Proposal: to vote for a candidate you must be able to name 3 of their major positions

[gb13]

Absolutely not. I don't agree with disenfranchising voters. I took people along with me to my caucus to vote for Paul and they only knew that he was against the war. I doubt you'd disagree with these people voting.

But, doing that is only unnecessary to counter the countless voters who are voting for McCain because he gives "straight talk", for Obama because he is for "change", for Hillary because she is for "free health care".

Narrowing the pool to people who actually know a little something about this country wouldn't be a bad idea.

 

[WRellim]

Simple for Obama:

1. Change
2. Change
3. Pocket Change (what else would be left!)

 

[Original_Intent]

I don't think that this could work at all. I mean who is going to determine if it is a "correct" answer. How specific of an answer is required? Too much would have to be left up to the person administering the test.

Think about it:

Example

Tester1: "Who are you supporting?"
Voter 1: "Obama"
Tester1: Tell me three of his positions
Voter 1: He wants to help people, he wants to change things, and he wants to stop the war I think.
Tester1: OK, good enough, you can vote.

Tester2: Who are you voting for?
Voter2: Ron Paul.
Tester2: Tell me three of his positions.
Voter2: He is against the North American Union, get rid of the IRS, and have a non-interventionist foreign policy.
Tester2: I am sorry, your answers are too vague, you will not be able to vote.

I also realize another problem - this idea would eliminate the privacy of your vote - bad.

I certainly would favor a way that we could keep stupid people from voting - but how do you determine if someone is smart enough to vote? Who gets to decide?

I agree with the sentiment but I don't see a way to implement it without undermining liberty.

 

[bcreps85]

Upon further consideration.

All we really need is election reform, and a fair and unbiased MSM. Then people could make up their own minds, fairly.

 

[Paul4Prez]

Sorry, but literacy tests were considered too restrictive, so proving not only that you can read, but that you have, would also be tossed out.

I have a better proposal: pollsters need to accurately and honestly report the number of respondents who are actually undecided. Any poll showing an "undecided" response rate of less than 50% before December should be thrown out as unreliable, since we are now learning that most voters don't really decide until the final few weeks or even days.

If the "front runner" is at 30%, and Ron Paul is at 7%, it sounds like he is out of it, but if the media reports that 55% are really undecided, then it becomes clear that no one is "out of it", and other measures of candidate strength should be considered -- like volunteers, crowd sizes, number of donors, and straw poll victories.

 

[TurtleBurger]

I think the whole idea of voting, and especially secret ballot voting, is flawed. Voters are able to make decisions without taking any personal responsibility for the choice that they make. If people could be held accountable for those they put into office, they would put a lot more effort into making an educated decision.

 

[daviddee]

...

 

[gb13]

I don't like the original proposition. There are some very well reasoned objections stated on this thread. However, I think something like being required to pass a 10 question test when registering to vote wouldn't be a bad idea. Just a simple test of basic political knowledge would suffice.

 

[cska80]

I have a couple:

1. You can not vote unless you are a land owner (vested interest in the country's oucome). Ooops, we already had this!

2. 1 vote per $1 paid in taxes. All "democracies" fail because of the welfare state... the more people who depend on the government vote to keep that government in place until the majority of the country is on the government's payroll.

So if you paid $30K in taxes... you get 30K votes. If you paid $0 in taxes you would get: 0 votes.

It would end tax evasion overnight, would motivate people to actually work and create, and would provide "Taxation with representation".

"Hey, I am here to place to place 50,000 votes for Ron Paul. Here is my tax statement from the IRS/Voting commission stating I paid $50K in taxes"

I think it would be much better with a law stating simply something like if you recieve more money from the government in a year than you earn for yourself in a year, you're unable to vote.

 

[gb13]

I have a couple:

1. You can not vote unless you are a land owner (vested interest in the country's oucome). Ooops, we already had this!

2. 1 vote per $1 paid in taxes. All "democracies" fail because of the welfare state... the more people who depend on the government vote to keep that government in place until the majority of the country is on the government's payroll.

So if you paid $30K in taxes... you get 30K votes. If you paid $0 in taxes you would get: 0 votes.

It would end tax evasion overnight, would motivate people to actually work and create, and would provide "Taxation with representation".

"Hey, I am here to place to place 50,000 votes for Ron Paul. Here is my tax statement from the IRS/Voting commission stating I paid $50K in taxes"

So, Oprah would be able to place (purchase) 20,000,000 votes for Obama. I don't think that's such a good idea.

 

[Ogren]

Impractical for many candidate like Romney, Hillary, Mccain, and Huck. They seem to have two stances on every issue.

 

[brandon]

This idea sounds OK to me. It seems like a step in the right direction. I dont understand how anyone could still think it is a good idea to let your average sheep vote.

Personally, I dont think anyone should be able to vote. Really.

 

[Rob]

I agree that asking people to "name the positions of the candidate" for whom they vote wouldn't be the best way of insuring an informed electorate. I threw it out there as a half joke. The criticisms people made about how it could too easily be manipulated have valid points. However, I think an informed electorate is something we need to have in this country. I think that a general civics test would be a better idea. One that simply asked about the functions and responsibilities of the branches of government. I think it would be sensible to have it be standard across both parties and across the nation (at least for federal elections) so that it would prevent any local tampering to create a bias.

 

[daviddee]

So, Oprah would be able to place (purchase) 20,000,000 votes for Obama. I don't think that's such a good idea.

As opposed to someone living on welfare, collecting food stamps, getting rent and fuel assistance, WIC, Medicaid, etc... being able to vote for more and more welfare? Same thing for someone on Social Security, medicare, etc...

Who cares more about the direction of the country? Someone who NEEDS the government to go into bankruptcy supporting them... or a producer who knows that their 20,000,000 votes are going to be an investment in their future.

As someone who pays a considerable amount of taxes... I have to pay for all of the above bullshit and to top it off the recipients of my tax dollars are allowed to vote for more of the same.

The follow up poster to my original post had a reasonable idea... If you are on the government payroll you can't vote. Get off the government payroll you are allowed to vote again. It is similar to the welfare laws that stated you need to be on birth control while on welfare... No welfare, you can pump out as many new leeches on society as you want.

-dd

P.S. What irritated me the most recently... is these government rebates. Will I get one? No... I earn "too much". Will people who did not pay taxes get one... yes.