Modern Civics

One of the questions was: "Which is the only party that wants to raise the basic rate of income tax?" And I was the only person who got it right. Anyone else basing their vote on that one way or the other would have voted for the wrong party.

Right, and the Constitution prevents Congress from restricting the right of writ of habeas corpus.

Surely this isn't your first experience with an entirely manufactured controversy?

wikipedia writes: DutiesU.S. citizens may be summoned to serve on a jury.Jury duty is only imposed upon citizens. Jury duty may be considered the "sole differential obligation" between non-citizens and citizens; the federal and state courts "uniformly exclude non-citizens from jury pools today, and with the exception of a few states in the past, this has always been the case.[10] Today there are indications jury duty is declining;[11] there are fewer trials. Newspaper reports have chronicled the decline of juries, and noted how many people don't get summonses, and how Americans see jury duty as an "inconvenient" chore.[11]Military participation is not currently required in the United States, but a policy of conscription of men has been in place at various times (both in war and in peace) in American history, most recently during the Vietnam War. Currently, the United States armed forces are a professional all-volunteer force, although both male U.S. citizens and male non-citizen permanent residents are required to register with the Selective Service System and may be called up in the event of a future draft. Johns Hopkins University political scientist Benjamin Ginsberg wrote "the professional military has limited the need for citizen soldiers."[2]RightsThe U.S. military has been an all-volunteer force since the end of the Vietnam War but male U.S. citizens and non-citizens are still required to register for the military draft within 30 days of their 18th birthday.Freedom to reside and work. United States citizens have the right to reside and work in the United States. Certain non-citizens, such as permanent residents, have similar rights. However, non-citizens, unlike citizens, may have the right taken away: for example, they may be deported if convicted of a serious crime. There are many jobs, opportunities, and educational opportunities. Some immigrants see citizenship as a way of "locking in economic gains that they have made as legal residents."[12] One person said "People don’t feel that being permanent residents is enough to secure their future in this country. They would just feel more secure as citizens."[12]
Freedom to enter and leave the United States. United States citizens have the right to enter and leave the United States freely. Certain non-citizens, such as permanent residents, have similar rights.Voting for federal office is restricted to citizens in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. States are not required to extend the franchise to all citizens: for example, several states bar citizen felons from voting, even after they have completed any custodial sentence. The United States Constitution bars states from restricting citizens from voting on grounds of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, failure to pay any tax, or age (for citizens who are at least eighteen years old). Historically, many states and local jurisdictions have allowed non-citizens to vote; however, today this is limited to local elections in very few places. Voting is not required, unlike nations such as Australia and Belgium where citizens can be fined for failing to vote. Historically, voting rates in presidential elections by eligible citizens hover around the 50% level, although the recent election of Barack Obama in 2008 saw levels rise over 60%. Legal immigrants are sometimes motivated to become citizens for a chance to exercise voting power.[12]Freedom to stand for public office. The United States Constitution requires that all members of the United States House of Representatives have been citizens for seven years, and that all senators have been citizens for nine years, before taking office. Most states have similar requirements: for example California requires that legislators have been citizens for three years, and the Governor have been a citizen for five years, upon taking office. The U.S. Constitution requires that one be "a natural born Citizen" and a U.S. resident for fourteen years in order to be President of the United States.The Constitution also stipulates that otherwise eligible citizens must be at least 35 years old to be eligible to be president, at least 25 years old to be a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and at least 30 years old to be a U.S. Senator. Substantial benefitsConsular protection outside the United States. While traveling abroad, if a person is arrested or detained by foreign authorities, the person can request to speak to somebody from the U.S. Embassy or Consulate. Consular officials can provide resources for Americans incarcerated abroad, such as a list of local attorneys who speak English. The U.S. government may even intervene on the person's behalf.[13] For example, an American citizen named William E. Petty, who was jailed by authorities in France in 1854, petitioned U.S. authorities to intervene on his behalf.[14] In a twist of this principle, it's possible for foreign governments to confer citizenship on persons serving in jails in the United States.[15] But it illustrates how citizenship is a way to try to extend the hand of protection to nationals when incarcerated in foreign jails.Access to social services. Many social services in the United States are only[dubious — discuss] eligible to American citizens.[13][not in citation given]Citizens can compete as athletes for the United States Olympics team; President Reagan with Olympian Mary Lou Retton in 1987.Increased ability to sponsor relatives living abroad.[13] Several types of immigrant visas require that the person requesting the visa be directly related to a U.S. citizen. Having U.S. citizenship facilitates the granting of IR and F visas to family members.Protection from deportation.[12][13] Naturalized U.S. citizens are no longer considered aliens and cannot be placed into deportation proceedings.Other benefits. The USCIS sometimes honors the achievements of naturalized U.S. citizens. The 'Outstanding American by Choice Award' was created by the USCIS to recognize the outstanding achievements of naturalized U.S. citizens, and past recipients include author Elie Wiesel who won the Nobel Peace Prize; Indra K. Nooyi who is CEO of PepsiCo; John Shalikashvili who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and others.[16] Further, citizenship status can affect which country an athlete can compete as a member of in competitions such as the Olympics.[17]

The problem with some sort of voting test is that it opens up the possibility, however small, of being abused to prevent people from exercising their vote.

I'm not at all sure that ensuring people know the stated positions of a candidate are a particularly good reason, since it doesn't seem to have much bearing on their behaviour once in office, anyway.

I believe you WIians have the government that you collectively wanted.

Further, my guess is that your Republican laden legislature was elected for reasons other than for the purpose of passing the spectacularly goofy bills that they worked on last session.

In any event, the definition of what constitutes informed is very subjective. Many voters care primarily about only a few criteria that simply are not important to other voters. Some things that you think are important might be issues that other voters don't even believe are likely to come up during the office holder's term.

I've occasionally stepped into the voting booth only to find that I don't know enough about a resolution or candidate to vote on it. In the case of candidates, I might take the short cut of voting by party affiliation, but in the case of a resolution, I simply abstain from voting if the complete text of the resolution is not available.

But even knowing the text is not enough reason to vote. Resolutions generally have some economic cost to implement, and unless you are a no-new-taxes fundamentalist, you need to do your cost/benefit analysis before you get into the booth.

But I don't see any way to enforce doing your homework before voting using an exam. Because some people might well be the kind of fundamentalists that legitimately reaches their opinion without needing to do any homework.

It takes a rather small minority of eligible voters to initiate a recall. In fact, given the small percentage of people who actually turn out for the general election, and the outrage generated by the union issue, I don't think even a successful recall election proves all that much. I suspect I could have gotten half of the signatures needed for a recall by standing outside of the state house during the protests.

I suspect that WI election for governor was largely determined by those who decided not to vote.

I think your idealism is showing.

I would like to believe that when all of the facts are laid out and considered that everyone would vote exactly as I do (absent some fundamental differences between us that are easy to recognize).

I think the test would be abused and become a propaganda tool policed by those currently in power.

It is already the case that there are subtle efforts by those in power in my jurisdiction to discourage or make it inconvenient for likely supporters of the opposition to vote.

I don't trust anyone to write such a test.

Interesting that you mention those. When they bill of rights where ratified in 1791 were women citizens? Were Native Americans? Blacks? Were women protected? Did they have rights? Could they vote? Could they own property?
Or were they simply Residents? Savage animals? And Property?
How could these groups gain rights, gain citizenship, gain freedom? Wouldn’t giving them shared freedoms redefine everything in the US?just to be pedantic

We’d probably have to grandfather everyone in who was already a citizen at the time of the new rules passing, but everyone else, would have to test out.

I should clarify. I was also speaking on a Federal Level. State and local elections are completely different.

Nope. It just seemed as if redefining things was an issue for you, when this nation is pretty much about redefinition every 30-50 years anyway.

You may be talking about voting, but I have been talking about citizenship since I answered the OP.

You have to be involved in your community and care about it. It is only your own fault for being uneducated in your own community, on community issues.

There is at least third possibility; namely that a whole bunch of people who couldn't be bothered to vote in the general election, are now incensed.

A sample yes, but does the sample statistically represent the opinions of people who did not vote? Perhaps not.

I suspect that a large segment of social conservatives in WI were energized by the passing of the sex education curriculum by Democrats in the previous session of your legislature. Democrats might not have been similarly motivated to maintain the status quo.

My guess is that even fewer people than voted in the general election are going to vote in the recall election and that the recall favoring voters may find an edge in motivation to vote.

Both at the polls and prior to voting, and in most cases the efforts use methods that are not illegal. Examples would include robo-calls to segments of the population offering false information about voting dates, aggressive challenging of voters at the polls requiring specific forms of identification when multiple forms are allowed, switching polling places and not bothering to inform voters. I've seen these tactics used in several southern states in ways that attempt to targeted voting preference.In VA I've also seen campaigns to identify voters who may have changed addresses using unreliable information, and to challenge said voter at the polling place. Often no mention is made of provisions in law that allow a challenged voter to cast a provisional vote at any polling place.Often efforts are down using one or more proxies for race which are used in turn as a proxy for identifying likely voting preferences.

Yes, if you let me write the test.

Kidding aside, certainly there are some propositions that can yield to a simple, noncontroversial description, but I'm concerned that even in those cases it is possible to manipulate the description.

Incidentally, there was an early Supreme Court case that involved a physical altercation for the purpose prevent a man from voting. The Court found no violation of the constitution, and held that voters were expected to vigorously defend their right to vote, with force of arms if necessary. Perhaps I'm just a wuss about this.

Why make a quiz out of the information?