To vote should citizens be required to pass an exam about American history, American government, the candidates, and the issues?

[KelleyNice]

The government should make available volunteer teachers at schools, colleges, or on line, and/or the necessary books.

American and world history—50 hours

American Government: 10 parts—10 hour each

1 – Foundations of Government: explains unlimited and limited government, as well as the political theories of Hobbes and Locke, and Rousseau and Montesquieu.

2 – Underpinnings of the Constitution: explores the English documents that shaped the U. S. Constitution, the French and Indian War, British acts towards the Colonists in America, and how the Colonists reacted.

3 – Formation of the Constitution: discusses the early Articles of Confederation, their structure, weakness, and eventual downfall.

4 – Overview of the Constitution: discusses the value of studying the constitution and the major principals contained in it.

5 – Checks and Balances: examines the different branches of government and how a Bill becomes a Law.

7 – Bill of Rights and Amendments: provides an overview of the Bill of Rights, and offers in-depth examination of the Bill of Rights.

8 – Supreme Court Cases: In this unit, examples of Supreme Court cases are presented as evidence of the laws of the land in process. Supreme Court cases include, New Jersey versus TLO, Plessy versus Ferguson, Brown versus the Board of Education, Gideon versus Wainwright, and Miranda versus Arizona.

9 – Political Participation, Political Parties, and the Election Process: discusses political bias, responsibilities and participation, expansion of voter’s rights, the purpose and functions of parties, and the significance of third parties.

10 – Democracy and Civics: discusses the role of public opinion, domestic and foreign policy, and funding public policy with taxes. It discusses new democracies in the world, theories of democracy, and democracy in America.

The Candidates—20 hours: their positions and, if in office, a discussion of the bills they voted on and how they voted.

[AviatorTom]

Thanks for your suggestions to improve the quality of voting...

Unfortunately, I'm guessing that most teachers wouldn't know these things enough to explain them to anyone, so it wouldn't work.

I would be in favor of making it less easy to vote (for example, eliminate early voting, people should vote at their polling place on election day), and to encourage voters to do their research before voting. People should not vote for someone because they saw their ad online, or recognize the name because there's a sign just down the road from the polling place.

And, I would be in favor of Ranked Preference Voting, as described here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting

[AviatorTom]

Thanks for the mho

[TwoToTooTutu2]

Yes, and public schools should teach more about our country's economy, political system, etc... to students at a young sge so they understand the world they live in.

[Guy__]

Once they know where we live in, they will understand that the solution is beyond ending the idiotic useless voting system.

[MCheetah]

Yes, but it should require 200 hours of learning, because that'd be the equivalent of a Terms of Service contract or Cookies agreement that websites and apps make you do, that they know no one will go through the time of actually completing. So requiring so much would limit people from actually going out to vote, making things worse.

I think a two hour in-person class should be required before you're allowed to vote though. You're given any time between six months out and two days before Election Day to take the class and you must pass basic knowledge on American government, like the three branches (Judicial, Legislative, and Executive), the name of your city's mayor and state governor, etc.

All the stuff you list here is *supposed* to be learned in middle/high school history, politics, and social studies classes. Which is ironic, because those in charge DON'T WANT an educated population, because how else would they keep their jobs?

Also, assuming ALL of this even went through and we had an educated population... The Democrats are now cheating in plain sight and rigging elections with zero consequence. (Here's the proof, in case you or anyone else doubts me; they openly admitted it.)

So yeah, until we start spilling some tyrant blood, which it also (more or less) says in The Constitution, you might as well admit we're all living in an oligarchy run by technocrats and billionaires who think they know better than us, because that's the REALITY of what we're actually living in. Democracy has been dead in America for decades now, and Trump was just a fluke.

[abc3643]

Yes and no.

Indirectly, that already happens via a high school education.

However, even if you don't have a high school diploma, you can vote.

There are no testing requirements to vote; not even a literacy test. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 - something I am sure this Supreme Court will be revisiting - outlawed literacy tests because they were being used in the South to deny Blacks the right to vote. After all, if you don't teach them to read and then you have a literacy test, then you conveniently prevent them from voting - voting what is good for them and bad for you.

========

Should there be a test?

My instincts say yes, but my instincts are wrong because it is a matter of personal justice.

Now, while it is not officially required to be a citizen in this country, every state has made citizenship a requirement to qualify as a voter.

However, I want you to understand something very important:

>>>> If you are alive, then you have a stake in what happens in this country and who is elected to help govern it. As long as you are a rational thinking adult, that's the only thing that should be necessary to give you suffrage.

This is why there cannot be tests or poll taxes or any other obstructions to voting.

Furthermore - and this is equally important - if you create those tests or poll taxes - you create an artificial division in society... "United We Stand", my ass. And the problem with creating a division like that is that the divisions are really two groups: The Haves (which, in your case, are those who have the right to vote) and The Have Nots (those without suffrage). And, you know what happens to The Have Nots? They get resentful of The Haves... the kind of resentfulness which accumulates with time to become explosive riotess anger. And, because we have a 2nd Amendment, everyone is in The Haves for owning a gun... and you don't need a test to operate a gun.

[KelleyNice]

No one is disenfranchised anymore than no one is disenfranchised from driving a car. All that is necessary is passing an exam similar to the requirement of passing an exam to drive a car or to obtain a plumber's license. Any person of average intelligence can pass the exam if they take a free course and study. And, just like the written driving exam or the exam for obtaining a license, if they don't pass, they can study more take the exam again. And the exam will be easier than the exams for law and most other licenses. If a citizen wishes to vote, they have the responsibility to be an informed voter. Citizens, not willing to put forth the time and effort to learn the basic element of country and our republic can choose not to vote. There is no requirement to vote.

There are other requirement for voting such as a citizen must registrar to vote. And, the exam does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, or property ownership.

[abc3643]

I don't have the time or patience at this moment to give you a better response, but I want you to think about a few things:
1. Since Day One in 1789 of our current Federal Government, suffrage has gradually increased. It began that you had to be:
White
Male
A property owner
That was about 12% of the population then.

After all, these were the only people who mattered back then and had any form of education to make decisions in the best interests of everyone (but, really, themselves).

But, gradually, they realized that others had to vote too.

Here's a summary of how suffrage changed over time.
www.infoplease.com/history/us/us-voting-rights

However, what is important is that suffrage increased because EVERYONE had a stake in what was going to happen in the country and they wanted a voice too.
You can deny children access to things because they are children and not functional adults, but denying adults access to things that are important to them not only is offensive to them, but it energizes them to change it... including by force, if necessary. That's WHY you live in the US of A and aren't drinking tea at 3 PM and spelling all your words with an extra O or with and "re" instead of an "er".

The difference between driving a car or flying a plane and voting is that voting harms no one. Being incompetent at an activity that can kill should require training. The act of voting doesn't kill anyone.
The basic skills to function in society are sufficient for voting and you learn those in school.

Now, personally, my intuition agrees with you - I'd rather have a test - but that would disenfranchise a shitload of people. And, you know how those people are going to react? Not well. For one thing, they'd act like "The test is rigged!" or "The test was created by the [party that I hate]!" And what do you get with that? January 6th or some other such event or revolution.

(more)

[abc3643]

========
The purpose of a society is two-fold:
1. Protect the members of the society from outside threats to its existence.
2. Protect the members of the society from killing each other.

That second reason is actually just as important as the first. The way you do that is you create important rules (laws, whatever) that prevents violence and/or mitigates negative emotions.

One way which partly does that is you create inclusiveness - make people feel relevant and respected and that their thoughts, feelings, and emotions are important. Voting is one way to do that.

When you disenfranchise people, you are telling them that they are irrelevant. And NO one wants to hear that... because it makes them want to prove their relevance - by violence, if it is bad enough.

Anyone who understands human nature knows that. Trump knows that. That's how he was able to stir up the crowd on January 6th.

========
As for disenfranchisement, while there may not be much legal disenfranchisement (there is in some states), there is de facto disenfranchisement and it is even actively being pursued as I type.

... but that's another hour of typing...

[abc3643]

Something else that you should know about...

It's an arcane clause in the US Constitution: 14th Amendment, Section 2, Clause 3.

In this clause, a state is punished if it denies male citizens 21 and over from voting.
The punishment incurred is that population count used for determining representation in Congress (that is, the House) is reduced proportionally.

That's sort of hard to explain the the entire section is a difficult read, but maybe I can explain it with an example...

Suppose the State of Arkansouri has 1,000,000 males who are 21 or over and are citizens. At the time of the 14th Amendment, that's the voter base.
Furthermore, suppose Arkansouri has 6 members in the House of Representatives.
Later, Arkansouri decides to have a test for the right to vote and 50% of those 1,000,000 men pass. So Arkansouri no longer has a voter base of 1,000,000, but now has a voter base of 500,000 men. Clause 3 of Section 2 of the 14th Amendment would dictate that Arkansouri has to lose have its representatives, so now Arkansouri only has 3 representatives in the House. To make matters worse, Arkansouri now only has 5 Electoral College votes whereas, before, it had 8. Arkansouri's voice is national affairs is now considerably less relevant.

Why does this clause exist?

(more)

[abc3643]

Because it is out of fairness to all the states. This is hard to explain...

Suppose Arkansouri and Pennsyltucky are neighboring states and both have a population of 1,000,000 voters and both have 6 representatives in the House. Later, Arkansouri passes a law regarding testing and disenfranchises half their voters. Now, if Arkansouri and Pennsyltucky both still have 6 representatives, the Pennsyltuckyians are going to be pissed off. Why? Because Arkansouri's 500,000 voters have just as much power in Congress as Pennsyltucky's 1,000,000 voters. With respect to the House, an Arkansourian voter has twice the voice of a Pennsyltuckian voter. That is offensive to and violates the basic principles of the House of Representatives - proportional representation. Thus, Arkansouri needs to have its representation reduced...
BEFORE:
Arkansouri: 1,000,000 voters with 6 reps. Ratio: 1 rep / 166,667 voters
Pennsyltucky: 1,000,000 voters with 6 reps. Ratio: 1 rep / 166,667 voters
AFTER WITHOUT 14TH AMENDMENT:
Arkansouri: 500,000 voters with 6 reps. Ratio: 1 rep / 83,333 voters
Pennsyltucky: 1,000,000 voters with 6 reps. Ratio: 1 rep / 166,667 voters
AFTER WITH 14TH AMENDMENT:
Arkansouri: 500,000 voters with 3 reps. Ratio: 1 rep / 166,667 voters
Pennsyltucky: 1,000,000 voters with 6 reps. Ratio: 1 rep / 166,667 voters

So, as you can see, it's in Arkansouri's best interests not to disenfranchise people.

============
The 14th Amendment is perhaps the most important amendment after the Bill of Rights.
You should learn about it and its history. The 14th Amendment is cited very often in Supreme Court cases.
https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/14th-amendment

[KelleyNice]

@abc3643 Before I can adequately think about that, tell me, who is going be be disenfranchised and how and why?

[KelleyNice]

@ abc3643 In the meantime, I will address the14th Amendment, Section 2, Clause 3.

Article I, Section II of the Constitution provides each state shall have at least one U. S. Representative, with the total size of a state’s delegation to the House based on its total population.

How is Appropriation Calculated?
The exact formula used for apportionment was created by mathematicians and politicians and adopted by Congress in 1941 as the "Equal Proportions" formula (Title 2, Section 2a, U. S. Code). First, each state is assigned one seat. Then, the remaining 385 seats are distributed using a formula that computes "priority values" based on each state's apportionment population.

Who is Included in the Apportionment Population Count?
The apportionment calculation is based on the total resident population (citizen and noncitizen) of the 50 states. The apportionment population also includes U. S. Armed Forces personnel and federal civilian employees stationed outside the United States (and their dependents living with them) who can be allocated, based on administrative records, back to a home state.

Are Children Under 18 Included?
Yes. Being registered to vote or voting is not a requirement to be included in the apportionment population counts.
www.thoughtco.com/apportionment-and-the-us-census-3320967

Even if that clause does remove those not eligible to vote. The exam wouldn't change anything because they would still have the right to if they fulfill the requirements such as passing the exam and registering. They might also be required to provide identification and request a ballot.

[abc3643]

Let's talk about your examination process...

===================

What should be on the exam and why?

[KelleyNice]

@abc3643 The exams would include the things I listed and partially repeated below with multiple choice exams totaling 150 questions.

World History: 10 questions including things such the 100 year war and the Magna Carta

American history: 40 questions would a condensed version of what supposedly is taught in high school American history.

American government: 100 questions as described in the 10 parts. This should be taught in high school civics.

The exams for the above 3 parts could be taken together or separately. And, only the exams for the part failed would need to be taken again.

The Candidates—20 questions: their positions and, if in office, a discussion of the bills they voted on and how they voted. That would be a separate exam and repeated one more time after 4 to 8 years.
If public schools actually taught American history and civics passing those portions of the exams would be easy. Then all that would be necessary is the 10 hours of world history and the 20 hours about candidates and issues.

The reason for the exam is voters should have knowledge of our government, our history, the candidates, and the issues. Otherwise, we may as well let babies vote or better yet, not vote and let experts make all the decisions. Otherwise, be like North Korea.

[abc3643]

So let me ask a hypothetical question:
How does knowing or not about the 100 years war impact my ability to select the candidate when voting. How is the 100 years war relevant towards solving the problems that we face in the world today?

[KelleyNice]

If you don't know the past, you don't understand the present.

[abc3643]

Don't give me a platitude like that. You are better than that.

While, yes, the adage "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." is quite true - we are living through an example of that right now - sometimes history doesn't matter to the situation at hand.

Meanwhile, you wrote:
"The reason for the exam is voters should have knowledge of our government, our history, the candidates, and the issues."

But they don't need knowledge of mathematics, science, and logic to be an informed voter?

And how much "government" should they know?

I think something very important that voters should understand is the fundamental concept of jurisdiction - which laws apply when, where, and why and who is the relevant law enforcement and court system for resolving issues. What do you think about that? Should jurisdiction questions be in the government section of your test?

Meanwhile, you wrote "about the issues".
What issues?
What questions about the issues?
What are the right answers to your questions about the issues?
Are those "right answers" objective? like mathematics or logic... or are they subjective?

[globetrotter22]

We all know this will never happen.

A few years ago Democrats are so delusional they were trying to allow 16 years old to vote. The only reason they keep pushing back on so called “racist” voter ID laws is because they know illegal aliens will likely vote Democrat which is completely asinine. I’ve seen investigative interviews were white college liberal kids thought showing an ID was “racist” while black people living in Harlem were like “what the hell are you talking about” when asked the same question.

However I do believe Biden won in 2020 despite Trump’s ballistic claims of mass voter fraud. Not that I wanted Biden to win but Trump self sabotaged himself because he doesn’t know when to shut up. I really hope he doesn’t run again in 2024. I want a Republican in office but not Trump. He’s just too much trouble.

[youngmix]

I am well educated in the subject area, but I do not believe that the history, nor knowledge of governmental dynamics are necessary to make an informed decision.

The only information that I think people should have is on the issue they are voting on. But I don't think that should be forced, as we would be leaving the formation of the questions for the tests in the hands of potentially corrupt people or processes. It would be very hard to maintain a lack of bias.

And because of large amounts of historical evidence, I do not trust such a testing system to avoid corruption. I think that abuse would be inevitable.

[Sixgunsound]

You know it’s funny, they used to teach these things in these buildings that used to be called schools that the government extracts resources from taxpayers to fund and maintain.

[KelleyNice]

That was a long time ago; back when the purpose of schools was education; not indoctrination. For example, this 1895 8th grade exam. If your graduated from public schools and if you were not further educated, you cannot pass it.
newrepublic.com/.../1895-8th-grade-final-exam-i-couldnt-pass-it-could-you

[Exterminatore]

Well…. the American public elected a man with dementia for president. The MF has dementia! All because some soft and sensitive little bitches got upset about mean tweets.


If that’s not evidence dumb people should not be allowed to vote I don't know what is.

[abc3643]

Watch the episode "Four O'Clock" of The Twilight Zone.
Hopefully, you will see yourself in it... but I doubt you will.

Don't bother replyin; I've muted.

[Exterminatore]

Are you one of those soft and sensitive little bitches I was referring to?

Actually, this is my opinion. I’ll reply at my leisure, but you won’t be able to because I will silence you.

[007kingifrit]

i think so, a really basic test in English about the constitution is not a big deal

i know someone is gana go "oh but poll tests are illegal cuz racism" but uneven outcomes among voters shows the voters are uneducated in certain groups. not that the system is rigged against those voters

[bamesjond0069]

Terrible idea. Technically yes but this is too open for ideological purity abuse questions. What id recommend is a write in only ballot. If you do not know the name of who you are voting for then you can't vote for them. Also higher age limits say 30 to vote.

[RuthlessAggression]

People who don't understand the constitution, like republicans, shouldn't vote

[KelleyNice]

Most people; not just Republicans, can understand the constitution if they will take the time and make the effort to learn. However, it is easier to let someone else tell them how they should vote.

[RuthlessAggression]

Republicans, love to misinterpret the constitution, so they can "have it their way", ya know, like mcdonalds slogan

[DWornock]

And, it should be difficult enough that it would eliminate 2/3rds of the citizens, especially those not willing to spend 200 hours in class plus 400 of study.

[Anonymous]

I think that the only requirement should be that you pay taxes. Don't pay taxes; then you don't get to vote.

[KelleyNice]

24th Amendment,
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

[Opinion Owner]

Well it would obviously have to be overturned; but I think that would be the best option.

[jshm2]

Don't be daft.

You don't do half that shit for a job!

[RobEurope]

I think this is a good thing. Also civilians should do tasks to become citizens.

[WhiteBoyChill]

I don’t think we should be mandating hours for studying. It would be a waste of time for people that are already educated enough

[KelleyNice]

That is the number hours for the courses. If you can pass the exam, you don't need to take the courses.

[WhiteBoyChill]

Oh ok.

[Cubus]

Democrats wouldn't agree for this

[KelleyNice]

Any person of average intelligence should pass the exam if they take the time to study, However, you are probably right because the Democrats know too many of their voters wouldn't put in the time an effort. And, if they did, they might not vote for Democrats.

[007kingifrit]

democrats want uninformed people voting

[Anonymous]

I mean you ever heard of the history of literacy test? Those were used to disenfranchise black voters in the past.

[KelleyNice]

A State may use a literacy test as a qualification for voters provided it is applied equally to all and is not intended to discriminate; Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections, 360 U. S. 45 (1959).

[Opinion Owner]

Yeah, and how well did that turn out?

[anylolone]

Even literacy requirements are frequently exploited when employed.

[Adaeva]

I would approve of that.

[exitseven]

All great ideas. As much as it would be awesome to do this, the Constitution really does not allow it.

[KelleyNice]

The US Constitution certainly does allow it. What the amendments don't allow is discrimination, based on property ownership, religion, sex, race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Nor can poll tax be a requirement for voting.

Literacy Tests.—At an early date the Court held that literacy tests that are drafted so as to apply alike to all applicants for the voting franchise would be deemed to be fair on their face and in the absence of proof of discriminatory enforcement could not be said to deny equal protection.

[exitseven]

I think that a literacy test would negate the piece in the constitution that guarantees rights to all citizens.

[KelleyNice]

If you disagree, take it up with the supreme court. Maybe can get them to reverse their ruling.

[exitseven]

good point.

[Celticwolf78]

I think that is a good idea