A Test to Obtain Voting Rights?

[blocks]

Say that in order to be granted the right to vote you had to pass a short test. And I'm talking about voting for federal offices only at this point. It could be as few as five extremely simple multiple choice questions.

For example,

Name the three 'branches' of the federal government?
A.) The Executive, the Judicial, and the Leghorn
B.) The Judicial, the Executor, and the Messengers
C.) The Legislative, the Judicial, and the Executive

Would that really violate anybody's rights? And if so, why doesn't the age limit of 18 violate the more intelligent and "in-tune" seventeen year-old's rights?

I'm interested to hear all y'all responses and ideas about this.

[JordanL]

Two caveats to get the Supreme Court to even consider it:

1. It has to be strictly Constitutional questions. (i.e. stuff about the Constitution...)
2. There has the be equal and free access for all races, creeds, genders, orientations and ethnicities to the learning facilities required to pass the test.

Tests and requirements at the voting booth were how the KKK kept black people from voting for a long time...

EDIT:

To answer your question, the age limit doesn't violate people's rights because it's in the Constitution, which is a document explicitly limitting rights. If the Constitution said black people can't vote, it wouldn't violate their civil rights because the Constitution defines their civil rights. It would violate their human rights and moral rights, and people have long since decided that that's a very good reason to grant civil rights.

[blocks]

Two caveats to get the Supreme Court to even consider it:

1. It has to be strictly Constitutional questions. (i.e. stuff about the Constitution...)
2. There has the be equal and free access for all races, creeds, genders, orientations and ethnicities to the learning facilities required to pass the test.

Tests and requirements at the voting booth were how the KKK kept black people from voting for a long time...

EDIT:

To answer your question, the age limit doesn't violate people's rights because it's in the Constitution, which is a document explicitly limitting rights. If the Constitution said black people can't vote, it wouldn't violate their civil rights because the Constitution defines their civil rights. It would violate their human rights and moral rights, and people have long since decided that that's a very good reason to grant civil rights.

All good points. I'm not on either side of this idea, thus I've pondered it and it's repercussions many a times. The only question I have of your response, would be regarding your second caveat.

I agree, that if this was in place, equal access must be mandatory. But say that a legally immigrated citizen cannot speak nor read English, shall they be permitted the right to vote?

[JordanL]

All good points. I'm not on either side of this idea, thus I've pondered it and it's repercussions many a times. The only question I have of your response, would be regarding your second caveat.

I agree, that if this was in place, equal access must be mandatory. But say that a legally immigrated citizen cannot speak nor read English, shall they be permitted the right to vote?

Actually, they are not supposed to be granted voting rights unless they can understand their rights... that's why the citizenship test is very heavy on Constitutional Law.

I can almost guarantee that any immigrant who has taken the citizenship test and earned the right to vote could pass your basic test. I wouldn't be worried.

[nobody's_hero]

This test assumes that the government agency administering the test understands how government works, correct?

[Mini-Me]

Always remember that any test will be constructed by the same politicians and bureaucrats that we're trying to get rid of. Whose "interpretation" of the Constitution do you think they'll use? Who do you really think they'll attempt to bar from the voting box?

I could see them forcing people to "agree" that the federal government has the Constitutional authority to regulate gun sales, regulate any business, set a national school curriculum, blah blah, all by abusing the standard list of abused clauses. Passing the test could require you to "agree" to such patently wrong answers. At best, questions/answers like these would be a propaganda tool for government authority. Even worse, here's a nightmare scenario that could be a stretch, but I wouldn't put it past the sleazebag incumbents: What if your answers were a binding contract not to vote otherwise, "allowing" them to discount any vote for candidates who disagree with the test's answer sheet?

Considering the whole point of any kind of test prior to voting is to disqualify "unfit" voters, it's simply too dangerous...because the government itself will naturally decide which voters are "unfit."

[ryanduff]

Always remember that any test will be constructed by the same politicians and bureaucrats that we're trying to get rid of. Whose "interpretation" of the Constitution do you think they'll use? Who do you really think they'll attempt to bar from the voting box?

They'd make the answers extremely simple, and people would still fail because the education system doesn't teach this.

What would end up happening is them giving more money to ACORN to do Voting Test Prep in the poor, uneducated neighborhoods so that they knew the correct answers to the questions they'd be asked.

[kojirodensetsu]

I don't think this would be a bad idea. You'd just have to make sure there are no bias in the questions (the executive/judicial/legislative question is a good example of a question that would work well). You could even tack a one-time fee onto getting voting rights that would, ideally, be used to pay for the voting process (paying for paper and people to count votes and such).

[angelatc]

Say that in order to be granted the right to vote you had to pass a short test. And I'm talking about voting for federal offices only at this point. It could be as few as five extremely simple multiple choice questions.

For example,

Name the three 'branches' of the federal government?
A.) The Executive, the Judicial, and the Leghorn
B.) The Judicial, the Executor, and the Messengers
C.) The Legislative, the Judicial, and the Executive

Would that really violate anybody's rights? And if so, why doesn't the age limit of 18 violate the more intelligent and "in-tune" seventeen year-old's rights?

I'm interested to hear all y'all responses and ideas about this.

No.

Once you allow them to take away the right to vote, it only becomes an issue of who *is* allowed to vote.

[Mini-Me]

I don't think this would be a bad idea. You'd just have to make sure there are no bias in the questions (the executive/judicial/legislative question is a good example of a question that would work well). You could even tack a one-time fee onto getting voting rights that would, ideally, be used to pay for the voting process (paying for paper and people to count votes and such).

What "you" are you talking about when you say, "You'd just have to make sure...?" You seem to be operating under the assumption that we the people (or especially we the informed people) would have any control over the questions asked. We wouldn't be the ones deciding the questions, but the people who do will certainly assure everyone there's no bias. ;)

[Elwar]

Ya, and maybe we can bring back the literacy test and the poll tax.

And get rid of the whole thing of women and blacks voting too.

[slacker921]

The practice of voting for a party and voting AGAINST the other party/candidate rather than voting FOR the best candidate is what has to be stopped.

The practice of voting "lesser of two evils" has to be stopped.

The '08 primaries would have been totally different if the lemmings had not followed the GOP orders after Super Tuesday (they were told to vote for "unity"). The Presidential election would have been totally different if masses of Republicans hadn't shown up to vote AGAINST BHO (I don't know anyone in my family who voted FOR McCain but know of at least 8 who voted for McCain only to vote AGAINST BHO)

[pcosmar]

Two caveats to get the Supreme Court to even consider it:

1. It has to be strictly Constitutional questions. (i.e. stuff about the Constitution...)
2. There has the be equal and free access for all races, creeds, genders, orientations and ethnicities to the learning facilities required to pass the test.

Tests and requirements at the voting booth were how the KKK kept black people from voting for a long time...

EDIT:

To answer your question, the age limit doesn't violate people's rights because it's in the Constitution, which is a document explicitly limitting rights. If the Constitution said black people can't vote, it wouldn't violate their civil rights because the Constitution defines their civil rights. It would violate their human rights and moral rights, and people have long since decided that that's a very good reason to grant civil rights.

Wow
just wow. Ever ytime I think we are making some progress in educating people some one comes along with a post like this.:eek:

We are screwed.:mad:

THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS
THE CONSTITUTION IS TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT

[Pennsylvania]

Voting rights is a currently a contradiction in terms, so the question of a test to do it is so far irrelevant:

Assuming we are talking about voting for politicians, voting is always the imposition of the will of Group A upon Group B. Even if voting for someone as noble as Dr. Paul, Group A still forces Group B to pay Dr. Paul's salary with their tax money. If Group A, were to pay Dr. Paul's salary with their own money, I suppose then a case might be made, only pending the policies of the "politician".