New Constitutional Amendment

[homeschoolmom]

who decides what the "correct" answers to the test are?

[Guest Aluigi]

it will have to be an objective test.

Question would be, perhaps, like TRUE/FALSE, only with CANDIDATE/CANDIDATE

Like, Mark Bush or Kerry for the following plans:

Privatizing Social Sequirity
Electing judges protecting Roe v. Wade
Multi-lateral Talks with North Korea
Bi-lateral Talks with North Korea
Pulling the army out of WWII hotspots
et cetera et cetera

The test will be formulated better than that, and will have to be agreed upon by both campaigns and the entire congress, or something like that. everyone must agree to every question as very clearly either one campaign's policy or the other

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Kel' date='Oct 30 2004, 05:20 PM'] How about a Constitutional ammendment changing the electoral college system... [/quote]
IF you mean change it by getting rid of it, that is the stupidest idea ever. If you have other ideas on changing it I'm interested.

[Lil Red]

i think this would be more useful on a local level than a national level...because i think it's harder to be informed about smaller elections than bigger elections especially with the way the media works nowadays.

[Guest Aluigi]

i think we'd all be very surprised at how many people aren't informed actually

[Socrates]

I think a quiz on the basics of American history and government should be given for those registering to vote. (I think this used to be a requirement, actually, though I may be wrong. Such a test is still required for those applying for U.S. citizenship, though not as rigorous as it used to be.)

The abyssmal ignorance of many Americans of our own heritage is a national shame. If the voting public is ignorant of basic American principles, it is no wonder that they choose leaders who disregard them. And most schools are part of the problem - we've got all the P.C. history curriculums that are all about slavery and minority issues and nothing about George Washington, etc.

[Kel]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Oct 30 2004, 09:12 PM'] IF you mean change it by getting rid of it, that is the stupidest idea ever. If you have other ideas on changing it I'm interested. [/quote]
Well, change it so its more fair. So that everybody's vote counts. Like, divide the electoral votes between the states. Like if a state has 9 electoral votes then 4 would go to one candidate and 5 to the other, and the votes are split depending on the majority of the popular votes. That way we would still have the electoral college and everybody's votes would count more.

[J.R.D]

It still a stupid Idea to me

[Guest JeffCR07]

while in many respects I agree with Bro. Adam (that the electoral college should be changed first) part of me does think that with the changing legislation and even amendments to many state constitutions with regards to the electoral process, at this point it really is becoming necessary to introduce a test on basic knowledge as a prerequisite to vote. A pure polity is an impossibility, but it is definately something to strive for, and as the nation moves away from its roots as a Republic and embraces more and more the priniple of Pure Democracy, I think a test might be the best way to go.

- Jeff

[qfnol31]

[quote name='J.R.D' date='Oct 31 2004, 01:11 AM'] It still a stupid Idea to me [/quote]
John, you gotta start giving reasons because all your recent posts are just you saying something for seemingly no reason.

[Socrates]

I know many will disagree with me on this, but the electoral college was a wise idea, and should be kept.
It is in accord with America's founders goal of America as a union of States, which accoriding to the Constitution have all the powers not specifically given to the federal government.

The electoral college gives the states more of a say in electing the president, so that less heavily populated states will not be so overwhelmed by other bigger states ( in which the people may have quite different values and not well represent the people in smaller states). For example, the people of say, Missouri, will have more of a voice and not be drowned out by say, New York, or California. Bigger states get more electoral votes, of course, but the college makes things overall fairer for people in diverse states.

[Benedict]

I have been advocating a required test for voting since I was in high school. I doubled my advocacy after I saw who was elected to student council at my college the past two years . . . the candidates on the top row of the ballot by about 600 votes (1/3-1/2 of all the voters).

It is a sad fact that many people who feel that voting is their responsibility fail to realize that educating yourself first is just as important. Sort of like Catholics who tout their responsibility to follow their conscience without heeding the fact that we are to correctly form our conscience first.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Oct 30 2004, 04:10 PM'] I propose a new constitutional amendment. Before voting, every American should be required to take a quiz about [b]what each candidate plans to do[/b]. If they cannot get above 75%, they should not be allowed to vote. [/quote]
You know how hard that would be, with John Kerry running for President?

[Guest Aluigi]

lol yeah i guess you're right!

[Guest Aluigi]

actually, i guess that'd be part of it... since each campaign has to sign off on it, it would force them to define what they stand for!

[CatholicforChrist]

I did not have time to read through all that, but here are a few important things to recognize. First of all, no one would know 75% of the candidates' policies because there are such a vast majority of issues, especially minor issues on different issues like taxation, zoning, and all kinds of minimalistic policies. I do not necessarily think it is a bad thing, though. This would mean that only those who are seriously involved in politics would be allowed to vote. This could be good or bad, but either way, I am anti-democracy (and republic, and any governmental system other than kingship or monarchy--they are not exactly the same), so I think your system would be good insofar as it takes power from the people. In any event, there are other things that would have to be considered. If you wanted to limit the scope of which issues must be known, there will be so many people interested in so many different issues that an environmentalist will want the candidates' views on drilling in Alaska (or anywhere else) included in the test, while this is not really a mainstream issue. This would also be problematic. I wish we could just have a kingship (or [i]at least[/i] some ruling body that is not determined by the people). When a person votes, it is almost never a vote for truth, i.e., a poor person will vote for progressive taxing and against tax cuts because it benefits himself; he does not care about what is just, namely that everyone is treated on an equal field. Likewise, a CEO may vote for unfair laws against laborers because it benefits him; he does not care about giving a living wage to the laborers (commanded by [i]Rerum Novarum[/i], Pope Leo XIII). This is one of the major problems with democracy. In a proper kingship or monarchy, the king does not have to worry about unfair systems, programs, etc. He is already in a place of honor, above all others in the country, and his living and wealth are already taken care of. This gives him a chance to be fair toward the serfs because he has no reason to oppress them. Any further personal gain would be superfluous. Of course there were bad kings, but most of the bad ones were not Catholic (not even in name only). Most kings were just, but this is excluded from typical public school (and, nowadays, parochial school) text books, for obvious reasons. As we all know, the victors are the ones who write the history books, so once pluralism won out, it had to seek to indoctrinate its principles into the people, which it has succeeded in doing. In any event, read Saint Thomas Aquinas on government. He has a work called [i]On Kingship [/i]where he explicates the reasons that a kingship is the superior form of government. Anyway, I do not know how far any kind of amendment like this would go. It is stupid to think of voting as a "right". At best it is a necessary evil in this society (I do not even know if I would call it necessary). I think it would be good to make it so that only male landowners who pay a poll tax can vote, but that is just a start. More restrictions could be added until the liberalism of democracy and republicanism could be extinguished.