Okay, first off, what a shame for Senator Paul Wellstone's family and friends and supporters. I am very sorry to see that he and his wife and daughter came to such an end. Plane wrecks are always so tragic.

That aside, would you ever vote the sympathy vote?

I know that last year Mel Carnahan was running for senate and was quite a bit behind in all the poles. After he and his son died in a plane wreck, his wife (Jean Carnahan) ran and won, many say on the sympathy vote. Now poor Paul Wellstone and his wife and daughter have died in the same kind of wreck, and many republican and democractic strategists are saying that his opponent has already lost to the sympathy vote, regardless of whether they keep his name on the ballot or put another name on (such as, Walter Mondale). In addition, Jean Carnahan has been running a very close second to Jim Talent in the Missouri senate race, and many political strategists are now saying that she will get a sympathy vote this year because of the Paul Wellstone tragedy.

How do you vote? Do you vote a sympathy vote... ever?

Just curious...

No, I would not vote a sympathy vote!

But I consider myself to be of above average intelligence...

I wouldn't either, Tabby, but this can't be a totally ignorant question, can it? I mean, this is something that really happens and has meant the difference when it comes to who holds a government office.

So, who actually does vote the sympathy vote? Is it ever okay to vote for, or ask for, the sympathy vote?

You know, people used to have to take tests in order to register to vote in the first place. One qualifier was that they had to know how to read. I am so not opposed to bringing back the test for registration (not that I've heard anyone asking for this). I would like to have more informed people voting. I think this would force more candidates to have a mandate, to get their word out, to be qualified themselves.

What do you all think?

Shhh,
Whisper

...might have stumbled across on the West Wing forum.
I'll ramble a bit since it's a thread I'd like to 'support' <G>.

Odd as this may sound, I need a better definition of a 'sympathy' vote... a practical definiftion which I doubt you can give me. I know there have been instances of dead candidates actually winning elections. How many votes for dead folks or widow/er(s) are actually sympathy... in such a way, for instance, as: I'm a staunch Republican but I'm voting for the other candidate out of sympathy. When the term 'sympathy vote' is used... that what comes to my mind, but I can't believe that's as prevalent as superficial commentary might suggest.

I think sometimes a 'sympathy vote' is a protest vote. I've never voted for a dead guy... but I cast a write-in vote for Colin Powell for President in the last election. I knew he'd never become President... but I decided I didn't really care whether Bush or Gore won. I didn't like either and didn't think one was enough worse than the other to warrant a vote that might matter. I think some people may vote for dead candidates as a protest more-so than out of sympathy.

Then there's the living candidate situations... widows running for their late, incumbant husbands... Mondale running in place of Wellstone. In these cases, I think sympathy may play a role... but I think it's alot more complicated than that. Most of us Americans (myself included) are woefully undereducated about politics and the candidates. I'd never heard of Paul Wellstone until he died... and he may not be from my state, but MN is a next door neighbor. Everything I've been reading about him makes him seem a bit liberal for my personal preferences BUT also like a real West Wing style politician. Someone who was honestly working had to make a difference rather than glorying in power trips and such.

Of course, the man has just died... which is something (this is gonna sound weird) I didn't think much about until right this minute. Unless the guy was a real crook... aren't people gonna be saying nice things about him? In the movie The American President, President Shepherd asks his Chief of Staff somethin like, "If we'd have had to stand up to a character debate 4 years ago, would we have won?" Shephers was a liberal... hadn't served in Viet Nam... but he was also a recent widower so his enemies knew better than to get into a mud fight cuz there would have been a sympathetic backlash.

So, I think sympathy votes aren't primarily votes based on, "Gee, I feel bad for this person so I think I'll vote for him/her." I think factors include:
1) Protest votes
2) Greater voter awareness of candidates
3) Less mud slinging plus alot of good press for the dead guy
4) An energized voter turnout... people who maybe didn't vote last time but now the media spotlight and the information accompanying it decide they need to step up and vote this time around.

One or two elections before my Powell vote (I think it was for Clinton's second term)... I also did a write-in for Ebert and Siskel (Siskel WAS alive at the time). I'm not sure I could go so far as to vote for a deceased individual, but really, is it that different? So, I believe I am capable of casting a very obvious sympathy vote... and I think in more subtle ways, the death of a politician could affect my voting record... perhaps who I vote for or whether I bother at all (I don't know that I've ever voted in a non-Prez election year, for instance).

Moving on to voter qualifications. I don't know that literacy is a fair and reasonable test. There are alot of intelligent and informed dyslexics out there, for instance. I sympathesize with your concern though. Then again, at the same time, this country needs more people voting, not less! (BTW-my personal pet peeve is the box to vote a straight party ticket. Damn, if you're so narrow minded you can't even consider voting for someone in another party... I'm not gonna stand for you beig lazy too. Check off the boxes for EACH party candidate you're voting for at least! <sheepish grin>)

There's a really great discussion on the WW forum that I need to follow up on with links related to election formats. Of course, every four years we debate whether the electoral college is or ever was a good idea. But there's alot more to this issue. There are some voting systems where you actually rank candidates in order of preference. In our system, if you don't vote Dem or Repub there's almost no chance your vote will count... even in non-electoral college elections. In the ranking system, there's more of a chance that a 3rd party candidate could garner enough 1st AND 2nd place votes to win.

I forgot the term that was used to refer to this... proprotional representation or something? Of course there can be a downside, which is the same as the upside... you are more likely to have people who think outside of the mainstream being represented. I mean, do we really want to make it easier to get a skinhead into Congress, for example? But as someone who considers myself an Independent... who typically isn't impressed with the choices the major parties offer us... it really would be nice to know that a vote outside the Big 2 might actually mean something.

Polls draw few people cuz most people think their vote doesn't matter... and in a way, they're right. The last episode of WW addressed how a party may not even bother to find and supposrt a viable candidate in some elections... the Dem running in Orange County was in the hospital with his 4rd heart attack. A character rolls his eyes wondering how the man was selected as a candidate after already having had 3 heart attacks. The reason was... it didn't matter cuz no Democrat has won in Orange County since, like, basically forever. <sigh> And of course the President was only visiting states that were big enough and on on the fence as to whether they'd vote for him or not.

I think it may be time to seriously investigate election reform even moreso than campaign finance reform... In business, we've made monopolies illegal... and yet, monopolies seem to be a matter of course in politics.

Aquillea

Wish I could edit <pout>

I won't correct them, I want to clarify something:
"So, I believe I am capable of casting a very obvious sympathy vote..."

So, when I wrote that, I was using 'sympathy vote' in the context of perhaps someday voting for a deceased candidate... like maybe I'll vote for Ebert and Siskel again someday (LOL).

It may look like a sympathy vote... but it'll be a protest vote.
A~

QUOTE Whisper:
"I know that last year Mel Carnahan was running for senate and was quite a bit behind in all the poles. After he and his son died in a plane wreck, his wife (Jean Carnahan) ran and won, many say on the sympathy vote."

Jean Carnahan was not voted in. Mel Carnahan was voted in. His wife was selected to do is job for him. At least that's how I see it.
And personally, I wouldn't vote for sympathy. If I felt that person was the one for the job, I would have to do some serious thinking before voting in the person that was taking the others one place.Then if the replacement was worth the vote, I vote for the replacement. If the replacement wasn't worth my vote, I would vote for the other guy.
Here's another question for you, What if neither one was worth the vote? Do you vote for the lesser of the two evils? Or not vote at all?

Jean Carnahan was not voted in. Mel Carnahan was voted in. His wife was selected to do is job for him. At least that's how I see it.

No, you're right. I'm glad you brought that up. She never did actually get on the ballet. They did let everyone know that she was the one who would take his place. John Ashcroft didn't feel as if he could decently campaign. How do you campaign against a dead man and his widow? She had no experience, no mandate, and underwent no debates. I can totally see why the political strategists say that she got the sympathy vote. She really did get selected to be senator for Missouri (which makes Hilary Clinton's recent remarks about President Bush just laughable).


And personally, I wouldn't vote for sympathy. If I felt that person was the one for the job, I would have to do some serious thinking before voting in the person that was taking the others one place.Then if the replacement was worth the vote, I vote for the replacement. If the replacement wasn't worth my vote, I would vote for the other guy.

Totally agree! But how do you explain Senator Carnahan's seat? It's clear that some people do vote sympathy.


Here's another question for you, What if neither one was worth the vote? Do you vote for the lesser of the two evils? Or not vote at all?

Thank you! I am having a terrible dilema right now that is just like this. I can't for the life of me decide between Kathleen Sebelius and Tim Shallenburger. Neither of them will tell anyone what they stand for. The debates are worthless. It's just impossible to know who to vote for! So, do I vote for the lesser of two evils? Who would that be?

Shhh,
Whisper

Aquillea, I was talking about sympathy for sympathy sake, not for candidate frustration. I can understand candidate frustration. Boy, can I ever, but I work so hard to not waste my vote.

I can also see people deciding to get out to vote because of added publicity, but even so, those vote should mean something. I hope they vote for someone or something, not just because they feel sorry for a person. Sympathy is a good and human thing. It did a lot to help our country start to heal last year, it does a lot for our neighbors and our friends, and it does a lot for us as humans, but should we choose our future via sympathy?

As for voter registration, how do you expect a dyslexic person to vote if he or she cannot recognize the candidate's name? I think there could and would be assistance for those people who have disabilities, as there are now for the blind. I'd personally rather have more informed people voting, not less.

Thanks for the interesting conversation, people!

Shhh,
Whisper

Whisper,

I figured what you were most interested in was strict sympathy deciding a vote. What I failed to get at, concisely, is that I just have to doubt that all (or even most) of the votes the media characterizes as 'sympathy votes' are cases where a Repub votes Dem (or vice versa) simply cuz they 'feel bad the guy died.' Just because polling data changes after the death of a candidate doesn't mean all the gained votes are alternative sympathy cards for the family in mourning.

In other words, I doubt that that mindless, heartfilled 'sympathy' votes are a significant problem in American elections. To change my mind, I need more data than just anecdotes of unexpected election results. As a scientist, I know correlations do not always signify causation.

Similarly, illiteracy and ignorance are also not a 100% cause and affect situation, so I don't know how much more informed the voters will be if there's a literacy test. Most assuredly, it is hard (tho' not impossible) to be informed if you don't read. But what percent of the voters are illiterate to begin with? Actual voters... not eligible voters. Is it really enough to matter in any practical sense? My expectation would be (and again, I have no data to back this with) that the percent of illiterate voters is tiny and, as a result, pretty inconsequential when compared to the percentage of -uninformed-literate-voters.

If you can point me towards some data that say illiterate voters are having a meaningful impact on elections, I'll consider literacy testing more seriously. If we're just voicing non-PC voting rights wishes... I say ban all debtors from voting. Because, if news coverage is any indication of incidence, I think incompetent folks drowning in a sea of credit card debt make up a larger percentage of irresponsible people who vote than illiterate folks. Why should debtors have any say in government? They can't manage their own finances but they get a say in *everyone's* finances?!

If we're gonna upset the PC cops over election reform... I just think there are way bigger fish to fry!

Thanks for the open dialog!
Aquillea

Uh huh October 28 2002, 9:55 PM

Whisper,

I figured what you were most interested in was strict sympathy deciding a vote. What I failed to get at, concisely, is that I just have to doubt that all (or even most) of the votes the media characterizes as 'sympathy votes' are cases where a Repub votes Dem (or vice versa) simply cuz they 'feel bad the guy died.' Just because polling data changes after the death of a candidate doesn't mean all the gained votes are alternative sympathy cards for the family in mourning.

You didn't fail to get at your point. I just wasn't talking about votes that are not true sympathy votes. I was talking about sympathy votes . I believe one vote can matter, so I question true sympathy votes period. I have never believed that gained votes during a tragedy are all sympathy votes, but sympathy votes can make a difference.


In other words, I doubt that that mindless, heartfilled 'sympathy' votes are a significant problem in American elections. To change my mind, I need more data than just anecdotes of unexpected election results. As a scientist, I know correlations do not always signify causation.

Well, close votes happen all over the country. How many votes do you think it takes to matter?


Similarly, illiteracy and ignorance are also not a 100% cause and affect situation, so I don't know how much more informed the voters will be if there's a literacy test. Most assuredly, it is hard (tho' not impossible) to be informed if you don't read. But what percent of the voters are illiterate to begin with? Actual voters... not eligible voters. Is it really enough to matter in any practical sense? My expectation would be (and again, I have no data to back this with) that the percent of illiterate voters is tiny and, as a result, pretty inconsequential when compared to the percentage of -uninformed-literate-voters.

Never said they were 100% cause and effect. In addition, I was only giving one example of what the testing covered. There were other things tested. I just don't have an example test to go over them one by one.


If you can point me towards some data that say illiterate voters are having a meaningful impact on elections, I'll consider literacy testing more seriously. If we're just voicing non-PC voting rights wishes... I say ban all debtors from voting. Because, if news coverage is any indication of incidence, I think incompetent folks drowning in a sea of credit card debt make up a larger percentage of irresponsible people who vote than illiterate folks. Why should debtors have any say in government? They can't manage their own finances but they get a say in *everyone's* finances?!

And let's fire 90% of the people in congress for the same reason! I'm with you on this!



If we're gonna upset the PC cops over election reform... I just think there are way bigger fish to fry!

I don't care who's upset. I'd just like to see more informed people voting and more responsible people holding seats.




Thanks for the open dialog!
Aquillea

Ditto

Shhh,
Whisper

Quote ~A:
If you can point me towards some data that say illiterate voters are having a meaningful impact on elections, I'll consider literacy testing more seriously. If we're just voicing non-PC voting rights wishes... I say ban all debtors from voting. Because, if news coverage is any indication of incidence, I think incompetent folks drowning in a sea of credit card debt make up a larger percentage of irresponsible people who vote than illiterate folks. Why should debtors have any say in government? They can't manage their own finances but they get a say in *everyone's* finances?!"

QUOTE Whisper:
"And let's fire 90% of the people in congress for the same reason! I'm with you on this!"

Ok, so what you're both saying is that because I have, or am in, debt that I shouldn't have the right to vote?! But you being the "responsible voters" get to vote?! Is that what I'm hearing here? That I, as a "irresponsible voter" who is in debt, shouldn't get to vote for someone that very well could help me get out of debt?

incompetent folks drowning in a sea of credit card debt make up a larger percentage of irresponsible people who vote than illiterate folks.
~~ You can't sit there and tell me that most people that vote *don't* have some form of debt. I don't know anyone in my life that DOESN'T have debt of some kind. I'm not sure, but I think I may very well be offended by this.....

I should have divided that up somemore, because it came off not terribly representative of what I feel. I would like people who are criminally irresponsible to be banned from voting. That does not mean your average credit card holder. It means people who forge checks, who are unwilling to pay their debts... Few things get me more angry than to hear someone talking about how the credit card company cheated them because they charged them finance charges on purchases they made, late charges on bills they failed to pay on time, and/or set the collection agency on them for nonpayment. Hello? Who signed for the credit card account anyway?

Most people DO have some form of debt or another, and I don't have a problem with that. My gosh, I have a house payment, car payment, and two credit card payments. It'd be more than a little hypocritical for me to be saying that!

Anyway, my point was not so much about the voting citizen, but about those holding seats. I can't see how they can raise our taxes so they can balance a budget that they have stolen from so frequently that it is in serious debt. Millions and millions and millions of lost funds, and they want to raise our taxes? That just irks me no end!!

Shhh,
Whisper

Disclaimer: When I use the word 'you' in the following post, it is not directed at any specific person. It's the generic... like if I said 'one' or 'somebody' or whatever.

~Wike: You can't sit there and tell me that most people that vote *don't* have some form of debt. I don't know anyone in my life that DOESN'T have debt of some kind.

A~: I think incompetent folks drowning in a sea of credit card debt make up a larger percentage of irresponsible people who vote than illiterate folks.

True, the sentence preceding this one used 'debtor' without qualifying it... but here we see the 'qualifier'. I'm talking about people who think credit cards mean they have a right to buy what they want, even if they can't afford it. People who are opening their 3rd major credit card account because they've maxed out the other 2. Personally, I find it hard to imagine responsible people maxing out even one credit card... at least in something other than a temporary, emergency situation... like when I had to spend $600 on plane tix when my mom had brain surgery. Even then... since I think my credit limit on the card at that time was like $3000 or more... I was no where near my limit. And if I didn't know that I could afford those tix, I would have driven to NY or stayed home.

I was raised to believe that gambling was OK... as long as you only bring to the table what you can afford to loose... and you don't buy things you cannot afford.

Mortgages on a house are VERY different. That's a 'rent to own' situation in a way. Buying a house is usually the financially RESPONSIBLE thing to do. Car payments I'm more iffy on but I'll let that slide in the rent-to-own category too. But in all my memory, neither my parents nor I have ever made car payments. We've only purchased used cars that we had enough money to buy outright. College is also an investment in one's financial future and belongs in a different category than spiraling credit card debt.

That said... I don't know what the situation is now, but when I was in college, defaulting on student loans was a big problem. Sorry, but a college education is not a right guaranteed to all Americans, and you shouldn't buy something you can't afford, even if it's an education. Defaulting on loans is fiscally irresponsible and I don't think people who do so should be deciding on what the government does with MY money.

If you're credit is good because you're paying off your student loan... you're keeping up with your mortgage and car loan... excellent... you don't fall into the fiscally irresponsible category. In fact, with at least the home and the education, you're probably quite the opposite of being fiscally irresponsible. Additionally, if you're in debt because of unforseen hardships... medical issues, natural disasters... also not your fault. But if, like some folks starting with our generation, I think, you got flooded with credit card applications when you graduated high school, filled one out and started acting like it was carte-blanche to fulfill your greedy American consumerist desires, even if your bank account couldn't cover your spending habits... if your credit card debt is spiraling out of control... I don't see why the government has any responsibility to bail you out... using MY money to do it.

Just my not so humble opinion, of course
-Aquillea

What's even MORE maddedning, is that I don't think that the majority of the college loan defaulting that was going on was happening because people COULDN'T pay off their loan. I may be wrong, but my impression was lots of students just didn't bother to.

Of course that's not financial irresponsibility so much as criminal theft!!! But man, that just burns me up!
A~

QUOTE ~A:
"Disclaimer: When I use the word 'you' in the following post, it is not directed at any specific person. It's the generic... like if I said 'one' or 'somebody' or whatever."

I know that you weren't talking about any one person. I figured that one out on my own.

QUOTE ~A:
"That said... I don't know what the situation is now, but when I was in college, defaulting on student loans was a big problem. Sorry, but a college education is not a right guaranteed to all Americans, and you shouldn't buy something you can't afford, even if it's an education. Defaulting on loans is fiscally irresponsible and I don't think people who do so should be deciding on what the government does with MY money."

With the cost of education skyrocketing, how could anyone not help to default? I'm not saying that it's ok for anyone to default, but there are people out there with school loans, working in the fields the went to school for, that will be paying off said school loans for the rest of their lives. Add to this the cost of raising a family, add to this, a roof over said family heads, food in their mouths, clothes on their backs.......you get where I'm going here right? It would be very easy for anyone to default on school loans. Does any of this mean it's right? No. Does any of this mean that because the do default that they have LESS say in what their government does or doesn't do? No.

That was me. Sorry.

...you took issue with me, Wike.

And it's not that I don't have a 'thing' about fat, greedy Americans and fiscal irresponsibility, cuz I do. In my family, we didn't have new cars or boats or motor homes when I was a kid. We did take vacations but they were usually car trips. To me, Holiday Inn was an expensive hotel cuz we ALWAYS stayed in cheaper ones. Pizzas were never from a restaurant... sometimes we had pancakes for dinner in the lean years. Lots of tuna noodle caserole and creamed chipped beef on toast... and very little steak. When my peers were wearing Candies shoes and Xena jeans... I wore clothes that weren't over-priced because of their name-appeal.

Even when we'd moved to upper middle class status, my dad refused, on principle to get a credit card. The only reason he broke down (in my teens or preteens) was because he got stranded at an airport after a business trip and couldn't rent a car cuz he didn't have a card. And now-a-days, neither my parents, my sister nor I have ever purchased a brand new computer. All of them have been bought used.

We're a relatively tight-fisted lot.

So, yes, I resent people who exercise little to no self control in spending habits. But, in truth, I realize that debt is a complicated topic and you can't really deny people voting rights because of it. Remember my phrase about 'non-PC voting rights wishes'... I think my situation with credit card junkies is similar to Whisper's with the under-intelligent/informed... but I still don't think she sees it that way. But to me, I think you get into real trouble when you start setting standards for voting rights.

You need to be smart enough to read.
You need to be informed enough to... what? Know there are 3 countries on the North American continent??? blah... blah... blah.
You need to be financially responsible.
You need to have good moral standards.
You need to...

Well, basically, you need to be alot like me or I don't want you to vote. If I'm better than you (you know, by my own standards), you can't vote. I'm smarter, I'm more informed, I'm more responsible, I'm more moral, I'm...

I just think it's sticky, bad business to restrict the right to vote. We need to create better, more engaged citizen-voters, not say if you don't meet our standards, you're out.

At least, that's how I feel.
And what does this have to do with sympathy votes again? (ROTFL)
~Kooky Quills~

I wasn't taking issue with you. I was taking issue with what you were saying. I didn't like that you were saying that people who may be in debt shouldn't have a right to vote. Just because someone may be in debt doesn't make them less informed. Or less caring of the issuses.

And I had the same kind of childhood. My parents made sure I had food, and clothes. If I wanted brand name labels on my clothes, I had to get a job and buy my own (at age 16 of course...). I personally don't see anything wrong with buying new things. Even new things with a label. But to have everything with a label just because everyone else has the same label....? I don't see the need for that.
I feel this is a big problem with kids today. Their parents hand them everything they want. But, that's a whole different topic for a different thread.



The point I was trying to make was that limiting who can or can't vote is a double edged sword. There is no black and white. There is only gray. And I think the same thing with what Whisper was saying too. Maybe instead of reading tests and credit reports, they should be tested on the issuses on the ballots......? <<shrug>. Again, no black, no white. Just gray.

I agree that more people should be informed. Hell, I need to better informed. I've only started paying attention to these things in the last few years. Even then I'm so confused that half the time I'm not sure I'm making the right choice. I should say the right choice for me and mine. Hubby and I disagree on who to vote for all the time. And half of those are because I don't fully understand the issuses. But, I'm working on it.

And as for the sympathy vote, I feel that when people vote this way, it's for lack of understanding. Lack of understanding of what could happen when one votes this way.

There. Is that back on track?

...'take issue with me', I didn't mean that in a personal way, scout's honor

Maybe instead of reading tests and credit reports, they should be tested on the issuses on the ballots......?

But who decides which issues? How many issues do you have to know about? I remember back to Bush vs. Gore... when many a person that I imagined might be knowledgable about more than one issue were stating loud and clear that the only thing that mattered to them in the election was that this Prez was probably gonna appoint a Supreme Court Judge... and Bush was a monstrously unacceptible choice because it would result in overturning Roe v. Wade. So, in essence, these folks might as well NOT have been informed about any other issue because there wasn't a single other issue that was going to affect their votes.

Does a person have to know what ANWAR stands for? Does he have to know what percent of ANWAR is proposed for drilling? Does he have to know the environmental vs economic stakes involved in the issue?

Does a person have to know how many Supreme Court Justices there are? Does he have to know their names and ages. Who is likely to die first and where (s)he stands on Roe v. Wade?

Does a person have to be able to define supply-side economics... trickle-down economics?

Does a person have to know what the national deficit is? How big it is? How fast it's growing? Does he have to know who our country owes all this money to and who we've got outstanding loans out to?

Does a person have to know how many troops we have in Afghanistan? How many members of our military have lost their lives there? Does he have to know what the Northern Alliance is and who its leader is? Does he have to know who the ruler of Afghanistan is? Of Russia? Or what it means to be the leader of the Palestinians? Or where Palastine is?

Do they have to know what orphan drugs are?

Do they have to know what Title IX is?

Do they have to know whether Taiwan is an independent nation or part of China? Do they have to know what human rights violations China is accused of? Do they have to know if China has nuclear weapons?

Who decides what issues go on the test? Who decides what a passing grade is? Do you have to get all the questions right? 80%? 1/3. Is it OK if you only know one issue, like Roe v. Wade, but you're an expert on it ?

Not everyone cares about the same issues, nor should they have to.

How can you possibly create a test that determines whether a person is 'sufficiently' informed? And I don't know about you, but I might as well relinquish MY right to vote right now... along with about 99% of the rest of Americans.

Aquillea

Maybe I'll dig around and find a sample test some day.

Aquillea, those questions you pose are a bit deliberately obtuse, don't you think?

If you want detail, okay. I wouldn't be opposed to testing for literacy (in the non-disabled), knowledge of what a president does (simple knowledge), what members of the congress do, what judges do.... All very basic knowledge. If someone knows that the president carries out laws, meets with the leaders from other countries, and leads the military; that the congress is made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and that together they make the laws for this country and decide on a budget for this country; if they know that judges make judgements on those laws; if they can recognize the three branches of the government -- executive = president (VP and cabinet), legislative = congress, and judicial = court system, and recognize that there is supposed to be a separation of powers; if they can recognize that they themselves have responsibilities as citizens of the United States of America to serve on a jury, pay taxes, elect our leaders... they should be voting! This is all very basic knowledge. This is stuff everyone should know, and most don't. What is so hard about imagining people getting a leaflet in the mail before they register (as they do before they go for their driving license), so they can study and take a short test. I just can't imagine what the problem is with this.

I just think a knowledgeable voter is of such great use to our nation. A vote by a knowledgeable voter is a better vote than either an "I feel sorry for this canditate." sympathy vote or an "I'll show 'em all; I'm voting for Lassie." wasted vote.

I do want people to vote. I just want them to know what they're voting for or against.

Shhh,
Whisper

btw -- I've actually voted on a single issue before. When two candidates are neck and neck in my book, sometimes a single issue can tip the balance. Sometimes a single issue is most important to me, and will outweigh several less important issues. The Sebelius/Shallenburger race that I mentioned above is one of them. I've finally decided to vote for Shallenburger, but only because I did some background research and found out a specific educational issue that Sebelius was part of that I don't care for. Thank goodness I was able to do this research. If I was waiting for the newspapers or television or debates to fill me in, I'd still be in the dark.

QUOTE ~A:
"Not everyone cares about the same issues, nor should they have to.

How can you possibly create a test that determines whether a person is 'sufficiently' informed? And I don't know about you, but I might as well relinquish MY right to vote right now... along with about 99% of the rest of Americans.

Aquillea"

What you're saying here is what I was saying with the whole debter issue! Not everyone one can be debt free either. Same thing here.
And why would a test have to be so detailed? Why not basic-every-American-should-know-this-from-history-class kind of test? You want a grading system? How about basic-high-school-old-enough-to-vote-level?

I do hope this isn't going to come to personal attacks. Or am I reading the tone wrong?

Why didn't someone tell me I was spelling "issue" wrong?! LOL! Here I am defending testing and I can't even spell! LOL!

I'm off to bed. I'll check back tomorrow for more.

Certainly not from this end.

What I'm sensing here is communications static combined with differening senses of the quality of voters who even bother to show up.

In this thread, I've read about literacy tests. I've read about informed voters. I've read about testing voters' knowledge of the issues. None of that equated to basic civics to me. The 3 branches of government is not an election issue so far as I know. The closest it's come to an election issue (at least for me) is my incredible irritation at the publicized use of the line item veto by our state's former governor. If the line item veto doesn't undermine the division of powers between legislative and executive branches, I don't know what does! To my mind, the issues are about money, and rights, and environment and war and etc. It was not clear to me at all that you were talking about the architecture of our government.

While knowing about the 3 branches of government and how they function is no guarantee of folks being informed on the issues... I would agree that it would be hard for a person to be adequately informed on the issues facing government if they don't understand the basic functions of government. I can't say that providing an elementary level civics primer and then quizzing potential voters is a horrible idea. I suspect the test you propose wouldn't even be as hard as the test to become a naturalized citizen. Certain privledges of being an American citizen ought to come hand in hand with certain responsibilities, I suppose.

But that said, I suppose there is something of a Libratarian bent to my nature at times. Let's not add to government needlessly. And, although I generally consider myself to rank unusually high on the pessimism meter, I guess I just find it hard to believe, at this point in time, such a test is warranted. And it's not because there aren't alot of clueless potential voters out there. We see these folks on Leno... and even voluntarily appearing on cable tv game shows, apparently rather proud of their own stupidity <sigh>. But what I find harder to believe is that alot of these ignoramouses are bothering to vote. If America had 100% voter turneout, or even 60%, I'd be a LOT more worried. But I just find it hard to believe that the too few people who ARE bothering to vote don't know that Presidents meet with foreign leaders and judges judge things in courts of law. It seems a little more possible but still not too likely that people who vote for a Senator or Representative don't know, when they're voting, that these folks are lawmakers.

That said, I don't really have a good idea what the responsibilities of, say, the state's Attorney General are... except that I presume they have something to do with the legal system. <shrug>

I guess I just feel that way too many voters just vote Dem or Repub sort of as a habit, without much if anything in the way of knowledge of the issues and where each candidate actually stands on them... and so this problem just weighs more heavily on my mind. I feel that voters not understanding the mechanics of government are of substantially lesser number and, therefore lesser significance.

But I admit, I work at a university and most of my friends have a college education... so perhaps I overestimate the qualifications of the folks exiting America's polling places. <shrug>

-Aquillea

Whisper,

Just because your decision in an election sometimes comes down to a single issue, I wouldn't say that makes you a 'one issue voter'.

-Aquillea