| badgenome said: Non-voters are even less informed than people who do vote. If the people who already vote are so stupid, why should we worry that not enough people are voting? If anything, we need fewer and better voters. I think a basic civics test should precede voting, and if you fail, the machine kicks your vote out. Then again, if most people choose to be stupid, we get the government that we (collectively) deserve. So maybe it doesn't matter all that much. Rhetorical differences aside, the practical differences between the two parties are vanishingly small, and that's the real reason that elections are usually an exercise in pointlessness. |
I could just see the outcry on that. I believe the NAACP would compare it to Jim Crow laws even if it was a test that a 12th grader should be able to pass. If you can't solve basic math, science, English, etc questions then you probably don't need to be voting. How about if you failed on obtaining a GED then you can't vote. If you can't vote if you committed a felony then you shouldn't be able to vote if you are completely stupid.
I think they should at least take the party line voting out of the electronic machines (where you can just select vote for all Republicans or Democrats). That is USA laziness at its best and shows how most people vote (look into the actual candidates). Sure it wouldn't stop the pure party line voting but at least you'll make the person click on every single vote. A national holiday on election day which most democracies have would probably improve voter turn out.
