What would be the affect of a pre-vote quiz?

[Jakalwarrior]

Lets say Joe Blow goes into the booth and decides to vote for candidate X. What if he had to first pick that persons picture out from a lineup of the other candidates, then pick atleast 5 true statements about his or her platform from a list of 20 (50% being true, but you must score a 100%).

What affect would forcing voters to know something about the candidate they want to vote for have? Would it make more of them stay home? would it make a country better? would it not matter? Honestly though, im just tired of seeing people vote for whoever is the best talker and gets backed by the media. Of course I am sure the media would go over all the possible answers for the candidates they like non stop, but atleast that would force people to think about their platform.

[Monte314]

Lets say Joe Blow goes into the booth and decides to vote for candidate X. What if he had to first pick that persons picture out from a lineup of the other candidates, then pick atleast 5 true statements about his or her platform from a list of 20 (50% being true, but you must score a 100%).

What affect would forcing voters to know something about the candidate they want to vote for have? Would it make more of them stay home? would it make a country better? would it not matter? Honestly though, im just tired of seeing people vote for whoever is the best talker and gets backed by the media. Of course I am sure the media would go over all the possible answers for the candidates they like non stop, but atleast that would force people to think about their platform.

We've already seen the effects of such systems in the American South. They are easily abused to disenfranchise people the controllers of the system think "shouldn't" be voting.

[Jakalwarrior]

That was when it was targeted to rule out blacks. I want it targeted to rule out people who don't know anything about the candidate they have picked. Heck, allow the candidate to pick which parts of his/her platform go into the list! then throw in random ones from the other candidates list as the wrong answers. Couldn't be any less biased letting the candidate make up his own multiple choice test. Offer it translated into every language under the sun and read by a neutral computer voice to all those who cant read or have bad vision. Brail version, etc...

I say we have more bias without the test, its just a different groups opinion that gets forced. Right now it is my opinion that the media probably has more control over the elections than the people creating tests biased against minorities in the early days.

[zibber]

Isn't it true that in the USA, voters will get phonecalls from people asking things like "did you know Barack Obama once went to a movie about Islam?" or "did you know John McCain has a black baby?"

Seriously, though, your idea sounds reasonable, as long as the questions are selected in an unbiased way and phrased as concretely as possible. There's a big difference in effect between "Barack Obama wants to gradually decrease the number of US troops in Iraq" and "Barack Obama wants to give up on the Iraq war", if you know what I mean.

[Jakalwarrior]

Isn't it true that in the USA, voters will get phonecalls from people asking things like "did you know Barack Obama once went to a movie about Islam?" or "did you know John McCain has a black baby?"

Seriously, though, your idea sounds reasonable, as long as the questions are selected in an unbiased way and phrased as concretely as possible. There's a big difference in effect between "Barack Obama wants to gradually decrease the number of US troops in Iraq" and "Barack Obama wants to give up on the Iraq war", if you know what I mean.

Yeah, let the candidates word their own and mix em all up, see if the people can pick them out. If the candidate words his own stuff to hard or biased, well thats his own problem.

1: "Barack Obama supports stay in Iraq until the war is over"
2: "Barack Obama supports bringing our troops home"
3: "Barack Obama supports womens right to choose"
4: "Barack Obama supports unborn childrens right to life"
etc....

If they are all worded to sound like good choices by the candidates themselves, then a lot of dummies will flat out fail by picking what they want and what sounds best to them rather than what their candidate actually supports. The real end result I foresee though would be people actually hearing about platforms... instead of Inquirer type news.

[PHS Philip]

We've already seen the effects of such systems in the American South. They are easily abused to disenfranchise people the controllers of the system thinks "shouldn't" be voting.

Exactly. It's nice to say that you could make it unbiased, but that's much harder than it seems. It also serves to even further force politics into soundbite format, because a candidate's positions must be uncomplicated enough to fit into multiple choice questions.

[ElstonGunn]

Who's going to pay for this? Who's going to administer and grade it? How can you trust these people not to manipulate the outcomes based on their own preferences? What are the requirements for getting the voting test gig?

Those could be answered, I guess. I think the big question is what makes you think that someone who is familiar with the issues and platforms is any more likely to pick the most qualified candidate than the guy who likes Denny Crat's haircut or Ron Publican's suit? Also, is what a candidate espouses as his platform necessarily related in any way to what he does after he wins the great popularity contest?

[foroneonly]

I can't say I see something like that coming out in actuality. There would be far too much arguing over questions, accusations of unfairness, and lawsuits and so forth. I do think Americans do not pay attention to Washington or take the time to educate themselves. However, this is a democracy and I would question the legitmacy of anything that would deter someone in their right to vote. Is it my right to put constraints on that? Or determine how they use their freedom?

But for your, it scenario may make Americans pay more attention to a certain extent. I think what it really comes down to is that politicians are corrupt and I think there is a certain sense of apathy about the whole process. Even if you knew more about your canidates if you don't think it is likely to change anything will more people vote? If there is no perceived effect on effecting change what would be the point? I don't think the problem is Americans but Washington. I suppose people might make a more educated decision. That is assuming the voter who doesn't have a firm grasp on the canidates has a firm grasp on the issues.

[Jakalwarrior]

Who's going to pay for this? Who's going to administer and grade it? How can you trust these people not to manipulate the outcomes based on their own preferences? What are the requirements for getting the voting test gig?


Little computer booth, you pick your candidate then it it gives a list of stances that the candidates themselves provided mixed up, you pick the ones about your candidate. You aren't told if yours goes through or not, but if you aren't able to pick out some of your candidates issues your vote isn't counted... because you are an idiot and shouldn't be voting about the future of the country.

I agree it would never see the light of day or get implemented correctly, but I just wish there was some way to make politics less retarded.

[aparkedcar]

I am totally in support of a non-biased quiz (if such a thing were possible, but I believe it is) . I absolutely hate the fact that someone would vote for a candidate b/c he can read off of a teleprompter well, or because he has a certain skin color. People that are too stupid to research their candidate's position on the issues doesn't deserve to vote. Period.

[ElstonGunn]

I just wish there was some way to make politics less retarded.

But then it wouldn't be politics anymore. The term "political science" is basically the same thing as the term "abnormal psychology." ;)


People that are too stupid to research their candidate's position on the issues doesn't deserve to vote. Period.

On the plus side, if you're talking about the United States, at least dumb aren't allowed vote for the president. Neither is anyone else, aside from the 538 electors, but that does leave out most of the dumb people.

[Beery Swine]

Isn't it true that in the USA, voters will get phonecalls from people asking things like "did you know Barack Obama once went to a movie about Islam?" or "did you know John McCain has a black baby?"

I had completely forgotten about that "black baby" incident. Now which campaign was responsible for that bollocks? Hmmm... Strategerie!

[Shakyamuni]

While I agree voters should be better educated, I'm not sure a quiz is the best way to go about it. If implemented where I live (Canada) I can see it as more of a farcical coffee shop joke than what it would be meant for.

"Is Stephen Harper right or left wing?"
"Ummm... I thought he was playing center.... or was he the goalie for the leafs?"

Another idea would be having to earn one's citizenship in order to vote. However I don't really want to analyze this now so I'll just leave it at that and be content with the whatever the critics throw at me.