License to Vote? - General - Facepunch Forum

I've been mulling things over lately, and I came up with an idea that interested me. What if, in the US at least, we changed things so you needed a license in order to vote? Now, before anyone starts calling me a fascist or something, consider. We can all buy and own things like vehicles, but depending on which, you need to pass a series of tests to prove you can utilize them safely. Metaphorically, why should the "wheel" of a nation be steered by people who would ignorantly drive it off a cliff? Everyone of age could apply for the license, and would need to renew it, perhaps every other term, perhaps sooner. You'd be required to take tests that demonstrate at least a fundamental understanding of the government, the core ideals of the parties and the law. It might not even need to be that hard. To what end, you say? Why bother? Because frankly, so many ballots are cast in pure ignorance or out of desire to avoid contributing to voter apathy that elections sometimes seem a joke. Would half the nutjobs who make backwards votes in this country from the safety of Alabama be able to contribute their stupidity if they were required to know ONE DAMN THING about how government works? I'm guessing this would root-out a lot of non-thinkers from the equation. If one thing is made certain by our history, it's that these decisions need to be informed in nature, by informed people. This isn't to say that the license prevents them from voting however they want once they attain it, only that they pass. The test won't have any bias toward party affiliation or jam ideals down your throat. They can then vote however they like afterward. Now, I understand the next question: won't this FURTHER contribute to voter apathy? Well really, voter apathy isn't THAT bad of a thing. Yeah, it's a shame they don't vote for your cause, but if they have no opinions, convictions or KNOWLEDGE on the matter, they really SHOULDN'T be voting. And rooting out the politically ignorant might make change the entire arena for the better once the votes of the enlightened finally matter more. This is by no means a magic bullet, but where I sit I think it would help the fundamental problem with democracy, at least a little. My problem is, this feels too simple to be as good as it sounds to me. I have a feeling I'm missing an important factor, or that implementing this would somehow change it into something ugly. If I am, I'd very much like to know. So that's my pitch: favor informed decisions over rule-by-mob while keeping to Democratic and Human Rights. What do YOU think, FP?

Yeah, pretty sure there's a law that says you can't be charged to vote.

Unconstitutional. Would never happen OP. [quote=Wikipedia]The issue of voting rights in the United States has been contentious over the country's history. Eligibility to vote in the U.S. is determined by both Federal and state law. Currently, only citizens can vote in U.S. elections (although this has not always been the case). Who is (or who can become) a citizen is governed on a national basis by Federal law. Absent of federal law or constitutional amendment, each State is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within their own jurisdiction. Over time, the federal role in elections has increased through amendments and enacted legislation, such as the Voting Rights Act.[1] At least four of the fifteen post-Civil War constitutional amendments were ratified specifically to extend voting rights to different groups of citizens. These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on * The no religious test clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, section 3. * "All persons born or naturalized" "are citizens" of the US and the US State where they reside (14th Amendment, 1868) * "Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (15th Amendment, 1870) * "On account of sex" (19th Amendment, 1920) * Washington, DC, Citizenship, restoring voting rights for only Presidential Elections after 164 year suspension by US Congress (23rd Amendment, 1961) * "By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" (24th Amendment, 1964) * "Who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age" (26th Amendment, 1971). In addition, the 17th Amendment provided for the direct election of United States Senators. The "right to vote" is explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution in the above referenced Amendments, but only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. The "right to vote" may or may not be denied for other reasons. For example, many States require eligible citizens to register to vote a set number of days prior to the election in order to vote. More controversial restrictions include those laws that prohibit convicted felons from voting or, as seen in Bush v. Gore, disputes as to what rules should apply in counting or recounting ballots [2][/quote]

[QUOTE=Mac2468;27198960]Yeah, pretty sure there's a law that says you can't be charged to vote.[/QUOTE] I believe there is [b]Edit:[/b] And it was posted right above me

I know a lot of people who voted for obama only because he was black why. And this idea wouldn't stop all bullshit votes but would sure improve it.

I do really wish people knew how the fucking government works before voting, but this isn't the solution for that. Time and education, it's painful, but it's better.

It could lead to a technocracy, but it all depends on how hard the tests are and what they're about. I'm in favour of a little quiz on the policies of each candidate that each voter has to undertake before they're votes are cast, but they may re-vote every hour or so until they get the quiz right.

[QUOTE=Louis;27198980]I know a lot of people who voted for obama only because he was black why. And this idea wouldn't stop all bullshit votes but would sure improve it.[/QUOTE] And I know people who only voted for McCain because he was white. Welcome to this little world, hurdling through space ass backwards.

I don't know about this. This system could be heavily abused by a government to stay in power.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;27199042]I don't know about this. This system could be heavily abused by a government to stay in power.[/QUOTE] just like the media can control the uneducated masses to help a government stay in power?

Isn't that basically aristocracy?

this is fucking dumb yeah man lets charge people to vote in a democracy

[QUOTE=Louis;27198980]I know a lot of people who voted for obama only because he was black why. And this idea wouldn't stop all bullshit votes but would sure improve it.[/QUOTE] I know people who didn't vote for Obama because he was black, what's your point? And OP, even if you don't charge people for the license, this is a horrible idea. The point of voting is to get people involved in government, if people had to take tests before voting we would have even less voters than we do now. Also, you do not need to know how the government functions in order to be a successful voter. The ballots simplify positions enough to make an informed decision if you want to, and you don't need to vote on the things you don't want to.

Okay, unconstitutional, yadda yadda. But I'm asking more along the lines of "why not?" Yes, sure, give everyone a voice. Once more, yadda yadda. But sometimes, don't you figure that the Constitution didn't really figure for a lot of things? I'm just saying, after 200+ years, aren't weak-points in the armor presenting themselves? Yeah, I know nobody would enact something like this. It's totally hypothetical until such time as the government devolves into something so bad we're forced as citizens to overtake it in a coup. After that point, I think the Founding Fathers tell us SPECIFICALLY if things get bad enough, to reconstruct the government in a way that is better and prevents the errors of the past. This sounds like just such an alteration. [quote]I don't know about this. This system could be heavily abused by a government to stay in power. [/quote] Okay, not bad, but elaboration would help. This is what I mean by reasons "why not".

because no one would put the effort into taking the tests but liberal nerds and we'd be a complete shithole of a country

[QUOTE=Chrille;27199080]just like the media can control the uneducated masses to help a government stay in power?[/QUOTE] It makes a huge difference, but that isn't directly controlling votes.

You live in the country, you should have rights to vote for people to rule it.

They already had literacy tests for voting a few hundred years ago, it was literally made to exclude black people from voting. Any sort of test would just be a tactic to exclude disadvantaged people from voting.

[QUOTE=Louis;27198980]I know a lot of people who voted for obama only because he was black why. And this idea wouldn't stop all bullshit votes but would sure improve it.[/QUOTE] I know what you mean. I was all for Obama, and working in the mall near the "less white" part of town, i would see a ton of homeboys coming through wearing fitted KC hats and shirts that were XXL with a massive OBAMA across the top, his face in the center, and dollar signs on the back. I asked them what they were most excited for when he won, and they said "He's black!" and walked off. Those are the people who shouldn't be voting. Not because they voted for a guy because he's like them, but because they couldn't give 2 shits about what he wants. Obama could have easily said "White people of America, don't fear, i want to kill all the black people" and those guys wouldn't have had a clue. They would have just kept going ignorantly along just because "he's black!"

dumb idea~~

This would be like those literacy tests that just ended up keeping blacks from voting when the Jim Crow laws were in effect. Wouldn't end well at all.

Wow, the fact that I'm receiving DUMB ratings for proposing that SMART people should be running things, has an irony to it. Also, these days being educated is as simple as your own willingness to learn. Between mandatory schooling and the motherfucking Internet, there's really no excuse NOT to be able to learn the basics. Literacy tests were unfair back then because education discriminated by race. Today, it does not. So the only discrimination going on here, is discrimination against the stupid and ignorant, and if that makes me "intelligist" or something, then so be it. The way I see it: uninformed vote = wasted vote.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;27200054]This would be like those literacy tests that just ended up keeping blacks from voting when the Jim Crow laws were in effect. Wouldn't end well at all.[/QUOTE] so the tests would still keep blacks from voting? [editline]4th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=J-Dude;27200194]Wow, the fact that I'm receiving DUMB ratings for proposing that SMART people should be running things, has an irony to it.[/QUOTE] Yeah I think that we should get some smart guy and the smart guys that he proposes to run things and forbid some people from voting since they are dumb/jew/anticommie and then give the smart guy all the power, just like Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, Kim, Pol Pot! No wait those guys ended up commiting massacres and genocides.

No but they'd probably be abused as shit.

[QUOTE=JohnStamosFan;27199908]I know what you mean. I was all for Obama, and working in the mall near the "less white" part of town, i would see a ton of homeboys coming through wearing fitted KC hats and shirts that were XXL with a massive OBAMA across the top, his face in the center, and dollar signs on the back. I asked them what they were most excited for when he won, and they said "He's black!" and walked off. Those are the people who shouldn't be voting. Not because they voted for a guy because he's like them, but because they couldn't give 2 shits about what he wants. Obama could have easily said "White people of America, don't fear, i want to kill all the black people" and those guys wouldn't have had a clue. They would have just kept going ignorantly along just because "he's black!"[/QUOTE] To be fair, the fact that he's black is a really good reason for people to be excited that he won. Anyone who thinks that's just some minor side note doesn't understand how fucking racist this country, and the world in general, still is. I'm not saying that he is single-handedly fixing race issues in America because it's not that simple. Most people just reform there stereotypes to make an exception for Obama. But it certainly helps by bringing race into attention. America is a country that's trying to solve race issues by ignoring them. That doesn't work, so when something big like that happens, it's usually beneficial.

[QUOTE=J-Dude;27198926]Metaphorically, why should the "wheel" of a nation be steered by people who would ignorantly drive it off a cliff?[/QUOTE] :iiaca: Fundamentally a good idea but too prone to corruption, and would cost a lot.

That is a horrible idea.

[quote]Yeah I think that we should get some smart guy and the smart guys that he proposes to run things and forbid some people from voting since they are dumb/jew/anticommie and then give the smart guy all the power, just like Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, Kim, Pol Pot![/quote] Dude, nobody is being "forbade" from voting. You just pass a test on BASIC understanding of government. How in the Hell does that lead anywhere unless someone starts fucking with the questions of the test or failing people who actually pass? You could retake the damn thing, and they'd be required to show you which ones you got wrong like is the case with a driver's test.

I think reasons like this are why they made the USA.

[QUOTE=J-Dude;27198926] So that's my pitch: favor informed decisions over rule-by-mob while keeping to Democratic and Human Rights. What do YOU think, FP?[/QUOTE] So what if I don't like Democracy or human rights - my vote shouldn't count since I voted wrong? [editline]4th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=J-Dude;27200357]Dude, nobody is being "forbade" from voting. You just pass a test on BASIC understanding of government. How in the Hell does that lead anywhere unless someone starts fucking with the questions of the test or failing people who actually pass? You could retake the damn thing, and they'd be required to show you which ones you got wrong like is the case with a driver's test.[/QUOTE] Depends on the questions - if there is some questions with answer that I disagree, what then? Still a pretty dumb idea. The whole point of having those who decide for us is that they have the facts and they know the shit.