Source
r/AskThe_Donald•
hasapoint

What are your thoughts on a simple, on-ballot voter literacy test?

DISCUSSION

I've been tumbling this idea around for a while: what if party affiliation was removed from ballots and voters had to correctly identify the party for their chosen candidate for their vote in that race to count?

It avoids the subjective bullshit that old literacy tests were designed to take advantage of. There's no time limit and no pressure. It prevents single-party voting by anyone who can't be bothered to learn the names of the party's candidates.

Are there flaws in this design that you think I've missed? Do you think there's a better mechanism to ensure voters are minimally informed? Do you think ensuring voters are somewhat knowledgeable about the races they're casting a vote for is a worthy goal?

Posted Nov 7, 2018, 7:10 PM UTC

027
Taylor7500Competent•

Nope. Whether you like it or not, people who just go in and vote the party line aren't going anywhere. Restricting their freedom to vote by adding arbitrary requirements is not a good idea.

7
hasapointOPBeginner•

arbitrary requirements

What part of proving the voter knows who they are selecting is arbitrary?

-2†
Taylor7500Competent•

"Uneducated" voters have just as much a right to vote as you do.

6
hasapointOPBeginner•

Why? Voting is an exercise of force in a democracy (and by proxy in a republic). Is there not a moral obligation for a nation to ensure those who wield such power are able to do so with a nominal amount of responsibility and forethought?

-2†
Taylor7500Competent•

Voting is an exercise of force in a democracy (and by proxy in a republic). Is there not a moral obligation for a nation to ensure those who wield such power are able to do so with a nominal amount of responsibility and forethought?

No, it should strive for that, but it should never enforce it. Ultimately, if something is an inalienable right (as is voting) then it must apply even to people you don't like, or people you don't think should be able to wield it.

7
urgulburgleBeginner•

This is called voter suppression, and it's a violation of the constitution

3
theHeartlessVoidNovice•

Any reason why we can't just remove party affiliation altogether? I know way, way too many people who just vote the party line, regardless of if they even know who they're voting for, and in some cases, wind up !@#$ing themselves, legislatively-speaking.

5
[deleted]•

NO! for better or worse, the RIGHT to vote allows someone the ability to vote however they want. adding rules like what you suggest is voter suppression and akin to jim crow era laws to stop blacks from voting.

the great thing about our freedom is the ability to do things how we like, for better or worse.

2
hasapointOPBeginner•

The States can and do restrict voting rights from citizens at times: when they are mentally incompetent, when they have not yet reached the age of maturity, when they have committed a serious transgression. The moral right to self-determination only extends to an individual when they know what that means and have not proven they will use that right to harm another directly.

Based on your logic, it is immoral to deny the franchise to Charles Manson, someone who is severely mentally handicapped whose caregiver will be voting for them, or a toddler.

I specifically proposed this test because the Jim Crow literacy test was designed to stop people from voting based on an immutable characteristic - skin color. Requiring a voter to spend five minutes taking notes beforehand with a sample ballot or actually familiarizing themselves with the races and candidates beforehand is similar to the insane literacy tests of the reconstruction era is true in the same sense that you and I share 50% of our DNA with a banana.

History makes this a third-rail topic, but it doesn't have to be. If we want better outcomes, we need better systems. This is the least intrusive and least discriminatory test I can imagine. If you've got a better one, or a moral argument why a toddler should be allowed to fill in their ballot with crayon, please feel free to share it.

1
TiredanddontcareNovice•

This could easily be manipulated to reject capable people from casting their ballot due to severe dyslexia, or non native English speakers (assuming this test is done in English, not the official language of our nation)

Jim Crow laws are the perfect example of how this could be manipulated in the extreme.

Nobody suggested toddlers should vote. Do you think this is a major problem? Do you believe one party is recruiting impaired people and voting for them? If so, do you have any evidence of that?

4
hasapointOPBeginner•

This could easily be manipulated to reject capable people from casting their ballot due to severe dyslexia, or non native English speakers (assuming this test is done in English, not the official language of our nation)

If someone is incapable of writing D, R, L, I, or G, or reading a name, I don't think they're capable of making an informed choice that's binding on their fellow citizens.

Jim Crow laws are the perfect example of how this could be manipulated in the extreme.

Which is why I suggested a test that is difficult if not impossible to manipulate. Marking a single letter as a radio button, punching a hole, or scantron-style bubble fill is not something that is subjective.

Do you think this is a major problem? Do you believe one party is recruiting impaired people and voting for them? If so, do you have any evidence of that?

Why yes, I have got some evidence of that.

My major concern, though, was sparked by get-out-the-vote campaigns and people announcing they were voting straight-ticket R or D. Both major parties push for under-informed voters to vote party, not candidate or issue, and I believe this is a major problem, especially in Presidential Election years, when a person's preference for President colors how they vote in every other race, without knowing what their state, county, and township candidates positions and records are. Even judges are listed with party affiliation on some ballots. In off-year elections, a Senate race or Governor race has the same effect.

Lastly, strict party-line votes are part of the reason we've got no more conservative Democrats or liberal Republicans, and less common ground to meet in. That by itself should be a reason to reconsider how we conduct elections.

1
TiredanddontcareNovice•

I do apologize that I missed your description of the type of test you meant, just removing the party. I know, I know ironic that I keyed in on the words “literacy test” in the headline. Perhaps a clearer title like “remove party affiliation on the ballot” in the title would keep me and others from jumping to thoughts oh Jim Crow.

So what would happen to a ballot if Trump was marked with a D? Would the vote go for trump? The democrat? Or just not be counted? Again correct me if I am misunderstanding your idea.

That is certainly a disgusting case you pointed too. I have not heard of it before.

The final point though I am not sure is strong. Why do you feel party line votes make candidates less likely to find common ground? Whether the voter selects the party and moves on, or memorizes the name for the D or R does not impact the candidate. The candidate made it on the ballot by winning a partisan primary. The primary system plays a bigger role in selecting candidates who are closer to the party wings.

1
SnowSnowSnowSnowCompetent•

Literacy is... perhaps tragically... not a prerequisite for enfranchisement, no more then a level of intelligence. If you require people to have an IQ above 70 or the ability to read so as to participate in a democracy what you have is no longer a democracy.

2
hasapointOPBeginner•

We've never had a democracy. This is a Republic, if we can keep it.

The States can and do restrict voting rights from citizens at times: when they are mentally incompetent, when they have not yet reached the age of maturity, when they have committed a serious transgression. The moral right to self-determination only extends to an individual when they know what that means and have not proven they will use that right to harm another directly.

Based on your logic, it is immoral to deny the franchise to Charles Manson, someone who is severely mentally handicapped whose caregiver will be voting for them, or a toddler.

2
AutoModeratorMODExpert•

Welcome to r/AskThe_Donald a Pro Donald Trump moderated forum for political oriented discussion. Please follow the rules and be nice! - ATD Mod Team

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1
Tink2013Competent•

omg, poll tax, voter suppression, bring back the fire hoses and dogs. Oh wait, we can have a valid conversation about reasonable thing in current year without hyperbole and crazy talk about 70 years ago right?

Sounds good to me.

1
hasapointOPBeginner•

The success of this post (or utter lack thereof) is pretty solid evidence that people don't familiarize themselves with the issue before voting... on Reddit.

2
urgulburgleBeginner•

My dude, do you know what the civil rights movement was

-1
hasapointOPBeginner•

Yes. The question is, do you? You clearly didn't read the post and made no attempt to respond to the question.

2
urgulburgleBeginner•

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskThe_Donald/comments/9v2bre/what_are_your_thoughts_on_a_simple_onballot_voter/e9a39zo/

0