I'm just giggin' the right-wingers. No doubt some would say, though, that if one listened to Rush Limbaugh regularly, one wouldn't need to pass a civics test to vote.

I'm feeling suppressed already. Mex and his right wing ideology.

I'd be interested in something like this, but at the end of the day, it goes against the Constitution and what the country stands for. It is just plain sad more people don't take the right seriously.

 

The other thing I'd like to see is jurors be educated on the basic processes and laws. It scares me that people who are uneducated, irrational, and don't understand innocent until proven guilty/reasonable doubt are responsible for determining the fate of people's lives, because in some cases it's very black/white, but in others, it requires much more attention to how our laws are written and an understanding of how to interpret them to apply it to the decision.

I'm feeling suppressed already. Mex and his right wing ideology.

At my former place of employment, one of the boys asked me if Jim Bunning "was a governor or congressman or something like that." I replied: "He's a U.S. senator from Kentucky. Why do you want to know?" He said he just got something in the mail from the NRA saying to vote for Bunning in the next election because he was a friend of gun owners.

 

Bottom line: If you support a knowledge test for voting, be careful of what you wish for.

While I think most people would like voters to be more informed, neither party's leadership does. I don't see how you can make the right to vote dependent on passing any kind of test. That was settled long ago.

I've mentioned this before, but I wish they'd do something similar, but not be something that if not "passed" would not allow one to vote. I wish they'd require them to fill out a quick survey of their positions on the issues, and then receive results measuring that voter's stances against those of the candidates. Something that would really tell them who agrees with their viewpoints. If they want to go vote straight ticket or for whoever after that, so be it, but I think that might be an eye opening experience for some.

 

Interesting proposition...until you realize that the politicians running for office can't decide what their principles are either.

Someone's been watching too much late night TV. Tired of watching Dave ask people the capital city of Ohio and them answering Pittsburgh?

Interesting proposition...until you realize that the politicians running for office can't decide what their principles are either.

 

:lol2:

 

Well, make it as close as you can get!

Someone's been watching too much late night TV. Tired of watching Dave ask people the capital city of Ohio and them answering Pittsburgh?

 

Only in football.:sssh:

Not in favor. There are very few barriers to voting in this country and that is a good thing.

 

In my own experience, the uninformed voters are not a huge problem. It's that the uninformed are also uninterested and don't vote anyway.

Not in favor. There are very few barriers to voting in this country and that is a good thing.

 

In my own experience, the uninformed voters are not a huge problem. It's that the uninformed are also uninterested and don't vote anyway.

Despite the scads of exit interviews that show mass ignorance?

Despite the scads of exit interviews that show mass ignorance?

 

That's just among the people that actually vote. Imagine the ignorance among people that can't even be bothered.

 

Careful screening of the people that choose leaders is not a good step.

No.

 

Whoever or whichever group got to write the questions and decide which answers are "correct" would have an inordinate amount of power. You don't have to look too far into history to see how similar measures were used to benefit certain groups as the expense of others.

That's just among the people that actually vote. Imagine the ignorance among people that can't even be bothered.

 

Careful screening of the people that choose leaders is not a good step.

I have no doubt. And why there's so much opposition to eliminating the straight ticket option.

I have no doubt. And why there's so much opposition to eliminating the straight ticket option.

 

I'd eliminate that tomorrow.

 

There is a political science teacher at the University of Dayton that once pulled out a Kentucky ballot during the first class and asked if anyone was from Kentucky. Heaven above, why oh why did I raise my hand? He proceeded to rip into me and the other person that raised our hands for the next five minutes about Kentucky's dumb ballot with the straight ticket option "So easy a Kentuckian could understand it" type stuff.

 

He would then occasionally stop class at random times through the semester and ask if he needed to slow down so the Kentuckians could keep up.

 

It was awful.

 

That's a specific and personal reason.

 

In general, straight ticket voting is pretty useless.

I think we should decide all elections by a Randy Parker vs Getslow pillow fight.