The right to vote

[Indofred]

So many times we see a political party elected because way too many people believe the lies they spout without the slightest thought.
We see wars and misery because people blindly accept what they're told as fact, without the slightest interest in seeing what's really going on.

This in mind, I suggest an IQ test before you have the right to vote.
Anyone not at least 5 points above average should not have that right.
After the IQ test, a test on political matters and world events.

If you can't understand the politics, you should not have a say in what happens.

Do you agree?

 

[The T]

How about a test that shows you have basic working knowledge of your government, The Constitution? Where your voting rights come from in the first place?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So many times we see a political party elected because way too many people believe the lies they spout without the slightest thought.
We see wars and misery because people blindly accept what they're told as fact, without the slightest interest in seeing what's really going on.

This in mind, I suggest an IQ test before you have the right to vote.
Anyone not at least 5 points above average should not have that right.
After the IQ test, a test on political matters and world events.

If you can't understand the politics, you should not have a say in what happens.

Do you agree?

A Civics class would be nice but it's not required, if you were born a citizen. An IQ test before having children would be good, but illegal.

 

[grunt11b]

The constitution says every citizen has a right to vote, therefore there should be no test unless the constitution is amended to make it so. However, everyone should have to show picture ID to prove they are a citizen to vote. This is a states decision to decide how voting is conducted.
If you have to show ID to buy cigarettes then you should also be able to show ID to vote, the only racists when it comes to this are the democrats for thinking minorities and poor are incapable of obtaining an ID.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The constitution says every citizen has a right to vote...

The Constitution doesn't actually say that, and it doesn't require Photo ID either.

 

[grunt11b]

The constitution says every citizen has a right to vote...

The Constitution doesn't actually say that, and it doesn't require Photo ID either.

The constitution leaves to the states how votes are counted, therefore if a state requires ID, you must show one, which is a very good way to prevent voter fraud.
Being the constitution does not say "who" has the right to vote then it is still left to the states, which brings me back to my original argument, states rights.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The constitution says every citizen has a right to vote...

The Constitution doesn't actually say that, and it doesn't require Photo ID either.

The constitution leaves to the states how votes are counted, therefore if a state requires ID, you must show one, which is a very good way to prevent voter fraud.
Being the constitution does not say "who" has the right to vote then it is still left to the states, which brings me back to my original argument, states rights.

It's not that simple either. Just be careful with your words.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Constitution doesn't actually say that, and it doesn't require Photo ID either.

The constitution leaves to the states how votes are counted, therefore if a state requires ID, you must show one, which is a very good way to prevent voter fraud.
Being the constitution does not say "who" has the right to vote then it is still left to the states, which brings me back to my original argument, states rights.

It's not that simple either. Just be careful with your words.

The States control the election process. Each State is free to make election laws for themselves with a few requirements from the Federal Government. A State is free to require ID for voting. Several States already have that requirement. The only problem now is Eric Holder and DOJ illegally challenging legal requirements for voting in certain States. I say illegal because they have not and will not challenge those laws in States that already have the requirement.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So many times we see a political party elected because way too many people believe the lies they spout without the slightest thought.
We see wars and misery because people blindly accept what they're told as fact, without the slightest interest in seeing what's really going on.

This in mind, I suggest an IQ test before you have the right to vote.
Anyone not at least 5 points above average should not have that right.
After the IQ test, a test on political matters and world events.

If you can't understand the politics, you should not have a say in what happens.

Do you agree?

In the United States whether one ‘agrees’ or not is irrelevant, as the right to vote is fundamental, where ‘tests’ are prohibited.

The right to vote is the fundamental right that has been the source of the most significant Supreme Court litigation. The Constitution addresses voting in Article II and four subsequent amendments (the 15th, forbidding discrimination in voting on the basis "of race, color, or previous condition of servitude;" the 19th, forbidding discrimination in voting based on sex; the 24th, prohibiting "any poll tax" on a person before they can vote; and the 26th, granting the right to vote to all citizens over the age of 18). The Court has chosen to also strictly scrutinize restrictions on voting other than those specifically prohibited by the Constitution because, in its words, the right to vote "is preservative of other basic civil and political rights."

The Equal Protection Clause and the Right to Vote

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So many times we see a political party elected because way too many people believe the lies they spout without the slightest thought.
We see wars and misery because people blindly accept what they're told as fact, without the slightest interest in seeing what's really going on.

This in mind, I suggest an IQ test before you have the right to vote.
Anyone not at least 5 points above average should not have that right.
After the IQ test, a test on political matters and world events.

If you can't understand the politics, you should not have a say in what happens.

Do you agree?

Do government policies affect those of lower IQ's? Then they should vote. And what unbiased source would test people in the first place?

 

[Jughead]

This in mind, I suggest an IQ test before you have the right to vote.
Anyone not at least 5 points above average should not have that right.
After the IQ test, a test on political matters and world events.

Sounds great. If I lose my right to vote, I guess I also lose my right to pay taxes. No vote, no taxes.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Neocons and Progressives would abuse this immediately

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So many times we see a political party elected because way too many people believe the lies they spout without the slightest thought.
We see wars and misery because people blindly accept what they're told as fact, without the slightest interest in seeing what's really going on.

This in mind, I suggest an IQ test before you have the right to vote.
Anyone not at least 5 points above average should not have that right.
After the IQ test, a test on political matters and world events.

If you can't understand the politics, you should not have a say in what happens.

Do you agree?

Do government policies affect those of lower IQ's? Then they should vote. And what unbiased source would test people in the first place?

And there is the rub. Any test would be subject to the whims of the powers that be. It might start out simple but the draw to limit people to the powers in power at the time would be to great to resist.

 

[occupied]

The true test of political savvy is knowing that your right to vote and it be counted is always in danger from the same people who would revolt to protect the right to bear arms.

 

[alan1]

How about a test that shows you have basic working knowledge of your government, The Constitution? Where your voting rights come from in the first place?

I wouldn't be opposed to a test about the Constitution prior to voting.

 

[occupied]

How about a test that shows you have basic working knowledge of your government, The Constitution? Where your voting rights come from in the first place?

I wouldn't be opposed to a test about the Constitution prior to voting.

What good would that do? Give the test to politicians.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The constitution says every citizen has a right to vote...

The Constitution doesn't actually say that, and it doesn't require Photo ID either.

The constitution leaves to the states how votes are counted, therefore if a state requires ID, you must show one, which is a very good way to prevent voter fraud.
Being the constitution does not say "who" has the right to vote then it is still left to the states, which brings me back to my original argument, states rights.

Incorrect.

Laws requiring a photo ID to vote are un-Constitutional if they manifest an undue burden to the right to vote:

A Pennsylvania judge struck down the key portion of the state’s strict voter identification law, saying it unreasonably hinders people from exercising what is a fundamental right.

In a 103-page ruling, Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard L. McGinley held that the law's requirement that the state’s 8.2 million voters show photo identification before casting a ballot was unconstitutional.

“Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election; the Voter ID Law does not further this goal,” McGinley wrote in his ruling.

The law’s identification demand is unconstitutional because it does not require that a valid photo ID be convenient and available to voters, the judge explained in his ruling.

“As a constitutional prerequisite, any voter ID law must contain a mechanism for ensuring liberal access to compliant photo IDs so that the requirement … does not disenfranchise valid voters,” McGinley wrote.

In his decision, McGinley said the state had failed to present a convincing case why the new requirement was needed. Nor could the state point to widespread fraud.

Pennsylvania voter ID law struck down by judge as unconstitutional - Los Angeles Times

Indeed, if a state is going to restrict a fundamental right such as voting, it must provide objective, documented evidence in support of the restriction; given the fact that voter ‘fraud’ by identification is virtually non-existent, ‘voter ID’ laws are clearly un-Constitutional.

 

[alan1]

How about a test that shows you have basic working knowledge of your government, The Constitution? Where your voting rights come from in the first place?

I wouldn't be opposed to a test about the Constitution prior to voting.

What good would that do? Give the test to politicians.

That also.

However, if the electorate was better informed of the Constitution they probably wouldn't elect the crap politicians we have. I'm interested in getting to the root cause.

 

[occupied]

How about a test that shows you have basic working knowledge of your government, The Constitution? Where your voting rights come from in the first place?

I wouldn't be opposed to a test about the Constitution prior to voting.

By that making statement you would probably fail it.

 

[norwegen]

If participation in a franchise is conditional, then participation in that franchise is not a right.