wanted to vote for a certain candidate because of his/her stance on abortion, they'd still be able to do so. I don't think it would have much impact on voters who felt passionately about an issue. The main targets are voters who don't really know/care about any issue at all.

But your issuing a highly unlikely scenario:

They care enough to vote even though they don't really know/care about any issues at all, but a test could change that. That doesn't make sense. If they don't know/care about any issues at all, what makes you think they'll care about a poor test score? They go knowing they don't know... a piece of paper just verified it. So what?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom