That voting for elections should/should not be subject by passing a general knowledge test
should pass
Side Score: 8
|
 |
should not pass
Side Score: 16
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
but even if they didn't pass the test it doesn't mean they can't decide who should be the leader. Voting is not a opportunity to test someone's knowledge. It's their personal opinion. Voters can select their leaders by looking at what services they have granted to the society. Side: should not pass
1
point
There should be some sort of test you need to pass before you are eligible to vote. Democracy is all for show if the people voting don't even know who and what they're voting for. Preferably you need to retake this test before every presidential election, so that you're up to date on general affairs. I'd love to have a system like this in the UK, and it would probably be easier to pass it here considering we don't have the constitution blocking us. Side: should pass
The right to vote is a basic human right that empowers citizens to influence governmental decision-making and to safeguard their other human rights. The right to vote and the right to public participation in government is asserted in Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Side: should not pass
|
Even though my gut wants a general knowledge test requirement, it's against the principals of the United States to require such a thing. I believe a general knowledge test about the candidate(s) would "enlightened" people a bit. Funny story. This one guy was taking a video of him in the voting booth. You could tell he was a millennial and pretty liberal. Anyways, he picks Hillary Clinton and then goes, "oh... Well, her name sounds pretty" and proceeds to vote for someone that he doesn't know. As Winston Churchill said, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter". Side: should not pass
No, however, everyone should have to take a test and the results would reflect how much their vote is worth on a scale from 1-10. The more you know, the more your vote is worth. This way, everybody still gets a say! The problem with democracy: Where two idiots outvote one genius! Side: should not pass
Yeah but then you get people who will vote for someone simply because they say outrageous things and it's funny to watch to them (CoughCoughWeKnowWhoImTalkingAbout). It's a slippery slope. If we keep the trend of opinions deciding votes eventually the presidency will be a popularity contest. The result of us letting everyone vote based off uninformed opinions would be much more severe than if a test was required. Side: should pass
1
point
No, for the single reason that, despite (and, in some ways, in light of) the endemic idiocy plaguing this country, the government is still always going to be inherently untrustworthy, and should thus not have the power to dictate who is eligible to take part in moderating it. Side: should not pass
but even if they didn't pass the test it doesn't mean they can't decide who should be the leader. Voting is not a opportunity to test someone's knowledge. It's their personal opinion. Voters can select their leaders by looking at what services they have granted to the society. Side: should not pass
|
