Don't let ignorant people vote

This CNN opinion headline by LZ Granderson caught my eye. Basically Granderson argues for having some form of test potential voters must pass in order to make the voting process more intelligent.

Should ignorant people be allowed to vote?

A provocative question for sure; however, I'm not bringing it up for shock value, but rather to give us all pause.

If I were to ask you to ingest an unknown medicine from someone who knew nothing about the medical field, you probably wouldn't do it. And I doubt many of us would feel comfortable as a shareholder in a company that asked people who knew nothing about business to hire its next CEO?
Yet we all know people who gleefully admit they know nothing about politics, don't have time to find out what the current issues are or even know how the government works, but go out and vote. Want to know why it seems Washington is run by a bunch of idiots? Blame this hiccup in our political system for starters. What's a solution? Weed out some of the ignorant by making people who want to vote first pass a test modeled on the one given to those who want to become citizens

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-12/opin ... ant-people ?

How can anyone cast an intelligent vote when clueless on fundamental issues and too lazy to educate themselves ? Our political situation over the past two decades likely reflect the impact of a huge ignorant voting public. Worst of all, it seem Politicians play on that very ignorance.

I'm sure many of you will have some thoughts on this, but just for a change, could be focus on some real thought as opposed to the usual blame dribble? This problem is not a liberal or conservative issue. It includes every political perspective.

The answer to an ignorant electorate isn't to prevent the ignorant from voting, the answer to an ignorant electorate is to do something about the watered-down pap that passes for education in this country.

But it won't happen. If anything, it is likely to get worse as the corporatacracy gets its fingers into the educational system. The last thing on earth that lobby wants is a well-educated populace capable of critical thought. What they want is a nation of followers educated just enough to work the cash register at Walmart but not educated enough to develop the capacity to question what they're told. Told by their bosses, told by the news media, told by politicians. Including, of course, who to vote for.

Should fat people be allowed to eat?

AspenValley wrote: The answer to an ignorant electorate isn't to prevent the ignorant from voting, the answer to an ignorant electorate is to do something about the watered-down pap that passes for education in this country.

But it won't happen. If anything, it is likely to get worse as the corporatacracy gets its fingers into the educational system. The last thing on earth that lobby wants is a well-educated populace capable of critical thought. What they want is a nation of followers educated just enough to work the cash register at Walmart but not educated enough to develop the capacity to question what they're told. Told by their bosses, told by the news media, told by politicians. Including, of course, who to vote for.

That is the point of having a test though isn't it? If nothing it provides an incentive for some. You need to get some education before you can pass it. As it stands currently, there is no incentive to become educated or think critically. I do not believe that education needs to or perhaps should take place in academia necessarily and that would mitigate the influence of special interest groups. Frankly, I think that much adult education could actually take place over the internet or other media. Forums like this one represent a viable source. Though trolling persists, support for responsible discussions as opposed for dribble could mitigate trolling. There are critical thinkers on this forum who are also educated on political matters with perspectives on both side of the fence. Every once in a while a good discussion takes place and ignoramuses like myself benefit greatly from it.

I do think we need to begin somewhere or otherwise your pessimism on ever developing well-educated populace will prevail and American voters will do as "Told by their bosses, told by the news media, told by politicians. Including, of course, who to vote for."

Once again the politicians will fight you on having a more informed electorate. Any smart person realizes there is no way Social Security will ever disappear when senior citizens have the highest voting percentage, yet the Dems still tell uneducated voters that the Republicans are going to end SS.
Much easier to sway the uneducated.
BTW, I used a Dem example but the Republicans do the same, for example, making terrorism look more damaging than it actually is, etc.

Rockdoc, how would you suggest structuring such a test? And who gets to devise it? What percentage would you expect to pass it? What if, for instance, a test were devised to establish that a voter could at least read and understand material at a high school graduate level, but it was found that only 30% of voters could actually pass that? It wouldn't surprise me.

My question is who to believe? One side says one thing, another side refutes that information, and the news that covers anything political is so not full of facts. So where does this education come from? And can it ever be taught without vilifying the other side?

A simpler solution would be to multiply your vote by your tax bracket. 0-10 votes for the poor. 25 votes for the middle. 35 votes for the rich. Problem solved. This is how votes are counted by public company share holders.

ComputerBreath wrote: And can it ever be taught without vilifying the other side?

Yes. I think perhaps the single most important thing you could do to educate the voting population is to teach them not to think in terms of "sides", but in terms of issues. So long as people just lazily glom on to whatever position "their side" says to support, you can be quite sure they are not informed enough to be a responsible voter.

Whenever I hear someone say "Oh so and so is not a REAL (Republican/Democrat) because so and so supported such and such and that is the OTHER SIDES position" I know I am hearing a voter who has abdicated all responsibility as a voting citizen in favor of a form of intellectual laziness known as partisanism. It's just a grown-up version of the stupidity of children who do dumb things because of "peer pressure".

AspenValley wrote: Rockdoc, how would you suggest structuring such a test? And who gets to devise it? What percentage would you expect to pass it? What if, for instance, a test were devised to establish that a voter could at least read and understand material at a high school graduate level, but it was found that only 30% of voters could actually pass that? It wouldn't surprise me.

The author of the article suggested a test be structured along the lines of that required by immigrant applying for citizenship. It would seem appropriate that American citizens have at least a rudimentary knowledge equivalent to immigrants applying for naturalization. Voting eligibility would require passage of the test. Any high school graduate (at least by the standards that existed 50 years ago) would be able to pass the test without a problem. Yet, I identify with your fears that a third of the voters would fail. They would simply need to retake the exam until they pass.
Frankly I do not see this as a realistic happening, but feel something needs to be done.

Having said that, such a test really does not address the fundamental issues of being informed on current political agendas. That is another animal altogether. This involves continuing adult education. I imagine the lead here needs to come from the media representing opposing views. In fact, it would be most interesting to have the media that normally supports one view be forced to argue the opposing view. How you would get people to partake in this is another matter entirely. Many have little interest, much less time to devote to continuing education. If time is a problem instead of a lack of interest, then we ought to have something in place that allows people the time, like an hour off work or an hour of free baby sitting eg. Those who do not wish to be bothered with becoming informed really should not be voicing an opinion on topics they know nothing about. Obviously, this whole education thing quickly gets into very murky waters that could step on a citizen's basic rights and needs much deeper thought than what I've posed here as a straw man exercise.