Something I have been thinking about test before you can vote

[bigrebnc1861]

With the results and actions of this past election I feel that it is a valid debatable question. However, I am not sure if it would be unconstitutional to make people take a test before they voted, so thats why I am asking. Thiink of it like this to obtain U.S. Citizenship you have to take an American history test, so why not take a Constitution test to vote. Think of it this way a vote is like a bullet from a gun. to obtain a CCW you must be tested on firearm safety and show you are profisant with that gun.

We can start with this as the foundation of the test
The test would be on the basics of the Constitution.

Anyone care to add to this jump in.

[FN1910]

Two schools of thought on this and I can tell you which one is going to win. Your idea of some kind of test before you vote is a great idea and in many states we had such a test that was delcared unconstitutional. The literacy test as banned for several reasons but primarily it was because of the thought for a person to be able to vote the requirement that they know anything about who or what they were voting for is wrong and it is up to the individual to make the decision on what they should do with their vote. Now days it seems that some people feel that if a person should choose not to vote at all for some reason (such as being dead) then that indicates their desire to have someone else vote for them and should be allowed.This is not a recent idea as it was exactly how LBJ first got into office. Even the idea that someone should have to prove that they are casting their own ballot is coming under fire.

Many years ago while we were still using paper ballots I witnessed a group standing outside the polling place handing out sample ballots with holes cut into the sample ballots. People could simply take the sample into the polling place and match up the colors of the ballots and then mark through the holes to strike out the cantidates not desired and leave the ones that theywished to vote for. This process is perfectly legal asl long as the people handing out the samples were far enough away from the poll.

What a person want to do with their vote is entiely up to the individual so no "test" will ever survive our present voting system. The only restriction that is truly ilegal is you can't pay someone directly to vote for you but those in office do it indirectly every day. The idea of only landowners being able to vote and a poll tax required has gone the way of the quill pen but maybe we should bring it back.

[bigrebnc1861]

thanks for your input. I didn't say it was a perfect fix, but it would be able to negate groups like acorn and the new black panthers party. However if an immigrant has to take a test for their citizenship isn't voting also part of that process?

One other thing, about the land ownership, who has more to lose someone who owns a home land car, versus someone who owns nothing? You could just put it this way if you pay taxes then you can vote.

[dvnfly]

In my humble opinion it should be tax payers. If your one of those who doesn't pay any federal taxes because of all the excemptions then you should be expected to excempt your vote. It will keep the free loaders from voting for only those who will give. I don't know the answers but I'm with you. something has to be done to prevent another presidential election like the last one. It was an embarrassment to the whole country.

[Conservative Wife & Mom]

In my humble opinion it should be tax payers. If your one of those who doesn't pay any federal taxes because of all the excemptions then you should be expected to excempt your vote. It will keep the free loaders from voting for only those who will give. I don't know the answers but I'm with you. something has to be done to prevent another presidential election like the last one. It was an embarrassment to the whole country.

While this idea of taxpayers being the ONLY ones qualified to vote really appeals to me, I think it has a ZERO chance of becoming reality. Politicians are NOT going to voluntarily eliminate their "freeloader" voter base. That's just not how power plays are "played".

[bigrebnc1861]

while this idea of taxpayers being the only ones qualified to vote really appeals to me, i think it has a zero chance of becoming reality. Politicians are not going to voluntarily eliminate their "freeloader" voter base. That's just not how power plays are "played".

+100

[wolfhunter]

Which tax qualifies a person to vote? Property? Tobacco? Alcohol? General Sales? Limiting the vote and control to a specific group turns us into a Fascist society, no matter how easy it may be for someone to join that specific group.

[GOV5]

Which tax qualifies a person to vote? Property? Tobacco? Alcohol? General Sales? Limiting the vote and control to a specific group turns us into a Fascist society, no matter how easy it may be for someone to join that specific group.

The Property tax. Thomas Jefferson wanted this in the Constitution, and was vetoed on it. He had great vision...but for the wrong reasons. He knew that if people that didn't have anything could vote just like people that had skin in the game, it would be a game of havers winding up giving part of their possessions or money to the non_havers. He couldn't have envisioned the current welfare state, however. I think he just didn't think that folks that didn't have a pot to pee in should be making decisions about govt for those that actually had money or property at stake. And I happen to agree with him!

If you don't own anything, you can't vote...period! Oh, you want to be able to vote? Then go out and work for some money,save, and then buy some property. Then you'll find out what the rest of us have been saying for years. When you see what is actually left of your check after taxes, and how much your govt is spending and giving to those that don't work..while you are busting your butt to try to get something from working, the light will come on in your head and you'll understand that all these so-called "right-wing' crazies aren't so crazy after all.

[wolfhunter]

The Property tax. Thomas Jefferson wanted this in the Constitution, and was vetoed on it. He had great vision...but for the wrong reasons. He knew that if people that didn't have anything could vote just like people that had skin in the game, it would be a game of havers winding giving part of their possessions or money to the non_havers. He couldn't have envisioned the current welfare state, however. I think he just didn't think that folks that didn't have a pot to pee in should be making decisions about govt for those that actually had money or property at stake. And I happen to agree with him!

If you don't own anything, you can't vote...period! Oh, you want to be able to vote? Then go out and work for some money,save, and then but some property. Then you'll find out what the rest of us have saying for years. When you see what is actually left of your check after taxes, and how much your govt is spending and giving to those that don't work..while you are busting your butt to try to get something from working, the light will come on in your head and you'll understand that all these so-called "right-wing' crazies aren't so crazy after all.

Wonderful idea! Pure genius! Why didn't the Founders do this?

MAYBE it was because THEY realized the potential to end up with a "Good Ole Boys" group of property owners who set the price to buy-in to "their party" so high while paying wages so low, that the non-property owners become basically Serfs. To see this demonstrated simply look at the Hudson Bay Co. of the 1600s and 1700s or the Mining and Railroad industries in the late 1800s - early 1900s. As Tennessee Ernie Ford sang, "I owe my soul to the Company Store."

[HeyTrud]

Yes, a simple test! Elimination of voter fraud. Fraudulent voters would be weeded out. Those votes of double and triple voters, like the ACORN idiots that would register dead people and got caught. Address verification, cemeteries? No homes or apartments at an address. All of this would be eliminated. I think a simple test, with a picture ID issued by the state would suffice. You have to show a picture ID if you vote in person. However, in my home, we mail in our votes, rather than fight traffic, seeking out voting places, etc. It's really simple to send your votes in by mail and I was never questioned when I requested mail voting forms. A simple test would be perfect. Another thing, if you can't read English, then that person should not be voting at all. This would tell who is legal and who is illegal. If you can't read English chances are, they are illegals, and cannot constitutional vote at all! I love your idea. Unions wanted Work permit type ID. Their plan didn't work for them. That never happened. Too many people would never submit for union demands.