CreateDebate


Debate Info

44
66
Yes No
Debate Score:110
Arguments:50
Total Votes:142
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (17)
 
 No (33)

Debate Creator

altarion(1955) pic



Should voters have to take a test before voting to prove they are not ignorant?

It seems like a lot of people who vote, (well maybe not a lot, but a hefty sum) don't know who they are voting for or WHY they are voting for that person, they just vote to vote. So would it be better if voters had to take a test proving that they know policies offered by the candidates before voting?

hide video
Racism in America

Yes

Side Score: 44
VS.

No

Side Score: 66
7 points

I was thinking what might work to hinder stupid voters but still allow them to vote is to have a short quiz on what the presidential policy differences are. Ask 5 Basic questions on the most important policy differences between the candidates. Whichever candidate they agree most with then becomes their candidate and if they are too stupid to know the difference between the candidates policy it will basically be a random vote so 50% either candidate.

Side: yes
4 points

Perhaps a better way of going about the five items is to GIVE each voter a hand-out as they enter the venue at which they will then vote. The hand-out would actually TELL them what the 5, or pick any number, most important issues are and how each candidate stands on each of those issues. Of course the answers would come from the candidates themselves. There certainly shouldn't be any problem getting the information (The OFFICIAL version) from either of the candidates campaign headquarters for distribution to the masses.

Side: No
5 points

Or...how about: (WARNING: I'm being radical here) give voters a handout that states each candidate's position on an issue but doesn't tell them which policy is whose. The voters then select which position they like better on each issue. At the end, whoever "wins" a majority of the issues gets the voter's vote. This system would ENSURE that candidates want voters to be aware on issues.

Side: No
1 point

I agree with this statement it would avoid anyone who's voting just to vote

Side: No
jessald(1915) Disputed
4 points

It's an interesting idea, but there are other factors besides the issues a voter may want to take into account. For example, a Republican may want to vote for Obama because they think he has a more presidential temperament, even if they disagree with him on some issues.

Kukla's idea of presenting voters with some basic information about the positions of the candidates seems like it would get all the benefits of the quiz while still leaving room for voter's to take other factors into consideration.

Side: No
altarion(1955) Disputed
1 point

What if they choose 3 for McCain and 2 for Obama and want to vote for Obama? Should they be allowed to vote for Obama or is the answers they chose on this "quiz" all that matters? the candidate with the most numbers on your quiz is who your vote is for?

Side: No
Diluck(51) Disputed
4 points

Your right I was thinking about it and they could perhaps include more issues (like 6) and than have your preference of candidate count as a tie breaker or 7th option. But still the idea would be that you would have to know why you are supporting your candidate otherwise essentially your vote is a random vote anyways. But this would serve to offset guaranteed republican/democratic territories because people might be further to the right or left than they realize.

But really we just need to get reform elections the game is rigged in the favor or republicans and democrats when 3rd parties or more widely appealing candidates such as Ron Paul should be able to get elected when they are most relevant; such as right now.

Side: yes
5 points

OH MY GOLLY GEE WIZ!! I read that the core of McCain supporters earned 50 thousand or less, but I had no idea exactly what that looked like! Test baby test!!

At least rich people have an excuse for voting Republican. They have lots of money and Republicans love helping rich people get richer, especially if they can get the poor and their yet-to-be-born children to foot the huge bill, thank them for it, and ask for more.

These people say they have lost power, become a minority in their own country, hand American jobs over to Mexicans, and hand welfare over to blacks, they're mad because they have to press one for English and they are victim to the liberal plot to bring Civil Rights, blacks, gays, feminism, the environment, international cooperation, and world peace to field of government.

But what’s excuse for these people ? They don't have a pot to piss in. They're living week to week and up to their eyebrows in debt. Meanwhile,the grand old party hands middle and lower-class legislation that screws them both economically and politically. Rather than punishing them, these people line up every election to vote more Republicans into office.

Why?? These people are attracted to Republican intolerance, testosterone , maverick-ism. You see, they don’t like too many people-Mexicans, Asians, Europeans, the camel jockeys, towel-heads, fags, Jews, Catholics, atheists, tree-huggers, liberals, commies. But what they really hate are blacks and women, especially those in power. They are dangerously narrow-minded.They idolize Limbaugh & O'Reiley and are a host to many isms & phobias.

What they do like are other like minded confederate flag wavin, kill em all mentality,trust your government without question (unless it's full of liberal democrats),they like their women submissive and their blacks in their place. We'll stick a boot in your ass it's the American way.

So what can we do since it's unconstitutional to test voters for eligibility? We remind them of how their party has lied to them, and since we cant get much response on the issues of affirmative action,separation of church and state,reproductive rights,or gay marriage, we hit them of the issues they care about-war & economy. We unceasingly remind them that their children & husbands are being killed in an unprovoked war in Iraq that has led the Taliban to support a McCain presidency, and that they're being sucked dry at home.

I just hope that country first means country first win or loose.

Side: yes
3 points

If you know nothing about your candidates then you dont deserve to vote.

Side: yes
2 points

Many studies and researchers have found people voting on race, party, etc. In a recent poll, 38% of people were unaware Obama's or McCain's position on abortion. This is basic knowledge; Only 52% were able to say Obama is Pro-Choice and only 45% of voters were able to say McCain is Pro-Life. Ignorant people trace not only to racism, but lack of time or willingness to further research details to ensure their opinion. Even clicking on the CNN issue page could get a potential voter aware in less than an hour. The test would only have to be basic knowledge to only ensure people did not only vote for a candidate, because they were a girl, African-American, etc.

Side: yes
harmonyrulez(1) Disputed
1 point

saying "research shows" without saying where you got it from is a logical fallacy and makes you seem untrustworthy.

Side: Yes
2 points

okay so they should and heres why. there were 25 million blind voters in the 2008 election. not blind as in cant see, but blind as in they have no idea what is going on. there is what seems like a billion videos on youtube of people flipping quarters saying heads obama, tails mccain. it is their duty to vote, and it should be a privilege. also, 25 million people is around 2.5 michigans..michigan has roughly 10 million people in the state. michigan also had 17 electoral votes in the last election. and if you multiply 2.5 by 17, you get 43. that is the number of electoral votes uninformed voters took away from people like me and you who keep up on politics. i dont know about you but i want my vote to count, and with 43 electoral votes taken away from elections, how many elections could that have influenced in the past..and how many will it in the present?

Side: yes
2 points

Of course yes! If people are subjected to this test to know their candidates, their past, their achievements such as their real intentions and political government.

The person will surely be aware that their candidate is actually chosen. Many people vote just to vote!

P.s sorry my English! :)

Side: yes
1 point

Because it would be absolutely unfair to the opposition side who lost because of a person picking a side on the spot without knowing about the parties plans.

Side: Yes
1 point

Because it would be absolutely unfair to the opposition side who lost because of a person picking a side on the spot without knowing about the parties plans.

Side: Yes
0 points

Not to bag on McCain, but as these people who were interviewing in this clip plainly put it, they don't want Obama as president because he is Black or because he is Muslim. They don't ONCE mention his political policies or anything like that as a reason against voting for him. So this is just one small reason that we should instate presidential tests before voting so that we will have a less biased society.

Side: yes
6 points

no. this is obviously wrong because last time we did this, it was to keep the blacks from getting any voting rights.

here's the thing. this is a free country where people can vote on w/e the fuck they want. there are plenty of ignorant voters on both sides, and the thing is, most of them end up not voting anyway.

when we start making tests, it can easily turn to corruption where certain groups will not be able to pass and make their vote.

Side: No
4 points

While i think there are a lot of ignorant voters in America i don't think there should be any test that must be passed to allow them to vote. Like you said initial intentions can easily give way to corruption and inequality in voting.

Every american citizen should be allowed to vote, we should never attempt to block people because of their ignorance, race, similarities in names to criminals, minor crimes, or political affiliations.

Side: No
woodstyle(18) Disputed
1 point

I think there should be one test that is the same for everyone that reflects there intelligence in all rather than just on voting.

Side: yes
1 point

hopefully for you it is not a test on

there, their, and they're ;)

Side: No

No, it must not be done that way. Pyggy is right on the point he makes with regard to stacking the deck. This would be a dangerous move on the part of citizens or the Government itself to even insinuate it.

I surely understand your point Altarion and it is well taken, however, only in the best of worlds would everyone be so aware of the issues and the candidates that they might, just might render an intelligent vote! They must get past their upbringing and everything they're families and neighbors believed and that's a tough nut to crack.

Those of us who live on both coasts of America, with a few exceptions, seem to be a bit more 'with it' but there is a vast country that lies between those two coasts. That is certainly not to insinuate that everyone living in the middle of the continent or north and south is ignorant! Please do not misunderstand me here. I have friends in almost every state in this country and I know many people in general both in New York and Connecticut. When I listen to those who are without the knowledge they should have about the candidates and the issues, I am appalled at how far back their ignorance goes...it's generational in many instances. That this video comes from Ohio doesn't shock me. I have a friend born and raised there who married someone from Alabama and nows resides there. I know them and both families. When I'm with them I have to duck because I can hear someone in the distance shouting..."INCOMING" every minute I'm there. Their grand daddies thought that way, their daddies thought that way , they think that way and their children, like little sponges, will also learn that way! But Altarion, we cannot stop the vote because of them.

Close your eyes and go back in time. What do you think the citizens knew back in those olden days when an election was being held? If you were lucky enough to live near Abe Lincoln and hear him speak you might have thought..."Well, that old Abe, he's a pretty smart feller and he's a God fearin' Christian that never did me no harm. Heck, he might just do, let's vote fer him." Ignorance has been with us since the beginning of time. Granted, in todays world there really is no excuse for NOT being apprised of any issue or anyone's credentials but as this video shows...for these people, hearsay and personal history is the thing they'll go by. They won't check it out like we do.

We dare not do anything like this lest "Big Brother" cull out those who are in question and render them mute. We must go with the full spectrum of Americans and pray that we've done the right thing by casting our votes with all due diligence as intelligently as we can.

Side: No lest we find ourselves living IN 1984
1 point

In fact, this was something Republican governments did in the South in the years after the Civil War. They would "test" blacks for 'voter qualification', eventually denying most of them the vote.

Side: No
Inkwell(328) Disputed
2 points

Kuul, I recognize you are too young to remember but the south was uniformly Democrat until the early sixties (centuries ago when only dinosaus plus Kukla and I roamed the earth). The racists, Klanners, white supremacists and pro slavery govts in the south were overwhelmingly Democrat and the south as a voting block was solidly Democrat. It took "betrayal" by LBJ, a southern congressman most of his career, to turn that around. And in the fifties the Democrat block in the congress from the south was blocking effective civil rights legislation and it took a lifelong law and order Republican in Earl Warren, the chief justice of the Supreme Court to legislate from the bench and push through Brown vs Board of Education and use it to actually change the laws of the country from the bench, clearly unconstitutional but the only way it was going to get done. That by the way was the beginning of the whole "activist" Warren Court which leads us to today when conservatives do not want activist, but strict constructionist judges and liberal want legislation from the bench. Warren was the source of the famous Miranda rights we hear cited on every cop show and even the case that was the basis for Roe v. Wade.

That whole change of the south and the Warren court specifically is an incredibly interesting topic.

Side: yes

Yes they did, and no one did a thing about it for many years...the dirtbags!

Side: No

It is because of stupid people that we have the electoral college. The "college" part in their name is to let people know that they are educated enough to know what is good for us and if we fail to see that and vote the wrong way, they'll fix it and take care of everything by voting the right way. So we don't need to test.

For example, wasn't there some issue back in 2004 about Kerry whining about winning the popular vote? But then what happened? The electoral college realized that the people had their head up their ass and voted Bush in anyway.

I'm sorry, I wasn't able to keep a straight face when I typed that. ;)

Side: No
1 point

I have jokingly many times said and even in a separate post that people should be tested in order to vote. Of course I do not believe that it should be practiced - tempting but nah.

Also, like I said in a separate post that every time I hear something that makes me want to pull my hair out I donate to the Obama campaign, well this video just earned my man a nice contribution.

Side: No
1 point

Good quote from this site

"Compulsory voting is not a new concept. Some of the first countries that introduced mandatory voting laws were Belgium in 1892, Argentina in 1914 and Australia in 1924. There are also examples of countries such as Venezuela and the Netherlands which at one time in their history practiced compulsory voting but have since abolished it."

With that said, I think the notion of compulsory voting run counter-contrary to the underlying pinning of freedom in the United States. After all, why should we force people to do something that they don't want to do?

Side: No
1 point

voters should not have to take a test vote. who really cares if some people dont no who they are voting for and why.. the point is, people still vote, the decisions are made whether they are bad or good. not everyone should have to be politically intact just for voting.

Side: No

No- if one of the people on one of the major tickets in the recent presidential election is so stupid that she doesn't even know that Africa is a continent, as opposed to a country, why should the people voting for or against her have to be smarter? I don't think the founders of our country were joking when they wrote that they believed that all people "are created equal".

Side: No

the USA is a free friggin country. if people are stupid then they should be able to vote, if they are smart they should be able to vote, if they are rich, poor, tall, short, fat, skinny, or whatever race they are they should be able to vote.

Side: No
1 point

We should not take a test before voting because some do just want to vote because they think that person is cute, or they that certain, race or they are coming from that party so it doesnt matter if you know anhy thing about the vote.

And it doesnt matter at this time because the popular vote doesnt count it is the electoral college. so even if we do pass that a test be demanded before voting it doesnt matter, it not our choice

Side: No

We should remove the party designation next to candidate's names on ballots. This will reduce the propensity of people voting strictly because of they party they belong to and without knowing anything else about the person.

Side: No
1 point

It would just be purely unfair that the others get to vote and we do not

Side: No
1 point

I would love to say yes. But unfortunately we wouldn't be able to enforce this test accurately and fairly. The enforcement would easily be too biased.

Side: No
0 points

Maybe not for voting, but perhaps a test for protesters. Anyone els think thats a good idea?

Side: No
RKMcAllister(39) Disputed
1 point

I think that's a bad idea- I think that's something they do in totalitarian regimes, not in the U.S. of A.

Side: yes
0 points

Of course you see a video like this, and the knee jerk reaction is "damn, these people shouldn't be allowed to vote."

You could walk into a crack house in S. Chicago, and I'll bet you see an Obama poster, and you might say, "damn, these people shouldn't be allowed to vote." (which they wouldn't if they have a criminal record, but you get the point.)

Fortunately I think these people make up a minority of the voting population. It also highlights how important it is for people like most of us on this site to take the time to actually learn the issues, and vote intelligently.

Side: No