Is it ethical to require a competency test to vote?

[spidergoat]

There are many laws on the record today but Congress and other politicians seem to always find ways around them. So no matter how many laws you pass if corruption is prevalent then those laws will and are bypassed for the greedy to take advantage of everyone else.

Wait a minute. We can indeed outlaw the most blatant forms of corruption, for instance if campaigns are publicly funded, then politicians won't have to do fundraising all the time. They won't care as much about lobbyists because they wouldn't need them to get re-elected.

There might still be the occasional politician who votes a certain way because they are getting secret kickbacks, but if such things are illegal, they will eventually get caught.

We can also prevent the closed loop where politicians become lobbyists after leaving office. Give it a 5 or 10 year waiting period. Or outlaw lobbies altogether.

You are basically giving up on ever having a trustworthy government, and I think that's unnecessarily fatalistic.

 

[Asguard]

I wonder what would happen if there were no names on the ballot and you had to write in the candidate of your choice? This would remove the random element from voting. You'd have to know who was running and vote for one of them and, I suppose, have some idea of how to spell the name of your preferred candidate.

That wouldn't work here because most people vote for parties rather than the individuatial candidates. However how are you going to deal with people who are dislexic?

We allow people to vote when they're 18 because they are now an adult responsible for themselves. We don't allow an 8 year old to vote because their understanding of the world is limited. Their knowledge is limited to such a point that their perception is flawed, and thus they cannot make any educated decisions. Hence they have parents.

People are flat out stupid.

Only 40% of people can identify the three branches of government or explain what the bill of rights is leaving the majority of people clueless. About 1 in 4 people can name 1 of the 5 rights guaranteed by the first amendment. But more than 50% of Americans could name at least two family members in the fictional cartoon “The Simpsons”.

America’s lack of common knowledge has gotten so bad that in 2003, the Strategic Task Force on Education Abroad investigated Americans' knowledge of world affairs. The task force concluded: "America's ignorance of the outside world is so great as to constitute a threat to national security.”.

In 1986 only 30% of Americans knew what the Supreme Court case “Roe vs. Wade” was about. In 1991 only 25% of people knew that the term of a senator was six years. A poll taken a few years ago show that only 20% of Americans know there are 100 senators. Only 49% of Americans know that the United States dropped a nuke in Japan.

Today in America one in five adults think the sun revolves around the earth. This idea was abandoned in the 17th century and yet one in five American adults believes it. To put that into perspective about 1 in 5 adults were unemployed in the U.S in 2009. The United States 2009 census estimated around 307 million people live in our country. and with some basic math we find that 1 in 5 means a staggering 61.4 million people think that the sun revolves around the earth.


------

So why do we not require a competency test to vote? If adults today aren't past the intellectual capabilities of an 8 year old should they really vote? Do you really think their opinion on what we should do matters anymore than the 8 year old whom has no idea what you're talking about?

Democracy is the will of the mob. The mob consists of fools.


Just curious what you think about the idea of requiring some sort of competency test before being considered a 'voting adult'. The world needs working class citizens too .

The biggest problem with this system is the same issue that came out of the Liberal party's changes to the electoral act in Australia requiring photo ID to enrol to vote (previously you just needed to fill out a form and have it signed by someone else already on the electoral roll who knows you), and the same as the previous changes again by the Libs which required a signature of a JP to enroll. That is that it effects those who traditionally vote left a lot more than those who vote right. My problem with these systems is more that it hits those who are most vulnerable, the homeless, the young, the elderly, people from non English speaking backgrounds, they are protected by the fact that if the government does something really bad then they can become informed enough to vote against it next time but if you remove there ABILITY to vote then you remove the fear in the mind of the government that if they do something really exploitive they will pay for it.

 

[fedr808]

Just as good a question is, is it ethical not to require a competency test to vote?

 

[Shogun]

No it isn't, because who gets to set the standard? Maybe its a difference of culture and opinion instead of competency? Maybe they have a disability that prevents them from taking the test while not impeding on their ability to make decisions

In theory its a good idea, in practice? Maybe not

 

[madanthonywayne]

That wouldn't work here because most people vote for parties rather than the individuatial candidates. However how are you going to deal with people who are dislexic?

They'd just have to try their best.

The biggest problem with this system is the same issue that came out of the Liberal party's changes to the electoral act in Australia requiring photo ID to enrol to vote (previously you just needed to fill out a form and have it signed by someone else already on the electoral roll who knows you), and the same as the previous changes again by the Libs which required a signature of a JP to enroll. That is that it effects those who traditionally vote left a lot more than those who vote right. My problem with these systems is more that it hits those who are most vulnerable, the homeless, the young, the elderly, people from non English speaking backgrounds, they are protected by the fact that if the government does something really bad then they can become informed enough to vote against it next time but if you remove there ABILITY to vote then you remove the fear in the mind of the government that if they do something really exploitive they will pay for it.

I am always quite dubious of claims that requiring a photo ID is some kind of hardship. Who doesn't have an ID? Is it really too much to ask that a voter meet the same qualifications as someone writing a check at a grocery store or renting a video at blockbuster?

 

[Asguard]

They'd just have to try their best.

I am always quite dubious of claims that requiring a photo ID is some kind of hardship. Who doesn't have an ID? Is it really too much to ask that a voter meet the same qualifications as someone writing a check at a grocery store or renting a video at blockbuster?

Considering that there was no evidence of fraud in our electoral system the changes were unnessary for a start. Secondly who says everyone DOES write checks or rent videos? The homeless don't, remote aboriginal communities don't

 

[madanthonywayne]

Considering that there was no evidence of fraud in our electoral system the changes were unnessary for a start. Secondly who says everyone DOES write checks or rent videos? The homeless don't, remote aboriginal communities don't

It's not just writing checks and renting videos that requires an ID. Getting into a bar. Flying. Driving. Buying a house. Renting an apartment.

Practically anyone that participates in society requires an ID. If you're such a hermit that you never need an ID, I doubt you'd bother to vote anyways.

 

[quadraphonics]

I am always quite dubious of claims that requiring a photo ID is some kind of hardship. Who doesn't have an ID?

Poor people and the homeless, mostly.

You're telling us more about how cloistered your perspective is, here, than about issues with the franchise.

Is it really too much to ask that a voter meet the same qualifications as someone writing a check at a grocery store or renting a video at blockbuster?

It absolutely is too much to ask. What do those activities have to do with the franchise? Is someone who is too poor to maintain a checking account or own a TV and DVD player and rent movies somehow unfit for citizenship?

It's not just writing checks and renting videos that requires an ID. Getting into a bar. Flying. Driving. Buying a house. Renting an apartment.

Practically anyone that participates in society requires an ID.

Exactly - photo ID requirements are a means of disenfranchising the poor. You know, the people who don't do things like rent videos, go to bars, fly on planes, drive cars, buy houses or rent apartments? Or even have checking accounts?

And guess what the racial demographics of people without photo IDs look like? You really want to go down this road? Because it's one that's been heavily trod by out-and-out racists of all stripes. The kind who've been giving your party such a bad name for the past 50 years now.

Moreover, what of the homeless? Are they not citizens? What is the rationale for disenfranchizing them?

 

[leopold]

I wonder what would happen if there were no names on the ballot and you had to write in the candidate of your choice? This would remove the random element from voting. You'd have to know who was running and vote for one of them and, I suppose, have some idea of how to spell the name of your preferred candidate.

i would like to see "a vote for what concerns you".
instead of voting for a party or candidate you would instead vote for or against issues.

 

[kx000]

Is it ethical to allow imcompetent people to vote?

 

[Asguard]

Is it ethical to allow imcompetent people to vote?

is it ethical to disenfranchise a section of the community which can then be exploited, especially when they are the most vulnerable in the first place

 

[kx000]

is it ethical to disenfranchise a section of the community which can then be exploited, especially when they are the most vulnerable in the first place

But EVERYONE is exploited because of 73 percent of American being incompetent to vote. The point of media is to make us as a lion kept at the zoo. It is taught how to live, but not how to live on its own.

 

[Asguard]

But EVERYONE is exploited because of 73 percent of American being incompetent to vote. The point of media is to make us as a lion kept at the zoo. It is taught how to live, but not how to live on its own.

irrelevant, do you know why in Australia pollies pitch to the swinging voters and in the US they pitch to there own supporters?

Because in Australia we have compulsory turning up and getting a ballot paper and therefore those who make or break elections are the undecideds where as in the US where there is no "compulsory voting" (its not actually, you don't HAVE to vote, you just have to turn up) the focus is getting there own supporters off the couch.

What does that show?
it shows that pollies actions and focus is directly related to the electoral climate that they run in. This matters because as soon as you disenfranchise a group then the pollies can ignore them and concentrate on those who DO vote and the groups you are talking about here are those who are most at risk of exploitation and most vulnerable to changes in government policy. It doesn't matter if they vote intelligently or in there own best interests or anything currently, they could toss a coin and it still wouldn't matter. The most limiting factor on how government acts isn't who they vote for, its the fact that they vote PERIOD and therefore if a strong enough motivating force was present they could become informed very quickly and kick out a government

 

[madanthonywayne]

Because in Australia we have compulsory turning up

I think that's idiotic. I think the fact that a lot of uninformed idiots don't vote is great. The last thing I want is more morons who don't care enough to vote without being forced to do so voting.

.

 

[kx000]

Give me 5 good reasons a divorced man who doesn't pay his child support, or a illiterate deserve a vote. What is the value of my vote when held aginst that of a rapist?

 

[chimpkin]

Is it ethical to allow imcompetent people to vote?

You just misspelled incompetent

Does that make you someone who should not be allowed to vote?

(This question brought to you by the Spelling Nazi party

Heil Spellcheck!)

 

[Robittybob1]

Is it a tick or a cross????

 

[keith1]

First they came for the homeless, and I said nothing in protest...then they made me homeless, so as to come for me was as rational as breathing air and drinking water (an act which still does, as of this date, retain it's freedom not to require ID to facilitate).
I will kill any man who stands between me and the voting booth. I will give my life protecting that right to anyone as well. No debate.

 

[Robittybob1]

First they came for the homeless, and I said nothing in protest...then they made me homeless, so as to come for me was as rational as breathing air and drinking water (an act which still does, as of this date, retain it's freedom not to require ID to facilitate).
I will kill any man who stands between me and the voting booth. I will give my life protecting that right to anyone as well. No debate.

Well I hope there is not a queue then! Carnage!

 

[keith1]

On a lighter note, how about letting a hall full of dachshunds decide which candidate they would rather group around.