Every American citizen should have to take a knowledge test before they can vote in elections.

>>"Of course, you really think we can use funding for a test of all 300 million Americans?" -Last time I checked, not every American of the 300 million are old enough to vote, and the debt is simply a result of our free spending so I do not feel as though our government would shy away from something that would ultimately lead to reform. While this test would obviously cost money to set up, smarter citizens voting in smarter government officials just might lead to a smarter budget resulting in a decrease in our debt. >>"not really, let's say that you are a minority, well you're vote doesn't matter, in the November primary, you're vote doesn't matter." -If this was a democracy, the vote of the minority would not matter. But this is not a democracy. This is a representative republic specifically designed by the Founding Fathers to make sure that everybody got a say in government. This government was made to protect the rights of the citizens. The vote does matter, therefore this test should be put into action. >>"There is an inherent risk, What if someone becomes very stupid over a two year period? Then the whole point of your test is destroyed, To check the system, you would have to take the test for every two year election" -Good point. While I do not believe somebody will simply go out and become stupid between elections, you have found a potential flaw. This is not concrete and as of now, is just an idea in my head so if it would better benefit the country, I would also like to add to my proposal that every citizen must take the test every two years. The test will already have been made for all potential new voters, so it would be of trouble to print more for the ones wishing to re-earn their right to vote. This would also be good in that, like the census, it would give out jobs to many, even if only for part time. -If you are going to bring that up, I would also like to discuss the topic of driving. If what you say is true about people becoming stupid over a two year period, why do we not have to re-earn our driving test, master's degree, or any other achievement we have reached in our lives? >>"We aren't discussing policy, we're talking about elections." -Yes, we are talking about elections, and I was simply stating the type of government used by this country which was made by the framers specifically to allow both majority and minority votes to matter. >>"Then Why wasn't Gore the 43rd (44th) president of the united states" -Well you answered that earlier, silly. It is called the electoral college. And as you also stated, it was put into place to prevent the "idiotic public", as you put it, from making bad decisions. I believe it should simply be taken a step further by preventing the "idiotic public", as you put it, from voting at all. >>"Who are shown to be mostly left" -Let us say that what you say is true and the those on the left side of the political spectrum are smarter, why should that halt this idea of taking a test in order to vote. You saying that the left is smarter means very little in this representative republic. That does not mean that only citizens on the left will vote, and that does not mean that more citizens on the left will get to vote. There could be a larger population of conservatives so that even if a higher percentage fail the test more should get in. Either way, the system is made for the minority to still have a say and to still have a say in what gets through Congress and what gets put into law. >>"Sounds pretty biased" -I am not the one calling liberals smarter than conservatives. If biased at all, it is pro-Smart people get to vote and only encourages the ones I am "biased" toward to start paying attention to what is going on in their country. >>"Not effective- He can't prove anywhere that tests have worked or will work" -I based this idea off of school. Those who study, pass their tests, pass their classes, and get good grades, graduate school. I based it off of the driving test. Those who study, practice driving, and pass the road test, get their license . I based this off of the police department. Those who pass their physical and study for the test required to get to the next rank, become police officers and so on. I based this off of the way this country works. You start at the bottom and EARN your way up. >>"A. He dropped that it is a waste of time extend point 1 that it is not proven to work" -I am not sure what you are saying I dropped, but the only thing I said about time is that no matter how long it takes, it is an important matter and must be taken seriously. Just as it is not proven to work, it is not proven not to work. There are tests everywhere, and by seeing how they work I believe this to work. -You say it is a waste of time. When I go to vote, I think of standing in line, waiting to get my ballot, and then casting my vote. For time, instead imagine that same place you go to vote filled with desks. I believe it would be a little quicker to get a desk to take your test than it would be to wait in line to cast your vote. It is given that you will have to do both, if you pass the test, but it would better help this country. You say a waste of time. We now use what is called a Scantron which can grade a test in less than two seconds, so that would not be unreasonably long. You are defending the current system by attacking the idea of voting, calling me biased, claiming liberals to be smarter, claiming politicians to be corrupt as well as claiming that they will sabotage their roles, and by saying that it takes too long. I have come up with the idea of taking a test to vote by not only watching the everyday life in America but by living it. You have simply attacked me and the overall idea of voting. Unless you can prove to me that testing citizens before they can vote would not work, you have no grounds for your argument. I now await his rebuttal.