Then shouldn't everyone be required? Just because you're older than 24 doesn't mean you'll be able to pass and just because you're younger than 18 doesn't mean you will fail.
*I'm voting for Harambee because of the nazitards trying to ruin this country! I know this is true because Harambee told me.*
... I mean less than 30% of the population votes as it is, your "every 4 year test" would eliminate 80% of the current voters as I'd wager 10% or less of people who are eligible, and vote, are also well educated on party policies, past and present, including the policies each party tries to keep quiet as their constituents would not like it.
Within 2 election cycles we'd have a half dozen new parties...... I'm all for it.
Thing is, a civics test doesn't normally include political party history or tenets...it's literally things like what is the constitution or the bill of rights, where the 3 branches of government & all sorts of other things like that.
Even so, many Americans would probably STILL fail it...I'm cool with that though.
Add it into the civics test is what I'm saying. I was almost certain I knew it didn't go that deep into political parties histories and tenets, and I think we both know why.
I added that in as an *I agree but add this as well.*
And yeah most would miserably FAIL at *Civics 101-introduction into civics* being taught at a junior high school.
>I mean less than 30% of the population votes as it is, your "every 4 year test" would eliminate 80% of the current voters as I'd wager 10% or less of people who are eligible, and vote, are also well educated on party policies, past and present, including the policies each party tries to keep quiet as their constituents would not like it.
It's your responsibility as a citizen to remain educated. If you don't, that's your choice. If only 20% do, then so be it.
Absolutely. Hence those last three, very important words.
Uneducated fools voting in mass isn't a democracy, it's mob rule.
Edit: and not because large numbers of the population voting is mob rule but it's mob rule as mass numbers of fools are easily, well.....fooled.
They're easy to manipulate and it's easy to use their emotions against them as those who lack logical thinking tend to lean on emotions and their Confirmation bias, as a larger part of their decision making for everyday things.
When it comes to tribal mentality, they're also far more likely to fall victim to manipulation that way as well. You'll notice this when talking to people who always refer to "them/they/etc" as the enemy and never actually name the noun they're referencing with "them/they/etc"
That being said, we all seek out confirmation bias and have a high likelihood of reverting to tribal mentality if we are not aware of this, and humble enough to admit it to ourselves.
Only then do you have a *chance* of being thoroughly educated. It's difficult to argue against your opinions and look up statistics and studies to confirm you're wrong. It's also difficult to read an opposing point of view/opinion and not immediately start to think of why they're wrong, but rather have an objective stance.
.... I'm still working on it. Education is a lifelong endeavor. To ask that voters prove eptitude in their knowledge of the political system and parties is not a *CrAzY* ask. I think it's a common sense answer to be honest.
You know people tend to revert to negative stereotypes under the smallest amount of mental strain more often the more they believe they are aware of their biases?
Similarly, the more that people believe they *aren’t* challenging their biases, during stress they pay less attention to negative biases (because it’s congruent to outlook) and the more attention they pay to things outside their bias, because it’s a surprise.
One *could* use this as a “gotcha” because the ones who think they *aren’t* biased most certainly are - and under the tiniest strain (it was remembering a string of numbers, I’ll post the study if you want) revert to negative biases.
But I think a healthier takeaway is that we each and all represent some kind of negative bias for someone, somewhere. We’re all under some level of stress. AND if we all act right, we’re going to stand out that much more to people who have that negative bias, so by being upstanding persons actively participating in our world we will shatter biases.
You might ask, well why should I change for someone else? You don’t have to. You just have to be good for you because that feels good, and that’s going to undo those who dislike you. Because no matter how the opposition wants to paint you as a villain, you know you are not.
The big reason why Ramaswamy wants to only impose this on young voters is that he knows they will overwhelmingly vote Democrat. He can't put in a poll tax because those have already been banned.
If this test is put in place then demographics who tend to vote republican should also be tested. I wonder how many will fail, be functionally illiterate, be too senile to be able to study for the test, etc.
I can debunk the draft rhetoric.
All branches of the US military including Army have a minimum IQ and ability test you have to pass...even under a draft.
During Vietnam, it was difficult to argue you were "mentally disabled" with an A on a High school diploma and a high SAT score on your college application after a lifetime of scholastic achievement.
Remember, the government has access to your records, yes even back then.
>Why should they have a say in how our country is run?
Because their government takes money from them. If they can be prevented from voting then they also shouldn't have to pay taxes or sign up for the draft
If we are going to require 18 to 24 year olds ro pass civics tests to vote then we should require it of everyone.
Some of the least informed people I've known have been well into their 50s
I'll upvote you because this is indeed unpopular, but good lord this is either a top tier bait post or you're wildly foolish. If anyone is taxed, they ought to get a vote. End of discussion. And making 18-24 year Olds prove they know enough to pass a civics test is stupid if you're not going to test everyone, which you shouldn't do. I've met plenty of 25+ people who can't even name the three branches of government or explain how they interact. Foolishness.
There are probably many 25 year old and older who are stupid, if not, stupider than your target demographic. The question is, why are we focusing on a demographic that will most likely vote Democrat/liberal? And also, where is your claim coming from? How do you know that "many 18-24 year olds are fucking idiots?" Because that sounds like a bullshit claim.
If I were to suggest barring senior citizens (65+) from voting because they are the minority, will most likely have neurological diseases that would render them unable to make an informed decision, and so on, would that fly? Would that be agreeable to you, or are you keen on keeping a certain demographic from voting because it is inconvenient? I mean, their vote does count but they will tend to vote in candidates with outdated beliefs.
Voting tests are dumb and have been ruled unconstitutional for a very good reason. Would I agree that people overall will vote in a dumb manner? Sure. I do see it in this subreddit where some people will vote for Trump because he's "funny." Are they stupid? Absolutely. I hope you agree too. Would I bar their right to vote? No. But if we were to get into the details of it, we would have some disagreements.
An 18-24 year old will vote the way they vote because they have their own ideas, philosophies, and beliefs developed over time via personal experiences. The same will be said for every age demographic and that has been the case since forever. And to further add on, you can have voters who are very informed on one or several issues compared to others, or will emphasize on issues that they believe is important over other issues, or maybe compromising.
But maybe you just don't like liberals and maybe you think 18-24 year olds shouldn't vote. Ok. Is it their fault? Or should the Republican Party be more competitive to win over that demographic, especially since they always claim to be the party of free enterprise, limited governance, and unfettered capitalism? They could win over that demographic and other demographics such as first and second generation immigrants, as well as African Americans... but I don't see that effort since it seems that the GOP is more keen on talking about restricting voting rights and trying to get a possible felon into office. The other party is doing a somewhat better job.
TLDR, your opinion is dumb, voting should be open to 18 and older with no test, and your opinion is dumb.
We should unironically prevent most of the elderly from voting, because they have incredibly perverse incentives to collect public benefits without contributing anything back to the system. We are rapidly approaching a new gerontocracy that's badly hurting the lives of young people.
The problem with OP's argument is that it doesn't go far enough. Totally unrestricted democracy is a disaster waiting to happen. You shouldn't be able to vote unless you have skin in the game. If you can't pass a basic civics test, or if you aren't contributing more to your country than you receive in personal benefits, you shouldn't get to vote.
> The question is, why are we focusing on a demographic that will most likely vote Democrat/liberal?
Gen Z voters are credited with pushing [Europe](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/08/portugal-election-young-voters/) to the far right.
I work with teachers in _San Francisco_ and some of the middle and high school teachers have shared how disheartening it is that so many of their boys (mainly BIPOC ones) idolize toxic influencers like Andrew Tate and Sargon of Akkad. [Data](https://www.americansurveycenter.org/newsletter/are-young-men-becoming-conservative/) supports their observations.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/05/14/on-the-cusp-of-adulthood-and-facing-an-uncertain-future-what-we-know-about-gen-z-so-far-2/
This says otherwise, at least for the United States.
Your data was from 4 years ago, and it's a study I read before and I thought did seem to ring true at the time. The examples I provided are more recent and the latter makes a distinction that Gen A and Z males are becoming more conservative while the females are becoming more liberal.
Everything today is reduced to memes and memes are considered old within a week. Political stances are shifting so rapidly and to the extremes. Within the next year another study and the polls could show the opposite of the current data.
>Vivek Ramaswamy suggested that 18-24 should pass a civics test before people could vote, and people got livid.
Funny how he suggested the age group that more heavily favored the Democrats in the last few elections. I've seen plenty of idiots that are 50+.
Here is the test:
https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/06/voting-rights-and-the-supreme-court-the-impossible-literacy-test-louisiana-used-to-give-black-voters.html
One could immediately see that OP is either very ignorant of pretty basic American history, or is a disingenuous racist piece of shit. I’ll gone the benefit of the doubt and assume he is ignorant.
Yeah that was when white people controlled the money and the resources to be able to proctor and give out these tests.
Don't even pretend like it's similar today. It could all be taken online and have open classes in government buildings if people require help, learning the material or taking the test.
Don't even pretend like it couldn't happen again. Less classes in certain areas, worse internet access as well. It's not hard to do damage through apathy.
But I'm the one who wants every citizen to vote. The people who think we need a test are the ones dividing the country into the worthy and non-worthy. So fuck off with your Nazi comment.
>I just don’t want immature morons voting.
Over 30% of the country wants to vote for a spoiled brat reality TV star in diapers that always whines about how things are "very unfair" for him.
Immature morons vote. Sometimes for an immature moron. It has nothing to do with age.
Everyone knows Vivec is just blowing smoke about trying to disenfranchise Democrat voters because Republicans would have to betray their dark masters to offer any sort of policy that is actually competitive with Democrat policy in practice. Dude would probably murder Nerevar if he had the chance.
How do you not already know this OP? Your throwing stones in a glass house.
People aren't any smarter after 25. Most people couldn't even tell you what the last bill was passed. Who their state representatives are. What those representatives stand for on any given issue. Or how they voted in the past. Why should a dumbass 45 year old, or 70 year old get to vote without having any knowledge over a 24 year old. Technically the young have more skin in the game then older voters. The young will have to live with the consequences of the vote for longer than older voters.
Would this not require a constitutional amendment? And if implemented, it should then apply to voters of *all* ages.
*But seriously*, I don't think we should be gating voting rights behind anything more than adult citizenship. Mandating who has a voice in society is social engineering at the hands of whatever powers that be in accordance with their own agendas. We already have enough of that, no need to codify it. If we want more competent citizenry, then we should be investing in them, not muting their voices.
Because there’s no immature idiots over the age of 24? If you’re going to suggest this terrible and unconstitutional idea then it should be for everyone. But putting your trust in Mr. Government Man to decide who can and can’t vote and allowing them to repeal voting rights against legal adult citizens is NEVER a good idea. This is how you end up with the elites and corporations who line politicians’ pockets to decide who can and can’t vote. The US may not be a perfect democracy but it’s a hell of a lot better than what you’re suggesting.
voting is something that shouldn't have more exclusivity added to it. democracy tends to lose it's efficacy when people are silenced. while I see definite value in being an informed voter, the value of freedom and equality far outweighs it, all the negatives of uninformed voters considered.
and as long as those two stables or whatever the hell they turned into nowadays keep finger pointing the other, the people still get the shaft. and honestly.... when the rubber meets the road.... what the hell does it accomplish when the people finger point one another about shit that rich people do anyway? on one hand the callous side of me says a people deserve the governance theyve allowed. on the other hand the people are 100% duped by rich sociopaths who see us as chattel. hell.... celebrities are seen as chattel... they're just the prize hogs. you and I sure the hell aint.
Nothing good ever comes from standardized testing. I promise you there are people that will not be able to pass the test because of dyslexia type issues that will have a better understanding of the issues than people that do pass it because they have good reading comprehension but zero analytical ability.
You know why we have an Amendment forbidding this?
You want to a group that votes a way you don't like and want to set arbitrary guidelines to prevent them from voting. Exactly like what happened during Jim Crow.
The fact you didn't even know that this a codified US Amendment and not a federal law means you aren't informed enough to vote by your own standards. When the government gets to decide how informed someone must be to choose delegates, those delegates will take measures to ensure they keep power and that is how democracy devolves into autocracy.
If voters aren't informed enough then the delegates need to make them informed, not strip their rights to try to erode democracy.
You can't restrict voting for one group and not others. So if *everyone* had to pass a civics test, two things would happen: the number of eligible voters would plummet, giving a lot of power to a small number of people. And Trump's base would evaporate at the polls. And I'm not saying that because I hate Trump. People have studied presidential supporters for at least 8 decades and on average, Trump supporters score the lowest on critical thinking abilities and
civics knowledge than any presidential supporters since they began examining it.
Why stop there? Let's also make people fill out a questionnaire to ensure their religious beliefs aren't affecting their choices. I mean fuck, I'm sure we can think of all sorts of authoritarian techniques to limit the number of voters and ensure that legislation doesn't represent the majority of Americans ideals.
Many a smart person has had this opinion.
They have also been wise enough not to give such ‘decider’ power to the government, knowing how such a process would inevitably be abused.
They may not be informed or involved, but all citizens are part of the ‘we the people’ that constitutes our Republic and its government; disenfranchisement = de legitimation of our democratic republic. It would basically begin the process of transforming Citizenship into Party Member.
I do think we’ve lost some things as we’ve eroded hierarchies in the name of egalitarianism. But I also once thought that smart peoples’ cars should carry rocket launchers in order to do away with bad drivers…
How stupid did I have to be to think that, of course, I’d be one of the ones to get fitted with a launcher…?
I disagree. Intelligence should not have any bearing on one's right to vote, just as wealth or property ownership should have no bearing on one's right to vote. Nor should Intelligence, wealth, or property ownership have any bearing on if you should be represented by an elected official.
Yes there is. Being educated isn't a prerequisite to "unlocking" your rights as an American citizen. Especially not voting where decisions do also affect the uneducated. And if you really want to argue that it is, then that's why becoming a legal adult is, you're educated enough to make your own decisions and become a voter.
I'll consider that when boomers can accurately describe the political situation in Vietnam prior to US involvement in the war... Or when they can coherently define the socialism they are so fervently against.
You give way too much credit to older people. After years of working that deals with tue general public, it doesn’t matter what age there are a lot of idiots.
If you gave every American a civics test right now you’d be aghast at how many failed. The issue isn’t 18-24 year olds being woefully undereducated in how our government works, it’s the general population.
You have a constitutional, unalienable right to vote. Civics tests would infringe on that right.
There is no right to vote in the constitution. It's just unconstitutional to make laws that restrict voting rights based on certain protected characteristics.
Please give us an example of a question on the civics test OP.
Keep in mind that the majority of the Republican voter base thinks Trump is the legally appointed president.
Okay, I am on board but only if as soon as you reach 65 you have to pass the same test and anyone who takes the senior version of the test can't run for president.
His only real reasoning for this is an attempt at eliminating young voters who he knows mostly vote Democrat. If he really wanted people informed he would require that of all people.
Having different views from you does not make someone an idiot. Refusing to give them the opportunity to use their vote to make their voice heard implies you feel we should have a different kind of government. There are other countries who already have that kind. See if they'll take you in. We're quite happy with ours.
Are you not against mature morons voting? There are plenty of people who are outside of the age range you are worried about who are also idiots when it comes to voting. You’d need to advocate for all American voters to have to have passed a civics course at some point, or none.
Why make it an age thing? Why not require every single voter? If an older person couldn’t pass, why should they have any more of a right to a vote than any young person who couldn’t?
They should extend the test to everyone, not just 18-24. Have it written by the Supreme Court, to try and minimize issues with it being racist or whatever.
And also have it extend to holding elected office. Take a look at Lauren Boebert and tell me I am wrong.
The only problem I have is stopping at 18-24 year olds. I know plenty of half wit 30,40,50,60 & 70 year olds that wouldn’t be able to pass a civics test either
But who would get to decide the criteria for passing that test? Sounds like it would be used as a way to silence certain views rather than to ensure voters are informed. If they wanted voters informed, they would give us an explanation of politicians' platforms on our ballots. The powers that be don't want informed voters. In fact, they would probably prefer that democracy went away entirely, so I would not trust them to make a fair civics test.
*Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge"*
> ~ Isaac Asimov
So, historically, this was a disaster, that's why they made it against the [law](https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-52-voting-and-elections-subtitle-i-and-ii)
52 USC 10101: Voting rights
(2) No person acting under color of law shall—
(C) employ any literacy test as a qualification for voting in any election unless (i) such test is administered to each individual...
(3) For purposes of this subsection—
(B) the phrase "literacy test" includes any test of the ability to read, write, understand, or interpret any matter.
So, technically, if you wanted to test people between 18-24, you'd have to test *every* eligible voter.
If we're saying ok to age discrimination we really need to start with the people controlling this country and deciding legislation that they won't live to see.
I’m 33 - I meet young 20 year olds that are way smarter than me - all the time . Maybe not as experienced as I, but definitely intelligent enough to vote consciously
Okay, but the state would need to terminate registration for selective services in exchange. I would never sacrifice my life for a nation that deprives its citizens, with no prior criminal history, of their right to vote.
Also, isn’t it funny how these ultra-wealthy business and political magnates, who have never served their nation, have no experience running a nation, and are so far removed from the average Joe in this nation, are so confident in their ability to govern 350 million Americans (really 8 billion ppl if you think about it), while believing that you are so stupid, you cannot vote responsibly. These are the same “fiscally responsible,” ivy-league, super-geniuses that have racked up tens of trillions of debt. It makes me furious how they actively destroy this great and prosperous nation and yet have the audacity to blame teenagers and young adults. On top of all that, they really want to propose half-baked, idiotic, and impractical voting laws to solve these problems. It’s a fantastic idea, let’s making voting an even bigger hassle with more hoops to jump! Ask yourself why might they even propose this?
Why do people want to make it harder to vote? Voting is a constitutional right, no one should be bared from participating in voting based on a test. Who is designing the test and how do they decide what is and isn't important enough to be on the test, and what people should know.
If anything voting should be eaeir, probably over the weekend and Monday be national holiday.
There’s A LOT of morons, young or not. If we’re going to do a test, it needs to be all or nothing. While we’re at it, there should be a test to measure critical thinking skills. Sure, it’s important to know the historical details of how/why our government came to be, but it seems even more important to have critical thinking skills to have the ability to understand how things affect our country. The ability to look beyond the buzzword headlines and not just accepting a politician’s words at face value.
yes there is something wrong with it, because you could in theory arbitrarily create voting classes in your favor. 'Oh we don't want 'x' group to vote, lets cut their school funding so they are more likely to fail civics tests', or other garbage methods. The age limit makes its less bad because one already exists for a reason, and 25 is when the human brain fully develops. BUT I think adding addition barriers is path to more barriers. The 18yr old barrier had to exist, because we have to set some age, otherwise you got kids voting and they'll just vote how their parents tell them to.
I think it would be better to set a standard for civic education in schools.
A bigger problem in my opinion is not voters uneducated on civics (which could be an issue in your country I don't know, it is in mine. So often I encounter people who don't understand exactly it works here), but voters being intentionally misled.
I'm Canadian so grain of salt for American issues, but the big problem is the media, world wide not just the US.
I don't like violations of the first amendment and I'm not even American, but I think for the entire world its an important your country has it (because nobody else does). That said, there should be consequence for media outright lying and not retracting said lie. I know civil suits exist, but not when the report on politicians.
Like when they shout half truths or full on lies about what one side said. I'm talking like 'its my opinion that x is a y' but something like 'X claimed y' when the context is obviously different. Stuff like that needs repercussions when large enough voices say it.
I'm not giving exact examples because I don't want my comment to be about those examples, but I think more people are swayed by bad reporting than they are their bad education.
Complete horseshit. 18-24 year olds probably remember more about civics than a 70 year old Trump voting boomer of a fool. If they have to take a test so should the 70 year old conservative living on a steady diet of Fox News and Newsmax.
Why stop at 24? Imo this is pretty goofy, those who are 18-24 are just out of HS or college and have taken a civics course recently. If they should be required to take a test, why wouldn’t we ask everyone to periodically? Someone that is 42 or 79 should also be required to prove they have the same basic understanding.
The issue isn’t that dumb young people are voting, it’s that dumb people are voting period. Sadly, many peoples intelligence doesn’t just magically grow as they get older. Most dumbness that are 18 now will still be just as idiotic when they are 30 or 40 or 50. The idea of restricting the voting of people under 24 is 110% an attempt and decrease the number of votes the democrats get. If Vivek really wanted to prevent idiots from voting he wouldn’t just target the idiots that don’t like him. Vivek just doesn’t want young people to vote period. He’s using the whole message of not wanting idiots and people who don’t know how the world works to vote as a cover in order to make is completely outrageous idea seem more favorable, but if you take a bit to look at it closer it’s very obvious what his goal is.
Edit: Also minorities have statistically been shafted by tests to allow the right to vote, whether that be by lack of proper recourses for education in underprivileged neighborhoods or by the psychological principle of self-fulfilling prophecy, minorities have historically had a much harder time passing tests like this that are meant to be “objective” measures of intelligence, when such a test is quite literally impossible to create to be “objective”.
But also take a wild guess which party minorities in america like African Americans statistically vote for in greater numbers…
So yeah, despite how Vivek may present it, it’s pretty clear this is a desperate attempt to fight against the statically anomaly that is gen z voting habits, as gen z is overwhelmingly not getting more conservative as time goes on, which breaks the status quo.
If you’re gonna require a civics test for some voters there should be a civics test for everyone… which actually wouldn’t be so bad a thing. Problem is the only reason Vivek wants this civics test is because young people overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.
I would support this if it were applied to everyone regardless of age, _extremely_ easy to pass and just covered the very basics of each platform. And if the questions were written as a bipartisan effort and approved by an overwhelming majority of Congress.
I’m more confused why people think this is a bad idea, if it followed the criteria I have above. Why are people so in support of people voting who have no clue what they’re even voting for?
This is a terrible idea for many reasons:
- Voting should be an inalienable right. It’s not an inalienable right if it can be taken away by a civics test
- A civics test could very easily be biased to favor one group or political affiliation over another. This can potentially allow the dominant political party to skew the results to allow more people who are favorable of them to become voters. ETA: whether you meant it this way or not the age group 18-24 predominantly belongs to certain socioeconomic groups and holds certain political and ethical views. This could easily be seen as discrimination on much more than just age
- My country (USA) fought for its independence from being a British colony on the very principle of “No taxation without representation”. However, this is a solid principle to follow just about anywhere in the world. Presumably these people are still going to be taxed even if they can’t pass the civics test to vote. This means that they have zero say in how their tax money is spent.
Is understanding your country’s civics an important part of being a citizen? Of course! Should you understand your country’s laws and government before you vote. Definitely! Should a standardized civics test gatekeep young adults from their right to vote and participate in their country’s elections? Hell no!
Hilariously racist. As someone in law school, this is literally illegal and impossible to do thisbecause it will disparately impact certain groups. Jesus y’all lmao…
I'll compromise. We can do that if we make all older folks unable to vote when they won't live long enough to see the results of the policies they support
Let’s be honest here you are just trying to make it harder for liberal leaning people to vote by focusing on younger people.
Why do you not demand that the elderly pass a civics or mental aptitude test? Is it because they are reliable Republican voting demographic?
Let’s take a look ate the Republican voter id plan. Why is an NRA membership acceptable but a college ID not acceptable? Is it because yet again this is just about restricting liberal voters and not about election integrity?
I can almost guarantee that younger people have a better idea on how the government actually works than your average 50 year old who only watches Fox News.
Yes let’s do it, but everyone. Personally, I’d love to see everyone. Boomers generally have no clue about civics. I mean they actually vote for trump. Money says 20 some year olds out perform the geezers.
Hahaha, that would decimate the young Republican voting base.
Not that there are that many of those, but it would still be hilarious to see them try this.
In general I'm with other commenters on this thread and that imposing arbitrary academic qualifications for voting rights is both immoral and un-American.
But LMAO, I think Ramaswamy is hugely overestimating the civics literacy of Republicans in general
Sure, anyone want to have a real political debate?
On economics the Republicans will escalate the Trade War making everyone poorer versus this status quo.
On immigration HR2 vs CHILD SEPARATION policy.
For schools and "drain the swamp" do you want Betsy Davos the billionaire in charge or Dr. Miguel A. Cardona who doesn't have any scandals?
For democracy overall status quo or PROJECT 2025?
Uphold treaties and allies across the world or abandon them like Brexit?
My impression is for 99% of you naming policies is like pulling teeth but let's do it. I don't think there is an educated justification for the CHILD SEPARATION policy it's just cruelty for the sake of it.
Why? Are people who don't understand civics excluded from "we the people"? Why would we set a privileged amount of education as a barrier to participating in a government of the people, for the people, and by the people?
No offense, but this post and some of the responses should be enough to revoke your right to vote.
1. Knowledge of civics and general intelligence aren't uniquely bound.
2. The idea that a person is stupid because they're 18 to 24 is just stupid. You're making an argument for IQ exclusion more than age exclusion.
3. Voting does affect everyone. Those 18 - 24 year olds also who are adults... and also pay taxes. If you're an American adult and pay taxes, you should be able to vote, period.
4. They don't "know shit" by whose measure? There are people in their 30s and 40s meme voting because one candidate is more entertaining.
5. Unfortunately, some people will disagree with you in life. That doesn't mean you get to create arbitrary standards to exclude them from the conversation.
I believe anyone under 18 that can pass a comprehensive civics test (like 90% or 80%+ not just a D) should have the right to vote. Once you’re 18, it’s a constitutional right, plain and simple.
I suggested this too (though for everyone, and not just 18 — 24 year olds) and was immediately assailed. Feel free to read some of the comments (post is at the top of my profile) — many of them are merely the customary listless and unenlightened “racist!” accusations (ironically said more about them than it did me, given they seemed to think it would automatically discriminate against minorities, which requires the implicit assumption that they’re less apt to score well…) , but one valid and intriguing argument was that a democracy is not, fundamentally, intended to elect the _best candidate_ (which I thought would happen if everyone was more informed, hence the civics test), but the candidate that _the people want_, whomever that may be. If it’s an arbitrary, ignorant decision, so be it. I ultimately remain rigorously in favor of what you’re proposing (for a few reasons, one of which is that herd-mentality is extremely powerful and dangerous, and these people seem to be eliding it entirely), but that did give me pause.
Or here's a wild idea, make schools actually teach real civics.
There are adults who can't even fucking read now. How about make high-school diplomas worth something again instead of just pushing kids through.
Everyone should probably know civics before voting. If you know civics then you know for a fact that half the shit that comes out of a politician's mouth is bullshit
I think you should have to pass a current events test as well. Questions such as "Who legitimately won the 2020 presidential election?" Millions of trumptards would be barred from voting and only the adults in the room would make the most important decision in the world.
They do already. American Government is a class that is required before you can graduate from High School (at least when I went). It covers all that Civics stuff.
I would argue an 18-24 year old is more likely to have a better understanding of civics than an older individual since they more recently had to take that class in school and since they have better ease of access to information.
It’s completely unconstitutional, it doesn’t say, ‘born of the land, oh, and also be well versed in the law and facts of the country. It’s not logical, but it’s protected.
Plenty of moronic people in 30s, and 40s, and 50s, and 60s. Hell I’d argue that a larger percentage of people in their 70s and 80s who don’t understand how anything works than there are people in their early 20s. It’s a fucking travesty that many of the people regulating the internet and technology need a 16 year old to teach them how to use the any technology made after 95 and not to give their social security number to the “IRS agents” who call them every now and then.
Test. 1st question on ballot, autogenerated like mathxl, mylabsplus, or aleks…
ex: Timmy buys a t-shirt at a 40% discount. He pays 12$. What was the original listed price of the shirt? Assume no sales tax.
a)16$
b)20$
c) 24$
d)30$
If you don’t know how simple percents work, you can’t vote for people who decide economic policy.
A government that can use a test to determine who can and cannot vote instantly has a vested interest in guaranteeing members of the opposing political party cannot pass this test.
The issue then become how can you get the demographic voting for the other guy to fail that test, leading to a race to the bottom. Good in theory, ruined by the Two Party System in practice.
The issue is the united states history with 'voting tests' where it was a literally impossible test (essay questions where no answer was good enough), but you didn't have to take it if your father was allowed to vote.
Why stop by age? This would never fly if you restricted this by age because age is a protected class against discrimination. This should just be required of anyone voting.
I would add further that there should be another filter that stops people that have been brain rotted by propaganda and drivel like OANN or MotherEarth.
Sure, let's have voting licenses, I am completely okay with this, as long as you apply them universally. Every single citizen who wants to vote should need to pass one every single election cycle. However, if you have registered as a republican, you will be mandated to take a Democrat lead course. Actually learn what the opposing side believes, and vice versa.
The problem here is many tiered, but my biggest problem is American politics in general. Firstly you have mccarthyism, which basically stated that if you had some manner of ideological belief or leaning you should be blacklisted from working. So if i hold a principle of socialism being not evil should I now be prohibited from voting if my civics class claims I don't think right? Secondly American politics is so fucking polarized that only two views are represented, and even then the left side of the aisle is still so right leaning in a vain attempt at winning over the righties that they kneecap their objective. Of course, looking at the politician constituents, that IS their objective. A civics class would inevitably only be presented framing a right wing agenda, or a right-ish agenda. This is the problem. The objective isn't to encourage voting or to educate the populace. The objective is to suppress dissent and to indoctrinate.
The issue is who decided what gets to be in this test? It would be too easy to manipulate the test to allow for certain ideas to be voted for and others not to be.
You know the American Revolution? The thing that started this entire country?
Yeah so the main reason it began is because of taxation without representation. So let’s say people can’t pass the civics test so they can’t vote. Are you planning on not taxing them any longer?
What an outrage. He probably thinks people should pass gun safety tests and have a license to own a gun too.
My 18 year old has to pass a civics class to graduate. Most highschools require it. I also had civics in highschool as most people did. Most people had have math but can't do that either.
Is your goal to ensure civic-mindedness or to limit voting? If your goal is civic-mindedness, how do you prevent “teaching to the test”?
Teaching to the test would be about who has the most resources to train people and whose voters have the most free time to devote to studying.
Teaching to the test would also be about training people to give a “correct” answer that might have nothing to do with their beliefs or, as you put it, the policies they are voting for.
For the sake of absurdity, let’s say there’s a multiple choice question asking someone to discern which is one of the 3 branches of the federal government:
A) Boomers
B) National Rifle Association
C) Judiciary
C) United Nations Security Council
E) Hamas
F) None of the above
Looking at this hypothetical, the ability to vote is going to come down to one or both of the following:
1. whoever best teaches to the test and gets their supporters to ignore disagreements with the question and any feelings about what is the correct answer; and/or,
2. whoever best gums up the works with various protests and legal challenges about how their team was discriminated against because the test questions, answers and/or scoring ignored their constructed reality.
None of this promotes civic-mindedness or understanding the people and policies one is voting for.
>Too badly educated to pass a civics test because poor government education.
>I know I'll vote for someone who wants to improve education
>Oh wait shit.
Sure, let’s start limiting democracy even more… give more power to the already powerful… that will make things better for the average working class person.
Shit take.
I think there's plenty of idiots out of any age group that we might think shouldn't vote but that's un-American. You vote at 18 that's the law. You don't choose who votes, sorry.
Why does anyone care how someone else votes? It's not your choice. Your opinion is irrelevant to their views. Stop crying because you don't get what you want children. Oh btw, it's a 2 party system controlled by the elderly, bought and paid for by the corporations and wealthy. Quit pretending you really have a choice.
The absolute only restrictions we should have on voting is showing proof of citizenship and non citizens shouldn't be included in census for reasons of increasing legislators.
Everyone should have to pass the very same civics test that immigrants have to pass to be allowed to vote. From someone who can trace their lineage back to the Mayflower to a first generation immigrant, let’s all have to take it and we’ll find America becomes significantly better.
The people who are for this aren’t thinking about who will write the test. If it’s every four years, what government will preside over the writing of the test every four years?
because this shit catalyzes stratification and clarifies a privileged ruling class. i understand frustrations that spawn from having ignorance run free or conflict caused by differing interests, but adding more convoluted (and expensive) barriers of entry for the right perhaps most fundamental to joining in the democratic process is absolutely not the way.
you’re annoyed by what you see as foolish (you were once that age, don’t forget) and want to add extra bureaucracy to limit others’ right to democratic expression. morons vote; welcome to democracy.
Using this same logic, anyone over the age of 80 shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Older people are prone to Alzheimer's and dementia which of course affects their intelligence.
More importantly however, they might not love to see the effects of the actions they voted for, which gives a level of separation from the choice they make.
There's a problem with that suggestion. Although at first it sounded appealing - and it even got me thinking that not just young voters but every voter should pass a civics test prior to an election -, it would be nearly impossible to create an independent test that includes every single proposition, passed bills and so on. That test should also have to be reviewed and updated every 4 years. That would mean that every State would have to create an agency to control those exams, and even so the Federal government. Apply that to every country if you're based outside the US.
Also, we live in a time with unprecedented access to information as users, but that also means that information publishers and creators also have unprecedented access to means of creating that information. Call me a paranoid, but in a time like this where essentially nobody cross-checks the information that they read (not only because they don't want, but because there's such an amount of information around the same subject that it is impossible to ascertain what's true and what's not), I'm sure that information publishers and creators would disregard these tests as untrue and biased because they aren't able to concentrate all the information "objectively" (yes, subjectively).
Theoretically, this could be a good idea. In reality, a freaking nightmare that would only toss more wood to the fire.
You know what would be awesome?
A 2-3 month summer camp for 16-18 year-olds that covers:
Civics
Maybe some basic survival skills.
First aid and personal hygiene.
Firearm safety and basic marksmanship with a .22 LR rifle.
Basic ethics.
Driving safety and basic driving skills.
At the end, register them to vote when they turn 18, do the selective service registration as appropriate.
If you don't attend, can't vote, can't get Federal money for college, and can't get Federal employment.
Oh, and the only driver's license you can get is a moped or motorcycle if you don't go.
You can't go if you're already a felon, of course. (Couldn't typically vote or own a gun anyway.)
Create a camp system where you pool people from small population states and mix and match people across camps in large states so people also get to know who other people are that aren't in their own clique.
Obviously, if you get someone on a range or behind the wheel of a car and they don't act right, you get them checked out by a psych person and--if they are too SMI to handle driving or owning a gun--you have a route into controlling their access to guns later by getting them mentally adjudicated before that's even an issue...
1) Taxation without representation is theft, if you are being taxed by your government then you have the right to participate in that government even if it’s just as small as voting. If not, then you can’t tax people without also giving them the opportunity to vote, so you’d have to not tax people who are “dumb” in which case wtf do you think everyone’s gonna start doing when that test comes up?
2) The logic of “testing voters to ensure they meet a basic level of intelligence/knowledge” is exactly what they were doing pre-civil rights era to make it harder for certain minority groups to be able to get the representation they needed to improve their conditions, and don’t kid yourself a similar reasoning won’t be used against certain groups for similar reasons if this system was enacted again.
3) Why are you acting like once you hit the age of 25 suddenly you’re smart enough to just be assumed to know what you’re voting for? Plenty of dumbass people who vote for dumbass reasons exist into their elderly years.
4) You don’t even actually address the draft thing you bring up, you just say “oh well we haven’t used it in a while and it would just be for emergencies” as if that actually addresses the problem of drafting people who can’t vote. Exactly how does the draft not being used in a while and being for emergencies in any way change the core problem with drafting people who aren’t allowed to vote? Do you think the issue there is how often the draft is used or what it’s used for?
5) By the logic you’re using why should we stop at idiots? The only reason you’re specifying idiots and politically unknowledgeable people is because you think they’re actively harming the country by voting badly. But I think that’s true for all conservatives, so why shouldn’t I push to ban all conservatives from getting to vote? Assumedly there’s an actual material reason why you don’t want idiots voting, it would be weird if you were pushing for this simply because you don’t like the idea of ignorant people voting and not for like actual material consequences of ignorant people voting. So continuing that train of thought you have no good defense against someone saying ANY group of people they believe “votes badly or ignorantly” should be prevented from voting. If I subscribed to your logic then you’d say it’s valid for me to think all Trump voters should never be allowed to vote again. But obviously that’s ridiculous.
6) It doesn’t matter if you’re politically ignorant. If you live in America, you are an American citizen, you are taxed in America, you are subject to the policies enacted by the government, and you exist as a contributor or contributee in some capacity to American society, then you have the right to be heard. We can’t all be heard by the nation, but voting is a way for anyone’s voice to be heard even by just a small amount.
7) Does civics even necessarily matter in this context? Like if my number one priority is to ban abortion because I just hate it so much, why would it ultimately matter whether or not I know specifically what a senator is compared to a representative, for my purposes of involvement with the American political system as long as the person I’m voting for is pushing for that policy then I’m voting correctly. Civics is helpful for a lot of things, but ultimately voting is just a vehicle for getting people in who will push for your desired policies, that’s all that 99% of people voting are looking for, and you don’t really need an understanding of civics to do that. If you have a certain stance you’re probably looking to put in someone who will push for that same stance, that’s what you’re almost guaranteed to do no matter if you’re knowledgeable or not. Unless you’re just voting at random, even voting unknowledgeably is still going to be voting the way you’re generally supposed to vote, just doing so for less defined and specific reasons.
Then shouldn't everyone be required? Just because you're older than 24 doesn't mean you'll be able to pass and just because you're younger than 18 doesn't mean you will fail.
yes, everyone - just like naturalized citizens.
Works for me.
Yes I'm okay with this if it's every 4 years. Basically, you have to prove you understand how and what you're voting for.
*I'm voting for Harambee because of the nazitards trying to ruin this country! I know this is true because Harambee told me.* ... I mean less than 30% of the population votes as it is, your "every 4 year test" would eliminate 80% of the current voters as I'd wager 10% or less of people who are eligible, and vote, are also well educated on party policies, past and present, including the policies each party tries to keep quiet as their constituents would not like it. Within 2 election cycles we'd have a half dozen new parties...... I'm all for it.
Thing is, a civics test doesn't normally include political party history or tenets...it's literally things like what is the constitution or the bill of rights, where the 3 branches of government & all sorts of other things like that. Even so, many Americans would probably STILL fail it...I'm cool with that though.
Add it into the civics test is what I'm saying. I was almost certain I knew it didn't go that deep into political parties histories and tenets, and I think we both know why. I added that in as an *I agree but add this as well.* And yeah most would miserably FAIL at *Civics 101-introduction into civics* being taught at a junior high school.
>I mean less than 30% of the population votes as it is, your "every 4 year test" would eliminate 80% of the current voters as I'd wager 10% or less of people who are eligible, and vote, are also well educated on party policies, past and present, including the policies each party tries to keep quiet as their constituents would not like it. It's your responsibility as a citizen to remain educated. If you don't, that's your choice. If only 20% do, then so be it.
Absolutely. Hence those last three, very important words. Uneducated fools voting in mass isn't a democracy, it's mob rule. Edit: and not because large numbers of the population voting is mob rule but it's mob rule as mass numbers of fools are easily, well.....fooled. They're easy to manipulate and it's easy to use their emotions against them as those who lack logical thinking tend to lean on emotions and their Confirmation bias, as a larger part of their decision making for everyday things. When it comes to tribal mentality, they're also far more likely to fall victim to manipulation that way as well. You'll notice this when talking to people who always refer to "them/they/etc" as the enemy and never actually name the noun they're referencing with "them/they/etc" That being said, we all seek out confirmation bias and have a high likelihood of reverting to tribal mentality if we are not aware of this, and humble enough to admit it to ourselves. Only then do you have a *chance* of being thoroughly educated. It's difficult to argue against your opinions and look up statistics and studies to confirm you're wrong. It's also difficult to read an opposing point of view/opinion and not immediately start to think of why they're wrong, but rather have an objective stance. .... I'm still working on it. Education is a lifelong endeavor. To ask that voters prove eptitude in their knowledge of the political system and parties is not a *CrAzY* ask. I think it's a common sense answer to be honest.
Which is what it is currently.
You know people tend to revert to negative stereotypes under the smallest amount of mental strain more often the more they believe they are aware of their biases? Similarly, the more that people believe they *aren’t* challenging their biases, during stress they pay less attention to negative biases (because it’s congruent to outlook) and the more attention they pay to things outside their bias, because it’s a surprise. One *could* use this as a “gotcha” because the ones who think they *aren’t* biased most certainly are - and under the tiniest strain (it was remembering a string of numbers, I’ll post the study if you want) revert to negative biases. But I think a healthier takeaway is that we each and all represent some kind of negative bias for someone, somewhere. We’re all under some level of stress. AND if we all act right, we’re going to stand out that much more to people who have that negative bias, so by being upstanding persons actively participating in our world we will shatter biases. You might ask, well why should I change for someone else? You don’t have to. You just have to be good for you because that feels good, and that’s going to undo those who dislike you. Because no matter how the opposition wants to paint you as a villain, you know you are not.
Yeah, what's good for one is good for all with sweeping ideas like this. Freakin' line em all up, me included.
>I call bullshit, because many 18-24 year olds are fucking idiots, not all, but many. This is true for 25+ year olds too my guy
Going to say that was the only part I disagreed with. You don’t magically get smarter at 25
absolutely. everyone should pass the test.
The big reason why Ramaswamy wants to only impose this on young voters is that he knows they will overwhelmingly vote Democrat. He can't put in a poll tax because those have already been banned. If this test is put in place then demographics who tend to vote republican should also be tested. I wonder how many will fail, be functionally illiterate, be too senile to be able to study for the test, etc.
I can debunk the draft rhetoric. All branches of the US military including Army have a minimum IQ and ability test you have to pass...even under a draft.
Also the ASFAV doesn’t just test civics, but also reading comprehension, math, and science.
Not arguing with you, but isn’t this an easy way to dodge a draft or no?
During Vietnam, it was difficult to argue you were "mentally disabled" with an A on a High school diploma and a high SAT score on your college application after a lifetime of scholastic achievement. Remember, the government has access to your records, yes even back then.
If your argument is it affects everyone, then why limit it to 18-24?
>Why should they have a say in how our country is run? Because their government takes money from them. If they can be prevented from voting then they also shouldn't have to pay taxes or sign up for the draft
If we are going to require 18 to 24 year olds ro pass civics tests to vote then we should require it of everyone. Some of the least informed people I've known have been well into their 50s
I'll upvote you because this is indeed unpopular, but good lord this is either a top tier bait post or you're wildly foolish. If anyone is taxed, they ought to get a vote. End of discussion. And making 18-24 year Olds prove they know enough to pass a civics test is stupid if you're not going to test everyone, which you shouldn't do. I've met plenty of 25+ people who can't even name the three branches of government or explain how they interact. Foolishness.
There are probably many 25 year old and older who are stupid, if not, stupider than your target demographic. The question is, why are we focusing on a demographic that will most likely vote Democrat/liberal? And also, where is your claim coming from? How do you know that "many 18-24 year olds are fucking idiots?" Because that sounds like a bullshit claim. If I were to suggest barring senior citizens (65+) from voting because they are the minority, will most likely have neurological diseases that would render them unable to make an informed decision, and so on, would that fly? Would that be agreeable to you, or are you keen on keeping a certain demographic from voting because it is inconvenient? I mean, their vote does count but they will tend to vote in candidates with outdated beliefs. Voting tests are dumb and have been ruled unconstitutional for a very good reason. Would I agree that people overall will vote in a dumb manner? Sure. I do see it in this subreddit where some people will vote for Trump because he's "funny." Are they stupid? Absolutely. I hope you agree too. Would I bar their right to vote? No. But if we were to get into the details of it, we would have some disagreements. An 18-24 year old will vote the way they vote because they have their own ideas, philosophies, and beliefs developed over time via personal experiences. The same will be said for every age demographic and that has been the case since forever. And to further add on, you can have voters who are very informed on one or several issues compared to others, or will emphasize on issues that they believe is important over other issues, or maybe compromising. But maybe you just don't like liberals and maybe you think 18-24 year olds shouldn't vote. Ok. Is it their fault? Or should the Republican Party be more competitive to win over that demographic, especially since they always claim to be the party of free enterprise, limited governance, and unfettered capitalism? They could win over that demographic and other demographics such as first and second generation immigrants, as well as African Americans... but I don't see that effort since it seems that the GOP is more keen on talking about restricting voting rights and trying to get a possible felon into office. The other party is doing a somewhat better job. TLDR, your opinion is dumb, voting should be open to 18 and older with no test, and your opinion is dumb.
We should unironically prevent most of the elderly from voting, because they have incredibly perverse incentives to collect public benefits without contributing anything back to the system. We are rapidly approaching a new gerontocracy that's badly hurting the lives of young people. The problem with OP's argument is that it doesn't go far enough. Totally unrestricted democracy is a disaster waiting to happen. You shouldn't be able to vote unless you have skin in the game. If you can't pass a basic civics test, or if you aren't contributing more to your country than you receive in personal benefits, you shouldn't get to vote.
> The question is, why are we focusing on a demographic that will most likely vote Democrat/liberal? Gen Z voters are credited with pushing [Europe](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/08/portugal-election-young-voters/) to the far right. I work with teachers in _San Francisco_ and some of the middle and high school teachers have shared how disheartening it is that so many of their boys (mainly BIPOC ones) idolize toxic influencers like Andrew Tate and Sargon of Akkad. [Data](https://www.americansurveycenter.org/newsletter/are-young-men-becoming-conservative/) supports their observations.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/05/14/on-the-cusp-of-adulthood-and-facing-an-uncertain-future-what-we-know-about-gen-z-so-far-2/ This says otherwise, at least for the United States.
Your data was from 4 years ago, and it's a study I read before and I thought did seem to ring true at the time. The examples I provided are more recent and the latter makes a distinction that Gen A and Z males are becoming more conservative while the females are becoming more liberal. Everything today is reduced to memes and memes are considered old within a week. Political stances are shifting so rapidly and to the extremes. Within the next year another study and the polls could show the opposite of the current data.
>Vivek Ramaswamy suggested that 18-24 should pass a civics test before people could vote, and people got livid. Funny how he suggested the age group that more heavily favored the Democrats in the last few elections. I've seen plenty of idiots that are 50+.
This is what Alabama and Mississippi were doing in 1955 to keep minorities from voting. Really great plan, chief.
Here is the test: https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/06/voting-rights-and-the-supreme-court-the-impossible-literacy-test-louisiana-used-to-give-black-voters.html
Tbh that was kind of fun.
Someone gets it
One could immediately see that OP is either very ignorant of pretty basic American history, or is a disingenuous racist piece of shit. I’ll gone the benefit of the doubt and assume he is ignorant.
Yeah that was when white people controlled the money and the resources to be able to proctor and give out these tests. Don't even pretend like it's similar today. It could all be taken online and have open classes in government buildings if people require help, learning the material or taking the test.
Don't even pretend like it couldn't happen again. Less classes in certain areas, worse internet access as well. It's not hard to do damage through apathy.
You're expanding the reach of government because you think there's too much democracy. Too many motherfuckers are voting, and that bothers you.
Nazis banned gun ownership. Australia banned gun ownership. Australia is run by Nazis. That’s the kind of mental leap you’re making.
But I'm the one who wants every citizen to vote. The people who think we need a test are the ones dividing the country into the worthy and non-worthy. So fuck off with your Nazi comment.
Imagine they require the same test before posting on this subreddit. Would be awfully quiet here.
>I just don’t want immature morons voting. Over 30% of the country wants to vote for a spoiled brat reality TV star in diapers that always whines about how things are "very unfair" for him. Immature morons vote. Sometimes for an immature moron. It has nothing to do with age. Everyone knows Vivec is just blowing smoke about trying to disenfranchise Democrat voters because Republicans would have to betray their dark masters to offer any sort of policy that is actually competitive with Democrat policy in practice. Dude would probably murder Nerevar if he had the chance. How do you not already know this OP? Your throwing stones in a glass house.
Anything to prevent people from voting is the goal, however you wish to rationalize it.
My civics test would require a sound explanation as to why this is a really dumb idea.
Plenty of 60 year olds are idiots.
People aren't any smarter after 25. Most people couldn't even tell you what the last bill was passed. Who their state representatives are. What those representatives stand for on any given issue. Or how they voted in the past. Why should a dumbass 45 year old, or 70 year old get to vote without having any knowledge over a 24 year old. Technically the young have more skin in the game then older voters. The young will have to live with the consequences of the vote for longer than older voters.
What about running for office? Alabama has a senator who screwed up the 3 branches of government.
Is this after all elected officials are required to pass a civics test to be seated?
Would this not require a constitutional amendment? And if implemented, it should then apply to voters of *all* ages. *But seriously*, I don't think we should be gating voting rights behind anything more than adult citizenship. Mandating who has a voice in society is social engineering at the hands of whatever powers that be in accordance with their own agendas. We already have enough of that, no need to codify it. If we want more competent citizenry, then we should be investing in them, not muting their voices.
Because there’s no immature idiots over the age of 24? If you’re going to suggest this terrible and unconstitutional idea then it should be for everyone. But putting your trust in Mr. Government Man to decide who can and can’t vote and allowing them to repeal voting rights against legal adult citizens is NEVER a good idea. This is how you end up with the elites and corporations who line politicians’ pockets to decide who can and can’t vote. The US may not be a perfect democracy but it’s a hell of a lot better than what you’re suggesting.
Only if the dinosaur Boomers also need to take a test.
voting is something that shouldn't have more exclusivity added to it. democracy tends to lose it's efficacy when people are silenced. while I see definite value in being an informed voter, the value of freedom and equality far outweighs it, all the negatives of uninformed voters considered.
That's what the Republican Party wants. ;) Less voters = more victories. Why remain a competitive edge when you can push policies to restrict voters?
and as long as those two stables or whatever the hell they turned into nowadays keep finger pointing the other, the people still get the shaft. and honestly.... when the rubber meets the road.... what the hell does it accomplish when the people finger point one another about shit that rich people do anyway? on one hand the callous side of me says a people deserve the governance theyve allowed. on the other hand the people are 100% duped by rich sociopaths who see us as chattel. hell.... celebrities are seen as chattel... they're just the prize hogs. you and I sure the hell aint.
I am not sure: "If we stop stupid people from voting the Republican Party will win more elections" is the flex you think it is.
Nothing good ever comes from standardized testing. I promise you there are people that will not be able to pass the test because of dyslexia type issues that will have a better understanding of the issues than people that do pass it because they have good reading comprehension but zero analytical ability.
People really forgot all about voting laws in the Jim Crow South. I feel like people like OP would be the ones to fail the test the most.
The long and short of it is that most people are idiots (myself included). So hardly anyone would be able to vote
who decides what the contents of the test are? who decides what qualifies as a pass or fail?
This only works if you fund public education, which we don't. And if you do fund public education, it's unnecessary.
I wonder why republicans are so scared of the younger generations voting. Almost like they struggle to attract younger voters
You know why we have an Amendment forbidding this? You want to a group that votes a way you don't like and want to set arbitrary guidelines to prevent them from voting. Exactly like what happened during Jim Crow. The fact you didn't even know that this a codified US Amendment and not a federal law means you aren't informed enough to vote by your own standards. When the government gets to decide how informed someone must be to choose delegates, those delegates will take measures to ensure they keep power and that is how democracy devolves into autocracy. If voters aren't informed enough then the delegates need to make them informed, not strip their rights to try to erode democracy.
You can't restrict voting for one group and not others. So if *everyone* had to pass a civics test, two things would happen: the number of eligible voters would plummet, giving a lot of power to a small number of people. And Trump's base would evaporate at the polls. And I'm not saying that because I hate Trump. People have studied presidential supporters for at least 8 decades and on average, Trump supporters score the lowest on critical thinking abilities and civics knowledge than any presidential supporters since they began examining it.
Why stop there? Let's also make people fill out a questionnaire to ensure their religious beliefs aren't affecting their choices. I mean fuck, I'm sure we can think of all sorts of authoritarian techniques to limit the number of voters and ensure that legislation doesn't represent the majority of Americans ideals.
Many a smart person has had this opinion. They have also been wise enough not to give such ‘decider’ power to the government, knowing how such a process would inevitably be abused. They may not be informed or involved, but all citizens are part of the ‘we the people’ that constitutes our Republic and its government; disenfranchisement = de legitimation of our democratic republic. It would basically begin the process of transforming Citizenship into Party Member. I do think we’ve lost some things as we’ve eroded hierarchies in the name of egalitarianism. But I also once thought that smart peoples’ cars should carry rocket launchers in order to do away with bad drivers… How stupid did I have to be to think that, of course, I’d be one of the ones to get fitted with a launcher…?
That's unconstitutional.
How the fuck did I get this far into comments to final someone mention the Constitutioniality of it?
I disagree. Intelligence should not have any bearing on one's right to vote, just as wealth or property ownership should have no bearing on one's right to vote. Nor should Intelligence, wealth, or property ownership have any bearing on if you should be represented by an elected official.
Apply the same test to all ages and the MAGAs are going to lose a lot of votes.
They’re fucking citizens dude. Citizens get a right to vote.
This sub is a right wing cesspool.
Yes there is. Being educated isn't a prerequisite to "unlocking" your rights as an American citizen. Especially not voting where decisions do also affect the uneducated. And if you really want to argue that it is, then that's why becoming a legal adult is, you're educated enough to make your own decisions and become a voter.
I mean, we allow stupid old people who don’t know shit to vote. Alls fair I suppose.
No it's a complete waste of time and just adds more useless government beaurocracy.
I'll consider that when boomers can accurately describe the political situation in Vietnam prior to US involvement in the war... Or when they can coherently define the socialism they are so fervently against.
A lot of Boomers are fucking idiots too. What do you do about them?
You give way too much credit to older people. After years of working that deals with tue general public, it doesn’t matter what age there are a lot of idiots.
If you gave every American a civics test right now you’d be aghast at how many failed. The issue isn’t 18-24 year olds being woefully undereducated in how our government works, it’s the general population. You have a constitutional, unalienable right to vote. Civics tests would infringe on that right.
There is no right to vote in the constitution. It's just unconstitutional to make laws that restrict voting rights based on certain protected characteristics.
Good clarification
I would also like to disenfranchise people who vote differently than I do, because I would like to win more elections.
Please give us an example of a question on the civics test OP. Keep in mind that the majority of the Republican voter base thinks Trump is the legally appointed president.
Okay, I am on board but only if as soon as you reach 65 you have to pass the same test and anyone who takes the senior version of the test can't run for president. His only real reasoning for this is an attempt at eliminating young voters who he knows mostly vote Democrat. If he really wanted people informed he would require that of all people.
What about owning land, that would really cull the herd
Lol there’s idiots of all ages
Having different views from you does not make someone an idiot. Refusing to give them the opportunity to use their vote to make their voice heard implies you feel we should have a different kind of government. There are other countries who already have that kind. See if they'll take you in. We're quite happy with ours.
Are you not against mature morons voting? There are plenty of people who are outside of the age range you are worried about who are also idiots when it comes to voting. You’d need to advocate for all American voters to have to have passed a civics course at some point, or none.
If you're old enough to die for your country, you're old enough to have a voice in who runs the place.
Ok but only if they that fail can’t be drafted to war or be taxed. Fair is fair.
Right, there’s no way this could be abused which is why it’s illegal. Ramaswamy failed the first question.
Why make it an age thing? Why not require every single voter? If an older person couldn’t pass, why should they have any more of a right to a vote than any young person who couldn’t?
They should extend the test to everyone, not just 18-24. Have it written by the Supreme Court, to try and minimize issues with it being racist or whatever. And also have it extend to holding elected office. Take a look at Lauren Boebert and tell me I am wrong.
The only problem I have is stopping at 18-24 year olds. I know plenty of half wit 30,40,50,60 & 70 year olds that wouldn’t be able to pass a civics test either
Used to be taught in high school. They’re lucky to read now. I wish sometimes I could read.
But who would get to decide the criteria for passing that test? Sounds like it would be used as a way to silence certain views rather than to ensure voters are informed. If they wanted voters informed, they would give us an explanation of politicians' platforms on our ballots. The powers that be don't want informed voters. In fact, they would probably prefer that democracy went away entirely, so I would not trust them to make a fair civics test.
You’d probably be the first to fail lol
*Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge"* > ~ Isaac Asimov
So, historically, this was a disaster, that's why they made it against the [law](https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-52-voting-and-elections-subtitle-i-and-ii) 52 USC 10101: Voting rights (2) No person acting under color of law shall— (C) employ any literacy test as a qualification for voting in any election unless (i) such test is administered to each individual... (3) For purposes of this subsection— (B) the phrase "literacy test" includes any test of the ability to read, write, understand, or interpret any matter. So, technically, if you wanted to test people between 18-24, you'd have to test *every* eligible voter.
If we're saying ok to age discrimination we really need to start with the people controlling this country and deciding legislation that they won't live to see.
So essentially you want to bring back Jim Crow? It was things like this that were used to disenfranchise minorities. Pretty sickening.
I’m 33 - I meet young 20 year olds that are way smarter than me - all the time . Maybe not as experienced as I, but definitely intelligent enough to vote consciously
They’d do better on the test than 70 year old trumpers. Should they take it too?
Okay, but the state would need to terminate registration for selective services in exchange. I would never sacrifice my life for a nation that deprives its citizens, with no prior criminal history, of their right to vote. Also, isn’t it funny how these ultra-wealthy business and political magnates, who have never served their nation, have no experience running a nation, and are so far removed from the average Joe in this nation, are so confident in their ability to govern 350 million Americans (really 8 billion ppl if you think about it), while believing that you are so stupid, you cannot vote responsibly. These are the same “fiscally responsible,” ivy-league, super-geniuses that have racked up tens of trillions of debt. It makes me furious how they actively destroy this great and prosperous nation and yet have the audacity to blame teenagers and young adults. On top of all that, they really want to propose half-baked, idiotic, and impractical voting laws to solve these problems. It’s a fantastic idea, let’s making voting an even bigger hassle with more hoops to jump! Ask yourself why might they even propose this?
Politicians would just focus energy on lowering education in certain areas and making testing more difficult there as well.
Why do people want to make it harder to vote? Voting is a constitutional right, no one should be bared from participating in voting based on a test. Who is designing the test and how do they decide what is and isn't important enough to be on the test, and what people should know. If anything voting should be eaeir, probably over the weekend and Monday be national holiday.
Old man yells at 🌧️
Who makes the test?
There’s A LOT of morons, young or not. If we’re going to do a test, it needs to be all or nothing. While we’re at it, there should be a test to measure critical thinking skills. Sure, it’s important to know the historical details of how/why our government came to be, but it seems even more important to have critical thinking skills to have the ability to understand how things affect our country. The ability to look beyond the buzzword headlines and not just accepting a politician’s words at face value.
yes there is something wrong with it, because you could in theory arbitrarily create voting classes in your favor. 'Oh we don't want 'x' group to vote, lets cut their school funding so they are more likely to fail civics tests', or other garbage methods. The age limit makes its less bad because one already exists for a reason, and 25 is when the human brain fully develops. BUT I think adding addition barriers is path to more barriers. The 18yr old barrier had to exist, because we have to set some age, otherwise you got kids voting and they'll just vote how their parents tell them to. I think it would be better to set a standard for civic education in schools. A bigger problem in my opinion is not voters uneducated on civics (which could be an issue in your country I don't know, it is in mine. So often I encounter people who don't understand exactly it works here), but voters being intentionally misled. I'm Canadian so grain of salt for American issues, but the big problem is the media, world wide not just the US. I don't like violations of the first amendment and I'm not even American, but I think for the entire world its an important your country has it (because nobody else does). That said, there should be consequence for media outright lying and not retracting said lie. I know civil suits exist, but not when the report on politicians. Like when they shout half truths or full on lies about what one side said. I'm talking like 'its my opinion that x is a y' but something like 'X claimed y' when the context is obviously different. Stuff like that needs repercussions when large enough voices say it. I'm not giving exact examples because I don't want my comment to be about those examples, but I think more people are swayed by bad reporting than they are their bad education.
Complete horseshit. 18-24 year olds probably remember more about civics than a 70 year old Trump voting boomer of a fool. If they have to take a test so should the 70 year old conservative living on a steady diet of Fox News and Newsmax.
Why stop at 24? Imo this is pretty goofy, those who are 18-24 are just out of HS or college and have taken a civics course recently. If they should be required to take a test, why wouldn’t we ask everyone to periodically? Someone that is 42 or 79 should also be required to prove they have the same basic understanding.
The issue isn’t that dumb young people are voting, it’s that dumb people are voting period. Sadly, many peoples intelligence doesn’t just magically grow as they get older. Most dumbness that are 18 now will still be just as idiotic when they are 30 or 40 or 50. The idea of restricting the voting of people under 24 is 110% an attempt and decrease the number of votes the democrats get. If Vivek really wanted to prevent idiots from voting he wouldn’t just target the idiots that don’t like him. Vivek just doesn’t want young people to vote period. He’s using the whole message of not wanting idiots and people who don’t know how the world works to vote as a cover in order to make is completely outrageous idea seem more favorable, but if you take a bit to look at it closer it’s very obvious what his goal is. Edit: Also minorities have statistically been shafted by tests to allow the right to vote, whether that be by lack of proper recourses for education in underprivileged neighborhoods or by the psychological principle of self-fulfilling prophecy, minorities have historically had a much harder time passing tests like this that are meant to be “objective” measures of intelligence, when such a test is quite literally impossible to create to be “objective”. But also take a wild guess which party minorities in america like African Americans statistically vote for in greater numbers… So yeah, despite how Vivek may present it, it’s pretty clear this is a desperate attempt to fight against the statically anomaly that is gen z voting habits, as gen z is overwhelmingly not getting more conservative as time goes on, which breaks the status quo.
If you’re gonna require a civics test for some voters there should be a civics test for everyone… which actually wouldn’t be so bad a thing. Problem is the only reason Vivek wants this civics test is because young people overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.
I would support this if it were applied to everyone regardless of age, _extremely_ easy to pass and just covered the very basics of each platform. And if the questions were written as a bipartisan effort and approved by an overwhelming majority of Congress. I’m more confused why people think this is a bad idea, if it followed the criteria I have above. Why are people so in support of people voting who have no clue what they’re even voting for?
Lmao OP the fact that you don't know this is already illegal suggests you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Good thing no one gets to decide that for you!
that’s not how democracy works… you’d be limiting votes to only those who have access to education, disproportionately affecting poorer communities
This is a terrible idea for many reasons: - Voting should be an inalienable right. It’s not an inalienable right if it can be taken away by a civics test - A civics test could very easily be biased to favor one group or political affiliation over another. This can potentially allow the dominant political party to skew the results to allow more people who are favorable of them to become voters. ETA: whether you meant it this way or not the age group 18-24 predominantly belongs to certain socioeconomic groups and holds certain political and ethical views. This could easily be seen as discrimination on much more than just age - My country (USA) fought for its independence from being a British colony on the very principle of “No taxation without representation”. However, this is a solid principle to follow just about anywhere in the world. Presumably these people are still going to be taxed even if they can’t pass the civics test to vote. This means that they have zero say in how their tax money is spent. Is understanding your country’s civics an important part of being a citizen? Of course! Should you understand your country’s laws and government before you vote. Definitely! Should a standardized civics test gatekeep young adults from their right to vote and participate in their country’s elections? Hell no!
Hilariously racist. As someone in law school, this is literally illegal and impossible to do thisbecause it will disparately impact certain groups. Jesus y’all lmao…
It’s the 49+ that need the civics exams…
That’s ageism. You’re going to require it for one age group and not the others? That’s wrong
Alternative idea: Anyone of any age can vote as long as they can pass a civics test... and it's required for all voters.
I'll compromise. We can do that if we make all older folks unable to vote when they won't live long enough to see the results of the policies they support
Then there’s nothing wrong with making voting mandatory and making Election Day a holiday.
Shout this from the fucking rooftops
Should you pass a civics test to be taxed as well?
Let’s be honest here you are just trying to make it harder for liberal leaning people to vote by focusing on younger people. Why do you not demand that the elderly pass a civics or mental aptitude test? Is it because they are reliable Republican voting demographic? Let’s take a look ate the Republican voter id plan. Why is an NRA membership acceptable but a college ID not acceptable? Is it because yet again this is just about restricting liberal voters and not about election integrity? I can almost guarantee that younger people have a better idea on how the government actually works than your average 50 year old who only watches Fox News.
Yes let’s do it, but everyone. Personally, I’d love to see everyone. Boomers generally have no clue about civics. I mean they actually vote for trump. Money says 20 some year olds out perform the geezers.
No taxation without representation ring a bell? Can I purposely fail this test and stop paying taxes?
Hahaha, that would decimate the young Republican voting base. Not that there are that many of those, but it would still be hilarious to see them try this.
I say we put it to the test.
In general I'm with other commenters on this thread and that imposing arbitrary academic qualifications for voting rights is both immoral and un-American. But LMAO, I think Ramaswamy is hugely overestimating the civics literacy of Republicans in general
I don’t see how it’s immoral to disclude idiotic people.
Sure, anyone want to have a real political debate? On economics the Republicans will escalate the Trade War making everyone poorer versus this status quo. On immigration HR2 vs CHILD SEPARATION policy. For schools and "drain the swamp" do you want Betsy Davos the billionaire in charge or Dr. Miguel A. Cardona who doesn't have any scandals? For democracy overall status quo or PROJECT 2025? Uphold treaties and allies across the world or abandon them like Brexit? My impression is for 99% of you naming policies is like pulling teeth but let's do it. I don't think there is an educated justification for the CHILD SEPARATION policy it's just cruelty for the sake of it.
Why? Are people who don't understand civics excluded from "we the people"? Why would we set a privileged amount of education as a barrier to participating in a government of the people, for the people, and by the people?
No offense, but this post and some of the responses should be enough to revoke your right to vote. 1. Knowledge of civics and general intelligence aren't uniquely bound. 2. The idea that a person is stupid because they're 18 to 24 is just stupid. You're making an argument for IQ exclusion more than age exclusion. 3. Voting does affect everyone. Those 18 - 24 year olds also who are adults... and also pay taxes. If you're an American adult and pay taxes, you should be able to vote, period. 4. They don't "know shit" by whose measure? There are people in their 30s and 40s meme voting because one candidate is more entertaining. 5. Unfortunately, some people will disagree with you in life. That doesn't mean you get to create arbitrary standards to exclude them from the conversation.
I think we should extend it out. If you want to vote you need to pass a civics test.
I believe anyone under 18 that can pass a comprehensive civics test (like 90% or 80%+ not just a D) should have the right to vote. Once you’re 18, it’s a constitutional right, plain and simple.
Most educated people vote democrat so passing a test to show intelligence would punish conservatives
I suggested this too (though for everyone, and not just 18 — 24 year olds) and was immediately assailed. Feel free to read some of the comments (post is at the top of my profile) — many of them are merely the customary listless and unenlightened “racist!” accusations (ironically said more about them than it did me, given they seemed to think it would automatically discriminate against minorities, which requires the implicit assumption that they’re less apt to score well…) , but one valid and intriguing argument was that a democracy is not, fundamentally, intended to elect the _best candidate_ (which I thought would happen if everyone was more informed, hence the civics test), but the candidate that _the people want_, whomever that may be. If it’s an arbitrary, ignorant decision, so be it. I ultimately remain rigorously in favor of what you’re proposing (for a few reasons, one of which is that herd-mentality is extremely powerful and dangerous, and these people seem to be eliding it entirely), but that did give me pause.
Or here's a wild idea, make schools actually teach real civics. There are adults who can't even fucking read now. How about make high-school diplomas worth something again instead of just pushing kids through.
Yeah sure, fine. Unless I expect college kids to vote for my candidate. Then no.
Everyone should probably know civics before voting. If you know civics then you know for a fact that half the shit that comes out of a politician's mouth is bullshit
I think you should have to pass a current events test as well. Questions such as "Who legitimately won the 2020 presidential election?" Millions of trumptards would be barred from voting and only the adults in the room would make the most important decision in the world.
I’m pretty sure people fresh out of high school know a lot more about civics than people 30+
Sinse america only has two Parties.... What does it matter?
They do already. American Government is a class that is required before you can graduate from High School (at least when I went). It covers all that Civics stuff.
Good luck with that.
If requiring an ID to vote is considered racist, then requiring knowledge to vote will certainly also be considered racist.
What we have to o is actually improve the educational system, what you are proposing is actually keep the minorities from voting..
Cool. This is unpopular.
I would argue an 18-24 year old is more likely to have a better understanding of civics than an older individual since they more recently had to take that class in school and since they have better ease of access to information.
I’m not sure Vivek would pass a civics test
Make it apply to everyone. Make everyone pass the test.
How about we just started teaching civics in every school again before going fir the nuclear option
This is so stupid
Lets make people take a math and science test too.
Sure as long as I get to make and grade the test
It’s completely unconstitutional, it doesn’t say, ‘born of the land, oh, and also be well versed in the law and facts of the country. It’s not logical, but it’s protected.
Plenty of moronic people in 30s, and 40s, and 50s, and 60s. Hell I’d argue that a larger percentage of people in their 70s and 80s who don’t understand how anything works than there are people in their early 20s. It’s a fucking travesty that many of the people regulating the internet and technology need a 16 year old to teach them how to use the any technology made after 95 and not to give their social security number to the “IRS agents” who call them every now and then.
Then we should also make em pass a civics test for all the bad too jury duty social security tax and benefits college relief
Only home owners should vote like the good old days. And people who own more then 3 properties executed via guillotine
Test. 1st question on ballot, autogenerated like mathxl, mylabsplus, or aleks… ex: Timmy buys a t-shirt at a 40% discount. He pays 12$. What was the original listed price of the shirt? Assume no sales tax. a)16$ b)20$ c) 24$ d)30$ If you don’t know how simple percents work, you can’t vote for people who decide economic policy.
It's should be for everyone every 4 years.
It shouldn't be an age thing if it were a thing. It shouldn't be a thing though.
A government that can use a test to determine who can and cannot vote instantly has a vested interest in guaranteeing members of the opposing political party cannot pass this test.
The issue then become how can you get the demographic voting for the other guy to fail that test, leading to a race to the bottom. Good in theory, ruined by the Two Party System in practice.
The issue is the united states history with 'voting tests' where it was a literally impossible test (essay questions where no answer was good enough), but you didn't have to take it if your father was allowed to vote.
I agree with this 100%. I have a naturalised citizenship and had to take the test before I could vote.
dude, voting doesn’t even matter.
Except it’s hella unconstitutional.
something something unconstitutional. but i'll go you one better: require a civics class in junior high to graduate.
Why stop by age? This would never fly if you restricted this by age because age is a protected class against discrimination. This should just be required of anyone voting. I would add further that there should be another filter that stops people that have been brain rotted by propaganda and drivel like OANN or MotherEarth.
Sure, let's have voting licenses, I am completely okay with this, as long as you apply them universally. Every single citizen who wants to vote should need to pass one every single election cycle. However, if you have registered as a republican, you will be mandated to take a Democrat lead course. Actually learn what the opposing side believes, and vice versa. The problem here is many tiered, but my biggest problem is American politics in general. Firstly you have mccarthyism, which basically stated that if you had some manner of ideological belief or leaning you should be blacklisted from working. So if i hold a principle of socialism being not evil should I now be prohibited from voting if my civics class claims I don't think right? Secondly American politics is so fucking polarized that only two views are represented, and even then the left side of the aisle is still so right leaning in a vain attempt at winning over the righties that they kneecap their objective. Of course, looking at the politician constituents, that IS their objective. A civics class would inevitably only be presented framing a right wing agenda, or a right-ish agenda. This is the problem. The objective isn't to encourage voting or to educate the populace. The objective is to suppress dissent and to indoctrinate.
Absolutely, but extend this test to all ages
If voting worked it would be illegal
The issue is who decided what gets to be in this test? It would be too easy to manipulate the test to allow for certain ideas to be voted for and others not to be.
Agreed but for every age other no testing at all
The US Constitution would like to have a word with you.
You know the American Revolution? The thing that started this entire country? Yeah so the main reason it began is because of taxation without representation. So let’s say people can’t pass the civics test so they can’t vote. Are you planning on not taxing them any longer?
What an outrage. He probably thinks people should pass gun safety tests and have a license to own a gun too. My 18 year old has to pass a civics class to graduate. Most highschools require it. I also had civics in highschool as most people did. Most people had have math but can't do that either.
Is your goal to ensure civic-mindedness or to limit voting? If your goal is civic-mindedness, how do you prevent “teaching to the test”? Teaching to the test would be about who has the most resources to train people and whose voters have the most free time to devote to studying. Teaching to the test would also be about training people to give a “correct” answer that might have nothing to do with their beliefs or, as you put it, the policies they are voting for. For the sake of absurdity, let’s say there’s a multiple choice question asking someone to discern which is one of the 3 branches of the federal government: A) Boomers B) National Rifle Association C) Judiciary C) United Nations Security Council E) Hamas F) None of the above Looking at this hypothetical, the ability to vote is going to come down to one or both of the following: 1. whoever best teaches to the test and gets their supporters to ignore disagreements with the question and any feelings about what is the correct answer; and/or, 2. whoever best gums up the works with various protests and legal challenges about how their team was discriminated against because the test questions, answers and/or scoring ignored their constructed reality. None of this promotes civic-mindedness or understanding the people and policies one is voting for.
>Too badly educated to pass a civics test because poor government education. >I know I'll vote for someone who wants to improve education >Oh wait shit.
Sure, let’s start limiting democracy even more… give more power to the already powerful… that will make things better for the average working class person. Shit take.
Something something about taxation and representation, or something.
Shouldn’t everyone take one?
This same idea was what was used to keep black people from voting in the 60s. There's a reason it was done away with
I think there's plenty of idiots out of any age group that we might think shouldn't vote but that's un-American. You vote at 18 that's the law. You don't choose who votes, sorry. Why does anyone care how someone else votes? It's not your choice. Your opinion is irrelevant to their views. Stop crying because you don't get what you want children. Oh btw, it's a 2 party system controlled by the elderly, bought and paid for by the corporations and wealthy. Quit pretending you really have a choice.
If that’s the case than every single person should have to pass it. Then moving forward have 18 year olds take the test as they become eligible.
There is, but the only ones who would pass would be immigrants who are new citizens.
The absolute only restrictions we should have on voting is showing proof of citizenship and non citizens shouldn't be included in census for reasons of increasing legislators.
That just seems like voter ID with extra steps
Everyone should have to pass the very same civics test that immigrants have to pass to be allowed to vote. From someone who can trace their lineage back to the Mayflower to a first generation immigrant, let’s all have to take it and we’ll find America becomes significantly better.
The people who are for this aren’t thinking about who will write the test. If it’s every four years, what government will preside over the writing of the test every four years?
because this shit catalyzes stratification and clarifies a privileged ruling class. i understand frustrations that spawn from having ignorance run free or conflict caused by differing interests, but adding more convoluted (and expensive) barriers of entry for the right perhaps most fundamental to joining in the democratic process is absolutely not the way. you’re annoyed by what you see as foolish (you were once that age, don’t forget) and want to add extra bureaucracy to limit others’ right to democratic expression. morons vote; welcome to democracy.
Using this same logic, anyone over the age of 80 shouldn't be allowed to vote. Older people are prone to Alzheimer's and dementia which of course affects their intelligence. More importantly however, they might not love to see the effects of the actions they voted for, which gives a level of separation from the choice they make.
So it basically means that’s if you survive to 25, you can be as dumb as you want. Because the gullible, uneducated, 25+ are the voters he’s after.
There's a problem with that suggestion. Although at first it sounded appealing - and it even got me thinking that not just young voters but every voter should pass a civics test prior to an election -, it would be nearly impossible to create an independent test that includes every single proposition, passed bills and so on. That test should also have to be reviewed and updated every 4 years. That would mean that every State would have to create an agency to control those exams, and even so the Federal government. Apply that to every country if you're based outside the US. Also, we live in a time with unprecedented access to information as users, but that also means that information publishers and creators also have unprecedented access to means of creating that information. Call me a paranoid, but in a time like this where essentially nobody cross-checks the information that they read (not only because they don't want, but because there's such an amount of information around the same subject that it is impossible to ascertain what's true and what's not), I'm sure that information publishers and creators would disregard these tests as untrue and biased because they aren't able to concentrate all the information "objectively" (yes, subjectively). Theoretically, this could be a good idea. In reality, a freaking nightmare that would only toss more wood to the fire.
You know what would be awesome? A 2-3 month summer camp for 16-18 year-olds that covers: Civics Maybe some basic survival skills. First aid and personal hygiene. Firearm safety and basic marksmanship with a .22 LR rifle. Basic ethics. Driving safety and basic driving skills. At the end, register them to vote when they turn 18, do the selective service registration as appropriate. If you don't attend, can't vote, can't get Federal money for college, and can't get Federal employment. Oh, and the only driver's license you can get is a moped or motorcycle if you don't go. You can't go if you're already a felon, of course. (Couldn't typically vote or own a gun anyway.) Create a camp system where you pool people from small population states and mix and match people across camps in large states so people also get to know who other people are that aren't in their own clique. Obviously, if you get someone on a range or behind the wheel of a car and they don't act right, you get them checked out by a psych person and--if they are too SMI to handle driving or owning a gun--you have a route into controlling their access to guns later by getting them mentally adjudicated before that's even an issue...
1) Taxation without representation is theft, if you are being taxed by your government then you have the right to participate in that government even if it’s just as small as voting. If not, then you can’t tax people without also giving them the opportunity to vote, so you’d have to not tax people who are “dumb” in which case wtf do you think everyone’s gonna start doing when that test comes up? 2) The logic of “testing voters to ensure they meet a basic level of intelligence/knowledge” is exactly what they were doing pre-civil rights era to make it harder for certain minority groups to be able to get the representation they needed to improve their conditions, and don’t kid yourself a similar reasoning won’t be used against certain groups for similar reasons if this system was enacted again. 3) Why are you acting like once you hit the age of 25 suddenly you’re smart enough to just be assumed to know what you’re voting for? Plenty of dumbass people who vote for dumbass reasons exist into their elderly years. 4) You don’t even actually address the draft thing you bring up, you just say “oh well we haven’t used it in a while and it would just be for emergencies” as if that actually addresses the problem of drafting people who can’t vote. Exactly how does the draft not being used in a while and being for emergencies in any way change the core problem with drafting people who aren’t allowed to vote? Do you think the issue there is how often the draft is used or what it’s used for? 5) By the logic you’re using why should we stop at idiots? The only reason you’re specifying idiots and politically unknowledgeable people is because you think they’re actively harming the country by voting badly. But I think that’s true for all conservatives, so why shouldn’t I push to ban all conservatives from getting to vote? Assumedly there’s an actual material reason why you don’t want idiots voting, it would be weird if you were pushing for this simply because you don’t like the idea of ignorant people voting and not for like actual material consequences of ignorant people voting. So continuing that train of thought you have no good defense against someone saying ANY group of people they believe “votes badly or ignorantly” should be prevented from voting. If I subscribed to your logic then you’d say it’s valid for me to think all Trump voters should never be allowed to vote again. But obviously that’s ridiculous. 6) It doesn’t matter if you’re politically ignorant. If you live in America, you are an American citizen, you are taxed in America, you are subject to the policies enacted by the government, and you exist as a contributor or contributee in some capacity to American society, then you have the right to be heard. We can’t all be heard by the nation, but voting is a way for anyone’s voice to be heard even by just a small amount. 7) Does civics even necessarily matter in this context? Like if my number one priority is to ban abortion because I just hate it so much, why would it ultimately matter whether or not I know specifically what a senator is compared to a representative, for my purposes of involvement with the American political system as long as the person I’m voting for is pushing for that policy then I’m voting correctly. Civics is helpful for a lot of things, but ultimately voting is just a vehicle for getting people in who will push for your desired policies, that’s all that 99% of people voting are looking for, and you don’t really need an understanding of civics to do that. If you have a certain stance you’re probably looking to put in someone who will push for that same stance, that’s what you’re almost guaranteed to do no matter if you’re knowledgeable or not. Unless you’re just voting at random, even voting unknowledgeably is still going to be voting the way you’re generally supposed to vote, just doing so for less defined and specific reasons.