In past discusions on this board, there has often been an arguement that election results are skewed because portions of the electorate are poorly informed.
I can't disagree . Based upon this recent poll of Louisiana Republicans.

Who do you think was more responsible for thepoor response to Hurricane Katrina: George W.Bush or Barack Obama?

28% George W. Bush

29% Barack Obama

44% Not Sure

source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/161910086/PPP ... ugust-2013

So the question is, would a system that actually qualifies voters based on an understanding of things like, knowledge of the constitution, make a difference? Should voting be a privilege earned by attaining a certain level of knowledge about things?
And if so, what would those things be?
Voter ID laws I get. But maybe qualifying for the franchise also makes some sense?
I have the impression that someone in Louisiana who doesn't know that Katrina occurred three years before Obama came to office shouldn't be trusted with important decisions... And maybe that should include voting....

whoa! Our favorite liberal is sounding more than a bit conservative ???

I actually have no problem with some sort of minimum standards for the right to vote. It aint gonna happen but I agree. Your example paints Republicans in a bad way but this affects both sides of course. Who is worse? Doesn't really matter to me as long as we have people with a clue voting vs those who simply vote for a party line or because of a lie they heard. I knew of PLENTY of people who voted for Obama simply because he was black, they had no idea what he stood for, what he wanted to do, they simply wanted a black man in office (and some were whites who wanted to feel they proved something about race relations, it made them "feel good") too many idiots out there voting for reasons that simply should not be in play!

It has been done in the USA before:

Between 1890 and 1910, ten of the eleven former Confederate states, starting with Mississippi, passed new constitutions or amendments that effectively disfranchised most blacks and tens of thousands of poor whites through a combination of poll taxes, literacy and comprehension tests, and residency and record-keeping requirements.[5][6] Grandfather clauses temporarily permitted some illiterate whites to vote but using the same law prevented most blacks from voting.

From the Wikipedia article on Jim Crow laws

Obviously you guys are not advocating the whole package, but it's not a great precedent.

Oh Dear Ricky. You quite obviously don't believe this crap so I'm forced to conclude that you only suggested it as a way of dressing up a cheap shot at Louisiana Republicans.

In answer to your question though, no, I don't think the franchise should be subject to any form of knowledge qualifications. That's a remarkably patronising and incredibly dangerous idea.

sass

That's a remarkably patronising and incredibly dangerous idea

I could have picked a poll of all Americans on a variety of issues to illustrate the point Sass.... Its just that the PPP poll was incredible. (And a Canadian citizenship test result I saw last week, wouldn't have meant anything to most of you, but the majority of Canadians who took it - failed.)
I get the dangerous part....as Danivon reminds us... that literacy requirements were a part of Jim Crow laws, so I understand that it has been discriminatory in the past.
Is it really patronising?
Consider that before becoming a citizen of most counties, new citizens are required to pass a basic knowledge exam that proves that they have a limited working knowledge of the institutions, history and laws of their new nation.
Why is that? So that these people are fully capable of participating in their new country with a reasonably complete understanding of the workings of their nation.
If it can be applied to new arrivals in a country, why not the native born? (say Ted Cruz)

In what other area is everyone qualified to have a say as a full participant regardless of their knowledge or expertise ? We qualify and educate people for every role in society. Driving licenses, for instance.
On a purely theoretical level, the idea that their should be some kind of knowledge basis for the franchise should deliver an electorate that is better equipped to make choices...

Failing that, how about a university course that any aspiring office seeker must have passed before they can stand for office? It would keep out the ill equipped and ignorant who have contributed nothing positive to the public discourse... (And yes I'm thinking of Michele Bachman and Louie Gohmert) .
It sometimes strikes me that democracy fails because the best qualified people to actually form a government are dissuaded because the rewards are limited and the life difficult. But by demanding a threshold before allowing participation, and rewarding those in government well .... perhaps the product would be better.
In Finland teachers are amongst the best paid and best qualified for their professions. They have the best educational system in the world. Its really a market approach to education.
It seems to me that participation in governance is neither an appealing option in terms of rewards nor a difficult enough one to enter at the same time... So only those with a specific physcologial profile are attracted .... and that doesn't seem to be working out.

Of course it's patronising. I'm not sure it should be necessary for me to have to explain why.

Sassenach wrote:Oh Dear Ricky. You quite obviously don't believe this crap so I'm forced to conclude that you only suggested it as a way of dressing up a cheap shot at Louisiana Republicans.

In answer to your question though, no, I don't think the franchise should be subject to any form of knowledge qualifications. That's a remarkably patronising and incredibly dangerous idea.

well put

Hey, it would never happen, it really SHOULDN'T happen for a slew of reasons. I am not advocating such a move,
but to think about out loud, one of those "what if" questions... I like it!

rickyp wrote:...So the question is, would a system that actually qualifies voters based on an understanding of things like, knowledge of the constitution, make a difference? Should voting be a privilege earned by attaining a certain level of knowledge about things?
And if so, what would those things be?

What next... are you going to insist that politicians also pass knowledge and literacy tests? If so, then who will we get to run for office?

I think history clearly shows that knowledge has little, if anything, to do with running for (or holding) office or for voting people into office. And I'm not just talking about the USA or Republicans, or do we need to trot out Wiener, M. Barry, Jesse Jackson (sr and jr), etc.?

georgeatkins wrote:

rickyp wrote:...So the question is, would a system that actually qualifies voters based on an understanding of things like, knowledge of the constitution, make a difference? Should voting be a privilege earned by attaining a certain level of knowledge about things?
And if so, what would those things be?

What next... are you going to insist that politicians also pass knowledge and literacy tests? If so, then who will we get to run for office?

Very nice!

On the other hand, would it be so bad to have someone more intelligent than . . . Nancy Pelosi in office?

george

What next... are you going to insist that politicians also pass knowledge and literacy tests? If so, then who will we get to run for office

?

Didn't I make that suggestion already?

Failing that, how about a university course that any aspiring office seeker must have passed before they can stand for office?

There aren't many professions, and politician is a profession, where there are almost no qualifications or required credentials... And yet the establishment of laws and policies got a nation is handed down to some remarkably incapable people. (And you have your examples as do I)
If one wants to improve the governance of a nation, shouldn't one consider ways to improve the people employed (elected they are, but they are also employed..) in these important roles?
There are some ways that current systems mitigate for the election of idiots: For example:
Parliamentary systems have systems of "supervision" over back benchers who might not possess great intelligence or knowledge... And who aren't included in cabinet or committee where they might do "damage". But it strikes me that the American system has less party control and that members, particularly Senators.... are mostly independent agents ...
However I don't think it unreasonable to question whether or not the imposition of qualifying credentials might not actually improve governance and public debate and discourse.
Interestingly the Chinese Communist party sends all of its best and brightest to schools in the US to study advanced organizational theory, economics and etc. Only after that advanced education are they then promoted throught the party to positions where they can affect policy ...

When the US system seems to have run aground, where muddling through is the most that can be hoped for, because intransigence and a failure to compromise or work out equitable solutions, or address real problems ... you have to wonder about whether or not raising the bar of participation might make things work better...

And I get it, that its "anti-democratic". But democracy has to work too. And if the systems in place to deliver democracy aren't functioining, then democracy is thwarted...

georgeatkins

I think history clearly shows that knowledge has little, if anything, to do with running for (or holding) office or for voting people into office. And I'm not just talking about the USA or Republicans, or do we need to trot out Wiener, M. Barry, Jesse Jackson (sr and jr), etc.?

Of course my point, which you are only reinforcing, is that history has shown that democracy has its failings.
I beleive that democracy works best with an educated, informed and engaged public.
I beleive it would also be improved upon if the politicians were better prepared for office...
This seems to be addressed in every other facet of soceity and business... But no one ever talks about how to improve the quality of the participants in politics...

The people needing to be qualified are not only the candidate, but the electorate. I would hope that we can agree on that.

Bad candidates provide the electorate with little choice.
Bad electorates provide the nation with the possibility of the poorest candidate and all suffering the decisions therein.

Then again, the people who vote for candidate X, just because they have nice hair or are cute, get the results they deserve. Unfortunately, the nation has to suffer along with them.

b

The people needing to be qualified are not only the candidate, but the electorate. I would hope that we can agree on that

and how would you go about that?

What I want would probably not pass Constitutional muster, but thanks for asking.

I would like ID verification
I would like a citizenship test to get registered in your state
I would like not pre-voting (Day of election only, unless absentee voting due to military or medical)

I want to most informed (thus the election day only), most electorally knowledgeable (Citizenship test), qualified (State ID) electorate achievable.

What is your plan? Do you have one, or just popping off?

To be honest, the tribal and adversarial political culture, combined with an anti-intellectual strand, a media that likes to dumb things down, a political class that is in hock to moneyed interests and are remote from the majority of the electorate, and a general distrust of government itself are factors that I would suggest contribute greatly to 'ignorance' among voters.

And some of them are large problems in themselves, that 'intelligence tests' for voters simply will not solve.

Another problem:

If you explicitly disenfranchise a lot of people, even 'stupid' people, then politics will be more inclined to ignore them. If that group is large, and if the end up being marginalised, do not expect them to sit idly by and let you 'clever' people get on with it - they could be motivated in hard times to cause a lot of trouble.

Berthold Brecht wrote:After the uprising of June 17th
The Secretary of the Authors' Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Which said that the people
Had forfeited the government's confidence
And could only win it back
By redoubled labour.

Wouldn't it be simpler
in that case if the government
Dissolved the people and
Elected another?

Written with irony after the East German government (with the help of Soviet military force) put down the 1953 uprising.

The electorate do not need to be 'qualified' - in a democracy they already are by right of citizenship. What they need to be is involved, educated, interested and informed. Excluding those who are not (to whatever arbitrary measures you may choose to set) is an admission of failure in the system at large.