Voter qualification test

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Coinneach

Staff Alumnus
In light of the appalling lack of historical knowledge amongst the citizens of the US, I propose a Voter Qualification Test, to be administered by... um... hell, I don't know. The test would be multiple guess, with a minimum passing score of 80%.
----------

1. In what year did the United States declare its independence?
a. 1492
b. 1776
c. 1812
d. 1860

2. From what country did the United States declare its independence?
a. Mexico
b. Canada
c. Great Britain
d. Russia

3. Who was the first president of the United States?
a. Lincoln
b. F. Roosevelt
c. Jefferson
d. Washington

4. How many articles make up the Bill of Rights?
a. 1
b. 4
c. 10
d. 14

5. How many Senators does each state have?
a. 2
b. 5
c. 1
d. 3

6. How many colonies were there in North America at the time of the Revolution?
a. 5
b. 13
c. 7
d. 50

7. Which of the following is the nation's capital city?
a. Los Angeles
b. New York City
c. Washington DC
d. Philadelphia

8. Which state was the first to ratify the Constitution?
a. Delaware
b. Connecticut
c. Texas
d. California

9. The Bill of Rights does the following:
a. Grants certain rights to citizens of the United States
b. Grants certain rights to the federal government of the United States
c. Grants certain rights to the individual states
d. None of the above

10. How many terms may a president serve?
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. As long as he's reelected.
----------
Whatchyall think?

------------------
A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
Vote Libertarian - For A Change.
 
I guess you dont know thar a voter test is illegal at least in the number of Southern states covered by the Voting Rights Act.
Thats another question for your test. "Why was it considered necessary to have a separate voting law applied only to designated Southern states?"

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
Ed you know they had to keep them 'ol mean nasty southerners in line. hell what did they think they were doing, going against the northern government and all. did they think that states actually had a right to govern themselves?? oh no, we can't have that can we?

------------------
what me worry?
 
Of course #9 was a trick question. :)

As far as the Suthrun thang, I didn't know that. Something to do with illiteracy?

No, that wasn't a slam at Southerners in general. :P

------------------
A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
Vote Libertarian - For A Change.
 
The southerns were using Voting tests to keep the blacks from voting afterteh civil war. and the gov't deemed that it was bad to prevent people from voting just because they couldn't read no good.

I don't like the test, cuz well its one more test I have to take. and we all know that test are bad. plus, you pass that test, you have a bigger test ahead of you, its called the ballot. you know all the answers, but the guy next to you doesn't and his don't want to cheat off you.

------------------
It ain't mah fault. did I do dat?
 
The right to vote was restricted to a limited group, required registration, and required a test. Eventually all was dropped (except a reasonable registration process for basic logistics).

History will repeat. There's hope for the 2nd.
 
Now, blacks didn't fail the tests because we were stupid. The tests often consisted of literacy tests--from a foreign language newspaper.
 
Mort; Perhaps they were also required to write their names on a butter wrapper with a ball point pen.Who knows? Thats the whole point. Those days are long gone.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
Mort
I was unclear. I wasn't implying they were stupid. I was trying to state that they were uneducated (being as most slave owners didn't educate their slaves).

The requirements were setup to prevent blacks from voting regardless how smart they were.

------------------
It ain't mah fault. did I do dat?

[This message has been edited by chink (edited August 11, 1999).]
 
Who's going to grade this test, the NEA? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ... "well, if you feel that the declaration of independance was in 1812, then you must be right! ... go ahead and vote"

[This message has been edited by TR (edited August 11, 1999).]
 
I think this "test" smacks of fascism. Is it not my right to be so stupid that I don't even know it's my right to be stupid?

This "test" amounts to thought control.

------------------
“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals. ... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” -Alexander Addison, 1789
 
Well, if a test doesnt suit you, you must admit that something must be done to remedy the situation with which we, as a Nation, are faced.

I, for one, do not think that many of the people to whom the franchise of voting is given deserve it. An example of this is the outgrowth of the infamous "motor-voter" scheme. Its now extended to ensure that welfare reciepients and the homeless get signed up to vote!

If ever there were those who did not deserve a "say" in our Government, it is those people who rely on said Government for their support! Thats like children getting to vote for how much their allowance will be.

Remember that a vote isnt just a ballot, its force. By voting, we tell the government to put its gun to someones head and coerce them into an action. Like, say, raising taxation to pay for more social programs....or other ridiculous schemes repugnant to The Constitution.

So, heres an idea. If you take money (not a paycheck, just handouts...including Social Security, etc) from the Federal Government , you dont get to vote until its paid back. That ensures the "producers" get more of the say in how things are run, since they squeeze us to make the machine work by forcibly taking 25%+ of our income.

Thoughts?
 
Perhaps our government could spend a little of that hard-stolen cash on prime time educational spots.
 
No rights, including the right to vote, are "given." They just exist. How is registering more people to vote bad, no matter who they are? Or, more importantly, how is registering people to vote when they get their driver's license, or they sign up for welfare, unconstitutional? That should be the only real test, not whether a majority thinks it's a good idea or a bad idea.

Your final paragraph, Grenadier2, is "repugnant to The Constitution" is it not? How do you reconcile your blatantly unconstitutional suffrage proposal with your obvious (and proper) "limited powers, sharply defined" interpretation of The Constitution?


------------------
“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals. ... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” -Alexander Addison, 1789


[This message has been edited by deanf (edited August 12, 1999).]
 
I got it!!!! Lets suspend voting until our public educational system corrects the widespread lack of education. Would that suit you?

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
just why should the welfare and homeless people not be able to vote? they're citizens aren't they? how about if we don't allow gun owners to vote, we already know they're crazy killers and shooters of children. let's not allow people that own cars to vote, think of all the injuries they cause and cost the government money on up keep of the roads, and on paying medical expenses on those who don't have insurance. i think maybe people w/ bald heads shouldn't vote, something must be wrong w/ them or else they'd have hair (not a slam against bald people). makes about as much sense. only those who think like i do should be able to vote!! right.................

------------------
what me worry?
 
Apparently the logic of allowing those who rely on government for their meal ticket (which IS blatantly UnConstitutional), to then have a say in how much they demand we give them, escapes me. I dont see it.

Yes, Rights exist, they are not granted. But we must admit that one cannot infringe upon the Rights of another, correct?

What, then, would you call it when more and more social spending bills are passed, and we are forced to pony up the dough for it? Im sure as hell not voting for them, who is?

I didnt say a darn thing about how Individuals think, or feel, or if they like the color blue or not, as to whether they should have the voting franchise. I merely pointed out that its illogical for those who suckle at the public teat, to point governments gun at the teat and demand "MORE"....

How can my last paragraph be construed as repugnant to the Constitution...when the public assistance programs are UnConstitutional from the get-go? The money is not theirs to give (the Feds)...its ours. The Constitution places some major restrictions upon the Federal Government...they have done a good job of throwing off those restrictions, and we suffer for it.

If we didnt have the damned illegal, and Constitutionally repugnant spending programs in the first place, we wouldnt have this problem, would we?

Unless, of course, you can live with just a little tyranny....Id prefer not to, myself.

Thoughts (and not tangents)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top