The idea of one man, one vote has always had exclusions, as you rightly point out. Criminal history, mental incompetence, and age, to name a few, are all discriminators against the franchise, as they should be. The exceptions, however, serve to prove the rule. An otherwise qualified person gets one, and only one, vote in any given race or on any given issue. This is the central issue here. How do we prevent one person from voting multiple times?
I'm not at all opposed to the idea that a person should have at least a basic working knowledge of government and of the issues in order to vote. What I oppose is your proposed mechanism of using a test to determine the person's basic working knowledge. I've always believed that one of the reasons the Founding Fathers didn't make voting mandatory was to help weed out the physically and intellectually lazy. If you don't care enough to learn the issues, you probably won't care enough to vote. Note I say "probably," as it is not a hard-and-fast rule. This is why I'm fundamentally opposed to "get out the vote" drives. If someone is so lazy that they don't even bother to register to vote, I'd just as soon they stay home on election day.
Every high school senior is required to take a class on government, and IIRC, passing that class was a prerequisite for graduation. Without debating the merits of public education, at least the mechanism for most Americans to learn about our government is already in place.
My biggest problem with using some sort of test to determine voting eligibility is the fear that it won't stop there. That was why I made the comment about literacy tests and Jim Crow. Those laws were most certainly bad rubbish, and better off left behind. You've my most sincere apologies if anything I said in my previous post implied you were racist, for that was most certainly NOT my intention. My intention was to point out the potential (and most certainly unintended) consequences of such a testing policy. Please accept my apologies if anything I said left you with the impression that I thought you were racist, for that was absolutely NOT the case.
As far as the comment about "suckling off the government teat," it was pretty good for an off-the-cuff rant :) I was simply clarifying your position on it, as I've met many here on FR who believe that having *any* job in government makes one a parasite. I've argued with them on other threads, and so I just wanted to make sure of your position.
The only solution I've come up with is admittedly rife with problems of its own. The solution to end vote fraud is to have some sort of national database, linked to biometrics, that records where you voted and that you voted, but was unable to tally WHAT you voted. Such a database could NOT be used to tally the votes, but only to prevent one physical person from voting more than once. As know this type of system has all sorts of difficulties, but I don't know what else would work.
Afghanistan's low-tech version of inking the thumb is a good idea, too, assuming that the poll workers were essentially honest. I woulnd't mind it at all.
AAAAAH! I was going to cite the inky thumbs, but there appear to be flaws with that as well, from what I've read in recent reports.
I'm not at all opposed to the idea that a person should have at least a basic working knowledge of government and of the issues in order to vote. What I oppose is your proposed mechanism of using a test to determine the person's basic working knowledge. I've always believed that one of the reasons the Founding Fathers didn't make voting mandatory was to help weed out the physically and intellectually lazy.
If you don't care enough to learn the issues, you probably won't care enough to vote. Note I say "probably," as it is not a hard-and-fast rule.
Demonstrably untrue. Millions of examples in every national election.
This is why I'm fundamentally opposed to "get out the vote" drives. If someone is so lazy that they don't even bother to register to vote, I'd just as soon they stay home on election day.
But there are so many people for whom "getting out the vote" is their only marketable job skill!
Every high school senior is required to take a class on government, and IIRC, passing that class was a prerequisite for graduation. Without debating the merits of public education, at least the mechanism for most Americans to learn about our government is already in place.
So many don't make it to that senior-level course. And these days, they're frequently getting their "news" from Jay Leno's monologue or "The Daily Show".
My biggest problem with using some sort of test to determine voting eligibility is the fear that it won't stop there. That was why I made the comment about literacy tests and Jim Crow. Those laws were most certainly bad rubbish, and better off left behind. You've my most sincere apologies if anything I said in my previous post implied you were racist, for that was most certainly NOT my intention.
Corrupt election officials will figure out a way to make voting difficult one way or another.
We had reapportionment which got challenged in court.
Between my wife and myself, we probably got enought voter registration cards in the mail to build a deck of playing cards. Confusing? You bet.
My intention was to point out the potential (and most certainly unintended) consequences of such a testing policy. Please accept my apologies if anything I said left you with the impression that I thought you were racist, for that was absolutely NOT the case.
I was being pre-emptively defensive at your invocation of the term "Jim Crow"; I didn't look to see whether you hailed from the South or elsewhere, as we are frequently misunderstood by folks who "aren't from around here."
As far as the comment about "suckling off the government teat," it was pretty good for an off-the-cuff rant :) I was simply clarifying your position on it, as I've met many here on FR who believe that having *any* job in government makes one a parasite. I've argued with them on other threads, and so I just wanted to make sure of your position.
The only solution I've come up with is admittedly rife with problems of its own. The solution to end vote fraud is to have some sort of national database, linked to biometrics, that records where you voted and that you voted, but was unable to tally WHAT you voted.
The implications of such a thing disturb me greatly. And I work with computers for a living.
Such a database could NOT be used to tally the votes, but only to prevent one physical person from voting more than once. As know this type of system has all sorts of difficulties, but I don't know what else would work.
The sorts of things this database could be used for...Shades of 1942!
Some sort of temporary tattoo, perhaps? All different colors- dark ones for light-skinned folks, light ones for dark-skinned folks.
Afghanistan's low-tech version of inking the thumb is a good idea, too, assuming that the poll workers were essentially honest. I woulnd't mind it at all.