Should there be a test/poll tax/other requirement to vote?

[JPFromTally]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately and I've come to the conclusion that universal suffrage is not necessarily a good thing, especially in this day and age. While I believe that there should be no discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, etc. I believe that there should be at least some sort of litmus to give a person the right to vote.

Obviously the reason we have arrived at our current national predicament is that people (and our elected leaders for that matter) do not know the difference between a democracy and a Constitutional Republic. As such, pedestrian voters, most of whom believe in handouts and are ignorant in civics, usually determine elections.

I would propose that voting should be an earned right, much in the same way that a driver's license is. While barriers to entry should not be excessive (high poll taxes, etc.) there should be more of a criteria than merely being a citizen who breathes.

Perhaps, a 20 hour civics class? Perhaps a test as to how our government is supposed to work? While I do agree that a voter's card should have some sort of nominal cost ($20) to many would argue that this would unfairly disenfranchise the poor.

The level of ignorance and apathy in our society has reached epic proportions. These pedestrian voters, most of whom vote simply because they are constantly told that they need to be a warm body at a precinct "to be a good citizen," are ruining our country.

Don't believe me? This is from my hometown paper:

http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080203/COLUMNIST04/802030313/-1/COLUMNISTS

[JPFromTally]

take a test, you must answer 5 of the 10 bill of rights, and your allowed to vote.

It's a start...

[IPSecure]

take a test, you must answer 5 of the 10 bill of rights, and your allowed to vote.


Awesome Idea!!!

[Number19]

...anyone who receives a regular check or income from the government should not be allowed the vote.

[Richandler]

You know I thought this was a good idea for a minute. But in the end memorization doesn't mean the person has learned anything or the significance of what they have memorized.

[FreeTraveler]

...anyone who receives a regular check or income from the government should not be allowed the vote.

This is the only requirement I would support. Any other requirement could be twisted to allow only those that the powers that be want to vote. See the Civil Rights movement and why it occurred. Voting in the south was restricted by similar tests.

[anewvoice]

Yeah, it sounds like a good idea right until you consider who it is that makes the test. You can bet it would NOT be about the bill of rights.

1) Do you consider it a violation to search without warrant?
- no - proceed to answer 2
- yes - proceed to the interrogation room
...

[RageAgainstDC]

I've been saying this, and getting railed for it, for years. The sad fact is that 90+% of the general public just doesn't know enough about what's going on inthe world to make informed decisions. They don't even care enough to TRY to become informed. I also think that privately owned media should be banned from reporting anything at all regarding elections. There should be an independently run, gov't sponsored network solely for that purpose. Call me crazy...

[Goldwater Conservative]

Make the citizenship test harder. Make even natural born citizens take it if they want the right to vote, and they have to take it every few years.

[Mr. White]

Heinlen was onto something?

[Acidlump]

Be able do name 25 presidents

[Ibgamer]

No. Who are we to set up a test that we feel is sufficient in allowing people to vote? This could lead to other things and before you know it only the elite will be allowed to take part. Terrible, terrible idea.

[cradle2graveconservative]

Edit

[Number19]

Heinlen was onto something?
Heinlein should be required reading for all Ron Paul revolutionaries.

[jsu718]

I think the test for voting should be the same as that for citizenship. It could also be easier... made multiple choice and only one question

Which of the following is a role of the federal government?
A. To tax individual's income and use it to fund programs
B. To prevent citizens from carrying guns
C. To redistribute wealth so that the rich do not oppress the poor
D. To secure the border and control currency

[familydog]

I'm not sure how I feel on this one, but if one can't even name one's state capital (it's all over, trust me) then should they be allowed to vote? A republic requires virtuous citizens in order to survive. Not knowing basic civics is not virtuous.

[Acidlump]

I think the test for voting should be the same as that for citizenship. It could also be easier... made multiple choice and only one question

Which of the following is a role of the federal government?
A. To tax individual's income and use it to fund programs
B. To prevent citizens from carrying guns
C. To redistribute wealth so that the rich do not oppress the poor
D. To secure the border and control currency

E. none of the above

[FreeTraveler]

Heinlein should be required reading for all Ron Paul revolutionaries.

QFT

[angelatc]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately and I've come to the conclusion that universal suffrage is not necessarily a good thing, especially in this day and age. While I believe that there should be no discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, etc. I believe that there should be at least some sort of litmus to give a person the right to vote.



If you're looking for reasons to take away the rights of other people, do not be surprised when your rights also disappear.

[skiingff]

The Democrats and Republicans already place restrictions on voting.

They do this in the form of caucuses, where only the politically informed and establishment party members can figure out how the system works.

[Shinerxx]

I think candidates names should not be written in vertical linear fashion. How many people do you know that have voted for the first person on the list or perhaps you have? One simple solution could be to randomly scramble the candidates names on each printed ballot card. So each candidate has an equal chance of being the first choice.

[jaybone]

any subjective requirement is WILDLY open for abuse.
I think in local elections that only property owners should vote, hey we pay all taxes.

I would support stripping those who recieve govet assistance for more than say 6 months of their vote.

If the judicial branch would wake up to the fact that RIGHTS are not PRIVILEGES and in a Constitutional Republic rights cannot be voted away.

In the end, any test for voting will be abused by the powerful to disenfranchise the People.
If we get our way national elections won't mean squat, and it is much easier to educate the ignorati on a local level.

[tomaO2]

The Democrats and Republicans already place restrictions on voting.

They do this in the form of caucuses, where only the politically informed and establishment party members can figure out how the system works.

Exactly so Skiingff. The answer is not more goverment regulation to determine who should vote. We need LESS. We need less restrictions on the independent vote we need less van tours picking up voters to get them out to vote as well. think how much better we would do if Rommey was not able to bus in all those supporters.

The Ron Paul Revolution is all about getting the goverment out of your life and that includes voting.

[gerryb]

The Democrats and Republicans already place restrictions on voting.

They do this in the form of caucuses, where only the politically informed and establishment party members can figure out how the system works.

This is exactly why Ron Paul has a chance to win.................

[Goldwater Conservative]

If you're looking for reasons to take away the rights of other people, do not be surprised when your rights also disappear.

But in practice voting has been the most successful means by which people have been deprived of their rights. I recognize its importance as a tool to choose who carries out the day-to-day functions of government, but it's a become a means for "activist" politicians to rise to power and legislate morality (cultural and economic) for everyone. We already have standards for voting based on age and residency, and requiring a basic level of competence about what you're doing doesn't seem like too much to ask. You take a test before you get your driver's license, after all.


The Democrats and Republicans already place restrictions on voting.

They do this in the form of caucuses, where only the politically informed and establishment party members can figure out how the system works.

And we've benefited most from caucuses. High turnout states and primaries have cleaned Paul's clock and allowed McCain to win big, including by tapping into the anti-establishment, anti-Bush, anti-war vote.