Voters Should Pass A Minimal Civics Test

[Terri]

By Doug Patton
August 11, 2008

I have never been an advocate of the popular notion that "everyone should vote." Some people look at me as if I am somehow un-American when I say that I am not in favor of encouraging people to vote who would otherwise never darken the door of a polling place. I really don't want someone on the streets of Hollywood, who just failed to identify the vice president of the United States on one of Jay Leno's "Jay-Walking" segments, helping to select the person who will lead my government for the next four years.

So here is a basic, common-sense test that every American wishing to exercise the right to vote should answer (I'm sure in this dumbed-down era in which we live we will have to come up with multiple choice answers to make it easier, but here are some preliminary questions):

More

[choltzb]

A similar test should be given to jurors. The thought that Ramos and Compean are in prison today because several jurors thought they couldn't have a hung jury gives me chills. To make things worse they then changed their votes to GUILTY!!! Obviously, the National Education Associations Operation Stupid is succeeding.

[kilroy]

Absolutely! I am definitely in favor of everyone who is eligible to serve in the military being active in politics and the electoral process but there really must be some qualification to exercise that vote.
A simple civics test such as outlined here would be ideal (except that it would prevent many from both liberal and conservative viewpoints from voting) in that role.
In my opinion, we should institute such a voter qualification test immediately and globally.

[mikemo]

The Mexican (dual) citizenship test is a very difficult exam given only in Spanish.
I would be happy if the EE.UU. voters were:
a. Alive
b. Able to read and write
c. Able to vote only once in any election
d. US citizens

[jack virtus]

Amen, I have been advocating a simple civics test to be able to vote for years. In order to vote you should have at least have a rudimentry knowlege of the U.S. and goverment. The Demorats would no doubt say the test was racist and/or unfair to stupid people. I have long thought to many ignoramuses were allowed to vote.

[MISSL]

I have believed that for years.....you must have knowledge of civics before you can register to vote. Also agree with Choltzb regarding jury duty.

This country has very little knowledge on civics (I don't think it is taught anymore in schools) and people need to be made aware of the duty that they perform when they vote and voting properly is the most important thing you can do.

God help us because Americans do not seem to understand that THEY are the government

[l_turn9]

Agree completely!

I would also like to see the "1 man 1 vote" changed. I feel those paying the bills should decide how things are managed. Each person can still get 1 vote but people who pay more than $1000 in Federal taxes get an additional vote, $2000 get 2, $3000 get 3 and so on.

I like the suggestion about testing Jurors also. If I can pass the above Civics test I would want my Jurors to pass it also - how else can they be my peers?

The ultimate test would be a test for those wishing to have children. There are so many people with children who have absolutely no business having children!! It's a wonder they now how to make them!

[FITCamaro]

Hell I'd settle for being required to read and speak English at this point. But yes I agree. You should know something about the country of which you're deciding who should be the leader(s). I'll admit I couldn't name any members of the Supreme Court though.

[Centurion LIV]

Looking at the test just used, I missed 3. Probably three too many.

Most of that material, I remembered from my Eighth Grade Civics class. That was 40 years ago.

From what I see of many people now and needing a minimum of 18 correct to vote, most people would not be allowed to vote.

This test should be administered before allowing a person to register to vote. The test should be randomly administered again at the polls. If randomly is not acceptable, then how about for people who did not bring proper identification with them to the polling place?

I hate the word stupid. It is used too often and loosely. But, passing a civics test would certainly prevent "intellectually challenged" people from voting. The problem with this was, "Did our founding fathers intend to keep intellectually challenged people from voting?" Did our founding fathers even envision that in two hundred years, there would be such widespread ignorance in civics?

The Democrat congress and Senate would never pass such a concept into law as they depend upon the ignorance of voters to elect them. Would the voters approve such a referendum?

If they did, how many of them would pass the test next election?

Time may tell.

[Dingbat36]

Works for me! If it came to a choice however, I have two issues that would come ahead of this one.

1. No person should be eligible to run for Congress unless he/she has lived within the state in which he wishes to serve for 5 years. (Why should a candidate who wouldn't have a prayer of winning in their "home" state be able simply to move to get into the Federal Legislature immediately?)

2. All those elected to to serve in Congress shall be required to pass an examination on the US Constitution before being allowed to be sworn in.