Elections in the United States are fundamentally broken. Negative campaigning is a huge deal, uneducated voters are the norm, irrelevant alternatives/third parties can act as spoilers, we often feel as if we are choosing between the lesser of two evils, if you are in anything other than a swing state your vote doesn't matter and no one will cater to it, and people are not fairly represented. Most people's votes simply don't matter.

Here are five ideas to fix the system, in increasing order of controversy.

Proportional Electoral Vote

I do not believe in abolishing the electoral system and going to one where a president wins based purely on a popular vote. This would simply lead to presidential candidates campaigning strictly in large population centers, rather than throughout states. Those population centers would also decide the elections.

Instead, a significantly better proposal is to use proportional electoral votes. There are several ways that this can work, but my favorite is a rounding method--this produces a threshold you have to cross in order to get electoral votes, and removes the ickyness of fractional votes or precise percentages mattering.

Main and Nebraska already do this, there is no reason every other state couldn't as well.

There is a lot of opposition to this because it would raise voting challenges, but it is infinitely more fair than winner take all and would keep a handful of swing states from being the only ones advertised or campaigned in. Suddenly every state would be more important.

Approval Voting

The current system of voting that we use makes every other system of voting look good by comparison. It is nonrepresentative, it encourages tactical voting, irrelevant alternatives can act as a spoiler, and people will often vote for the lesser of evils, rather than the person who he or she considers best for the job.

Approval voting is where people for as many candidates as they like--once each. It is easy to understand, easy to implement, and suffers from none of the problems that "first past the post" styles of voting suffer from. There is no significant change in ballot design needed, and a vote cast under the first past the post system is still a valid vote in an approval vote system.

It is also the one that produces the candidate that "most people can live with" and would reduce negative campaigning. With approval voting, there is less incentive to try and keep people from voting for the other guy and you don't want to reduce people's estimation of you.

Kill The Open Primaries

It used to be that each party would put forth a candidate based on discussions in a "smokey back room." This is a good system and it generated many of the greatest presidents in history. The current system is fundamentally flawed for more reasons than it is even worth it to go into, but a few of them are:


Rolling initiative. A person winning in Iowa increases their chances of sweeping the rest of the states.
States irrelevance by dropout. By the time the Open Primary had reached Louisiana, it was down to... Kerry. If we had wanted anyone else or would have voted for anyone else, it was irrelevant by that point. Enough states like this can change the election in dramatic ways.
Insufficient time to really pick a good candidate and evaluate the issues. It requires making a less-educated decision about the best candidate by a large mass of people.


Let's abolish it and go back to having each party decide who they are going to have run for president. If they want to hold open primary elections to do it let them do so on their own money--not on taxpayers. If they choose poorly then their candidate simply won't be elected.

Approval voting would then fix the problem of the party putting for a real idiot and everyone voting for him anyways.

Poll Tests

Contract some form of testing agency such as ETS to run a "poll certification test" that would allow people to vote. The questions would be published in advance, and you must score above a certain level before being allowed to vote. The test would have to be retaken at a regular interval--say every 12 years so that it will last through three presidential elections.

Give people a very long time to finish the test, let them take their time. I don't care if it takes them a long time to do these things, so long as they can do/can remember them.

The questions that should be covered:


Addition, subtraction, multiplication, division. If you can't calculate a tip or balance a checkbook, you shouldn't be voting for someone who will balance the national budget.

Basic facts on the constitution. If you aren't familiar with the constitution, why are you voting for someone who will defend it? Most US Americans can't name three of the five guarantees of the first amendment, yet they are voting for people who are supposed to uphold it. Nothing fancy here, nothing about when x amendment was ratified, but just a few basic facts on the preamble and the bill of rights.

A little history. Nothing bowdlerized or including minute details anything like that, just basic facts about how we got here.

Amendment 36 in Colorado this year does what I think you are porposing for a proportional electoral vote.

The proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution:
Eliminates the current system in which the presidential candidate receiving the most votes gets all of the state's electoral votes;
Allocates Colorado's electoral votes based on the percentage of votes for each presidential candidate; and
Makes the changes effective for the November 2004 presidential election.

I believe it has a "rounding method" protection as well:
"NO PRESIDENTIAL TICKET SHALL RECEIVE ANY ELECTORAL VOTES FROM THIS STATE IF ITS PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL BALLOTS CAST FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL TICKETS WOULD REFLECT LESS THAN A FULL ELECTORAL VOTE AFTER ROUNDING TO THE NEAREST WHOLE NUMBER."

The opposition to this by the current political establishment is strong, and it is because of the vociferous objections of partisan politicians that I am inclined to vote for it. Anything this objectionable to "the current system" has got to have some merit to it.

1) get rid of the party system...let candidates actually think for themselves as opposed to being party puppets. As well as the voters.

2)Have national voting laws. Instead of states making their own voting laws, have strict federal laws regarding how to get on a ballot and voting procedures.

3)Bring voting procedures into the 21st century. Put everything on secure computers.

4)never EVER let a court decide an election again. Election issues are for Congress, not the courts.

5)instead of having electors elect the President, have the popular vote determine where the states' elector votes will go.

Matt, how do you propose to get rid of political parties and subsequently, how do you stop people from forming them again? Political parties didn't from an act of government.

1) get rid of the party system...let candidates actually think for themselves as opposed to being party puppets. As well as the voters.


Parties exist because there is no way for them not to exist. They also have several beneficial qualities, such as unifying like-minded individuals so that they can best represent their interests.

Sure, they tend to be an evil, but they are better than any of the alternatives.


2)Have national voting laws. Instead of states making their own voting laws, have strict federal laws regarding how to get on a ballot and voting procedures.


a) This wouldn't fix anything, just lead to more issues going up to a federal level and creating even more bureaucracy.

b) "States Rights." It is neither the role nor the right of the federal government to dictate how local elections are run.

c) Any errors in the national system would then exist in every state.


3)Bring voting procedures into the 21st century. Put everything on secure computers.


Won't fix anything unless it is done correctly, which is insanely difficult (http://schneier.com/crypto-gram-0312.html#9).


4)never EVER let a court decide an election again. Election issues are for Congress, not the courts.


Resolving disputes is the purview of the courts.

In the case you are referring to, the decision should have remained with the Florida Supreme Court, not the US Legislature or the SCotUS.

Poll Tests

Contract some form of testing agency such as ETS to run a "poll certification test" that would allow people to vote. The questions would be published in advance, and you must score above a certain level before being allowed to vote. The test would have to be retaken at a regular interval--say every 12 years so that it will last through three presidential elections.

Give people a very long time to finish the test, let them take their time. I don't care if it takes them a long time to do these things, so long as they can do/can remember them.

The questions that should be covered:


Addition, subtraction, multiplication, division. If you can't calculate a tip or balance a checkbook, you shouldn't be voting for someone who will balance the national budget.

Basic facts on the constitution. If you aren't familiar with the constitution, why are you voting for someone who will defend it? Most US Americans can't name three of the five guarantees of the first amendment, yet they are voting for people who are supposed to uphold it. Nothing fancy here, nothing about when x amendment was ratified, but just a few basic facts on the preamble and the bill of rights.

A little history. Nothing bowdlerized or including minute details anything like that, just basic facts about how we got here.


This has already been done, and declared unconstitutional. Also, if you force people to take a test, then you are going to have an even smaller voter turnout on election day; even among the people who could pass the test but refuse to take it.

Furthermore, it is up to the states to decide how the electoral votes are distributed (like Dhamma mentioned)...

This has already been done, and declared unconstitutional.


It has never been done in the method I just mentioned. Ever. The difference between the "Poll Tests" that were declared unconstitutional and the system I just proposed is as large as the difference between first degree murder and self defense.

Have you ever seen the questions that they asked on the tests from that era? Not to mention the habit of asking whites and blacks different questions.



Also, if you force people to take a test, then you are going to have an even smaller voter turnout on election day; even among the people who could pass the test but refuse to take it.


This is once every 12 years, not exactly something you show up for every year.

Further, voter turnout is not necessarily a good thing if the people voting lack even a basic understanding of the document our government is founded on.


Furthermore, it is up to the states to decide how the electoral votes are distributed (like Dhamma mentioned)...

I never implied that it wasn't.

Advocacy of proportional electoral voting != federal mandate, as Badnarik pointed out very eloquently not that long ago.

yes I realize that while there are people with the same ideas there will always be political parties, I do not agree that they should be on the ballot.

What I mean is the candidates should run, not the parties.

The only funding for a party should be when there is a presidential race, and the ballots should make no indication of which party each member is a part of, therefore reducing the number of people who vote for someone just because they are in a certain party, forcing people to actually know what each candidate stands for.

It has never been done in the method I just mentioned. Ever. The difference between the "Poll Tests" that were declared unconstitutional and the system I just proposed is as large as the difference between first degree murder and self defense.

It's an interesting idea but in this climate of political correctness I doubt it's politically viable. Even if we were to somehow manage get everyone to agree on some standard (a big stretch) you know where it goes from there. Lowest common denominator to ensure that nobody is deprived of their right to vote. (e.g. Immigrants saying they're being excluded because the test is in english, people below poverty line excluded because they didn't have access to education, the list goes on). So the test eventually gets so dumbed down as to be meaningless.

It has never been done in the method I just mentioned. Ever. The difference between the "Poll Tests" that were declared unconstitutional and the system I just proposed is as large as the difference between first degree murder and self defense.

Have you ever seen the questions that they asked on the tests from that era? Not to mention the habit of asking whites and blacks different questions.




This is once every 12 years, not exactly something you show up for every year.

Further, voter turnout is not necessarily a good thing if the people voting lack even a basic understanding of the document our government is founded on.



I never implied that it wasn't.

Advocacy of proportional electoral voting != federal mandate, as Badnarik pointed out very eloquently not that long ago.

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with you, man...I'm just letting you know that such things happened in the past and were declared unconstitutional (it violated the civil rights of not only the blacks, but lower-class white folk) and is highly unlikely to be reversed. I agreed with your idea 100%, but it's just not a feasible option. The right to vote is a civil right that comes with no strings attached (besides age) whether we like it or not.

The only thing broken about our election system is the fact that people lack the discipline and drive to find out about the issues and make an informed decision. That's why our media outlets are so powerful. The people trust the media (although, maybe not so much anymore) to make up their minds for them. That has to stop if you have any hope of fixing the election system.

If you can get a significant amount of educated voters to the polls, you won't need to do much else to fix the system. The system was very well thought out when it was conceived, and works today to balance the power of the states vs population, and to limit the effect of the uneducated at the polls.

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with you, man...I'm just letting you know that such things happened in the past and were declared unconstitutional (it violated the civil rights of not only the blacks, but lower-class white folk) and is highly unlikely to be reversed. I agreed with your idea 100%, but it's just not a feasible option. The right to vote is a civil right that comes with no strings attached (besides age) whether we like it or not.

The only thing broken about our election system is the fact that people lack the discipline and drive to find out about the issues and make an informed decision. That's why our media outlets are so powerful. The people trust the media (although, maybe not so much anymore) to make up their minds for them. That has to stop if you have any hope of fixing the election system.

If you can get a significant amount of educated voters to the polls, you won't need to do much else to fix the system. The system was very well thought out when it was conceived, and works today to balance the power of the states vs population, and to limit the effect of the uneducated at the polls.


I am going to throw out another question here that you touched on. Democracy only works as well as the citizens in it. So what do you do when the citizens dont give a shit? And most of them dont. Or the ones that do are uneducated.

I am going to throw out another question here that you touched on. Democracy only works as well as the citizens in it. So what do you do when the citizens dont give a shit? And most of them dont. Or the ones that do are uneducated.

Well, that's why we don't live in a pure democracy. That's why Greek city-states failed; in order for a democracy to be successful, you have to have a very high percentage of highly educated and highly active citizens. With our representative government, the institution will continue as long as there are at least some involved citizens.

Well, that's why we don't live in a pure democracy. That's why Greek city-states failed; in order for a democracy to be successful, you have to have a very high percentage of highly educated and highly active citizens. With our representative government, the institution will continue as long as there are at least some involved citizens.


Sure it will continue, but will it be worth it? Alot of the reason that even a representative government works is because the public knows whats going on in their government. Without that check, whats to stop them from going rampant? The elected officials do what either their constiuants want, which is usually just gaining more power, or what the voters want. If the voters dont care what they want, the officials are going to do what they want. And that is very scary.

Sure it will continue, but will it be worth it? Alot of the reason that even a representative government works is because the public knows whats going on in their government. Without that check, whats to stop them from going rampant? The elected officials do what either their constiuants want, which is usually just gaining more power, or what the voters want. If the voters dont care what they want, the officials are going to do what they want. And that is very scary.

Exactly, and that is one of the reasons that the Roman empire fell.

It has never been done in the method I just mentioned. Ever. The difference between the "Poll Tests" that were declared unconstitutional and the system I just proposed is as large as the difference between first degree murder and self defense.
Might be. But it's still very wrong. You're denying people the right to vote based on their ability to MULTIPLY, for God's sake. And all the people on Jaywalking would fail it.

Basically, you're preventing the underclass from voting. And the overclass will not have a significant interest in helping the underclass out of their hole if they can't vote.

What you're proposing really surprises me, because it's the last thing I'd expect to hear from YOU. No offense meant, I'm just really surprised.

<3 Mary

Might be. But it's still very wrong. You're denying people the right to vote based on their ability to MULTIPLY, for God's sake. And all the people on Jaywalking would fail it.

Basically, you're preventing the underclass from voting. And the overclass will not have a significant interest in helping the underclass out of their hole if they can't vote.

What you're proposing really surprises me, because it's the last thing I'd expect to hear from YOU. No offense meant, I'm just really surprised.

<3 Mary

Hmm... Out of interest, how are you defining "underclass"?

Cos Lly's suggestion seems, to me, simply a plan to ensure that the people who are voting understand the ramifications of putting their cross in that box...

Idiocy is indescriminate of social class, culture or tax bracket. There are people out there right now that are capable of breeding and driving and voting who, quite frankly, I wouldn't trust with the controls to a TV.

Example - A while back in the UK the papers ran a massive campaign of stories about Paedophiles that whipped everyone up into a frenzy. As a result, a woman was driven from her home after having her windows smashed and her car destroyed. She was a Paedeotrician. These are the kind of numbskulled fucking bottom-feeders that can choose the next Government.

Sorry, but I think THAT's wrong.

Mind you, I'm all for a breeding license too... wtf do I know...

:)

Idiocy is indescriminate of social class, culture or tax bracket.

Tossing all political correctness aside, idiocy and social class do have some strong ties. Inherently stupid people are often in bad financial situations in life because they are stupid. It's certainly not mandatory that a poor person is stupid or vice versa, but I'd claim that stupidity rises on average as income decreases. Again, lets not get all pissy and assume I'm saying it's a law or something. There are certainly exceptions.

I also tend to agree with Mary here... some people aren't going to be good at understanding some of what would be involved in that test, but they understand how some issues a presidential candidate stands for can affect them, and they have a voice too. I think this happens to be one of the things where we have to take the bad with the good.

Well, the entire issue of the "civil right" to vote is not about if you understand the facts, or even know if the candidate you are voting for is male or female. It's about your voice in your government. Everybody's entitled a voice, even if you don't know wtf you are talking about. :)

WTF, I am starting to sound like one of those damn liberals.

Perhaps US ballots should contain a picture of each candidate for those who can't read, like they do in Latin American countries. :rolleyes:

The only thing broken about our election system is the fact that people lack the discipline and drive to find out about the issues and make an informed decision. That's why our media outlets are so powerful. The people trust the media (although, maybe not so much anymore) to make up their minds for them. That has to stop if you have any hope of fixing the election system.

If you can get a significant amount of educated voters to the polls, you won't need to do much else to fix the system. The system was very well thought out when it was conceived, and works today to balance the power of the states vs population, and to limit the effect of the uneducated at the polls.

Well said. If people would research and vote what they thought to be the right way and not rely on the coined buzzliners of a friend then we would have a fair election.

Voters of today vote what friends and family dictate to them. This whole choose or lose bullshit is so one sided that it hurts. Without coming out and saying vote for Kerry, MTV has influenced a group of people to vote when they haven't a clue as to what they are voting for. If they were to research and then vote then fine but they are voting by the influence of someone else.

My parents were democrat when I was growing up and I was republican. Why? Because I researched and voted what I felt to be the right way. Everyone should dig deep into their core values and vote for the person who they relate with.

They are still registered democrats but they are voting for Bush for the second time. They hated Gore and Kerry is right up there in the 'can not stand department.' They vote person not party. That is the way it should be.

tMR

WTF, I am starting to sound like one of those damn liberals.

Hey the literal definition of liberal is a willingness to change. Dont worry, you're still a republican ;)

p.s. so am i.

Example - A while back in the UK the papers ran a massive campaign of stories about Paedophiles that whipped everyone up into a frenzy. As a result, a woman was driven from her home after having her windows smashed and her car destroyed. She was a Paedeotrician. These are the kind of numbskulled fucking bottom-feeders that can choose the next Government.

Sorry, but I think THAT's wrong.


This is, in a nutshell, what it boils down to. All other arguments aside, our system caters to people who are uneducated and wish to remain so and those are the bulk of the people deciding our elected individuals.

In a country where only 1% know that "freedom of petition" and 17% know that "Freedom of Religion" are guaranteed by the First Amendment, is it so much to ask that the only ones who vote have a basic understanding of our government?

If you do not know the constitution, then it is fair that you not be in the position of electing someone to uphold it. If you are not able to balance a checkbook or calculate a tip, then you are not in a position to elect someone to balance the finances of an entire nation.

This isn't asking much. Publish the questions in advance, focus on a small selection of areas, keep the questions broad.



The only thing broken about our election system is the fact that people lack the discipline and drive to find out about the issues and make an informed decision.


That, and the entire system is mathematically unsound.

Its interesting that this came up when it did; Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr agreed that the founding fathers(but, of course, they weren't calling themselves that at the time) had no intention of giving the right to vote to everybody. It reminds me a little bit of the second amendment, but meh, its a part of our government now.

I think that in some ways, restricting the right to vote to fairly intelligent people could be highly beneficial to our country. As of right now, politicians can get pull the whole demagog crap and get elected because people won't think about who they're voting for. So this dilutes the political situation, so to speak, because if a candidate has a very ephemeral appeal that makes the voter feel all warm and fuzzy inside when they vote for their candidate, he'll get elected regardless of how detrimental that candidate may be to the country.

If we actually did restrict the right to vote to educated people, politicians would have redirect their appeal on a much higher level of thinking; just imagine debates where ideas and intellect were actually being exchanged and challenged in a coherent, informative way.

wtf politics and intelligence in same sentence = bad.

If we actually did restrict the right to vote to educated people, politicians would have redirect their appeal on a much higher level of thinking; just imagine debates where ideas and intellect were actually being exchanged and challenged in a coherent, informative way.
Yes, but let's not go to extremes - I don't think the kind of test that is being proposed would restrict the vote to an elite intelligentsia - I think what's being aimed at is for people to be able to demonstrate a basic, working knowledge of the way Government works... I find the idea of restricting the Franchise to people with University degrees as galling and unsatisfactory as the current system!

Just put something in place to ensure that ordinary people who are capable of bearing the responsibility of electing representatives have the power to do so.

It might even be as simple as being able to name the candidates in your constituency and what their stand is on the one or two issues that matter to you.

Hmm... Out of interest, how are you defining "underclass"?
Those who are poor and might not be able to finish their education because they have to work. Or they don't get enough food to eat, so they can't concentrate on school work at all. Those who don't have the means to get an education. Those who our education system are letting slip by it.

Cos Lly's suggestion seems, to me, simply a plan to ensure that the people who are voting understand the ramifications of putting their cross in that box...
Right, which SOUNDS good, but in practice would be unbelievably discriminatory.

Idiocy is indescriminate of social class, culture or tax bracket. There are people out there right now that are capable of breeding and driving and voting who, quite frankly, I wouldn't trust with the controls to a TV.
Right. There are many, many people who just don't care. But then there are some who don't have the opportunities to gain the information to pass the little test.

Example - A while back in the UK the papers ran a massive campaign of stories about Paedophiles that whipped everyone up into a frenzy. As a result, a woman was driven from her home after having her windows smashed and her car destroyed. She was a Paedeotrician. These are the kind of numbskulled fucking bottom-feeders that can choose the next Government.

Sorry, but I think THAT's wrong.
So do I. But there is nothing more dangerous than small people in large groups.

Mind you, I'm all for a breeding license too... wtf do I know...

:)
I am, too, in theory. But I am also for the right to reproduce, and it's a rare case in which I would advocate sterilizing people.

<3 Mary

Registering to vote is kind of in and of itself a form of a test. You have to first care enough to get the form, then be able to read it, fill it out, and return it.

And if we only allowed the informed people to vote, then we'd always have a Republican President! So, I don't know what I am arguing against here. ;)

Registering to vote is kind of in and of itself a form of a test. You have to first care enough to get the form, then be able to read it, fill it out, and return it.

And if we only allowed the informed people to vote, then we'd always have a Republican President! So, I don't know what I am arguing against here. ;)

In texas, its even easier than that. When you turn 18, you have to get your drivers liscence renewed, and they ask you there if you want to register to vote. You say "yes" and they sign you up there, and a few weeks later you get your card in the mail. You dont have to fill out anything.

In 2000 my school here lost every single one of the ballots on their way to being transferred to official voting stations. Not that it mattered but meh.

This year I had to register three times before they would send me a voting card. The first two times they rejected my application for technicalities that were, generally speaking, bullshit. Go SC.

Well, the entire issue of the "civil right" to vote is not about if you understand the facts, or even know if the candidate you are voting for is male or female. It's about your voice in your government. Everybody's entitled a voice, even if you don't know wtf you are talking about. :)

Exactly.

Regardless of whether they are 'capable' (by whose standards? yours?) of fully comprehending all the functions of their government, 'stupid people' are still represented by that government and therefore they have a Constitutionally-guaranteed RIGHT to a say in how it is run. Unless you are going to exempt all the 'stupid people' from taxation and the application of our laws, they have a right to help determine what those laws and taxes are, and how they are applied to themselves, the same as anyone else.

Any kind of test as a requirement for voting is an EXCEEDINGLY dangerous proposition. The people making any such test will obviously make something that they themselves can pass, and will be the ones to decide (by controlling the difficulty of the test) who can vote. One segment of society will be enforcing its standards on a different segment of society, obviously perceived as inferior (obviously, because they have been judged not worthy of a vote!), and who clearly will not have much of a say in the matter. This situation is no different than restricting votes to white males over the age of 21 who own property because 'obviously' blacks, women, young adults, and the poor aren't capable of comprehending the power of their vote.

I think that in some ways, restricting the right to vote to fairly intelligent people could be highly beneficial to our country. As of right now, politicians can get pull the whole demagog crap and get elected because people won't think about who they're voting for. So this dilutes the political situation, so to speak, because if a candidate has a very ephemeral appeal that makes the voter feel all warm and fuzzy inside when they vote for their candidate, he'll get elected regardless of how detrimental that candidate may be to the country.

And you think this would change if voting was restricted to people who can multiply?

Exactly.

Regardless of whether they are 'capable' (by whose standards? yours?) of fully comprehending all the functions of their government,


17% of the voting-age population of the US knows that freedom of religion is covered in the first amendment, 1% know about freedom of petition. Presumably less than 1% can name all five guarantees of the first amendment (speech, press, religion, assembly, petition).

That's not "my standard," that's just sad.

The current system caters to people who are idiots and who wish to remain idiots--there is no incentive to get an education in the government you are for candidates in. If I thought there was a good way to do it I would say the only people who could vote have either served in the military, the peace corps, a civil service job, and/or have a firm grounding in elementary statistical understanding and elementary civics. That is impractical, too much of a step, and there is no good way to implement it.

This is not.



'stupid people' are still represented by that government and therefore they have a Constitutionally-guaranteed RIGHT to a say in how it is run.


Why is this a good thing?


Unless you are going to exempt all the 'stupid people' from taxation and the application of our laws, they have a right to help determine what those laws and taxes are, and how they are applied to themselves, the same as anyone else.


Immigrants and minors are not allowed to vote until they either become naturalized or come of age, yet they are still subject to our laws and taxes.

You have the right to remain ignorant, you do not have the "right" to vote until certain conditions are met. There are several state constitutions that originally limited the voting population to landowners.

In our push to "open things up" and avoid the stigma of racism we have become too tolerant and open and have started to cater to fools who have no incentive to educate themselves.

You may choose to be ignorant, but I claim that you should not be able to remain ignorant and lend a voice in the outcome of a nation.

17% of the voting-age population of the US knows that freedom of religion is covered in the first amendment, 1% know about freedom of petition. Presumably less than 1% can name all five guarantees of the first amendment (speech, press, religion, assembly, petition).

That's not "my standard," that's just sad.

The current system caters to people who are idiots and who wish to remain idiots--there is no incentive to get an education in the government you are for candidates in. If I thought there was a good way to do it I would say the only people who could vote have either served in the military, the peace corps, a civil service job, and/or have a firm grounding in elementary statistical understanding and elementary civics. That is impractical, too much of a step, and there is no good way to implement it.

This is not.




Why is this a good thing?



Immigrants and minors are not allowed to vote until they either become naturalized or come of age, yet they are still subject to our laws and taxes.

You have the right to remain ignorant, you do not have the "right" to vote until certain conditions are met. There are several state constitutions that originally limited the voting population to landowners.

In our push to "open things up" and avoid the stigma of racism we have become too tolerant and open and have started to cater to fools who have no incentive to educate themselves.

You may choose to be ignorant, but I claim that you should not be able to remain ignorant and lend a voice in the outcome of a nation.


so what is ignorant? who decides who is ignorant? You claim there are a bunch of ignorant people in this country, so isnt there a chance an "stupid" person would be put on this panel or whatever that decides who gets to vote or what not.

You may have good intentions with this, but this would be a huge step into totalitarianism. The saying is true:power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

If you give people the ability to dictate who can vote and who can not, I can guarentee that power will be abused. Politicians will bribe to win an election, groups will be excluded who are quite capable of voting.

Also, whats to stop these people from just saying no one is intelligent enough to vote, and thats a dicatorship.

No thank you.

so what is ignorant? who decides who is ignorant? You claim there are a bunch of ignorant people in this country, so isnt there a chance an "stupid" person would be put on this panel or whatever that decides who gets to vote or what not.

Panel? What panel? Understand an idea before you critique it.

I claim that a person who is not ignorant of US politics will know a handful of things as a minimum standard. It isn't too much to ask that someone know the bill of rights and the basics of the constitution before voting.

That would be a minimum standard.



You may have good intentions with this, but this would be a huge step into totalitarianism. The saying is true:power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.


Demonstrate the causal link that will lead one to the other.


If you give people the ability to dictate who can vote and who can not, I can guarentee that power will be abused.


What people? Again, you need to understand the proposal before you criticize it.

The rest of your commentary is more of the same. You need to actually read what I wrote before you attempt to declare that it will lead to a dictatorship.

Demonstrate the causal link that will lead one to the other.

Demonstrate the causal link between creating a voting test and an improvement in our electoral system!

And after you do that... demonstrate the causal link between a voting test for which the questions are published in advance (allowing any number of organizations from the NAACP to the NRA to quickly publish and distribute the answers to their constituencies right along with voter registration cards) and an improvement in our electoral system.

Demonstrate the causal link between creating a voting test and an improvement in our electoral system!

And after you do that... demonstrate the causal link between a voting test for which the questions are published in advance (allowing any number of organizations from the NAACP to the NRA to quickly publish and distribute the answers to their constituencies right along with voter registration cards) and an improvement in our electoral system.

One part you missed out on Sheep. If there is a voting test with questions published ahead of time, not only will groups be passing out cards with a list of answers on it, they'll also have the names of the candidates *they* support on it. In essence giving the uneducated a free ticket to vote and a list of who they need to vote for.

One part you missed out on Sheep. If there is a voting test with questions published ahead of time, not only will groups be passing out cards with a list of answers on it, they'll also have the names of the candidates *they* support on it. In essence giving the uneducated a free ticket to vote and a list of who they need to vote for.

Yeah, which is absolutely no different than it is now, making this whole test idea a complete waste of time and money, not to mention unjust.

Demonstrate the causal link between creating a voting test and an improvement in our electoral system!


Sure.

Assume that an educated voter is desirable to an uneducated one. Assume as well that as a minimum standard an educated voter will have a base understanding of the material found in the Constitution of the United States. Let's rate this as a 115 on an indexed scale and say that while more knowledge is a Good Thing™, less is intolerable in a voting individual.

To demonstrate this second point: One of the parts of the oath of office is to "protect and defend the constitution." It is impossible for people to know whether someone's views are consistent with this oath unless the people who are voting for that individual are aware of what the constitution reads.

Create a test that covers the questions that would represent a basic understanding of the constitution.

Now, two scenarios happen.

* If people learn the answers and can associate them with questions, then they have met a minimal standard of knowledge to elect someone who will "protect and uphold the constitution of the united states."

* If people do not know the answers, then they do not have this basic understanding, and are therefore incapable of making an educated decision on the matter.

Therefore, requiring people to pass a minimal standard in terms of their knowledge of the constitution will improve the voting populace's ability to elect someone who will then defend that constitution.


And after you do that... demonstrate the causal link between a voting test for which the questions are published in advance (allowing any number of organizations from the NAACP to the NRA to quickly publish and distribute the answers to their constituencies right along with voter registration cards) and an improvement in our electoral system.

As I have demonstrated above.

If certain special interests groups decide to educate their own populace in matters of the constitution, that can only be considered a Good Thing™ as it increases the number of people who can elect someone to uphold and defend the constitution of the US. IT also creates a situation where different and diametrically opposed interest groups are working towards an end goal of... educating voters.

I fail to see where this is a problem.


Diamon:


Once every twelve years, done to register for voting, not as part of the ballot. This means that if someone does include a name on a card it doesn't affect anything.

Randomize the answer and question order. This requires memorization of every question and every answer that pairs with it. If individuals have done this, then they are a significant step closer to being educated voters.

For mathematics-based questions ask the same questions with different numbers.

from my stand point......errr....um....i got to big of a head ache to discuss this one

from my stand point......errr....um....i got to big of a head ache to discuss this one
Behold the disenfranchised of my Utopia.

Lly...its just too risky. There would too great of a chance for the tests to be another form of gerrymandering, excluding a group because of the tests, which, in fact the tests are designed to do.

Policitians would bias the questions, about every interest group would sue the federal government, the supreme court would strike it down as unconstitutional.

and really, it is. The constitution says every man has the right to vote, not just educated ones.

Assume that an educated voter is desirable to an uneducated one.

That's the problem with your argument right there. The very first assumption. An educated voter is NOT more desirable than an uneducated voter, as far as the Constitution is concerned. That the person has the right to vote in the first place is the main issue. You are coming at this from a logical perspective, not a civil rights perspective, which is what it really comes down to. Voting, at least in this country, is a civil right of all adult citizens. Do I personally prefer that voters be educated? Of course! It makes sense. I encourage all voters to educate themselves. I also encourage people not to buy cars that are white or black because they get dirty too easily (not to mention they look too much like cop cars, causing me to slow down on the freeway unnecessarily). But that's a personal preference...neither I, nor anyone else, should be able to remove (or not grant in the first place) the fundamental right of adults to vote in our representative democracy, just because a voter chooses NOT to educate themselves. Nor should we ban the colors white and black just because certain people like to waste money on weekly car washes.

If certain special interests groups decide to educate their own populace in matters of the constitution

I compare it not to educating voters, but to passing out a cheat sheet prior to a test. Most of your potential voters are not going to retain the knowledge provided for any longer than it takes to answer the questions. Certainly most will not retain the knowledge for the 12 years until they have to pass the test again.


Your idea is appealing in theory, Lly. If you start a new country, I encourage you to institute this rule (and all your other good ideas) in your voting system. But it won't work in the USA, for practical and Constitutional reasons.