Modern Civics

I would agree. What most people "know" is based on a clip they saw on the TV. The current crop of newscasters, on both sides of the spectrum, do a very poor job of informing people, they do a very good job of entertaining and scaring people. Quite shortly: The founding fathers didn't anticipate or desire political parties. However, even passing the constitution resulted in two poltical parties springing up in opposition of one another: the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. From then on, it's mostly been a two-party system. The parties have changed and eveolved, but there has almost always been two dominant parties vying for control. The problem is, how do you make an apathetic person interested? Especially when what they're interested in is spectacle. There's a reason our news anchors do a bad job of informing us...most of the public doesn't want to be informed, they want to be entertained. The people who have gone through the immigration procedure to become US citizens often know a very great deal about our country. In fact, they are often more well-informed on how the government works and why then the average natural born citizen. The people we need to focus on are not the immigrants, it's the locals.Ultimately, the lack of public interest or knowledge of even their favorite candidates, especially in the era of instant, easy information leads me to think there should be a small quiz before voting. If you don't know the basic policy positions of the major people on the ballot, you shouldn't be able to vote. I don't want our country to be run by people who were elected by misinformed or uninformed masses simply because they were told to vote that way by their family, friends, or the TV.

Citizenship confers a lot more rights than just being able to vote or run for office. I'd be leery about taking away citizenship unless a test is passed...but voting rights are another thing entirely. I'm all for a test before being able to vote.

So do I. Unfortunately, without someone asking these questions, and then following up to make sure the answers aren't just platitudes, it's tough for anyone to understand why the government does anything.Too, there is such a thing as classified information. Sometimes our military and civilian leaders are privvy to information that the release of would lead to dire consequences. Such is the price of a representative democracy...or a republic. We vote for the people we trust to make those decisions. If they abuse that trust, or make poor decisions on our behalf, we can vote them out fo office. If you don't think anyone running for an office will vote (mostly) in such a way as you would like, you have every right to put yourself up for election. Well, a stable, open nation is a benefit to us. but I don't think we should necessarily get involved in telling other countries and societies how they should behave unless the people ask us to help (like if they're under a repressive regime) or if their actions have a direct, easily explained threat to our sovereignty.I'm not an isolationist, but I do think we're a little to eager to invade other countries for poor or no rational reason.That's why I tend not to vote Republican. They're more gung-ho on things like this.

I was thinking more along the lines of voting for a candidate for public office. If your city or state has a referendum on something, by all means vote on it. Though, I would rather that people informed on the issue vote on it rather than people voting because they were told to, or based on misinformation. I've seen way too many people vote for a candidate, and then, when that candidate does things they said they would do, the person who voted for them is shocked and outraged. I'm in Wisconsin and we're in the middle of a signature gathering to recall our governor. I think the recall is entirely justified, but I know people who voted for him and then signed the recall petition. He's pretty much doing what he said he woudl do (though some of the details weren't released during his campaign.I could see the way he would act, but many people who voted for him either didn't take the time to learn what he stood for, or merely voted for "their" party's candidate. Now we have to spend tax money to run a recall election just a year after a gubernatorial election.It's a waste of time and money that could have been avoided had the people merely taken an interest in what the candidates stood for.I know that in the past poll taxes and literacy tests have been used to disenfranchise voters. But in the information age, anyone with access to a library can learn about the candidates. maybe even non-partisan poll workers could inform the people who fail the test about the stated platforms of the candidates. Then, once the voters are able to make an informed decision, not merely a gut-reaction one, they can vote.I'm not a fan of disenfranchisement, but I'm also not a fan of uninformed voters.ABE: I never said you had to know the workings of government in order to vote. I said you needed to kow the views and plans of the candidates. So, too, for referenda, you need to know what the referendum is saying and what its effects are.Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

Well, for one thing, we could have the candidate him/herself fill out a questionaire. I know it could still lead to the candidates lying to get elected, but we would also then have a written statement we could use to show they lied, etc. Indeed, but people who pay little to no attention to what either candidate says are not going to have "their" candidate exposed to them. Then they vote, and then are shocked when "their" candidate, now elected, does something they think is wrong, but was exactly what he/she promised to do.

But what about if you care that they want to build a dump in your backyard. The Referendum Question says "Should the policy enacted on whether a dump be built at such and such location be passed?" Does that mean you vote for it or against it? Was the policy that was enacted one that provided for the building of the dump or one that opposed it?I'm not advocating for a voting test to prevent people from voting, per se. I want the test to be an informational one that ensures that the people voting for a candidate or policy are actually aware of what they're voting for.Edited by Perdition, : Half my post disappeared.

Yes, but the wording of referenda can be, and often are, misleading, especially if Jose happens to be less than perfect in his understanding of written English.Many times, it may seem that voting "No" on a referendum question means voting against that which it's about, but in reality, you need to vote "yes" to approve the policy banning the action.The test would ensure that everyone voting is aware of what each question on the referendum means.It could be as simple as, "Does voting "yes" on this question approve or ban the building of the landfill?"If the person answers that question correctly, they can then go vote. If they answer incorrectly, they are informed on what the question is actually asking. They then retake the test, and after passing it, are allowed to vote.There are far too many examples of people voting counter to how they thought they voted for me.

Sometimes, but not always. But regardless, my solution to poorly worded, or just misunderstood wording is to make sure, prior to voting, that everyone knows what the wording means. Clarifying the language on the ballot for one person may make it more obtuse to someone else. Relying on the ballot to explain itself is only going to continue the problem.

Some people have very weird ways of understanding certain words or phrases. Reading through EvC should make that abundantly clear. And how would those interpreters operate? Would they stand in the voting booth with you? Wouldn't that open it up to quite legitimate claims of pressure or collusion?So they woiuld have to sit away from the booths, at like a table or something. Sounds good. But how would they be sure you understand what the language says? Wouldn't they have to ask you if you understand by giving you some sort of test?And this is only for a simple referendum on the building of a garbage dump. How are we to make sure people are actually aware of what their vote means when they vote for an alderman or a senator or the president?To make it clear, I don't want to prohibit anyone from voting. I just want to make sure that voters are aware of what they're voting for, be it a referendum, or the stated goals of a candidate. People will still be allowed to vote for person A because he's a "Christian" or because she's on "my party's ticket."I'm just a little tired of people who vote because it gets rammed down our throats that "everyone should vote." They don't care enough to even learn the candidates names, or if they can name them, have no idea what they stand for. Then they complain when the government does something they don't like.We can't get rid of stupid voters, or voters with whom I have a legitimate disagreement...but we can get rid of uninformed voters. And I think we should.

Well, to be pedantic, there's the Bill of Rights...Anything that requires a social security number could be construed as a right for being a citizen...such as social security.I guess you could redefine everyone in the US as a resident (though people who live here but aren't citizens woudl then needto be redefined) and say that a citizen is just a resident who can vote...but that seems like taking the long way around, when you can just have a simple test for all citizens who wish to vote.

Then he should be able to quickly answer the question on whether voting for question 1 will approve or ban the dump.I'm looking out for Jose here. He's informed, he knows what he wants, and he's willing and able to do what he can to stop it. Wouldn't it be a shame if he voted incorrectly because the question was worded imperfectly, or referenced something he wasn't sure of?And this is all a rather simplified scenario. In the case of voting for a candidate, with all the confusion and inconsistency that a human being entails, it would be nice if Jose decides not to vote for a candidate who wants to do-away with the referendum policy that allows Jose to decide where a dump goes, simply because he's unaware that the candidate has proposed to do so in a single town-hall meeting on the other side of town, but not in the town-hall meeting on Jose's side of town, which he went to as a dutiful and fully informed citizen.

Well, how about the case of the defense bill that President Obama signed. It allows for unlimited detainment of anyone suspected of being a terrorist. This includes American citizens, though Obama has promised to never, ever do that to citizens. (Though this has no bearing whatsoever on whether the next president will detain American citizens indefinitely.)So, the assumption then, is that Obama sees no problem with detaining, indefinitely, a non-citizen who is suspected of being a terrorist.Another example is running for office. You have to be a citizen to run for political office. In fact, you have to be born a citizen to run for President.These are off the top of my head, I'm sure someone else could list more things that are granted to citizens but not anyone else living in America besides simply voting. I was not aware of this. Is it because, by working in America, you are contributing to SS, and so are allowed, quite rightly, to benefit from it?

They are. And in my daydream, they would be as well. At least, I assume you'd be able to answer a test question on your own positions in order to vote for yourself.My idea isn't some grand democracy test. It's simply, do you know Candidate A's positions? Do you know candidate B's positions? No? Well, here they are.Ok, now that you know why to vote for someone, go ahead and do it.I'm just trying to mitigate the fact that people partially decide who represents them without giving one thought as to how they will represent them. This would be ok, if these same people weren't also representing me.I understand, in a democracy, people will be elected that disagreew ith me because I disagree with the people voting, and I'm OK with that. What I have a hard time with is the people who agree with me (or my opponents) and yet vote counter to their interests because they don't take the time to understand that they're voting against their interests.Its akin to me cheering for a sports team, who are playing a game that the refs don't know the rules to. If my team loses a fairly played game, it doesn't hurt as much as when they lose because the refs didn't call any of the fouls.The uninformed often end up being the swing vote. Especially in WI, which is about as purple as you can get. I have a hard time thinking that an uninformed vote carries as much weight as my informed one. Besides, for local races, like school board and sheriff, there is little to no way to determine what someone stands for or against. A test that would inform me on each candidate would be something I'd welcome heading into the voting booth.

I thoguht the right of habeas corpus denied this, so anything that as tame as what you're suggesting would either have to be combined with something else denying habeas to warrant the political storm that's been brewing since this provision came to notice. otherwise, people could be saying that it doesn't forbid the summary execution of everyone caught walking on the streets after 8 pm. Again, it's true, but that's already outlawed elsewhere.

I'm all for that too. But for many questions, they need to be phrased for exactly, in legalese, to make sure something voted on isn't beyond the scope of what the person posing the ballot question wants.Besides, as I've said, people can misunderstand even the most carefully worded, simple question. I don't see it as making the process more imperfect. In fact, our current system already has things in place to keep the ignorant from deciding the most important office in the land. I'm in favor of getting rid of the Electoral College, which I would argue does more to disenfranchise people than simply making sure that everyone who wants to vote is at least minimally informed on what they're voting for.