We had the chance to spend some time together back in June. Since we are both recent veterans we spent much of our time discussing the war in Iraq. How did it get to this point? How do we get out now? Inevitably, the discussion usually turns to the current administration.
My brother is a bit of an elitist, and as such, he believes that the American people are to blame for the current state of affairs in our country because they voted for this administration, not once, but twice. My brother feels that Americans should have to demonstrate a basic knowledge of current affairs and US history in order to be eligible to vote. I agree with him. I think a basic test wouldn’t favor any particular party, race, or religion...so it's fair. Before you think we are both nuts, consider this quote from Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a friend in 1789:
"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government;... whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."Jefferson also believed that Spain’s constitution was great because it said that a person couldn’t be recognized as a citizen until they could read and write. He felt that it would give people and incentive to learn. He stated:
“This will give you an enlightened people and an energetic public opinion which will control and enchain the aristocratic spirit of the government."I wouldn’t go quite so far as Jefferson, but you get the point.
On to my brother’s test…
Here are the rules:
A score of at least 70% is required on this exam in order for an eligible US citizen to be permitted to vote during in a national election (e.g. Congress and Presidential elections). A passing score qualifies a voter for five consecutive years of voting rights. A failing score disqualifies a citizen from voting for a period of six months, but can be taken once every six months until it is passed.
Here are the questions:
1) Name one of the two national senators from the state in which you are registered.
2) Name three of the original thirteen colonies.
3) Name the two main political parties in the US.
4) Name one of the following individuals: the Secretary of State, the Vice President, or
the Secretary of Defense.
5) The US is currently involved in two major wars; one in Iraq and one in
Afghanistan. Name the capital city of one of those two countries.
6) What does the acronym 'D.C.' stand for in the title of the nation's capital?
7) Name the century in which the US civil war was fought.
8) The legislative branch of government, one of its three branches, makes the nation's
laws. Name one other branch.
9) Name one US territory or possession.
10) How many states are in the US?
How did you do on the test?
As you can see, all of the answers to this test can be found for free by spending one hour at any public library in America. Yes, public libraries still exist. So please don’t tell me that this test isn’t fair to inner city kids and 90 year old women who might not have access to the internets.
Immigrants looking to gain citizenship are tested, fourth graders are tested to comply with No Child Left Behind, 16 year olds are tested in order to operate a car, and new recruits are tested to gain entry into the military. Testing is everywhere.
Test voters...before things get worse.
12 comments:
People who would fail this test don't vote anyway. And you are supposing that if people are as educated - they'd vote your way.
And that won't happen.
Instead of blaming voters - we should really blame ourselves.
That's right.
It's your fault. And my fault. And Jimmy's fault.
Especially Jimmy.
See, we don't speak to rural or uneducated or SOUTHERN voters in a way that sells our cause. We fail when we don't win that argument. And then we all lose.
It's easier to blame them. And sometimes I fall into a "the masses are asses" point of view.
But really we are to blame. And if we get our heads out of our asses or out from in front of the mirrors where we tell ourselves how educated and wonderful we are and start to actually SPEAK to people in a way they get and approve of and understand...
Only then will we win. And see a much needed change in this country.
Well, if you notice I actually say, "I think a basic test wouldn’t favor any particular party, race, or religion...so it's fair."
I'm not sure if this test would benefit my particular beliefs. There is no way to know without actually putting it to use. My reasoning for the test is not really that selfish.
If a test like this was put in place and it turned out to yield results that went completely against my political leanings, I would at least be able to sleep well at night knowing that the election was decided by people who are at least A LITTLE BIT able to think for themselves and weren't necessarily herded into the polls by their pastor. Hell, even if they memorized answers just to pass the test at least it would show that they were serious about what they were doing.
Also, you say that we shouldn't blame the voters? Have you ever blamed Ralph Nader or his voters for Al Gore losing the 2000 election (like many liberals do). If so, remember you say don't blame the voters. Also, don't blame me when I vote for a Green Party candidate in 2008.
Also, you say, "And if we get our heads out of our asses or out from in front of the mirrors where we tell ourselves how educated and wonderful we are and start to actually SPEAK to people in a way they get and approve of and understand." We aren't saying people have to be a members of MENSA or have PhD's to vote. Look at the test...there is nothing hard about it. They are questions based on current events that would provoke people to do research and learn about the issues on their own.
You say we need to speak to people in a way that they understand. Isn't that what we blame Rush and O'reilly for doing? They speak to them in a way they understand everyday for a few hours.
I have to disagree - from a civil liberties prespective.
While I understand your frustration, I think your disclaimer that this test "wouldn't favor any particular party, race, or religion...so it's fair" doesn't pass strict scrutiny.
For a far better discussion and understanding than I can personally give, review the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the stories from "Reporting Civil Rights". Literacy tests, history tests ...tests of all kinds... were used by the States to justify denying US citizens the right to vote.
These tests are a potent reminder of our legacy of racial discrimination. On that note, it is important to remember that any time the elite (usually white, male and Christian in this country) determine the rules, they have discriminatory consequences, sometimes deliberately, sometimes by accident. However, regardless of intent, denying a constitutionally protected right is not justifiable - even if it's an accident. Which is why the US Constitution is the proper measuring stick and not some voting test. Significantly less room for tragic errors and infringement of rights.
Regarding the political feasibility of this proposal, I think that to place additional voting qualifiers and potentially eliminating universal suffrage will bring back the ghosts of civil rights movement which should remain dead and buried. This is a perception I'm sure would be held by many communities (and would therefore be the de facto political reality). This perception will kill any attempt to impose voting restrictions. It would smell too much like Jim Crow - and I would agree, it does.
I know you said the test is easy ...that's EXACTLY what all the southern whites said about their tests too. If you were black (and therefore uneducated because you had trouble getting access to decent schooling - which many in this country still have) then you would loose your right to vote. By the way, who decided the funding system for eduction (or lack thereof) that in turn denied them the right to vote? The same people that said that there needed to be a voting test. Those in power, used that power to achieve the end-state they desired. They created tests to deny US citizens their rights. Blacks legitimately couldn't pass the tests. They were easy (in a sense). However, they were racially biased. Any new attempt would be at least socio-economically biased - which of course would be de facto racially biased as well.
I also view this proposal as a reversal of the historical trend of being more inclusive over time and bringing more people under constitutional protections. We tend to think that all Americans have enjoyed the privileges laid out in the constitution - which is true -
Unless you weren't white or didn't own land at first.
Unless you were a slave for the first century or so.
Unless you were black and living in the South until the 1960s.
Unless you were part of any immigrant wave in which you were systematically denied your social, political and economic rights for years and decades following your arrival--as in, no Irish allowed or no Catholics allowed.
Unless you couldn't vote directly for senators until the turn of the 20th century.
Unless you were Native Americans.
Unless you were female and didn't vote whatsoever until about 80 years ago.
Unless you're gay and lesbian today and can't get married or enjoy spousal benefits.
Unless, unless, unless. But I digress.
Bottom line, voting tests have historically been used to deny groups their constitutional right to vote (a core tenet of a democracy). And while I don't fear YOUR intentions and motivations - once this practice is codified in law, future leaders could easily use this to deny any group the right to vote.
It sets a dangerous precedent and has no place in a republic.
But that's just my opinion :)
Seán,
Thanks for the well though out insight.
However, I have a few counter points. First, I would argue that voting is not technically a constitutional right. It is never given to We the People as a right in the Constitution. I realize this is odd b/c the Constitution goes on to rule out many ways that we cannot be denied the right to vote. They seemed to have left the states to determine the qualifications of voters. They have gone back over time and told the states what they cannot do. But, they have never told the states that every person HAS a right to vote by virtue of the fact that they are a breathing citizen.
If you look at the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (I did b/c you mentioned it), you can see that it:
1)Outlawed literacy tests
2)Told voting jurisdictions that if they wanted to change voting procedures they must clear it through the Attorney General
3)Upheld support for the continued abolishment of poll taxes and support for the 15th amendment.
So, it appears that the Voting Rights Act still leaves states with the ability to change voting procedures with the approval of the Attorney General. I just bring all of this up to show that I believe the Voting Test could probably pass some legal scrutiny.
One could argue that my test is very similar to a literacy test. So, I found an example of a test from the past. Here are some sample questions:
1) In case the president is unable to perform the duties of his office, who assumes them?______________________
2) "Involuntary servitude" is permitted in the United States upon conviction of a crime. (True or False)___________
3) If a state is a party to a case, the Constitution provides that original jurisdiction shall be in_________________
4) Congress passes laws regulating cases which are included in those over which the United States Supreme Court has____________________________ jurisdiction.
This test is harder than the questions my brother proposed. In addition to these questions, the voters were required to read aloud whole sections of the Constitution. This is ridiculous considering the fact that it is written in an English version far different from the 1960's. The test my brother proposed is not a literacy test because it does not require a person to demonstrate the ability to read. My brother's version could be read allowed to anyone who cannot read or has trouble seeing. Therefore, I don't think it could be considered a literacy test.
Getting back to our "right to vote." I find it odd that not only does the Constitution not explicitly say we have the right to vote, but they also created an Electoral College in fear that the people couldn't be trusted in voting for the President. So, not only are we not actually voting for a President, but in most states you don't even get to vote on the people that make up your Electoral College. If you read Article II, where they set up the Electoral College, it never even says that the Electoral College has to cast their votes in a manner representative of the way the people in their state voted. The power is left solely in their hands to cast votes in the way they see fit. Pretty scary stuff. I bring all this up to help argue the fact that voting has a very peculiar history in the Constitution.
I agree that many in our country still don't have access to decent schooling, but the test is a reflection of knowledge of current events, which elected officials are sent to office to deal with.
I like your point that tests like these can have unintentional results. That could be very true with a test like this. Fortunately, for you and for everyone else that thinks my brother and I are asses, I don't think this test will ever see the light of day. So we won't have to worry about unintentional results :-)
Also, I'm not sure the current Attorney General could pass the test himself, so there is no way he would approve of it.
Thanks for the constructive criticism!
you're all wrong - in order to vote you must have a job and own real property. not an old car - real property/land/house, etc. only then do you have a stake in what happens - oh,and you have to serve a minimum of 3 years in the service too!
Danny - You have made some very interesting points. Permit me to respond further.
re: "voting is NOT technically a constitutional right". Actually, according to the XV and XIX amendments, it is.
XV: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
XIX: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The first sentence of each amendment seems to clearly indicate that voting is, in fact, a constitutionally protected right.
Subsequent U.S. Supreme Court cases have affirmed this.
RE: "the Voting Rights Act still leaves states with the ability to change voting procedures with the approval of the Attorney General. I just bring all of this up to show that I believe the Voting Test could probably pass some legal scrutiny". Indeed, it may pass under some interpretations. However -- State's rights to impose voting restrictions is limited. In the end, it is the Federal government's ability to constitutionally trump the States, on matters that conflict with the constitution, that sets the course (much to the chagrin of "State's rights" activists - by the way, that was the casus belli of the confederacy in the Civil War - not a noble entity to be ideologically allied with on this issue in my opinion). This is backed (albeit in rather arcane language) in article VI. Again, this relationship has been reaffirmed in the US Supreme Court.
Back to strict scrutiny -- I personally reject that the test passes strict scrutiny because of the de facto result of discrimination that would occur --thereby clearly violating both the XV and XIX amendments. At least, that is the argument that plaintiffs (i.e., the ACLU, NAACP, SPLC )would use as the foundation of their lawsuit. A foundation that I find very compelling.
I think it is important to remember that interpretations of how "easy the test is" are irrelevant. The test itself is (in my opinion) unconstitutional and would be found so, even under a conservative supreme court.
But that still leaves us with the problem: How did we get to this point (poor leadership/current administration) and how do we prevent it from happening again. The question is still valid, however the solution of a voting test is simply not the way to solve that dilemma.
Good discussion: WE should chat over a few beers and try to come up with some alternate COAs.
I have to disagree with some of the well-thought out comments on here. First off, I realize that this is an academic exercise and a pipe-dream - kind of a "what would I do if I were king." So whether it can really happen or not is a moot point.
That said, it is an interesting idea to debate.
Katie - I never claimed that people who can answer those questions will vote the way I want them to. I am fairly certain that that dick who posts on your blog voted for Bush twice and will do so again on a write-in ballot. I would also put money on him walking away with a 100% and a gold star on my little test. It isn't a "liberal" test. It is just meant to show that you have a passive interest in what you are voting about, and a pulse. The questions were random and they can be changed, but they should reflect that you have taken an interest in the issues and the country. Is voting a right? Doesn't matter for this exercise. Is driving a car a right, or a privilege? You have to pass a test proving you have the minimal skills to do so. It should be the same with voting.
I agree that we have to take the time and speak to voters. We are voters. As people who spend time blogging and talking politics we should be ready to address the issues and debate on a moments notice - and we are. However, it is not my place or duty to go door-to-door and spread the word. You want to carry a handgun, you get a permit. You want to sell food in your deli, you get a license. You want to vote, you just show up? Fuck that.
I think the Jim Crow argument is slightly valid but those laws - all those mentioned - were targeted explicitly against groups that are now protected. It is the little disclaimer at the bottom of application forms mentioning women, homosexuals, people in wheelchairs, protestants, etc. will not be discriminated against -there is no mention of jackasses. Jackasses are not protected. You not only can reject an applicant for being an idiot, the system is built to encourage it. But no problem if they can't hold it together long enough to operate a Swifter, just send them over to the voting booth to help select the most powerful person in the world.
All difficult words and terms should be expunged from the test. This is not about education levels. But if you can't name the capital of a country where we have lost 5K Americans over the last four years then you have no right to stand in a booth and vote in a national election. Go back to the Speedway before you miss the next race.
Another thought my girlfriend mentioned given that she is appalled at the low voter turnout in this nation. The test might get people interested in what is going on - competition is human nature. If Billy passes the test, Jenny might want to do so also.
I don't agree with the "get out the vote campaigns" in their purest form. I don't see any point in getting 300m people to the polls if most of them are retarded. Would you rather have 1 good mechanic work on your car, or six of his drunk friends?
BUT - if you can get them interested and ready for a test, who knows?
Thank you all for the comments. I'm glad my brother finally decided to put his money where his mouth is on the meatstick. :)
I have also learned (or relearned) quite a bit about voting rights and the Constitution, which is always good.
Like my brother said...this is definitely a 'what would you do' situation that is meant to spark some debate, which it definitely has.
I would love to share a beer with all of you and discuss the problems of the world. Seán--you live a block away so we'll have our opportunities for sure.
Good comments.
I do think the point of a test is to improve the current situation - otherwise why was it brought up? You do think that the country might be better off if only the informed voter voted. Right? Of course right.
But I'm telling you that the people who actually get off their asses and vote - do so because they are informed. And have come to a different conclusion.
Statistics bear this out - the more that people vote, the better off we are. Get out the vote worked *beautifully* for the Repubs lately. When Dem voters are apathetic and stay home - even better for the other side.
What we need to do - is not discourage but encourage voting. Because statistically our side comes out on top in those instances.
Retarded people don't vote. You know that. They sit at Igo's and order American beer.
igoe's is now naro's - and we don't go there anymore, we go to the vets, the american legion or the waldorf.
further, i think voting should be weighted - if i own 100 acres i should get 2-3-4 votes. my point is that the bigger the stake one has in america the more attentive one is to political influences, and thereby takes the time to be more informed.
what does an unemployed illiterate (did i spell that right?) care about, besides how much is the gov't going to send me for free - which makes them a democrat!
there to all of you in your ivy (or ivory!) towers.
And another thing - I don't think Dems should get angry at Ralph Nader or people for voting green.
Again, we should blame ourselves.
Post a Comment